As much as I love Clive he is absolutely a character who exists to be the butt of a joke and fundamentally does not make sense or have an internally consistent canon. So yeah the games just play on his faceplate.

One of the earliest things I imagined was him hanging out in the room with the arcade cabs at a furry convention and inviting people to play old games, and they don't realize until they say yes that they're just going to spend the whole time staring into his face. his entire expression is still visible and he's just absolutely thrilled that he's actually getting to serve his purpose so he's just beaming at you the entire time (no pun intended) and it's very uncomfortable

but jokes aside if i had to pick any kind of "logical" explanation it would be that he's an incredibly advanced far-future sentient AI who's glued inseparably to an absolutely horrible computer but otherwise not really connected to it very closely. like, he has a little menu in the upper right of his field of view that he can use to turn the thing on and off and reboot it and not a whole lot more. if he wanted to play a game on himself he'd have to go stare in a mirror.

I'm going to avoid getting a sunburn by parrying za sun.

quick calculation shows a photon flux of around 10^21 across a rough approximation of a yinglet standing on zhe surface of zhe earzh so you'll need zhat many parries per second

with enough parry iframes this is easy because you'll never not have a parry timing window open

feel like i need a giant banner on my page that says THIS USER IS MENTALLY ILL AND SHE TALKS ABOUT IT WITHOUT WARNING

is a naga a type of taur

yes

anthropomorphic upper

non-anthropomorphic lower. you dont have to have legs to be a taur

merpeople are taurs

Usually "taur" refers to an entire whole-ass body cut off at the neck to replace the human's legs, though, unless you're talking about the specific case of the Minotaur where the human half is on the bottom.

Which is to say a naga and a merperson are not taurs... they're satyrs.

🖤 drew a diagram because this fascinates me

I guess the key difference between the two is indeed where the body is cut

satyrs uses the bottom half of an animal (like the back legs of something), while taurs use the whole body except the head

so most mermaids in art are satyrs, but they could be made into taurs

snakes are harder to define as they don't have much as for things to differentiate between body and tail. a real headscratcher, you could make a religion out of it

The tails of snakes are actually pretty defined!
This is most obvious in flying snakes, who flatten out their ribs to glide in the air, which leaves the tail (which just have shorter ribs) dangling about behind it.
i think that their tails look comically small when they're not more seamless with the snakee

And in looking at satyrs, it looks like the cutoff point is the pelvis??
Like, they'd have a goat's pelvis, but a humanoid torso.

.......Except — most snakes don't have pelvises.
But some have vestigial pelvises!
Pelvic spurs are derived from them, and they're used in courtship.
So, suitably, the pelvis is wherever the cloaca would be, which I think we can presume would be where the pelvis used to be in all other snakes, too!

And so, wherever the cloaca (and, in turn, the pelvic region) would be, the cutoff for a satyr would be.
And that would be..........

..............Oh. Aha.
Well, then.

It would be around the area where the tail begins.
which makes sense  since tails ordinarily come out from pelvises in the first place

And so: