The Dragon's Den V.4

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Stoney: You do realize that games often create made up creatures/chimera creatures that are a combination of other mythilogical/non-mythilogical creatures. As Dragoniteuser showed you a Wyrm and Wyvern are different from the creature that was in Monster Hunter Tri.

Also, dragon's may vary in looks and types but they do still have some common features and body builds that you see in many pictures of dragons.
 
Monster Hunter Tri basically assigns certain 'types' to their dragons, iirc. Amlost all land monsters are wyverns, and all water monsters are leviathans. Not a very good standard to go by...
 
Ok, I've learned a few more things about dragons...

& Onix & Steelix look more like Wyrms than Snakes to me...
 
Well, in terms of body structure, there's really no difference between a wyrm and a snake, but Onix' face is just not dragonic, and neither is Steelix'.
 
Sign me up.

Favorite Dragons? Hydreigon, Haxorus.
Should Garchomp and/or Salamence be Uber? Nah.
Lance or Clair? Lance.
Which Dragon looks best Shiny? Haxorus hands down. Dude looks like a fricking Dark Armed Dragon.
Giratina: 'Origin' Form or 'Another' Form? I think Original.
Whats your Dragon Team? Well my competitive team is based on Darkness and Dragons. It has Zoroark, Hydreigon, Scrafty, Haxorus, Forretress and Jellicent.
Should Tyranitar be a Dragon? I used to think so but once Hydreigon was released, I think he's fine staying Dark and Rock.
What is your favorite legendary Dragon? Zekrom.
 
MoonlessMidnight said:
I Agree; the build of their bodies may be similar but the facial features just don't look much like a dragon's.
Click to expand...
& they look even less like snakes...
(Regarding their faces)
 
Well, I'll have to bring the two obvious examples here:
I don't think anyone would doubt Dratini and Dragonair being Dragons (me especially!), yet they look as much as snakes (if not more...) as Onix and Steelix!
 
Maybe if some sort of dragon trainer used them...but not even Dragon Tamers (many of whom only use Gyarados) use Onix / Steelix.
 
i would like to see a debate between weither aerodactyl should still be considered a dragon mainly because archeops has the same sort of body configuration it has a mouth hands on it's wings shortish legs but the only difference is feathers and a smaller head
 
Archeops is based on early birds, as, from what I remember, even the pokédex states.

Aerodactyl is based on pterodactyls and the like, dinosaurs, which are reptilian, and often closely associated with dragons (dragons are often seen as direct ancestors of surviving dinosaurs).

So, personally I can't see why Archeops is a dragon...

Interestingly, also, Aerodactyl has a vaster range of types in its' movepool, just like most dragons, whereas Archeops' movepool is much less varied.
 
This is how I see it: When in doubt, look at the typing.
If Dratini and Dragonair weren't Dragon-typed, no one would consider them Dragons. Yet, they are Dragons. Because of that typing. Onix and Steelix, on the other hand, are not Dragon-typed, and are therefor not Dragons.

Also, I don't think Dragons should be made out of rocks.
 
tkallab said:
Also, I don't think Dragons should be made out of rocks.
Click to expand...

You mean like Aerodactyl and T-tar? LOL

But I'm glad too see different opinions, just as I suspected... As I said at the begining, I never meant to actually add those two to the club, but to disscuss other options regarding dragon Pokemon...
I still think there are other Pokemon that are dragons and not on the list, Milotic comes to mind first, but I'll drop it since they were voted as non-dragons.

So how about a new discussion?
Let's discuss Druddigon..., probably one of the most terribly designed Pokemon.
[PokeCommunity.com] The Dragon's Den V.4
 
I'm actually a fan. Apart from the Oak-leaf wings, it is pretty cool. It has great stats, with such high defences to overcome its' speed problems, and a good attack stat. It also has a pretty good movepool and...what's that? Pure dragon? No rock-type weakness? Brilliant.

So, overall, Druddigon is an absolute babe of a pokémon, and should be revered as a triumph for the Dragon-type. After all, not even Ghetsis' Hydreigon could OHKO mine, although Cheren's Haxorus' Dragon Gem-boosted STAB Outrage did once, whilst 10 levels higher.
 
So..., it's a good pokemon statvise, aswell as movepoll variety...
Didn't know that, but then againg I never played B/W... :(
What I was refering to is it's design and name (sereously, what's up with 5th gen names?!?!?!?!)...
If the head was the same colour as the body, and the wings, well..., normal, then it would be OK with me. But...
 
If it had a blue head, it'd be boring. The name's O.k, although I can see where you're coming from there, as I can with the wings.
However, I don't think it's any worse than Haxorus, although his name makes more obvious sense.
 
In terms of design I hated Druddigon. Stat wise Druddigon is fine though I never use him. I preferred to use Hydragon and Haxorus. Though I must admit that I like Druddigon's design better than Kyurem's design.

The only thing that bugs me about Druddigon's design are the wings and the fact that the face is all red. Maybe if they made it look like the red part was kinda like armor and showed the bottom jaw as blue skin it may look a bit better. As for his wings...make them a different shape.
 
I think Druddigon is an original take on gargoyles. Gargoyles aren't necessarily dragons, but they're usually fierce creatures with hypnotizingly creepy eyes, which Druddy kinda seems to represent. Also, Druddigon's head is most likely based on a castle's crenels. SO in terms of design, I think he's brilliant. Yes, he is ugly, but that doesn't mean he isn't designed well. He's meant to be repulsive, like a gargoyle. Plus, you can't tell me everything in nature is pretty.

At least Druddy's not an ice cream with a face.
 
tkallab said:
I think Druddigon is an original take on gargoyles. Gargoyles aren't necessarily dragons, but they're usually fierce creatures with hypnotizingly creepy eyes, which Druddy kinda seems to represent. Also, Druddigon's head is most likely based on a castle's crenels. SO in terms of design, I think he's brilliant. Yes, he is ugly, but that doesn't mean he isn't designed well. He's meant to be repulsive, like a gargoyle. Plus, you can't tell me everything in nature is pretty.

At least Druddy's not an ice cream with a face.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, do you guys think that the ice cream pokemon is a VERY popular prey?
I would think so...

In regards to Druddigon:

I argee with tkallab:
Not everything in nature are pretty.
(Especially a VERY nasty critter I know as sun spiders...)

But if it performs well (& it looks like it does) I really couldn't care less about it's apperance.
& I STILL haven't seen any TRULY ugly pokemon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top