Wyvern AREN'T Wyvern

[Pachycrocuta]

Yes, you certainly did.

No where in my reply was I mad. Just telling someone that the majority of people have a preconceived notion of what something looks like. Which apparently you can't comprehend and thought an explanation meant rage.

[Drilnos]

So Harry Potter is wrong, so is the majority of major myth concerning Basilisks, yknow, turning crap to stone and looking like Godzilla, instead of a tiny lizard that runs on water.

Also, many cultures consider one thing another, a wyvren may not be what another one calls a wyvren, etc etc.

If there's one thing this thread has done for me, it's really increased my store of knowledge. The basilisk as it was first described is a sort of African cobra (a small snake, with a diadem-shaped white mark on its head, which travels with the forward part of its body held off the ground, lives in burrows and is vulnerable to mongoose attacks). This being antiquity, Pliny the Elder went on to say the thing was so venomous that it let off a miasma that killed plants and broke rocks just by being in the same general area, and if a man on horseback hit one with a spear, the venom would crawl up the spear and kill the man, then kill the horse. So not even a lizard. Just a snake. A three foot long snake.

Anyway, the actual closest thing to a traditional wyvern in WoW is definitely not a proto-drake. It's Hakkar the Soulflayer, and wind serpents in general for the legless variety.

[leaks]

No where in my reply was I mad. Just telling someone that the majority of people have a preconceived notion of what something looks like. Which apparently you can't comprehend and thought an explanation meant rage.

It annoys the hell out of me when someone refers to the image you showed as a dragon. Dragons have 4 "legs"

yes, where would someone get the idea that you're mad...

[Wrien]

This thread's topic:

[Pachycrocuta]

yes, where would someone get the idea that you're mad...

Really? So annoyance at something that's admittedly trivial (on par with a fly buzzing in your face) is the same as rage? That's honestly new to me.

[Kakokun]

This thread's topic:

You cared enough to click on the thread then spend time to write a response and find the link for a video.

[leaks]

Really? So annoyance at something that's admittedly trivial (on par with a fly buzzing in your face) is the same as rage? That's honestly new to me.

No one said rage but you. That wouldn't be a reading comprehension fail would it?
You came into a thread and pointed out how something incredibly trivial "annoys the hell out of you". Someone called you out for your nit picking and how silly it was and you respond with the oh so clever "u mad bro" then rant for 3 paragraphs to justify why it "annoys the hell out of you". If the hypocrisy of that isn't obvious to you by now then it never will be. I'm starting to feel bad for you so I'm gonna stop.

[Grocalis]

Most wouldn't know what many mythical creatures are period, they're not common knowledge.

Some, yes, depends on the creature. Dragons are common, as they are a staple of nearly every fantasy in existence. Elves are also common, as are many of the other staple races. Back before LOTR I would even say Hobbits were rather obscure, but now everyone knows what a Hobbit is, due to the popularity of the film series.

Manticore? Kobold? Gnoll? Wyvern? Dryads? Not so much.

[dki07]

Even though there is a lot of variation within descriptions of mythical creatures there are certain traits that make a certain creature that creature. Vampires suck blood, werewolves have some extent of permanent or temporary wolf features, gryphons are part lion part eagle etc. Even in a fantasy setting you'd look pretty ridiculous calling an alligator a pony or a dog a jellyfish. The point is wyverns are so far off of the traits considered to be "wyvern" (and in fact gone straight to traits common with another mythical creature, the manticore) that for those that do know what a wyvern is it looks ridiculous. Basilisks and crocolisks are fine because they are close enough to their reference that the connection can be seen (the basilisks are reptilian and can petrify. the connection has been made. Croclisks are clearly a cross between real world crocodilians and wow's basilisks)

Wyverns are really manticores while protodrakes are wyvernlike.
Quilin's are really fu-dogs while the new datamined mount is what a quilin actually looks like

[Kaleredar]

If there's one thing this thread has done for me, it's really increased my store of knowledge. The basilisk as it was first described is a sort of African cobra (a small snake, with a diadem-shaped white mark on its head, which travels with the forward part of its body held off the ground, lives in burrows and is vulnerable to mongoose attacks). This being antiquity, Pliny the Elder went on to say the thing was so venomous that it let off a miasma that killed plants and broke rocks just by being in the same general area, and if a man on horseback hit one with a spear, the venom would crawl up the spear and kill the man, then kill the horse. So not even a lizard. Just a snake. A three foot long snake.

Basilisks have also been described as a sort of serpent/dragon (wyvern, actually)/rooster fusion, like a cockatrice.

Anyway, the actual closest thing to a traditional wyvern in WoW is definitely not a proto-drake. It's Hakkar the Soulflayer, and wind serpents in general for the legless variety.

As far as I can figure, the only ACTUAL two legged, winged "dragons" in WoW are the chimeras, if the little tweedly proto drake hands are too "removed" from real wyverns for you. Hakkar and Wind serpents bear the closest resemblance to amphipteres.

[Deleted]

I dunno I would say majority would described an elf as 'santas little helper'

[Kisho]

Why is one fantasy setting more 'correct' than another?

Blizzard created a creature, called it a Wyvern. Other fantasy settings created other creatures, called them Wyverns. One is not more right than the other; they're just different.

[Detheavn]

Even though I do agree that they look like Manticores, I always referred to them as wind riders. Not going to let myself be bothered by it though.
If I had to stop and weep for every inconsistency in WoW lore compared to Earth lore, I probably wouldn't have made it past my first month of playtime

[Veyne]

So Harry Potter is wrong, so is the majority of major myth concerning Basilisks, yknow, turning crap to stone and looking like Godzilla, instead of a tiny lizard that runs on water.

XD

Similarly, the mythological Salamanders we see in a lot of fantasy lore, the fire breathing lizards. In reality, they, too, are just adorable, tiny lizards. =)

[skrump]

A basilisk is a RL lizard too though

I don't remember a single video game or movie in the history of my 30 years on earth where A basilisk was not portrayed as a large snake or Alligator.
That said the wow Wyvern has more in common with the Mythical Chimera the only real difference being a Chimera generally has 2 or more heads.

Though Video games do tend to portray Wyvern differently from dragons but it is generally by making them much smaller and/or removing their legs.

---------- Post added 2012-11-21 at 06:21 AM ----------

XD

Similarly, the mythological Salamanders we see in a lot of fantasy lore, the fire breathing lizards. In reality, they, too, are just adorable, tiny lizards. =)

We should bathe them in toxic waste and radiation in the hopes of creating their mythical counterparts, or at least to create a swarm of flesh eating tree lizards.

[Auloria]

This is a reasonable complaint. They aren't calling bears "lions," the nomenclature has been pretty consistent with reality, so the wyvern is probably a mistake on their part.

[huth]

This is a reasonable complaint. They aren't calling bears "lions," the nomenclature has been pretty consistent with reality, so the wyvern is probably a mistake on their part.

That might be because bears and lions are actual real things, as opposed to a heraldic dragon.

For that matter, how about everybody gives a written list of what they consider to be the most important features to make something a wyvern. No, "not like a WoW wyvern" is not a legit feature.

[Trigg]

I feel the same as you, OP. They more resemble manticore than wyvern. And it always bugged the hell out of me.

And slightly off-topic, but related to your image. It annoys the hell out of me when someone refers to the image you showed as a dragon. Dragons have 4 "legs" (some call the front ones arms, some legs), while wyvern have 2 legs and no arms, using their wings as psuedo-arms.

I'd usually agree with you on the fact that most dragons have 4 legs, but there are exceptions.

i.e.:




Most bad ass depiction of a dragon in modern cinema tbh.

[Wynnyelle]

I always hate these kinds of threads. It doesn't make any sense. I could understand if wyvern/dragons/etc. were real creatures, but they aren't. There is not some set standard that everybody has to follow because they're fantasy creatures. I'm normally not one to defend Blizzard, but nitpicking over something like this is just dumb.

[Firecrest]

I don't remember a single video game or movie in the history of my 30 years on earth where A basilisk was not portrayed as a large snake or Alligator.

I guess your fantasy experience must be very limited then, since they get the rooster head treatment quite often.