Video game features """dragons"""

>1993

Because they wanted them to fly? Imagine how retarded a four legged dragon would look with its body floating in the air by some stubby wings slapped on its back

Why is that a concern when we are talking about a purely fictional species?

Because it looks better

You know this is just OP trying to keep his shitty thread alive, right? I hope you're s.aging.

I disagree. As someone whom is pretty well versed in fantasy which I assume most people are at this point seeing how popular the they are. Its a huge letdown to be fighting mere wyverns when the entire main plot is about Dragons

>putting sage in the name field
Retard

Sage goes in all fields user

Sage goes in every field

wyverns are just flying reptiles
dragons are powerfull magic creatures
everyone that dissagrees is a brainlet normie that knows nothing about fantasy tropes

Based

Dragons have four legs while wyverns have two

Two legs make a big difference user, there's a reason why we don't call arachnids insects

>whom

serpent dragons > western shield painting chickens

>normie
You have to go back.
Also wyverns are dragons as well, brainlet. That's like saying that japs aren't Asians.

based and 1993pilled

Attached: 1561082155684.jpg (811x1062, 78K)

so basically you agree with me?

Stop samefagging for (You)'s OP and/or discordtranny

>You have to go back.
no u
>That's like saying that japs aren't Asians
no, that's like saying that chimps arent humans

so not every wyvern is a dragon
but every dragon is a wyvern
huh

The distinction between Wyvern and a Dragon: specifically the number of legs and shape of a tail is ONLY relevant when you talk about English Heraldry.

That is the only area in the world where it is clearly distinguished. In actual folklore and mythology, NO such distinction exists, and both terms can be and were used interchangeably.

>Game features dragons
>They are anime lolis

Attached: 1563304167098.jpg (779x635, 97K)

It's people like you who think the moon landings are real

>not Oxford

It’s okay user, you can’g explain anything to them. I don’t know why, but I feel like in the past few years, people have gotten weirdly defensive about the differences between “Wyverns” and “Dragons”

I suppose so... but I have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about.

It's been a big subject on /tg/ for a good while, and I guess the release of both Hobbit and GoT had ruffed some feathers... but mostly it seems to be a fun subject to troll people.

Other way around, fuckhead

every thread is the same here every day, is this purgatory? is this hell? have i been sent here to loop the same day over and over again?

Is there an actual difference or is this autism. Also who made these apparently universal rules for fictional creatures? I have never seen this discussion outside of Yea Forums shiposting

bots

You've got that backwards - not every dragon is a wyvern, but every wyvern is indeed a type of dragon.

Attached: Types of Dragon.jpg (1536x1080, 116K)

It's autism, it's like complaining about people who call tortoises turtles.

>being austistic about fantasy creatures

They are both made up.

Wyrm is fucking adorable

>Is there an actual difference or is this autism.
It's actually an actual and very important difference... IN ENGLISH HERALDRY.

If you do not know anything about Heraldry, then it's important to know that heraldry is not just about the images of the coats of arms: heraldry also required people to be able to describe each crest precisely and ABSOLUTELY UNABIGIOUSLY. For that purpose, heraldry has developed it's own terminology, giving each element of crest a very specific term.
In england (but nowhere else in the world), it has became customary that the term "wyvern" is used to denote an image of a dragon with two legs, two wings and a barbed tail, where as "dragon" denotes a image of a dragon with four legs and a normal tail. This was - again - done only so that when describing a crest, there would be no ambiguity for the painter tasked to draw a crest based on written or verbal description.

Certain popular fantasy franchises - DnD in particular, later on sought to expand their bestiaries, and decided to draw inspiration from this particular element of english heraldry, and adopted that into their bestiaries to pad it out.

However, in actual folklore and mythology of UK, Scandiavia and France (where these terms are often used), NO such distinction has ever been followed. You will find two legged dragons and four legged Wyverns in various local myths and legends all over the place: outside of heraldry, it has never been followed in any way, shape or form.

Autists later on latched out to it unaware of the history of the "distinction", but eager to impose their own brand of order onto the world, and insist on it outside of the heraldic context.

Stupid wyverns. Just a buncha low-class dragon wannabes! They can't even talk! Or understand language! And don't get me started on those pathetic wings

Attached: 3a003e0c16bd152872d2ef12328420d2.jpg (508x409, 39K)

>Video game features dragons
>majority of the time theyre evil
Getting real tired of this shit

Attached: XIV_Midgardsormr_-_Front.png (853x480, 471K)

What

Huh, that's actually quite interesting. Thanks smart-user I learned something new today

wings are limbs hence traditional dragons have six limbs.

Where are the anthro dragons

thats a default ability of all draconic races

>The distinction between Wyvern and a Dragon: specifically the number of legs and shape of a tail is ONLY relevant when you talk about English Heraldry.
False. In fantasy fiction, including games, dragons are consistently portrayed as having two legs, two arms and two wings. Moreover, dragons are portrayed as intelligent creatures (usually spellcasters), in contrast to the lower intelligence wyverns

It's only in recent years that this mixing up has begun. Interestingly enough, it has happened in the three most popular fantasy works in their respective media: Skyrim (games), Peter Jackson's The Hobbit (movie) and Game of Thrones (TV).

Attached: 1551998688553.png (680x680, 124K)

The term "Dragon" comes from latin (Draconem), which comes from Greek (Drakon). It's origin seems to lie in PIE: "derk" meaning "to see clearly". Some have speculated that the original meaning of the term has been "the one with a killing/deadly gaze", or "The Watcher".

"Drake" is simply an older borrowing of the exact same word, and has the exact same meaning.

Wyvern came into english from old French, which got it from latin: "Vipere", literally meaning "viper" or "adder". It comes from latin words "vivi parere", meaning "live birth" (because vipers do, in fact, have their young hatch inside their bodies, rather than lying eggs like most other snakes.

Wurm comes from proto-germanic wurmiz, "worm or a snake" which comes from PIE "wrmi" which means "to slither, to move in a snake/worm-like fashion", and has been a general term used for worm, snakes, but also other forms of pestilence, including insects and disease.

All three are ultimately different linguistic paths of the exact same set of mythological archetypes: Snake-like mythological creature of considerable power, dangerous to humans. You will find no particular pattern to any of these creatures, and their use commonly interchangeable: there is nothing in any part of any indo-european folklore that would suggest that any of them have any more or less legs, wings or other features than the other: their depiction differs entirely on LOCAL convention of a particul legend or particular artist even, no "species" like pattern what so ever. That is because nomenclature being associated with particular feno/geno-types is an invention pretty much of 18th century, where as these myths go thousands of years into history.

Now you know, and have no excuse.

Are you retarded?

That is interesting. Who observed this "consistent patterns" in fantasy fiction and based on what works? Who has the authority to determine that this is the proper use of the term? Care to provide me with sources, studies, conventions that would have sufficient relevance and authority?

Wait a minute... Kirins are horse dragons?

Shit thread you dumb faggot

Kirin is a giraffe, above anything else.

>play game
>get killed by wyvern
>game over screen lampshades the difference between wyverns and dragons
Pure kino.

Attached: UaqXZQa.png (1600x900, 763K)

>Video game features Mer
>they're actually elves

>Video game features Orcs
>They're actually uruk

>Videogame features redguards
>They're actually niggers.

the hole plot of Skyrim is that Alduin is not even a threat. He is not THE WORLD EATER, just a fucking sucker. Whos ass got beaten by snakes and than by snowniggers.
Nord dont even fight him, just some random three dudes. Nords were fighting along side Alessia.

>no arguments
Keep chimping out, buddy.

>That is interesting. Who observed this "consistent patterns" in fantasy fiction and based on what works? Who has the authority to determine that this is the proper use of the term? Care to provide me with sources, studies, conventions that would have sufficient relevance and authority?

Have you ever read a fantasy book in your life?

Look at The distinction between dragons and wyverns in fantasy fiction is so well-established that, upon being killed by a wyvern, this game over screen actively mocks the idea that they're the same (by calling the wyvern a dragon wannabe).

Xd

>Have you ever read a fantasy book in your life?
Quite a few, but I do prefer reading actual mythology to fantasy. You know: the shit that most fantasy is trying to poorly ape.
And you did not answer my question. I already explained how some particular popular fantasy fiction decided to draw an arbitrary line based on heraldic convention purely to pad out their bestiaries, and a lot of highly unimaginative works decided to mindlessly copy it.

But I'm still waiting on the body of authority or any actual proof that this is anything more than a irrelevant evidence for lack of imagination within the genre.

It's simple, Western markets don't know what a fucking dragon is. That includes Europe because look at Smaug who has fucking 4 legs in the book but Peter Hackson gave him two legs.

Look at Japan though, they know how to do Western better than the West wtf.

Fuck off nerd.

I always compared wyverns to falcons and dragons to eagles, the first is primordially an air hunter while the second hunts in the air and the ground

niggers

I already explained how some particular popular fantasy fiction decided to draw an arbitrary line based on heraldic convention purely to pad out their bestiaries, and a lot of highly unimaginative works decided to mindlessly copy it.

>works like Earthsea and Lord of the Rings
>highly unimaginative

And why would books need to pad out their bestiaries? They're not games.

Regardless of who came up with the idea that dragons should have six limbs, it's an established concept of fantasy now. What exactly do you think Skyrim is derivative of? It sure as hell didn't take its inspiration from heraldry, it took its inspiration from other fantasy works.

Attached: 6FqCIZa.jpg (3000x3000, 223K)

This

Western dragons are far more realistic

Attached: 0CCEB465-25A1-4865-A04C-279B39B65E61.jpg (1600x1016, 496K)

>muh authority
Make your own discernment cuck boy

wyvern is type of dragon you retard.

>"western"
>literally every picture is concept art from skyrim
The six-limbed design is the correct one, and one that other western games use as well, retard.

Attached: 1473010667108.png (600x337, 158K)

Out of all those, Grigori is the best

Are you retards aware that I could make a game with dragons and call them elves because both are nonexistent and my work does not need to follow the example set by any other? If Bethesda says their lizards with two legs and a pair of wings are dragons, then they are dragons.

Neither Lord of The Rings nor Earthsea actually ever drawed any kind of distinction line that you'd imply. Tolkien himself did sketch Smaug with four limbs, but did not actually describe the number of limbs he possesses. In other segments of his works, Silmarilion in particular, he merely mentions many dragons of many forms, including limbless and wingless, some that breathed fire and some that did not.

As far as I know about Earthsea, it makes no mention of Wyvern either.

>And why would books need to pad out their bestiaries? They're not games.
DnD is. It literally sells bestiaries.

>Regardless of who came up with the idea that dragons should have six limbs, it's an established concept of fantasy now.
Established by WHO, and why the fuck do we even NEED something like this "established". There is literally no fucking reason or logic to "establish" anything like that to begin with. It's literally a logic imposed by children and autist, who need to be right and argumentative about things that - in the most literally sense - DO NOT EXIST.

Are you retards aware that I could make a game with dragons and call them elves because both are nonexistent and my work does not need to follow the example set by any other? If Bethesda says their lizards with two legs and a pair of wings are dragons, then they are dragons.

>game does not need to follow the example set by others
Then why did SKyrim call them dragons in the first place, you retard? Why not give them a completely unique name and identity, you know, the thing FANTASY should be about?

Attached: 1552511682265.jpg (645x729, 81K)

>arguing about dragons on 4channel

Attached: Arguing about dragons.jpg (680x513, 82K)

Because Bethesda is lacking an imagination, just like everyone else who works on fantasy and just copies decades-old concepts and ancient mythology?

>Then why did SKyrim call them dragons in the first place, you retard?
Because in real world, dragon is a well recognized mythological archetype of a reptile/snake like monster representing chaos and destruction, usually associated with elements such as fire and water.

Those are the traits that define a dragon in reality. Nothing else.

>DnD is. It literally sells bestiaries.
Which is irrelevant, because the concept of dragon was well-established in fantasy fiction long before DnD.

>Tolkien himself did sketch Smaug with four limbs, but did not actually describe the number of limbs he possesses.

>the author sketched his dragon with four limbs
>n-no that doesn't count

>As far as I know about Earthsea, it makes no mention of Wyvern either.
So? It does explicitly describe the dragon the protagonist faces as having four limbs.

If a story takes place in Asia or a fantasy version of Asia then the taxonomic definition of dragons is very loose and unimportant. If a story takes place in Europe or a fantasy version of Europe then the taxonomic definition of dragons is very important and you must argue about it on the internet. If a story takes place in a mix of Europe and Asia and if it includes both european dragons and asian dragons of varying biological configuration then you should feel torn by irreconcilable forces and it would be a proper reaction if your head exploded.

Attached: 1549834305968.jpg (400x558, 29K)

>Which is irrelevant, because the concept of dragon was well-established in fantasy fiction long before DnD.
By whome. Where. And why?

>n-no that doesn't count
It literally does not, because Tolkien INTENTIONALLY kept numerous elements of his world undescribed because he - and this is a notion you will not wrap your head around - wanted people to create their own images in their heads. It is also well known that Tolkien imagined Elves with leaf-shaped ears, yet he INTENTIONALLY ever avoided mentioning those in his books, as he once again, wanted people to construct their own image in their heads.

>So? It does explicitly describe the dragon the protagonist faces as having four limbs.
So what? Where is the actual argument?

Just because elves and dragons can't be seen in the physical plane doesn't mean they don't exist

fuck off retard, dragons had no defined taxonomy until the tolkien retards appeared

Attached: dragon medival times.jpg (2288x1816, 319K)

I too would like a game with factual dragons.

Attached: Australian Water Dragon.jpg (800x600, 129K)

Actually, Tolkien has nothing to do with this. This is a product of the "Generic fantasy" crowd, that only comes with wide-spread popularity of DnD and people getting into fantasy without really reading... well, anything.

because six limbed reptiles sound even less plausible than wyverns already are.

holy shit imagine being this based

The real issue is why would you call them dragons in your game when wyvern is a much cooler name

The term dragon is more universally recognized, while Wyvern is a term with more local meaning. That is it really. By calling them "Dragons" you'll make sure more people will recognize them and associate them with the particular mythological archetype pretty much everyone in the world is familiar with.

>fuck off retard, dragons had no defined taxonomy until the tolkien retards appeared

Attached: Clinical-Cymru-Simbec-Research-buys-Orion-for-12.5m.png (800x480, 127K)

>Why the FUCK is this allowed???
Because what are you gonna do about it, little bitch?