Wyvern AREN'T Wyvern

[Kronik85]

Thats what the Tauren called them. So the Orcs followed suit, that's all there is to it really.

Are Orcs your typical fantasy Orcs?
Are trolls your typical fantasy trolls? (Think cave trolls from LOTR)
Are all the undead your typical mindless undead?

This is how blizzard does its lore.

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 10:14 PM ----------



Actually there's a perfectly logical reason. It's how they write their lore. They take something that already exists in fantasy, and alter it and make it there own. I'm not 'mad' either, I'm just stating how it is.

I agree with you in principal but the Wyvern isn't Blizz making something their own but just a case of getting some wires crossed in the design process and giving it the wrong name. Not everyone who works at Blizz is a myth enthusiast it's an innocent mistake to make, they don't need to apologise it or rename the mob.....it's done....it was done a very long time ago and it certainly isn't going to change.

It's fun to moan about this sort of stuff and completely harmless, I doubt anyone here is really that invested in this.

[YornKeldrion]

If

(A) Blizzard takes some action that is stupid in a historical context

and then you come in and claim

(B) Blizzard doesn't have to follow historical context

that says absolutely nothing about the validity of (A). Also, citing additional examples of (A) doesn't make (A) less true.

You can try to argue that there is no historical context, but you'd be wrong. Also WoW trolls are extremely reminiscent of the Scandinavian trolls depicted in this thread.

[Dunarius]

This guy is clearly looking for a flame war...
Blizzard created their OWN universe with creatures that THEY created, why do they have to be the same as you would like them to be? They may have gotten ideas from outside sources which helped them create their own creatures but that in no way forces them to copy everyone else's idea of what a wyvern, orc or troll should look like.

[Zoma]

I think some people are missing the point. For humanoid creatures such as trolls, orcs, elves, etc, there are so many variations in folklore, both modern and ancient, that when making them for a fantasy setting, the only thing they really need is a humanoid shape and sentience. Everything else can be left to the author's imagination.

For other creatures, there is a bit of a template. For example, dragons. There are many variants of dragons in folklore, some having wings, some not, some fire-breathing, some not, but they are all large reptiles. If Blizz had called the Horde mount dragons, would you have thought "Okay, those are WoW dragons" or would you have thought "Wth? Those aren't dragons. Those are frikking winged lions."

[huth]

Well Tolkien took some pains to explain to people that his "orc" was not supposed to be related to "orca", which a lot of people assumed. That word and the one that appeared in Beowulf are likely completely unrelated.

It didn't have anything to do with Tolkien. He wouldn't be born for a good two thousand years when this first mention was recorded.

[Duncanîdaho]

I think some people are missing the point. For humanoid creatures such as trolls, orcs, elves, etc, there are so many variations in folklore, both modern and ancient, that when making them for a fantasy setting, the only thing they really need is a humanoid shape and sentience. Everything else can be left to the author's imagination.

For other creatures, there is a bit of a template. For example, dragons. There are many variants of dragons in folklore, some having wings, some not, some fire-breathing, some not, but they are all large reptiles. If Blizz had called the Horde mount dragons, would you have thought "Okay, those are WoW dragons" or would you have thought "Wth? Those aren't dragons. Those are frikking winged lions."

That is true I'll admit.

Honestly though with the wyvern specifically here's how I think it went down.

They look like Manticore's because they were considered "Man-eaters" and as a faction combating Alliance that works really well. But as a faction trying to get away from that sort of thing the name 'Manticore' kind of goes against the new horde policy at the time. On the other hand they were also probably choosing between actual mythological wyverns too as mounts but went against it because they looked to much like WC2 dragons. So you take the manticore design add a little bit of wyvern(wings off front legs), and give it the wyvern's name so it doesn't mean man-eater. Now you have a mount for the new horde that's a nice mirror to the gryphon.

[Scummer]

I think if people took the time to learn what a Wyvern actually is in mythology they'd learn why there's a staunch difference.
Wyverns in mythology have always been bi-pedal dragons that sometimes could breathe fire. Compared to what we have that's rather different.

[Loaf Lord]

It's kind of funny, because proto drakes are pretty much wyverns.

[ripponesan]

Azeroth =/= Earth. That tends to be what everyone says in these kinds of threads.

Yeah well, cause we got so much wyverns on earth to compare the azerothians to...

[Kaleredar]

Yes they do minus tusks

Not really. "Real" trolls more closely resemble giants in WoW, not the skinny jamaican tribal guys we have.

However, the number of "WoWisms" are too numerous to count. As was said, Basilisks aren't six legged lizards, Chimaeras aren't two winged, two headed dragons, Rocs aren't just slightly larger vultures, etc, etc, etc. The wyvern thing bugs me a little, but it's just something to be chalked up with the rest of Warcraft's flights of fancy.

[NatePsy]

Except their orcs do resemble physically the same as their myth counterparts... As do elves, goblins, trolls etc[COLOR="red"]

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 03:32 PM ----------

-snip-

Um, there's all types of Wyverns and considering these are fantasy creatures, there's many depictions of what they would look like so the Myth is what you make it.



See that tail? One of the many depictions of what a Wyvern could look like, again, fantasy creature which means there's lots of room for what they could look like.

[Azutael]

What's next, humans to little human ?

Just like in real life, you have a ton of variety when it comes to fictional beings. I for one prefer that, over having every troll be the same, every dragon and so on. That's just boring.

[Synstir]

What ties does the world of Azeroth have with our world?

it is created by people out of our world and played by people in our world.
That's it i think?

[Chonar]

Now I don't know if they were referred to as Wyvern in WC 1-3

They were.

[Howard Moon]

Murlocs in WoW look nothing like real-life Murlocs!

[Zoma]

Murlocs in WoW look nothing like real-life Murlocs!

Close enough IMO

[Keske]

I think what people are missing is A: it's not a legal battle, nobody here is telling Blizzard what they can or can't do, however can't and wrong is not the same word. Blizzards Wyvern design is wrong, because it lacks the essence of a wyvern. What the balls you say, there is no such thing. Well there is.

For example. A unicorn. It has to be a horselike creature with one horn. If you make a dog with wings and the head of a chicken and called it a Unicorn, it still wouldn't be a unicorn. Does that mean you have nothing to play around with as an artist? Ofcourse not, you could make a hellspawn demon horse or a fashion crazy flash animation, they would be as far apart as they could, but they would still be unicorns.

Now there are things that have less defining features and some that have more. For example a dementor from the Harry Potter series gives you very little to play with since it's described in detail and requires alot of defining features. Something like a fairy or a troll can pretty much mean anything since it has ranged from titan like creatures that could take on a god, to small woodland trolls that led adventurers astray in forests. So you have alot to work with there. Or ofcourse the absoulte prime example the dragon.

So how does this come into play with Blizzards Wyvern? It lacks every single defining feature of a wyvern, it has 4 legs when it's supposed to have 2, it doesn't have a barbed tail instead it has a stinger, it doesn't have a reptile-like body ect ect. So here comes to crux the artist might want to define his own creation, that is how these creatures evolve, often it changes perhaps 1 feature and keeps the rest to make sure everyone still knows it's a troll. Take the twilight vampires, for some reason they sparkle, something vampires in general don't do but they still retain enough of the defining vampire character to be recgonised as vampires. Shitty vampires but vampires none the less.

But sometimes you just want to make something completly new. Because in your universe pixies are going to be badass monsters. That is fine aslong as your new design does not intrude on an allready designed creature. Wich this does.

The creature called Wyvern in warcraft is not Wyvern, it's a manticore. It has every single character trait that Manticore does, the tail, the body, the wings all of it.
Hence they are wrong, just as wrong as if they decided to rename the orc race to Unicorns.

[Deleted]

sorry, i lost all respect and interest in the original poster after they dissed RTS games

that is why you felt the need to post that right

[Cerebrate]

From what I gather here, Blizzard did it so it must be right.

[Grocalis]

The better question is: Who cares?

Blizzard needed a name for the orc flying unit in WC3. They made a Manticore-style creature, but didn't want to use the name Manticore, so they looked at how the wings work (the wings are the front legs, like a wyvern, rather then on the back, like a classic manticore), and decided since they already had dragons and likely were not going to add a classic wyvern, they would just use the wyvern name. Later on they decided to more commonly call them windriders, but the wyvern name has always stuck.

People say they shouldn't use the name if it does not fit the mythos, but who in common speech even knew what a wyvern was? It does not have the same gravity as dragon, unicorn, etc... You show the average person a picture of a wyvern and they will just say it's a image of a dragon anyways, so why care? Should I be upset that Dryads are not plant women/spirits and instead seem to be half-deer grand children of a moon goddess having sex with a giant stag?

P.S. Proto-drakes are not Wyverns, as they have six limbs including front "legs".