Video game features “dragons”

The most based kind of dragon.

Because the wyvern body type resembles real life birds to a degree, and thus modeling, rigging and animating one is easier because there’s a large amount of real life examples to draw from. Dragons with four legs and two wings are more complicated to model, rig and animate and also don’t resemble any actual living creature we can observe easily, so depicting them in a way that doesn’t look silly takes much more effort than the typical wyvern design.

The real answer is Bethesda is just fucking lazy, and their animation department in particular consists of incompetent layabouts.

I thought that went without saying.

Names exist for a reason. They're descriptive. Why not call a unicorn an elf, if it doesn't matter? Why not call a yeti a gryphon? When you say yeti, you know it's not a lion with wings and an eagle head because that's not what a yeti is. The fact that dragons and wyverns are usperficially similar doesn't make their differences any less important. If anything, it makes them more so.

>video game features a fictional creature that doesn't fit my pre-defined idea of what a fictional creature should be
>spam bait threads for the rest of eternity
I'm not kidding with this, you should seriously consider suicide

Nope. The designs for dragons on medieval heraldry were extremely disparate. Some were four legged, some were two legged, some didn't even have wings.
The traditional "dragon" having 4 legs and 2 wings was first depicted in popular culture under that description in JRR Tolkien's work, which was then cemented by early editions of D&D which made the distinction between a dragon and a wyvern (a distinction that did not exist before this point).

What's in a name? A rose by any other would smell just as sweat.

You got sweaty roses where you live?

You don't know what I'm calling a rose that's the point. Open your mind.

>video games and movies always feature wyvern designs due to the laziness that they cant animate 4 legged dragons
Will always be mad

(wow, he’s LITERALLY me!!)

Attached: 88F99783-C2CC-4453-A362-718D860D6AE2.jpg (1000x993, 148K)

There’s no way 4 legs is getting off the ground. Not being ultra realistic, it would just look awkward.

Attached: ECC91FA4-4BB2-4FA1-BDF2-04B5FA392EEA.png (174x231, 18K)

You are wrong primarily because the descriptive usefulness of names only applies to real things.
When it comes to non-real objects and creatures, the descriptiveness of the name is irrelevant, as definitions are only relevant to things that exist.

To define a fictional creature with a name is an utterly useless endeavour that serves no beneficial purpose at all and only limits creativity.

> making excuses

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern
>Wyverns are very similar to dragons, and in many languages, cultures and contexts no clear distinction is made between the two. Since the sixteenth century, in English, Scottish, and Irish heraldry, the key difference has been that a wyvern has two legs, whereas a dragon has four
Sorry my bad; renaissance heraldry, not medieval.

Attached: 1509243820015.png (953x591, 149K)

wyverns are a type of dragon so they are indeed dragons, retard

>in many languages, cultures and contexts no clear distinction is made between the two
So both sides can be considered right depending on which cultural defiiniton you use then.
You can call a Wyvern a Dragon and be right, or say that Wyverns and Dragons are different and still be right.

imagine if it was a wyvern, but it didnt have the wings, just those long pointy fingers, that would be scary.

It serves a perfectly beneficial purpose in providing an established trope for reuse in fiction. If you want dragons in your story, you don't have to worldbuild them out of thin air; you can just say "dragon" and everyone will understand what you're talking about. If you want to come up with a brand new fictional creature that doesn't match any established fantastic template, then you can call it whatever you want and not have your creativity limited. Not calling a dragon a dragon is wasting the audience's time with your pretentious explanation that this unique new creature of yours is a giant intelligent lizard that flies, breathes fire, and knows magic, all because you're too big of a special snowflake to just call it a dragon.

It's not enough that I be right. The ones with whom I disagree must also be wrong.

Nooo I need to btfo Todd!

That's acceptable, the user who I originally replied to posted the theory that the distinction between them was invented by DnD which is patently false.

More important, the heraldic distinction between "Dragon" and "Wyvern" is only relevant to English heraldry, and does not have a corresponding distinction in continental europe.

Heraldry is specifically interested in Crest, and there you actually need a great degree of clarity. In middle ages and later, artists specialized in heraldry were expected to be given a verbal description of a crest and draw the crest based on that description PRECISELY: there was no margin for ambiguity. Heraldry is an "exact" science.

That said, obviously, these rules applied entirely and exclusively to CRESTS, and in this case, only to CRESTS OF ENGLISH NOBLES EXCLUSIVELY. All other depictions of mythological creatures were obviously fair game, and as you say, incredibly disparate.

That is not ENTIRELY true, because even in case of fictional concepts, such as dragon, elf, or god: they still represent a tangible set of SYMBOLS, some kind of more-or-less universally recognized cultural archetype.

Dragon may not exist in real world, but it's a word-universal symbol of chaos, presumably evolutionary conditioned. The whole point of using it is - in majority of cases at least - to provide a reference to a easily recognisable archetype or set of archetypes that have symbolic meaning to audience.

That said: number of legs, wings or heads is not actually relevant to the symbolism of a dragon.

Might and Magic 8 allowed you to recruit a dragon. No fucking human-shape-shifting loli bullshit. A fucking dragon. His base attack was fire breath and it was EXACTLY as over-powered compared to normal companions as it fucking sounds.

You could recruit grand total of FOUR of them into your five-memebered party. It was completely silly, absolutely inballanced, and fun-as-fuck.

Attached: MM8.jpg (410x308, 75K)

>More important, the heraldic distinction between "Dragon" and "Wyvern" is only relevant to English heraldry, and does not have a corresponding distinction in continental europe.
I know the user I originally replied to claimed DnD invented the difference which simply isn't true.

PEDRAKAN
youtube.com/watch?v=hN-WxepgI9Y

Elder Scroll dragons aren't even actual dragons in a mythological sense. They are closer to angelic beings, being the offspring/fragments of the time god Akatosh. They take the shape of dragons cause Akatosh himself manifests as a dragon or is commonly seen as a dragon.

There are corrupted dragons called Daedric Titans that look closer to the "traditional" depiction of dragons - four limbs and wings, but are smaller and lack the reality-bending powers of actual dragons.

There's also Peryite, who took the shape of a dragon as some pre-creation joke to Akatosh.

Attached: 600px-ON-statue-Peryite.jpg (600x600, 63K)

This 4 legs vs 2 legs is a new phenomenon that is prevalent only among the most autistic. People don't care and haven't cared for decades.

Attached: dragonsinmovies.jpg (1512x1118, 487K)

I get it now... nuGoW is set in nordic mythology to right Skyrims terrible and unforgivable misconception of dragons. OP = Cory confirmed.

Attached: hraezlyr.jpg (1280x720, 172K)

It actually has been around for a very long time, about as long as DnD adopted this distinction, but it has intensified in the past decade a lot due to Hobbit, Skyrim and Game of Thrones.

That said, it is completely new to Yea Forums: I can only assume it's some retard who used it for shitposting on /tg/ until they started instantly banning him, so he tries his luck here.

i'm still megamiffed at how they chopped off smaug's forelimbs in the hobbit between the first and second films
wyverns
aren't
dragons

Attached: smauglegs.jpg (1030x854, 120K)

funnily enough, the titans are described as molag bal's attempt at improving on the design of dragons
a bit of a jab there, i reckon

based

You know I feel like even in English heraldry it wasn't so much a "distinction" as a "clarification" because aside from accuracy they also needed brevity. So you say "dragon" for a generic dragon and "wyvern" for a specific kind. Like asking someone to draw a fruit and they'll probably draw an apple, but ask them to draw a banana and they'll draw that. Then it gets codified over the years and then centuries later you have nerds arguing that bananas aren't fruits because fruits are spherical and red.

The Lord of the Rings had orcs as goblins, so fuck you

This is one instance in which I think it's fair to complain because Tolkien himself was fairly insistent on the matter.

LotR pretty much invented orcs though

He invented the word "Orc". Not the concept, the concept of a goblin is borrowed and only slightly adjusted from classic folklore and mythology, just like Elves, Dwarves or Dragons.

Hey at least he's got four legs

>Has more in common with a Dragon than a Wyvern.
Perfect, thanks bro.

Yeah but the point is then he just said "this setting has goblins and some people call them orcs (an original name I came up with do not steel)"

They're still goblins

Thats a sky serpent you pleb

>tfw you realize dragons are evolutionarily impossible unless they are an insect of some sort.
>wyverns are more plausible.
>the only "acceptable" and plausible "dragon" is a flightless, four limbed serpentine asian dragon.

People clealrly care as this argument keeps coming up over and over and over

>2 legs
>believable designed based on actual existing flying lizards
>4 legs
>some incel fantasy

Its supposed to be fantasy you sperg

u lol

>Its supposed to be fantasy you sperg
Fantasy isn't an excuse to make :lol so random tehehe" the game.

uhh that kind of is literally what fantasy is

every day is the same here it's like purgatory

Asian 'dragons' are amalgamations of other animals - lion face, deer antlers, snake body, fish scales, feet of whatever the fuck bird. They are only dragons because they were 'localized' to be by translators. If you're so eager to accept this to be a dragon while disregarding ones like Alduin, you are delusional, dense or contrarian.

Attached: chinesedragon.jpg (403x579, 111K)

I hate this. People who constantly point this out are fucking morons. "WYVERN" was a name used in modern heraldry to SPECIFY DRAWINGS of dragons who only had two legs. Then DnD decided to make it a biological distinction IN THEIR UNIVERSE.

EVERY FANTASY UNIVERSE CAN CALL WYVERNS DRAGONS AND VICEVERSA.

>still barely any RPG where you can play as a dragon or demi-dragon aside from Kingmaker
>no ARPG with a dragon protagonist

Attached: 1562539689509.gif (500x500, 170K)

except that's bullshit invented by Dungeons and Dragons or some other faggot shit

Attached: Dragon-from-Hroaar-dot-com.jpg (775x437, 138K)

A dragon is a name for any great serpent. Some have no legs even. Both the word and idea of the dragon are much colder than your arbitrary zoomer shit

*older

Fuck off, you literal autist.
>Eastern dragons
Patrician taste.

Divinity dragon commander

stupid cunt

Attached: 00554201-3.jpg (1600x952, 438K)

>"dragons"
WOOOOO

slit your throat OP

Attached: medieval-dragon-print-vintage-wall-art-large-giclee-print-on-canvas-cotton-and-satin-photo-paper-581 (1000x684, 255K)

Cool wyverns

Attached: bunny.jpg (453x500, 32K)

that's a crocodile. i'm australian so i'd know, i see them outside my house almost daily, gotta shout and throw rocks at them to get them to take flight and leave my property

Attached: 1555151846759.jpg (680x680, 93K)

>Only dragons because they were localized like that

Are
Are you sure about that

>2019 and two thirds
>Still no game with Longmas (dragon horses)

Attached: 1AE4D5E0-4FD7-4B7E-A124-1D7D8238EB27.jpg (516x387, 42K)

the ''le badass dragon XD'' meme was pretty much just late 20th century fan art, for a long time european dragons looked like some wierd dog bats, asian dragons on the other hand always looked badass

Attached: dragon-bernat.jpg (693x537, 274K)

No because the whole dragon vs wyvern thing is all fan fiction.

Fuckin chinks, man, what kind of dragon has 5 legs?

>Game features "dragons"
>Play it
>They're actually lardasses

Attached: DrnmL-GV4AEoBQ7.jpg (512x512, 59K)

it has 4 and a tail

no one cares nerd

>some arbitrary distinction coined by dnd is absolute law

It wasn't coined by dnd, it was codified by the entire fantasy genre long before dnd. Furthermore, the distinction isn't arbitrary.

In fantasy books, 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.

Attached: 1550873895109.jpg (641x530, 36K)

>game features dragons
>they don't breathe fire and your expectations are subverted

Attached: 1420714174008.jpg (312x312, 17K)

Wyverns have a poisonous tail stinger, dragons do not.

>The Lord of the Rings had orcs as goblins, so fuck you
What do you mean? Orcs and gobblins are the sam thing in Tolkien's work. 'orc' is simply the middle-earth term for goblin.

Attached: 1549152541649.jpg (1200x1386, 118K)

They're both flying lizards

Please user, point me to this consensus in fantasy fiction literature. Because I think you're full of shit and the portrayal of dragons changes drastically from work to work.

So let's see
Dragons in Skyrim are
a) intelligent
b) Don't have a poison stinger
but
c) Don't have front legs

Why is the conclusion that they're wyverns?

Autistic faggotry.

You make this thread every week.

youtube.com/watch?v=CdK7oqk4wcg