frogstar_robot Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 What games have been ported from the MSX1 to ColecoVision and vice versa? What are the considerations involved. In the case of porting from 5200 to A8 one has to remap the graphics registers, replace the paddle based controls with stick based controls, redesign for any memory banking used, and possibly redo some OS calls though I don't know how much the contents of the 5200 rom are used in the games proper. The other direction reverses this though A8s generally have more RAM to play with. Sometimes that is easily addressed by putting character tables and such in ROM sometimes it is harder and even if doable a game that isn't using banking schemes on the A8 may need to use one on the 5200. A8 to 5200 is generally messier and the library is vastly larger. Save for some homebrews, almost the entire 5200 library is playable on A8. In any case, once the porting is complete the games should play just as fast on either. The 5200 is basically a 400 wired up funny. I'm curious about the analogues to these issues between the MSX1 and the ColecoVision. The TI99/4a would be interesting to contrast with too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opcode Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Well, since we have entered the world of personal opinion, I can say that 160 pixels horizontally isn’t and hasn't been "high res" since the 70s after Space Invaders came out... Another observation on the world of personal opinion: Coleco fanboys are just as adamant as Commodore fanboys, when it comes to invading ATARIage to diss on Ataris. Amazing that the opposite doesn't happen. Is there no "Coleco Age?" (Why not? No large following like Atari? Why??) Do Atari users not care about Coleco? Both? Speculation? Don't be such a crybaby. The 5200 fanboys here started with the whole "the 5200 is in another league" thing, which isn't true. The ColecoVision has many advantages and some disadvantages too. About Ataris, actually I am a big fan, my collection of 2600 and 8-bit computers is quite large. And while I like the 8-bits because they were very capable, flexible and sexy machines, the truth is that by 1982 they were kind of outdated, especially as game machines. Antic with its DLs simply isn’t the most adequate for games, as isn’t the 7800’s Maria. About AtariAge, as far as I know it is open to the whole classic community. And while there isn't a ColecoAge, I am sure that AtariAge wasn't created because the 5200 either. Finally, I don't know what your problem with the Commodore fanboys is, but if it is because of them saying the C64 is more powerful than the A8, I must agree with them. And I find it amazing a multi-billion dollar company couldn’t create an updated version of their 8-bit platform. Almost 10 years and several lines later (XL, XE, XGS) and it was still the same damn machine. Just check how much the competing computer lines advanced in the same period of time… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Well, since we have entered the world of personal opinion, I can say that 160 pixels horizontally isn’t and hasn't been "high res" since the 70s after Space Invaders came out... Another observation on the world of personal opinion: Coleco fanboys are just as adamant as Commodore fanboys, when it comes to invading ATARIage to diss on Ataris. Amazing that the opposite doesn't happen. Is there no "Coleco Age?" (Why not? No large following like Atari? Why??) Do Atari users not care about Coleco? Both? Speculation? Don't be such a crybaby. The 5200 fanboys here started with the whole "the 5200 is in another league" thing, which isn't true. The ColecoVision has many advantages and some disadvantages too. About Ataris, actually I am a big fan, my collection of 2600 and 8-bit computers is quite large. And while I like the 8-bits because they were very capable, flexible and sexy machines, the truth is that by 1982 they were kind of outdated, especially as game machines. Antic with its DLs simply isn’t the most adequate for games, as isn’t the 7800’s Maria. About AtariAge, as far as I know it is open to the whole classic community. And while there isn't a ColecoAge, I am sure that AtariAge wasn't created because the 5200 either. Finally, I don't know what your problem with the Commodore fanboys is, but if it is because of them saying the C64 is more powerful than the A8, I must agree with them. And I find it amazing a multi-billion dollar company couldn’t create an updated version of their 8-bit platform. Almost 10 years and several lines later (XL, XE, XGS) and it was still the same damn machine. Just check how much the competing computer lines advanced in the same period of time… Wow, please head on back to colecoage or lemon64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opcode Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Since it isn't 5200 vs. CV anymore (it's more like Atari 8-bit vs CV now), I believe we should add some MSX games to this discussion (also uses TMS9918). Here are some screenshots. All of them offer better resolution than the pathetic 160 (or 80) pixels and 5 colors/scanline the 5200 can do... MSX was not relevant here in the United States so the point is moot. Is that the best you can come with as a response? Geez, Atari fanboys are really weak... Since when is AtariAge an US only forum? About your xenophobia I would say that I am sure Japanese people can (and do) say the same about Atari. Famicom started it all, Ataris were irrelevant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoahsMyBro Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 In my opinion, the 5200 is a much more enjoyable game system than the Colecovision, but I can accept that others may disagree. That aside, it seems a few folks in this thread have begun to get personal about this. While I think everybody should take a breath and back off, it seems to me to be especially blatant bad taste to trash-talk the Atari proponents here, on an Atari-centered forum. It should be expected that people here will be passionate about Atari systems and will strenuously argue their merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApolloBoy Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Since it isn't 5200 vs. CV anymore (it's more like Atari 8-bit vs CV now), I believe we should add some MSX games to this discussion (also uses TMS9918). Here are some screenshots. All of them offer better resolution than the pathetic 160 (or 80) pixels and 5 colors/scanline the 5200 can do... MSX was not relevant here in the United States so the point is moot. Is that the best you can come with as a response? Geez, Atari fanboys are really weak... Since when is AtariAge an US only forum? About your xenophobia I would say that I am sure Japanese people can (and do) say the same about Atari. Famicom started it all, Ataris were irrelevant... Agreed. The MSX may not have had the same impact in the US like it did in Japan or Europe, but I certainly wouldn't count it out, moreso since I own one (!). I only have one game (Salamander), but I'd love to get more, considering the sheer amount of good games that are out there for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Don't be such a crybaby. The 5200 fanboys here started with the whole "the 5200 is in another league" thing, which isn't true. The ColecoVision has many advantages and some disadvantages too. Okay. I do think the Colecovision is a fine gaming machine for its day, and most definitely a serious contender for 5200. I rather do like it, and it's on my list of systems to acquire. I'd say disadvantages are controllers (not NEARLY as bad as 5200, but not good either) and overall system reliability; I'm afraid that if (when) I Ebay one, it won't last long. Perhaps you can comment? Replace all the electrolytic capacitors? Any other problems? About Ataris, actually I am a big fan, my collection of 2600 and 8-bit computers is quite large. And while I like the 8-bits because they were very capable, flexible and sexy machines, the truth is that by 1982 they were kind of outdated, especially as game machines. Antic with its DLs simply isn’t the most adequate for games, as isn’t the 7800’s Maria. I disagree. The 8-bit Atari was a fine game machine years before the Colecovision, and years after Coleco died. From 1982 to 1985, some of the best games on the Atari XL/XE came out. I mean, Donkey Kong wasn't even released until 1983, although I'd expect you to say the excellent A8 version is inferior to the Coleco 3-screen version. The Lucasfilm Atari-8 games (Ballblazer, etc) were released AFTER the Colecovision was history. Acknowledging that, I hardly call the A8 outdated as a game machine in 1982. I'm not particularly impressed with the 7800, personally, as it was released too late and brought little to the table. About AtariAge, as far as I know it is open to the whole classic community. Indeed, it is. However, when fanboys of competing systems repeatedly come to diss Ataris on Atariage, it's about as brilliant as racists going to the NAACP site and dissing on the clientele there. One must ask the underlying questions: "Why?" and "What do you expect?" And while there isn't a ColecoAge, I am sure that AtariAge wasn't created because the 5200 either. Finally, I don't know what your problem with the Commodore fanboys is, but if it is because of them saying the C64 is more powerful than the A8, I must agree with them. No, not created solely for the 5200, but the 5200 is an application of 8-bit Atari computer technology, and together proponents of 5200 and A8 systems represent a sizeable community on AtariAge. As you have stated your opinion that the C64 is more powerful, you should feel free to "belly up to the bar" in the "Atari vs. Commodore" thread here on AtariAge. If there is validity to your opinion, perhaps it will stand up well to those who may disagree with you, or the technically-minded (and equally opinionated) over there may dissect and derail it. http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...852&st=6300 And I find it amazing a multi-billion dollar company couldn’t create an updated version of their 8-bit platform. Almost 10 years and several lines later (XL, XE, XGS) and it was still the same damn machine. Just check how much the competing computer lines advanced in the same period of time… They were not BILLION (or multi, even) but multi-million. What would you have suggested? Your beloved Commodore 64 was updated with the Commodore 128, and got nearly ZERO software support; ask any Commodore 64 user today why they don't go "Ga ga" over the C128 (I have, many times) and THAT is what they will tell you.. Apple IIgs was a similar story, but it was so expensive it can hardly be considered the same market, althogh it was an update to the 8-bit line. I suppose you would have had Atari go broke on a similarly-updated machine and end up the same way. Commodore and Apple together comprised the lion's share of the 8-bit computer market, by far. If they couldn't make a go at updated 8-bit lines, what would you have had Atari do? Additionally, by 1985, 16-bit was the future, so how could you have realistically expected an upgrade to 8-bit machines in years 6 through 13 of the 8-bit Atari's life? They only continued manufacture and support to cater to the small but loyal existing market; there was no hope of establishing a new niche market below the 16-bit machines, or C128 and IIgs sales would have compared favorably to their respective progenitors, and they certainly did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 MSX uses the same TMS9918, same Z80, all games above were released in cartridge format. So... So is that it's still inferior to Atari 5200/Atari 800 for the same arguments already stated which you have yet to reply to. You still have a worse palette, no hardware scrolling, no linear graphics modes, no unrestricted 4-bit mode, etc. etc. Now since you have switched over to computer, you mine as well compare the I/O speed of it's disk drive and joystick ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Since it isn't 5200 vs. CV anymore (it's more like Atari 8-bit vs CV now), I believe we should add some MSX games to this discussion (also uses TMS9918). Here are some screenshots. All of them offer better resolution than the pathetic 160 (or 80) pixels and 5 colors/scanline the 5200 can do... What games are those opcode? I dont know a lot of the MSX games. Are they all MSX1? Yes, all MSX1 games. Games are King's Valley II, Gradius 2, Parodius, Gofer no Yabou Episode II and Knightmare III. They all have the same dull palette. No shading. How about showing some overscanned images? How about intermixing interlace to produce 192*240*30 w/little or no flicker? You still blindly clinging to your misconception that there's only 5 colors in 160*200 mode. Didn't you read any of the posts in this thread. It's 23 colors/scanline in that mode. It's 38+ in GTIA modes. There's also overscan to extend the resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Since it isn't 5200 vs. CV anymore (it's more like Atari 8-bit vs CV now), I believe we should add some MSX games to this discussion (also uses TMS9918). Here are some screenshots. All of them offer better resolution than the pathetic 160 (or 80) pixels and 5 colors/scanline the 5200 can do... MSX was not relevant here in the United States so the point is moot. Is that the best you can come with as a response? Geez, Atari fanboys are really weak... Since when is AtariAge an US only forum? About your xenophobia I would say that I am sure Japanese people can (and do) say the same about Atari. Famicom started it all, Ataris were irrelevant... I don't think saying the MSX was irrelevant in the U.S. us an Atari fanboy statement. It's not the Atari, but the Commodore 64 that fended off the MSX. Commodore pissed-on, sh*t-on, and wiped the floor with MSX; otherwise there would have been a U.S. presence of MSX. What does Atari (or Atari fanboys) have to do at all with this scenario? Additionally, forgive anybody for presuming that the United States (or its market) has any relevance vis-a-vis the rest of the world. What an absurdity to consider the U.S. market, eh? Silly Yankees!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 MSX uses the same TMS9918, same Z80, all games above were released in cartridge format. So... To be fair - 5200 is 16k ram + 32k rom( non b/s ) and nearly all games are 32k or less - so that compares well with A8 ( 48k - 64k for XL ) CV is 32k rom + 16k vram +1k ram - MSX is rom(cart) + 16kvram + 32k/64k ram So MSX is a big step up from CV in terms of ram for the cpu 48k - 64k of RAM isn't the same as 16k RAM + 32 ROM... So the 5200 is NOT "really" Atari 400 hardware? Is that what you are claiming? If you can post screenshots of games made for the computers and claim they are examples of 5200 games, then I think I can post MSX screenshots and claim that they are examples of what can be done with the CV. Fair enough... The point was to show that A5200 hardware is superior to Colecovision regardless of whether someone exploited those hardware features or not. I don't mind comparing Atari with MSX since Atari is superior to that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 MSX uses the same TMS9918, same Z80, all games above were released in cartridge format. So... To be fair - 5200 is 16k ram + 32k rom( non b/s ) and nearly all games are 32k or less - so that compares well with A8 ( 48k - 64k for XL ) CV is 32k rom + 16k vram +1k ram - MSX is rom(cart) + 16kvram + 32k/64k ram So MSX is a big step up from CV in terms of ram for the cpu 48k - 64k of RAM isn't the same as 16k RAM + 32 ROM... For a lot of games 48k is pretty similar to 32k(rom)+16k(ram) when you take Character sets, maps, sprites and code - ( and a lot of Atari games were for A400/A800 - not XL only ). I'd say the 1k work ram is a bigger limit for Colecovision games. But you could put ram in and bankswitch - so all of your screenshots could be reproduced on the CV. ... Do they have cartridges with bank switched RAM w/o requiring hardware modifications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercat Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 All I'm trying to say is that, to my eyes, a lot of games for the CV seem brighter and crisper. I understand that the 5200 offers a much broader palette overall, and that it had capabilities that exceed the CV in some departments (and vice versa). One difference is that on the Atari machines output 228 color clocks per line and 262 lines/frame, while the TI outputs 227.5 color clocks per line and 263 lines/frame. This may not sound like much of a difference, but it means that certain patterns of colors on the Atari will produce consistent color artifacts (for better or for worse); on the CV and other machines with similar chips, such chroma artifacts are so effectively reduced as to be all but non-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 But you could put ram in and bankswitch - so all of your screenshots could be reproduced on the CV. The TMS9918 has its own VRAM, it doesn't rely on system RAM, so you don't need any more than 1kB of system RAM to produce the graphics above. Of course system RAM can help with game logic. The gremlins game actually shows a strength - using a high res bitmap ( in 4 colours ) along with the multi colour sprites for the main player it has a lot of detail with no flickering Well, since we have entered the world of personal opinion, I can say that 160 pixels horizontally isn’t and hasn't been "high res" since the 70s after Space Invaders came out... But you forgot that high-res on Atari is 384*240 and that was in the 70s as well and this is NOT a personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 All I'm trying to say is that, to my eyes, a lot of games for the CV seem brighter and crisper. I understand that the 5200 offers a much broader palette overall, and that it had capabilities that exceed the CV in some departments (and vice versa).... It's a subjective remark. You can get used to the system you use first or most often. That's all I see here regarding which is crisper and brighter. Atari colors seem brighter to me, but I know how to adjust the brightness/contrast on my TV. >Another thing I've noticed in games like Countermeasure and the Xevious prototype (screenshot here) is a tendency to use light-blue text on a dark-blue background (or green, etc.), which I find unappealing. I understand that that's a hardware limitation of the 5200. If you mean 40 column text mode, you can set the luminance (0..7) and chrominance of the text is the chrominance of it's background color (0..15). Still a lot of choices although not as many as graphics pixel. >Since I'm not an expert in the graphics modes available on either system, I can't offer a detailed comparison based on technical specs, nor do I want to get into a long back-and-forth over this (and since I'll be traveling over the next week, I couldn't even if I wanted to). Really, I think a lot of what we might say is summed up well in this article, which offers a fairly detailed comparison of both machines. That site shows a screenshot of frogger on both systems and it looks better on A5200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 In my opinion, the 5200 is a much more enjoyable game system than the Colecovision, but I can accept that others may disagree. That aside, it seems a few folks in this thread have begun to get personal about this. While I think everybody should take a breath and back off, it seems to me to be especially blatant bad taste to trash-talk the Atari proponents here, on an Atari-centered forum. It should be expected that people here will be passionate about Atari systems and will strenuously argue their merits. You can add-- it should be expected that some Atari folks will PROVE Atari is superior and overlook the Colecovision fanboys' biased subjective remarks based on ignorance of Atari hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+thegoldenband Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 It's a subjective remark. Of course these impressions are subjective, at least in some degree! Having said that, I'm trying to make a good-faith effort to quantify exactly what it is about the 5200 vs. the CV that I'm noticing. What Supercat said above about artifacting may well have something to do with it, though as a long-time CoCo user, I give thanks for artifacting every time I play a hi-res title. You can get used to the system you use first or most often. That's all I see here regarding which is crisper and brighter. Atari colors seem brighter to me, but I know how to adjust the brightness/contrast on my TV. Since I owned a 5200 and played it for many years, and have never owned a CV, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first part. I hope your comment about brightness/contrast wasn't meant to be as condescending as it might sound. If you mean 40 column text mode, you can set the luminance (0..7) and chrominance of the text is the chrominance of it's background color (0..15). Still a lot of choices although not as many as graphics pixel. That reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) quote attributed to Henry Ford -- "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." Seriously, though, that limitation is significant, though small. It's a distinctive part of the 5200/8-bit "look", certainly, but for some reason that look has never been to my taste. I'm not sure what it is, but somehow the 5200's built-in font has always looked kinda tacky to me, especially the wide version; anytime I see a game using those fonts, it does put me off a bit. Totally subjective, but that's how it is. (I don't love the CV's stock font, either -- I prefer the NES/Namco-style font that Opcode Games use.) That site shows a screenshot of frogger on both systems and it looks better on A5200. Yup, and Pitfall looks better on the A5200, whereas Mr. Do's Castle and Zaxxon look better on the ColecoVision, IMHO (though the scrolling on the 5200 version is better, IIRC). And those are two games I played the hell out of as a kid, so I know whereof I speak! But the point of that article is that each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and that they're surprisingly difficult to compare. Certainly, they seem like very different beasts to program. And even though the ultimate verdict is that the 5200 is the more powerful machine, taking advantage of that full power requires some pretty careful programming -- scanline counting and such -- just as the 2600 isn't at its best if you only make it do what it's "supposed" to do. It doesn't sound like it requires as much trickery to get the CV performing close to its full potential, even if that machine would have no chance of driving a game like Rescue on Fractalus or Blaster. (And Blaster's damn amazing, I must say.) Also, I have to ask: did you even read the article I linked, or did you just scan it until you got to a screenshot that showed you what you wanted to see? There's a lot of "meat" in there, and a lot of it comes out in favor of the 5200, so if you did read the article, I'm surprised that your only reaction was a one-line response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CARTRIDGE STEALER Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Well, since we have entered the world of personal opinion, I can say that 160 pixels horizontally isn’t and hasn't been "high res" since the 70s after Space Invaders came out... Another observation on the world of personal opinion: Coleco fanboys are just as adamant as Commodore fanboys, when it comes to invading ATARIage to diss on Ataris. Amazing that the opposite doesn't happen. Is there no "Coleco Age?" (Why not? No large following like Atari? Why??) Do Atari users not care about Coleco? Both? Speculation? we dont "invade", some of us were here long before other fanboy atari fans have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CARTRIDGE STEALER Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 didnt coleco beat atari to the punch when releasing thier first system? I think so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Since it isn't 5200 vs. CV anymore (it's more like Atari 8-bit vs CV now), I believe we should add some MSX games to this discussion (also uses TMS9918). Here are some screenshots. All of them offer better resolution than the pathetic 160 (or 80) pixels and 5 colors/scanline the 5200 can do... MSX was not relevant here in the United States so the point is moot. Is that the best you can come with as a response? Geez, Atari fanboys are really weak... Since when is AtariAge an US only forum? About your xenophobia I would say that I am sure Japanese people can (and do) say the same about Atari. Famicom started it all, Ataris were irrelevant... Wow, you are really out there very defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickybaby Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I agree as well. Could you please lay off the pointless insults? Thank you! That aside, it seems a few folks in this thread have begun to get personal about this. While I think everybody should take a breath and back off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 It's 23 colors/scanline in that mode. It's 38+ in GTIA modes. There's also overscan to extend the resolution. Could you show me a picture done on Atari 8bit showing , 23 pixels side by side in horizontal row with each one a different color. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garak Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) we dont "invade", some of us were here long before other fanboy atari fans have. Indeed. I alone have probably been at this site longer then several of the people in the "Atari vs. Commodore" thread. I find it amazingly hypocritical of certain posters to claim some should go off to "Colecoage" or "Lemon64" to state their views because this is an Atari site. Especially when those very same posters can be found in the Modern Gaming section discussing everything but Atari related things. Apparently they aren't capable of following their own advice. Garak Edited June 18, 2009 by Garak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectorGamer Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I agree as well. Could you please lay off the pointless insults? Thank you! That aside, it seems a few folks in this thread have begun to get personal about this. While I think everybody should take a breath and back off. Y'know - I don't have to know a thing about the hardware differences between the 5200 and ColecoVision. All I have to do is play the darn game to see which system is better. Have you seen the old Imagic video that is posted on the net where they had kids playing and evaluating the new games? It wouldn't surprise me if they were not technical and were just to opine strictly based on the game experience. I like both systems but fact is I haven't hooked up my 5200 in over a month. There's no doubt that I enjoy playing the ColecoVision more than I do the 5200. I'm addicted to Mouse Trap and Pepper II which are not available on the 5200. Call them second tier games if you will but they are really great games. I have never played Frogger on the 5200 and I don't intend on buying it unless I play it first. I have heard mostly negatives about the joystick controllers essentially breaking the game. Frogger on the ColecoVision works good for me although the best version is on the Starpath Supercharger. Galaxian is better on ColecoVision while Centipede is better on the 5200. 5200 has Pengo while the ColecoVision does not etc. etc. etc. Both systems are worth owning, but again to answer the question in the original post the ColecoVision is the better console. Arguing the facts are fine but insulting one another is just dumb. There's more serious issues to be concerned about than "which system is a better console." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 didnt coleco beat atari to the punch when releasing thier first system? I think so! I think you self-contradicted your "best friend" who was claiming Atari is outdated since A5200 is essentially Atari 400 from 1979. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts