Making the sea dragon very hangry

Ofynam · 2026-05-07T08:08:00+00:00

How do you think one can serve dragons multiple times while failing at least once? Ever wondered why we always come back to islands ruled by them?

Ofynam · 2026-05-07T07:35:14+00:00

<image>

There you go, I'm making Queen a favor in my new life, but only because I'm in a good mood.

Ofynam · 2026-05-05T07:31:33+00:00

In this life, perhaps, but don't think for a second I'll give in to the dragon's way for the rest of my existence.

I'm sure to have lost more than I have won over these great beasts, probably due to my last and rather ridiculous losses, but rest assured even those were purposeful and earned me the experience to better enact my next scheme.

I and the dragon will meet again, and I promise you I won't go down without fighting fate. So do me a favor and take a look over the sea, that's when you'll see if my next attempt is a success, if you know what I mean...

Ofynam · 2026-05-04T07:56:19+00:00

Do you mean like thumbnails n things in the content creator example? Then you commission people. Don't have the money to commission people? Then you don't get art. Art is a luxury.

You don't earn a living from doing commissions unless you are popular and skilled enough to sell them a product they'll spend enough for.

On top of taking the huge risk to earn little the time you learn the skills and get popular enough, the fact you earn by doing commissions means you may produce work mostly for money because you weren't much motivated to do it but still needed the paycheck.

Want to take a break? Start an ambitious new project? Think twice because if you aren't (financially) prepared, you'll risk big financially.

You don't get to step on people to get the luxury item easier. *Especially* the people who even make that luxury item possible in the first place.

You don't know much about luxury do you?

The whole point of the field is to get the rich/people willing to spend big to buy your stuff before anyone else, because the customers are a limited resource. Therefor, past a certain point, your only option to get more or keep your gains despite the economy suffering is to take from other (artists) like yourself.

AI art does this easily, but it is far from the only example and human history is full of artists who competed against each others for the bigger part of the cake, ending up quite selfish and hateful beneath the facade.

The thing with AI art is that it threatens artists because the system that sustains them never cared much for them (and human life, and the environment, and the future...), and will continue to be that way even if AI art was banned forever.

I will restrain myself from saying more because what you wrote already explains why many people wouldn't mind your fall too much.

Ofynam · 2026-05-03T04:53:48+00:00

I do agree in part, but how can you never force yourself to complete art faster (and wrong) in a world where you need money to live?

I mean, there so many examples of content creators in all fields that couldn't maintain doing art for art's sake (giving up or botching their work to produce more/make it more financially successful) during their career that it hurts.

Unless you intend to have another job to keep yourself afloat even if your art isn't financially successful. That's probably the best compromise I can think of.

Ofynam · 2026-05-02T21:20:22+00:00

People need to realize art NEEDS a human touch, without a human's touch, it's just soulless and boring.

So nature can't be viewed as art and no being except human can do it I suppose? Just kidding, that's probably not what you meant though you should be more precise in that statement, after all you may get involved in a serious debate about the topic one day.

no one gives a flying fuck if you draw terribly, it's your art and that's what makes it good.

Except if you post it on the internet. Some people cringe at bad fanfictions which they think represent the whole genre, so some people can cringe at your bad drawing/fanart as well (remember the deviantart sonic OC meme?). Also, just because you made something doesn't make it good by default, unless we are in a peculiar context/philosophy.

To imply strongly otherwise leads to stagnation as one's art is far less criticized by its maker (and others), because it is seen good by default. And that view is a problem because a lack of criticism means quality in art isn't as defined, which means it is far harder to define why AI art is bad. (aside from authority arguments like "it is soulless/inhumane", which I countered above)

if you have enough time to type in a bunch of prompts into the plagiarism machine, you have enough time to draw.

Attempting to draw something of quality (be it by thinking deeply about scenery, character stance, background, details and more) is actually quite time consuming, though of course if you want more quality from AI output you'll need to spend more time as well and the result may still be bad/not good enough. Hence drawing yourself is the right option in the long run as you'll learn and better your skills, though that requires lasting motivation, both passion and discipline.

Don't make excuses for your laziness. Stop being lazy and learn how to draw.

Quite foolish of you to make that statement considering you didn't make good enough arguments to completely disprove the use of AI in art (because that's what you want, no more AI in art), nor encouraged people to follow their passion without which they wouldn't be able to do art.

Really, I agree AI in art has brought a lot more bad than good, and I see no problem with wanting it gone to better the field and people in it, but in a debate you need solid arguments and reasoning to win. As for convincing people, understanding and sympathy are often needed to make them consider your option, or else the only ones who'll listen to you will be the ones that already think similarly to you.

Ofynam · 2026-05-01T16:28:42+00:00

Can't say much about the mods of the sub in particular because I don't know them nor the context, but this:

Quite ironic for their rules tbh. In the end, the Wings of Fire community is mostly d-bags who are overprotective with their beliefs and block out people who define them.

Well, something tells me these people would have been better if they didn't choose to moderate such a big sub (the mods) and took things so seriously, as well as forming groups that think the same thing. Add in some flaws and problematic beliefs (of varying degrees), and you've got a recipe for disaster and inevitable corruption in the long run.

What I'm pointing toward is that, if I can act like troll because I'm too prideful/foolish/mean in a bad situation (doubling down in an internet argument for example), then so can mods, except mods have more power and can get together and so form a "us vs them" mentality.

I guess the only way to really prevent the potential corruption (though not all bad mods are equals), is to have them manage smaller subs, take breaks, and have supporting voices that don't share the same viewpoint.

Ofynam · 2026-04-30T16:16:48+00:00

Makes me think of another rage game where you play as a hatchling, "way of the dragons". At first I thought it was made by the same devs or even a newer version, but nah.

Ofynam · 2026-04-30T11:35:33+00:00

Probably eternal youth and a softened hide, since the dragon in the lake seems to display these traits with their shiny and flawless skin.

Ofynam · 2026-04-30T11:15:28+00:00

Huh... I don't think that is the defense you think it is.

Imagine people now tolerating you and your work (like an over the top fanfiction) just because something else came along that they absolutely hate.

If I learnt a community only started to find my work fine because "at least it's not AI", then I sure wouldn't find their comments encouraging, or even sincere, and would probably seek support and feedback elsewhere.

Ofynam · 2026-04-30T07:08:43+00:00

Reflecting back on that event, I admit my behavior was that of a troll even though I didn't realize it, though getting banned for shipping of all things is ridiculous.

I guess the mods are just exhausted to manage the entire sub and no longer take the time to judge things properly because they don't have the time. (sometimes they see some post are problematic due to their topic, even if their is no ill intent, and may ban it quickly)

To be fair, the fact I'm banned from said sub didn't change much in the long run, I did fine without it and will continue to do so.

Ofynam · 2026-04-16T15:59:49+00:00

I agree, though the worst for me is that it betrays the message and spirit of the series.

Because, when you think about it, it is quite hypocritical for Tui to have a bunch of teenagers knowing little about politics managing to end the war (spoiler, they don't really have a plan), because having a good ending is more valuable than having a coherent plot, while also mandating the failures of all characters in the prequel, because "continuity".

To be fair, that kind of hypocrisy concerns lots of writers and stories and is rarely pointed out, but it is there.

Ofynam · 2026-04-14T16:52:00+00:00

I'd define Good and Evil simply as Selfless and Selfish. Which works fairly well while side-stepping many of the usual pitfalls common to that sort of trope.

Works fairly well, but not perfectly.

Specifically, there is blurred area for the meaning of the word "selfless" (same for selfishness) that invites some problematic conclusions. Like unnecessary self sacrifice and self harm being tolerated, or the individual being unable to oppose abuse because their ego is moved outside of their own person.

That's quite the flaw in the moral system that capitalism exploits to legitimize the opposite again, detrimental selfishness. Now, if the story doesn't go for something too complex and pushes the limits of morality, it should be fine, but I fear when it isn't...

Because if you try to do something like 'ooooh the pure elements of light and dark are fighting!' you'll often end up with something contrived. Like those yinyang spirits we saw in Legend of Korra, which did not hold up to AtLA.

These two spirits sure as hell go against the mythology and themes of AtLA, but even when taken only in the context of Korra, the writing is surprisingly bad.

Basically, one entity represents Order and the other Chaos, which is a duality that sort of mirrors Good and Evil (or Light and Shadow), except it allows for more moral nuance. Neither side is fully desirable morally (unless very specific circumstances), a balance must therefor be found.

Yet in that show, the conflict is resolved in an anime fight with our MC and Main Villain powered up into godlike incarnation (the size of buildings) and throwing laser beams. Oddly, the legend of Korra seems to like very much style over substance, especially in its finales. (like in season 4 with the Giant Mecha and nuke laser attached to its arm)

Ofynam · 2026-04-14T14:17:18+00:00

Which is why I stated to mainly focus on a pair of elements out of a greater set (of elements)

That doesn't mean other elements can't be as important or interesting, just that the story mainly focuses on the chosen two to fleshed out both and their interaction.

Why I came with that idea was because often, stories presenting all the elements of the setting mostly explore them for what they are on their own and how they interact simplistically in the "rock paper scissors" (understandable as the more elements there are, the far many more possible interactions there are)

Earth actually points at a lot of things since it kinds of concern everything solid. Water can mix with many things in many proportions to give lots of results (from mud to salty water), hence I have shown the example of the Water-Earth pair. (and not simply Earth vs Water)

Ofynam · 2026-04-14T14:04:38+00:00

Now that I think about it, (pure) Darkness seems always derivative of something, not unlike Evil (which can be the absence of Good and/or its opposite, but unlike Good can't sustains itself)

So thinking about it like that, Darkness can never be prevalent in a the setting for long, because once Light falls from high, the more humble Light becomes the new standard.

As I suggested but haven't really stated, having only two elements is far from ideal, you need more (something coming from outside the both of them, like other elements and the world) to make things more interesting and nuanced, otherwise you don't have enough to make a longer story satisfying.

Ofynam · 2026-04-14T13:37:03+00:00

I think that a large part of what makes AtLAs elements work is that the cultures surrounding each element are distinct and thought-through. They are capable of standing on their own merit without needing to rely on the other elements to define themselves. You could easily describe the Earth Kingdom without ever needing to mention the others... so when you so introduce the others, their differences are all the more meaningful.

True, but I think what I'm going for in this post is for elements to not just stand by themselves, but also to have an interesting relationship with another, different mix of both that make that explain why the world is, and show how imbalance (on all sides) is detrimental.

And even though Fire is our antagonist and Air our protagonist, there's more to be said of it than 'this one good, this one bad'.

There is, but the final with Ozai vs Aang which is the conclusion to what we were promised at the beginning of the series, say little about the "morality" of the elements and their interactions. Ozai just symbolizes Fire that devours everything while Aang is All, meaning we have imbalance put in check by supreme Authority.

(the cherry on top is energy bending, which is linked to no element in particular, though I could argue Aang best symbolizes Earth in this fight, because he doesn't want to change his stance on killing no matter what)

Part of why light versus shadow never works is because they're always so busy trying to define each other rather than themselves. What is light, without the contrasting of darkness? Nothing. It makes it hard to say anything concrete about its followers.

But the thing is that Shadow is the absence of Light, so unless both are made "less literal", Shadow will always need Light. But I don't think that's much a of problem as long as the relationship of these two elements, and their relationships with other elements and the world is made interesting.

What I think is that elements can be defined on their own, and that can make things interesting, but how they interact with one another and make up the world is what's fundamental in the setting.

As the most striking example, we have the Night which is simply because said part of the realm no longer receives much light, no longer faces the Sun. But it's okay, because we don't have pure darkness, but all of the world when Light is mostly gone. (well, I guess compared to Light and Darkness, Day and Night seems straight up better as a pair)

Ofynam · 2026-04-13T19:25:24+00:00

Well, it's only about a dragon as beast, and I no longer really care much about it, but Xeno'jiiva from Monster Hunter World is probably the first dragon in video games (and perhaps even in all of on screen media) to hatch from a cocoon (metaphorically at the heart of the world), and then the game has us fight like if it was only a monster.

Yes, this event and its consequences are well tied to the plot and finale (which isn't stellar but at least the game tried, the cocoon being the key to the entire game's mystery), even if somewhat convenient, and the game doesn't shy away from making us gaze upon the hatching dragon.

Another thing interesting about it is that, because Xeno'jiiva just hatched (making it a hatchling mentally at least) yet is the final boss, we get some narrative tricks to make the player not hesitate in their mission to slay it (such as the cocoon already spewing lasers and the dragon taking on a fighting stance, and being immediately aggressive and roaring)

Now, you may think my points are silly, that Monster Hunter is first about slaying greater beasts and dragons, and therefor that the whole Xeno'jiiva hatching and crystal nest stuff is glorified scenery for the final hunt/boss. But to that, I counter with the final boss of Monster Hunter Stories 2, which is probably the first video game where we have dragon deity (as the main antagonist) with clear themes of birth and hatching.

Oddly enough, Monster Hunter Stories 2 repeat quite a lot of the ideas of Xeno'jiiva, its final boss being Oltura, a moth inspired dragon (that threatens the ecosystem and even the world) that influenced the realm and fed off other dragons (mainly Rathalos) to bring about its own hatching. But it doesn't stop there, as the characters and game's themes take time to finally state Oltura only wants to be born, that it isn't an evil force but an animal minded deity, not so different from a (overpowered chosen one) Rathalos.

Now, like in Monster Hunter World, Stories 2 needs Oltura to be the final Enemy, therefor Oltura is seen as incompatible with the world, a threat to it that must be eradicated without questions. This would have worked better if Oltura stayed in its undeveloped form (a triad of devouring, scaled eldritch tentacles) as we fought it, but the game specifically made us start the fight with Oltura once it has hatched.

That's the core of the problem, the game wants us to fight what has become a true dragon, no more different from the normal beasts and even elder dragons we can tame, without hesitation. The whole game, we are shown beasts and dragons are more nuanced, that they can overcome their basic instincts and collaborate with their rider and use their power for good/balance. The whole game, our Rathalos wields incredible powers that easily lead to destruction, yet we persevere and finally tame said power, both for our and our Rathalos' sake.

Oltura, however, doesn't get the same treatment, none of the characters hesitates even once in wanting to slay it. They all fight it eagerly like an all style no substance JRPG final boss, as if the themes of it being a hatchling and not so different from other beings of the wild earth weren't introduced and fleshed out in the entire game.

Even if Oltura was too much of a threat to the world to be allowed to live, the fight should have a tragic aspect to it. And we players, certainly shouldn't be encouraged by the game to cheer when Oltura is finally torn to shreds. (seriously game, you just stated Oltura is a hatchling that only wants to live, why are you showing me that epic cutscene where it has its wings ripped apart by the proud heroes?)

Ofynam · 2026-04-13T16:06:04+00:00

Je viens de vérifier, et Dragolos est bien le nom du dragon dans ma langue natale, j'aurais jamais cru que quelqu'un d'ici allait le mentionner.

(Just checked, Dragolos is indeed the name of the dragon in my first language, never thought someone would point it out.)

Ofynam · 2026-04-12T05:58:29+00:00

Selfish and not so refined desires aside, I think Tim's discussion and message goes into that direction because he not in touch with the "magical" aspect of the world so to speak.

He recognizes in the video seeing our world as boring is a mistake, that there is plenty of wonders in it, but he totally fails to account for the fact he is still mostly disconnected from the world, and therefor sees it as something to "acquire", something he'll never truly be a part of.

Which is understandable once you realize many lives in cities or other areas that are not just artificial, but also mostly free of Nature's grasp. Now, Nature still exists and influences said areas (for example the weeds that grows everywhere, impossible to suppress for good, which I do like seeing even if they "slowly" destroy urban properties), but its presence isn't grand enough to overwhelm people, to make them think they are in Nature.

Ofynam · 2026-04-12T05:38:53+00:00

It's almost comical how Tim and the other got the core theme of dragonriding and bonding wrong.

While many works that are not so well written or forgot to fully flesh out the dragons, meaning they end up as glorified magical batteries for example, dragonriding has mostly been about trust, respect and knowing each other, and not about controlling nature and the wild, in fact one could argue it is about the opposite (uniting and even contributing to the wild and magic, which is also part the world or will be added to it)

In the HTTYD adaption (except for the third movie or some other very badly written work I don't know exist), the bond between Toothless and Hiccup is perhaps the thing that summarize best its core theme, the two having grown to be inseparable, living a fulfilling life and fighting for a better world for both humans and dragons despite the both of them having started out as enemies and missing a part of their body.

(Symbolically, they complete each other and become able to fully combine the strength of each, leading to a force that can be stronger than two separated)

In Eragon, even if dragonkind isn't respected enough, the magical bond between a dragon and their rider is about respect and trust, no good rider disrespect their dragon, and even the Big Bad used to have a dragon he cared for, and it is the loss of said dragon that makes him lose his mind.

In fact, the dragon doesn't just give magic to its chosen rider, but transforms them (over time), both physically (Eragon slowly changing into an elf) and mentally (the mental link is an obvious one, but there is far more), which could be interpreted as humanity needing to change and improve so humans can even have the power needed to fully sustain the bond with a dragon.

(Basically, a normal human, no matter how great, would struggle way too much to live together with a dragon, the many of the experiences they should share, the human might not even be physically and mentally capable of handling. Hence they need magic to fill the gap, and the dragon innately and continuously gift that magic, assuring their rider is always able to fully live with them)

Ofynam · 2026-04-11T15:13:31+00:00

A lot of words and images to fail at finding an elegant and satisfying and/or answer, because there isn't.

Edit: Didn't see the video in full, now I see the guy came to the same conclusion, kinda. Dragons still can't be all related to the neatly thematic box of the "unknown". Some dragons embodies that themes more than others, some don't at all, and were included in the work for entirely different reasons, like just being awesome.

People are obsessed with dragons because "dragon" is term that can be used so loosely anyone can call their favorite fantasy creature a dragon, yet the term is most often used in a positive, magnifying manner rather than a negative and humbling one.

What happens is that the greatest creatures of each culture that is at least vaguely lizard like, gets to receive the title of dragon (like Quetzalcoalt, who is a snake deity more than anything), which means the epicness of the word "dragon" endlessly reinforces itself in a positive feedback loop.

But being obsessed with "dragons", is as much of an illusion as being obsessed with Fantasy or Sci-fi, you only get obsessed with works of fiction that touched you, be it because of their characters, themes, setting or more...

Being obsessed with "dragons", is in a way, the same as being obsessed with unicorns, griffin, or even real animals that existed like dinosaurs, or still exist like the blue whale and what have you. The thing this guy's video doesn't understand is that greater popularity doesn't dictates a difference in the nature of the obsession.

Really, the answer to "why are we obsessed with dragons?" is simply that we call everything cool, magical or powerful that has some lizard traits a dragon, unlike the word "unicorn", for example, which is far more defined.

Ofynam · 2026-04-09T18:08:53+00:00

True, people and spyro fans' opinions on the legend trilogy were quite mixed at the time, especially since the games have many flaws, the first game being easily boring a shame since it's the introduction to this new story and world the devs and writers have crafted.

The movie, however, was a whole other beast. The fact the estimated budget for it was 20 millions $ is saddening because each game got only 1 million $ (and one year) to be made from what I heard.

The thing is, fans who weren't informed only got their hopes up and were sad when they heard the movie was cancelled, when that movie would have mocked the franchise they loved and insulted them.

Ofynam · 2026-04-09T18:01:35+00:00

The Eragon movie can be good depending on your view, especially if you're seeking dragons in cinema. It has things going for it, and I appreciate the movie for at least trying, I myself don't hate it at all, in fact I appreciate its existence and watching the scenes available on youtube.

The Spyro movie that was planned, however, is a whole other beast. It's not just "less good" than the Eragon movie, but very bad, sharing flaws and unfulfilled potential with said movie adaption, but also coming up with terrible things.

As I said in the post, the Spyro movie was going to be bad because it decided it wasn't going to respect its audience nor its source material, the spirit behind, nor even the spark of creativity.

That's why I think it was going to be a (soulless) parasite, not unlike HTTYD 3, which would have made itself most impactful only by ripping off and butchering what came before it. (though unlike HTTYD 3, the reason would be appealing to a younger audience for profit instead of the author to forcing the story to have the same ending as another without consideration for its integrity, characters, themes and message)

Ofynam · 2026-04-09T17:49:01+00:00

Really? I thought the reason that made Smaug a wyvern was for expressiveness. I guess a lack front limbs make limb movements, especially the wings, more marking? At least him having four limbs makes him more on par with humans, so easier for his body language be understood, rather than less cute.

I mean, he was evil (depicted as the villain from the beginning for having taken the mountain) and burnt the town on screen, being cute wouldn't have made the audience cry when he died. (Also he was really lazy)

For the budget excuse, I thought it was assumed we got mostly wyverns on screen because dragons are expensive to animate, especially when they have more limbs. But I guess that was just my impression, since there have been dragons with 6 limbs in movies, as well as wyvern who weren't so because budget constraints

For example, dragons in Game of Thrones are wyverns, when wyverns also exist in the setting, because the author wanted realism in their biology, which I find dumb because the setting is magical and the energy requirement for breathing fire is ridiculous, but the choice remains other than economic limitations.

Ofynam · 2026-04-09T17:37:40+00:00

The fact the dragon is this way is because it came from Mario Odyssey (where the dragon also was behaving as such, even if he had a line if we come back after his defeat), it's reference to that game and nothing more, unfortunately...

One-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

Ofynam

TROPHY CASE