Triarii posted:

I was working on a prototype for a game with a day/night cycle set on an alien planet with rings around it, and I realized that I had never thought about things like the position of the sun and moon in the sky in a videogame before, and I was going to have to construct a bit of a model of the solar system in my head to figure out where to put things correctly. I went ahead and had the sun rise in the east and set in the west in the familiar fashion, though the opposite would've probably been just as valid (I don't believe having it set in the south is an option). I assumed that the planet's rings are around the equator (is that always the case for ringed planets? beats me) but I didn't want the sun to rise right behind the rings for aesthetic reasons - no problem, I figure I can give the planet a bit of axial tilt like the Earth has so the sun rises to the north of the rings.



Not sure how accurate you'd say my night skybox is - I grabbed a picture of the milky way from nasa and did some photoshoppery to delete the parts of it that made it very obviously a picture of the milky way. Did some shader trickery to make the stars twinkle, and it looked weird to have them completely static so I made the skybox gradually rotate over the course of the night. (The moon has had A Problem in this setting.)

https://i.imgur.com/ZJqrYDG.mp4

Since I did this work, I've been realizing how little I notice this kind of things in games. Most games, I probably couldn't even tell you whether they render the sun or moon at a specific position in the sky at all.

DontMockMySmock posted:

Trying to make this stuff look realistic is an interesting problem, and it piqued my interest, so here's a bunch of suggestions from an astrophysicist:

Moons and rings in a complex planetary system, over a long enough timeline (see Doctor Spaceman's post), tend to stay in the plane of the equator (Earth's moon, being solitary, doesn't experience these effects, which is why it is at a completely different angle closer to the ecliptic than the equator). And, of course, the path of the sun in the sky is in the ecliptic plane, which may or may not line up with east/west exactly, depending on the axial tilt, what season it is, and the latitude of the observer. You have the Sun slightly "north" of the rings, which is fine if the rings are in the south and the observer is in the northern hemisphere, and it's spring or summer. Note that the sun does not follow a straight east-to-west pattern in the sky; if it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it should move from the northeast, to the high south, to the northwest. The equatorial rings, on the other hand, should always go from east to west, but at an angle equal to the latitude. Obviously you don't want to set your game at the equator, 'cause then the rings wouldn't be visible at all edge-on. And obviously it's gotta be spring or summer, so that the rings are illuminated and visible (in fall or winter, you'd be looking at the dark side of the rings). So the rings should be tilted away from you, whereas in this image they look straight up-and-down maybe? It's hard to tell.

Regarding the stars: So how far away from Earth is this planet supposed to be? If it's, like, right nearby in our stellar neighborhood, then taking a star map from Earth is fine, but if this is supposed to be a far distant world, then that may not be a good idea, as looking at that sky and seeing Cassiopeia and Andromeda might break immersion.

I'll second the notion that the twinkling is far too much. Maybe a quarter of the variation you've got now.

Given that it's a full (hosed up) moon, it's probably good to ramp up the contrast on your star map and lower the brightness a little, so that the smaller stars are significantly less visible; the real sky observed with human eyes has a lot more depth of brightness than a computer screen can display unfortunately, so you shouldn't try to imitate what astrophotographers do, which is essentially to artificially brighten up the dimmer stars so that they're visible on the image. Even in a light-pollution-free sky, those images with millions of visible stars in them are lies aided by the trickery of photography. Your sky isn't as far off as all that, but just a little less overall brightness and a bit higher contrast, I would say. It's a bit subjective though because, like I said, you can't actually make it look like the real sky. Leaving out the Milky Way (or other visible galaxiness, if it's not in the Milky Way galaxy) is okay; it's not very visible on a night with a full moon anyway.

The busted-up moon is off the plane of the rings, but that could be the fault of whatever recent cataclysmic event caused it to get all hosed up anyway, so that's fine. But the big weird thing, here, is that the sky is rotating around an axis, but the rings are not. That's hosed up. The rings are part of the sky, they should also move from the perspective on the ground, as the planet rotates underneath them. (Think about it this way - you naturally decided that it looked correct to move the moon with the stars, right? Well rings are just another kind of moon; they should also move with the stars.) The only way they wouldn't appear to move is if they are around the equator, which here they are not. But in describing the first image, you seem to be saying that the rings are equatorial, and that the sun follows the rings somewhat closely. So I think the mistake you are making, here, is that you're making the stars/moon move around an arbitrary axis. They should rotate around the same axis as the Sun, aka rise in the east and set in the west. Which, assuming the rings are equatorial, should be also the rings' axis. In other words, they should rotate such that a star visible on the edge of a ring moves along that ring. If you're in the northern hemisphere, then the point around which they are rotating should be discernible in the northern sky (assuming that it's visible, depending on the latitude and how many mountains get in the way).

On the other hand, if the rings are NOT equatorial, then you've got to move them around over the course of the day and night. (I mean, even equatorial rings should be moving, but since they're basically rotationally symmetric, the motion isn't visible.)

The way I would do it is position everything on a sphere (giving them appropriate angular coordinates (astronomers call these "declination" and "right ascension" for some reason but they're basically latitude and longitude)), including the stars, sun, and rings, and then create a skybox based on that. For the stars, assuming you want to imitate the stars as visible from Earth, I'm sure you can download a csv file of statistics from somewhere and use their angles and magnitudes (you'll have to look up what "magnitude" means to properly convert those into brightnesses; it's a loving stupid system). Now, I assume your planet's axis isn't perfectly aligned with Earth's, so take all those stellar angular coordinates and apply some random arbitrary rotation to them (convert to cartesian coordinates and do a rotation matrix), so that your new equator (declination 0) and poles (declination +90 and -90) are in different places than Earth's. On the other hand, if your planet is far away from Earth, then you should generate a starfield at random; choose right ascension from a uniform distribution but choose declination from a distribution weighed by the cosine of the declination (to account for the fact that there is less sky at extreme declination and more sky around declination 0, because of the shape of a sphere). For the brightness distribution, if I were you I'd find that csv of stars visible from Earth and just copy that but randomize the angles.

Then, just choose a position for the sun in the sky, north of the equator (declination 0) for spring or summer (so that the rings are illuminated). Its declination is a combination of your axial tilt and the season (e.g. for Earth at the northern hemisphere summer solstice, the sun's declination is +23.5 degrees), so basically arbitrary for your purposes, and its right ascension is arbitrary as well. Similarly, choose (a) position(s) for the moon(s); if they're equatorial they should be declination 0, or slightly south of that if they're particularly close to the planet (since the observer is to the north); if they're not equatorial, you can position them arbitrarily, although if you want a full moon effect like you have in your video you should make sure they're opposite the sun. For the rings, assuming a northern hemisphere observer, they'll be circles just south of declination 0, aka lines of constant declination. Exactly where they go (what declinations) depends on their distance from the planet and thicknesses; so do whatever looks good probably. And you can vary their opacity as well. Then you add a time-dependent component, to account for rotation, where each element rotates around the axis - in other words, its right ascension changes by 360 degrees over the course of a full day-night cycle. Then tilt the entire thing by however much you want for the observer's latitude (cartesian rotation matrix again), then do some geometry to map that onto your skybox (assuming it's not a sphere anyway? idk how skyboxes work but I assume it's a cube). Oh and obviously add an effect that turns the sky different colors and dims the stars/moon depending on whether the sun is above the horizon (note that since it's spring/summer, the day will be longer than the night). And you can move clouds across the skybox in a rectilinear fashion.

If the game takes place over seasons or even weeks, then hoo boy you got your work cut out for you - moving the sun and moon(s) around in the sky in an accurate way is gonna take some math, plus you have to change the illumination of the rings.

This all may sound complicated, because the terminology and the sort of spherical mental visualization you need to do are not something that people are generally familiar with. But the math is all extremely easy, so long as you know what a rotation matrix is, and you probably do if you know anything about 3D graphics.

Alternately, if all of that is too much work, I'd recommend just not moving the stars at night at all; players probably won't notice if they're not astronomers and making them move wrong will draw attention to any wrongness. It's super weird for part of the sky to be visibly moving relative to the other parts of the sky, as the stars move relative to the rings in your video, and that's the kind of uncanniness that you want to avoid.

In summary, the biggest problems with your sky are (1) the constellations are recognizable (assuming that this is far from Earth), and (2) the rings and the stars don't look like they're part of the same sky, because (3) the night sky moves differently than the day sky.

Lastly, let me say that it's amazing you're thinking about this at all. Many games and movies that take place on Earth simply put a random static star field in the sky, and make no attempt at realism. So far, it seems pretty cool!

Hector Delgado posted:

In Greedfall you can have 2 companions in your party. It seems to be a decent sized game, I'm going on 45 hours so far. Lots of combat and it seems each npc has maybe 3 battle phrases. In a bossfight, you'll hear the same line repeated like 10 times in 3 minutes. It's driving me crazy.

Hector Delgado posted:

In Greedfall you can have 2 companions in your party. It seems to be a decent sized game, I'm going on 45 hours so far. Lots of combat and it seems each npc has maybe 3 battle phrases. In a bossfight, you'll hear the same line repeated like 10 times in 3 minutes. It's driving me crazy.

Crowetron posted:

Ever played Dragon's Dogma?

Pulsarcat posted:

A bit of poison on my blade and let's go!

DontMockMySmock posted:

Trying to make this stuff look realistic is an interesting problem, and it piqued my interest, so here's a bunch of suggestions from an astrophysicist:

Moons and rings in a complex planetary system, over a long enough timeline (see Doctor Spaceman's post), tend to stay in the plane of the equator (Earth's moon, being solitary, doesn't experience these effects, which is why it is at a completely different angle closer to the ecliptic than the equator). And, of course, the path of the sun in the sky is in the ecliptic plane, which may or may not line up with east/west exactly, depending on the axial tilt, what season it is, and the latitude of the observer. You have the Sun slightly "north" of the rings, which is fine if the rings are in the south and the observer is in the northern hemisphere, and it's spring or summer. Note that the sun does not follow a straight east-to-west pattern in the sky; if it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it should move from the northeast, to the high south, to the northwest. The equatorial rings, on the other hand, should always go from east to west, but at an angle equal to the latitude. Obviously you don't want to set your game at the equator, 'cause then the rings wouldn't be visible at all edge-on. And obviously it's gotta be spring or summer, so that the rings are illuminated and visible (in fall or winter, you'd be looking at the dark side of the rings). So the rings should be tilted away from you, whereas in this image they look straight up-and-down maybe? It's hard to tell.

Regarding the stars: So how far away from Earth is this planet supposed to be? If it's, like, right nearby in our stellar neighborhood, then taking a star map from Earth is fine, but if this is supposed to be a far distant world, then that may not be a good idea, as looking at that sky and seeing Cassiopeia and Andromeda might break immersion.

I'll second the notion that the twinkling is far too much. Maybe a quarter of the variation you've got now.

Given that it's a full (hosed up) moon, it's probably good to ramp up the contrast on your star map and lower the brightness a little, so that the smaller stars are significantly less visible; the real sky observed with human eyes has a lot more depth of brightness than a computer screen can display unfortunately, so you shouldn't try to imitate what astrophotographers do, which is essentially to artificially brighten up the dimmer stars so that they're visible on the image. Even in a light-pollution-free sky, those images with millions of visible stars in them are lies aided by the trickery of photography. Your sky isn't as far off as all that, but just a little less overall brightness and a bit higher contrast, I would say. It's a bit subjective though because, like I said, you can't actually make it look like the real sky. Leaving out the Milky Way (or other visible galaxiness, if it's not in the Milky Way galaxy) is okay; it's not very visible on a night with a full moon anyway.

The busted-up moon is off the plane of the rings, but that could be the fault of whatever recent cataclysmic event caused it to get all hosed up anyway, so that's fine. But the big weird thing, here, is that the sky is rotating around an axis, but the rings are not. That's hosed up. The rings are part of the sky, they should also move from the perspective on the ground, as the planet rotates underneath them. (Think about it this way - you naturally decided that it looked correct to move the moon with the stars, right? Well rings are just another kind of moon; they should also move with the stars.) The only way they wouldn't appear to move is if they are around the equator, which here they are not. But in describing the first image, you seem to be saying that the rings are equatorial, and that the sun follows the rings somewhat closely. So I think the mistake you are making, here, is that you're making the stars/moon move around an arbitrary axis. They should rotate around the same axis as the Sun, aka rise in the east and set in the west. Which, assuming the rings are equatorial, should be also the rings' axis. In other words, they should rotate such that a star visible on the edge of a ring moves along that ring. If you're in the northern hemisphere, then the point around which they are rotating should be discernible in the northern sky (assuming that it's visible, depending on the latitude and how many mountains get in the way).

On the other hand, if the rings are NOT equatorial, then you've got to move them around over the course of the day and night. (I mean, even equatorial rings should be moving, but since they're basically rotationally symmetric, the motion isn't visible.)

The way I would do it is position everything on a sphere (giving them appropriate angular coordinates (astronomers call these "declination" and "right ascension" for some reason but they're basically latitude and longitude)), including the stars, sun, and rings, and then create a skybox based on that. For the stars, assuming you want to imitate the stars as visible from Earth, I'm sure you can download a csv file of statistics from somewhere and use their angles and magnitudes (you'll have to look up what "magnitude" means to properly convert those into brightnesses; it's a loving stupid system). Now, I assume your planet's axis isn't perfectly aligned with Earth's, so take all those stellar angular coordinates and apply some random arbitrary rotation to them (convert to cartesian coordinates and do a rotation matrix), so that your new equator (declination 0) and poles (declination +90 and -90) are in different places than Earth's. On the other hand, if your planet is far away from Earth, then you should generate a starfield at random; choose right ascension from a uniform distribution but choose declination from a distribution weighed by the cosine of the declination (to account for the fact that there is less sky at extreme declination and more sky around declination 0, because of the shape of a sphere). For the brightness distribution, if I were you I'd find that csv of stars visible from Earth and just copy that but randomize the angles.

Then, just choose a position for the sun in the sky, north of the equator (declination 0) for spring or summer (so that the rings are illuminated). Its declination is a combination of your axial tilt and the season (e.g. for Earth at the northern hemisphere summer solstice, the sun's declination is +23.5 degrees), so basically arbitrary for your purposes, and its right ascension is arbitrary as well. Similarly, choose (a) position(s) for the moon(s); if they're equatorial they should be declination 0, or slightly south of that if they're particularly close to the planet (since the observer is to the north); if they're not equatorial, you can position them arbitrarily, although if you want a full moon effect like you have in your video you should make sure they're opposite the sun. For the rings, assuming a northern hemisphere observer, they'll be circles just south of declination 0, aka lines of constant declination. Exactly where they go (what declinations) depends on their distance from the planet and thicknesses; so do whatever looks good probably. And you can vary their opacity as well. Then you add a time-dependent component, to account for rotation, where each element rotates around the axis - in other words, its right ascension changes by 360 degrees over the course of a full day-night cycle. Then tilt the entire thing by however much you want for the observer's latitude (cartesian rotation matrix again), then do some geometry to map that onto your skybox (assuming it's not a sphere anyway? idk how skyboxes work but I assume it's a cube). Oh and obviously add an effect that turns the sky different colors and dims the stars/moon depending on whether the sun is above the horizon (note that since it's spring/summer, the day will be longer than the night). And you can move clouds across the skybox in a rectilinear fashion.

If the game takes place over seasons or even weeks, then hoo boy you got your work cut out for you - moving the sun and moon(s) around in the sky in an accurate way is gonna take some math, plus you have to change the illumination of the rings.

This all may sound complicated, because the terminology and the sort of spherical mental visualization you need to do are not something that people are generally familiar with. But the math is all extremely easy, so long as you know what a rotation matrix is, and you probably do if you know anything about 3D graphics.

Alternately, if all of that is too much work, I'd recommend just not moving the stars at night at all; players probably won't notice if they're not astronomers and making them move wrong will draw attention to any wrongness. It's super weird for part of the sky to be visibly moving relative to the other parts of the sky, as the stars move relative to the rings in your video, and that's the kind of uncanniness that you want to avoid.

In summary, the biggest problems with your sky are (1) the constellations are recognizable (assuming that this is far from Earth), and (2) the rings and the stars don't look like they're part of the same sky, because (3) the night sky moves differently than the day sky.

Lastly, let me say that it's amazing you're thinking about this at all. Many games and movies that take place on Earth simply put a random static star field in the sky, and make no attempt at realism. So far, it seems pretty cool!

Hector Delgado posted:

In Greedfall you can have 2 companions in your party. It seems to be a decent sized game, I'm going on 45 hours so far. Lots of combat and it seems each npc has maybe 3 battle phrases. In a bossfight, you'll hear the same line repeated like 10 times in 3 minutes. It's driving me crazy.

NoEyedSquareGuy posted:

FF7 Remake:

Way too much Sephiroth. Feels like the makers of the game couldn't reconcile the entire first chapter of the remake taking place in Midgar with how iconic Sephiroth is for FF7 and crammed him in everywhere they could to compensate. In the original game Midgar only lasts a few hours before you make your way out into the world map and everything opens up. They still had most of disk 1 and disks 2 and 3 to build up Sephiroth as the antagonist so you don't see him too much early on and it's more impactful as more about him is revealed. In the remake he's showing up all the time, either in person or by giving Cloud mako hallucinations so Cloud is acting weird while everyone else doesn't know what's going on. They even made Sephiroth the final boss which seems like it's going to make it less interesting if they close out future chapters by making you fight him again. There's even a form of Bahamut as a boss right before the Sephiroth fight because it's a Final Fantasy and you have to shove a Bahamut in there somewhere.

I just don't understand how they're going to pace things going forward. Midgar in the original was about seven hours of gameplay, the total runtime is probably something like 70-90 hours depending on how many side quests you do. For it to match up to the original they're either going to have to seriously rush through most of the story or stretch the remake out to 10 games with this same level of production quality.

credburn posted:

There came a point in that game where I was pretty finished with it and just wanted to clear out my quests. I know I guess one can make the argument that any open world game quests kind of just falls into like three categories... I think the trick is to dress it up so it doesn't feel like it's the same three quests (Witcher 3 did this probably the best, I think). Greedfall has an overwhelming amount of sidequests where you just go to a location and talk to a person. The last 15 sidequests I did, I finished in about ten minutes, skipping whatever dialogue there was. Fast-travel here, talk to this person. Fast-travel here, talk to this person. Fast-travel back, talk to the first person again. Quest complete. Repeat 14 times.,

DontMockMySmock posted:

oldpainless posted:

As time goes by my opinion of Norse God of War lowers and I hold the original three in higher esteem.

credburn posted:

I think FF7: Remake is a masterstroke in terms of using the medium to spotlight and deconstruct what might be the most beloved RPG of all time.

My Lovely Horse posted:

So far it's taken me only 2-3 hours for that to happen.

I do like the setting and the environment and the fight against the Stranger with the landscape being torn apart was at least a good modern analogue to kicking things off with fighting the Colossus of Rhodes but apart from my gameplay concerns I'm also not so sure I want to see the head designer work through his AM I A BAD DAD feelings for the length of a AAA game.

I'm not saying that's invalid, but I am saying a lot of people probably wanted the budget and effort to go into a straight remake.

NoEyedSquareGuy posted:

FF7 Remake:

Way too much Sephiroth. Feels like the makers of the game couldn't reconcile the entire first chapter of the remake taking place in Midgar with how iconic Sephiroth is for FF7 and crammed him in everywhere they could to compensate. In the original game Midgar only lasts a few hours before you make your way out into the world map and everything opens up. They still had most of disk 1 and disks 2 and 3 to build up Sephiroth as the antagonist so you don't see him too much early on and it's more impactful as more about him is revealed. In the remake he's showing up all the time, either in person or by giving Cloud mako hallucinations so Cloud is acting weird while everyone else doesn't know what's going on. They even made Sephiroth the final boss which seems like it's going to make it less interesting if they close out future chapters by making you fight him again. There's even a form of Bahamut as a boss right before the Sephiroth fight because it's a Final Fantasy and you have to shove a Bahamut in there somewhere.

I just don't understand how they're going to pace things going forward. Midgar in the original was about seven hours of gameplay, the total runtime is probably something like 70-90 hours depending on how many side quests you do. For it to match up to the original they're either going to have to seriously rush through most of the story or stretch the remake out to 10 games with this same level of production quality.

Crowetron posted:

Also a couple of the dungeons go on a little too long, but I end up feeling that way about at least one dungeon in every RPG so whatever.

My Lovely Horse posted:

I'm not saying that's invalid, but I am saying a lot of people probably wanted the budget and effort to go into a straight remake.

Cleretic posted:

This wouldn't have actually been feasible. 'FF7 remake but played straight' would've still had to be episodic, because the way Square made major games in the nineties just doesn't scale to the way their major games are now. They can't just keep Biggs, Wedge and Jessie as having three lines each. ...But, if you just sold it as a straight remake while still being episodic, it wouldn't have taken long for people to just ask 'well then what's the point'; the shine would fall off pretty quickly, since people would quickly get the idea and can then go play Real FFVII over the umptrillion years it'd take for them to finish the entire remake.

But the way they did it? Sure, I can jokingly say 'now go play the real game since you just finished the tutorial', but that's a joke that we all know to be on-its-face ridiculous in its current form. If it were a straight episodic remake, I'd be right. Because all bets are now off as to how close it'll stick to the original game, it means that there's no chance of the original game cannibalizing the remake's sales. Incidentally, it also means that they don't have to remake and expand on the entire game anymore, it's possible for them to write past some elements, so maybe the whole project will be completed sometime before we discover real-life Mako energy.

I disagree with several individual choices they made (gently caress them pulling punches about AVALANCHE's terrorist acts by making sabotage the real killer), and I think what FFVII really needed was a remaster either in the original style or using the original code, just like every single other single-digit Final Fantasy now has without exception. But if they had to do a big-budget remake, they picked the right direction to walk in.

DontMockMySmock posted:

Stars and rings

My Lovely Horse posted:

In fact the whole idea of media commenting on its own public reception can go gently caress itself as far as I'm concerned.

NoEyedSquareGuy posted:

The only time I ever felt the need to use it is in the ultimate secret boss fight with the Valkyrie Queen where you have to quickly look away from a specific attack or you'll get blinded. Besides that, if you see an indicator for an attack coming from behind it's usually better to reposition yourself so you can have all the enemies in front of you and actually see what's happening.

Cleretic posted:

I disagree with several individual choices they made (gently caress them pulling punches about AVALANCHE's terrorist acts by making sabotage the real killer), and I think what FFVII really needed was a remaster either in the original style or using the original code, just like every single other single-digit Final Fantasy now has without exception. But if they had to do a big-budget remake, they picked the right direction to walk in.

Vandar posted:

On a similar note, I really dislike Avalanche apparently being this larger and better-prepared organization with Barret's group being a bunch of scrubs the main group doesn't like.

Like, that adds nothing to the game or the lore or the story, you know?

Oxxidation posted:

the main AVALANCHE organization is a paper tiger on Rufus’ payroll whose purpose is actually to drum up anti-Wutai sentiment and help Rufus oust his father. leadership ejected Barrett’s group because he believed the environmentalist angle hard enough to start going after their paymasters’ interests

it’s substantially better than the original characterization of the group, not to mention way more pertinent to how environmentalist orgs are captured by industry today - just look at Extinction Rebellion

Crowetron posted:

My only real problem with FF7 Remake is President Shinra's monologue about how evil he is in the office scene. Given that there's already several scenes before hand about Shinra being completely reprehensible, AND one boss fight later Rufus shows up to give his villain speech, it felt like one monologue too many that threw off a series of already pretty cluttered plot events. Like, I get it, even with that scene there's absolutely gonna be a segment of the audience who don't understand why the ultra capitalist tyrant who gleefully consumes literal souls to fuel his limo isn't a great dude, but still. Maybe cut his speech there down a little, at least.

Also a couple of the dungeons go on a little too long, but I end up feeling that way about at least one dungeon in every RPG so whatever.

Kit Walker posted:

No way, man. It was way better when Avalanche was a small group founded by a black guy. That's cool representation.

Oxxidation posted:

this is pretty tasteless as jokes go

darkwasthenight posted:

When you have nearly finished the main storyline you get a fetch quest for four artifacts hidden behind mini-bosses, and it's delivered like it's supposed to be some big trial of your skills, but because I've explored the entire map by this point Kassandra just pulled all four out of her back pocket and handed them straight over in a massive anti-climax. Surely they could have seen that one coming? Weird pacing all round.

Necrothatcher posted:

One of my favourite things in games is when I inadvertently cleara quest early. Extra points if there's a special cutscene where the questgiver is flabbergasted.

darkwasthenight posted:

AC:Odyssey is just not structured to handle compulsive side-quest completionists. I'm tootling around wiping out camps and caves as I find them (because I'm probably never coming back to this island) and keep getting "QUEST COMPLETED" notices for quests I never even realised existed before I shanked this one random captain.

christmas boots posted:

Odyssey even has that for the Minotaur quest I think