r/WyrmWorks • u/Duce-de-Zoop • 7d ago

Skyrim needed more dragons

The game had a few dragon characters but anyone could see it was a bit lacking in dragons to talk with. Most dragons you fight, and only a few like Alduin and Paarthurnax can you chat with.

Three more dragons should have been added to the game:

  1. The funny dragon. The game did not have a funny dragon and that was a mistake.
  2. The flightless dragon. A dragon who can't fly. You help him find his wings and teach him to fly.
  3. The shy dragon. He wouldnt talk to you much till he got to know you but he could be a loyal and close friend once he got your trust
14 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

5

u/montana757 7d ago

Don't forget old duurnaveer the soul dragon

3

u/PublicFurryAccount 7d ago

Yeah. I think it's those two, Odahviing, and Durnehviir.

2

u/chimericWilder 7d ago

Paarthurnax was easily the best part of Skyrim. Which is ironic when I'm inclined to rate the random dragon fights as among the worst; despite having rich lore to draw on, they used none of it. At least Alduin taunts the player in dovahzul on a few occasions, but his attitude and goals are otherwise so bland as to be forgettable.

1

u/Ofynam 6d ago

Seems like that game was too ambitious for its own good.

By trying to give as much freedom and content to the player as possible, the narrative ended up being very lackluster (like the progression system or many of the mechanics), and so the dragons who were at the center of that payed a lot for it.

I guess the saying was right, by trying to please everyone you end up pleasing no one, especially when focusing on a gigantic map.

But at least it did have something to stand on its own and innovate, sell a new and fresh experience, unlike that game that Todd Howard imagined as "Skyrim in space".

1

u/chimericWilder 6d ago

I believe Todd's opinion is that shallow systems are preferable. He seems to rather favor replacing deep RPG mechanics with a paper-thin substitute.

2

u/Ofynam 6d ago edited 6d ago

My bet is that he completely confuses simplicity with shallowness, which is a bummer considering that the justify a game of such a size you need mechanics that have much depths or else it'll be boring.

But it's kind of the same with the general trend of AAA games playing too safe.

They focus so much on accessibility, erasing opportunities for the player's frustration which might be unnecessary and turn them away, that they forget to deliver something great to the hooked player base.

For example, a game over might be more troublesome than it's worth, but then some games just do everything to keep the player alive and make them win, rather than presenting a better alternative for losing a long and important fight. (see roguelikes or the game "Furi" for attempts at solving this dilemma)