worries/hopes about FR's art direction | Flight Rising Discussion

[quote name="ColonelChicken" date="2024-04-16 01:31:47" ] Gaolers aren't really big either, honestly, they look a little less skinwrapped than their fellow ancients because they're covered in fur, but they're still not fat. Even Obelisks and Bogsneaks, who definitely look sturdy enough, aren't really fat. I think modern breeds have their own issues with diversity in their designs as well, with pretty much all of them being given a dog-like anatomy (Snappers and Bogsneaks are notable exceptions), which isn't really my thing either. I'd rather see new breeds, modern or ancients, that really take inspiration from... Well. [i]Dragons[/i]. Dragons aren't dogs, they aren't reptiles or dinosaurs, they're their own special little thing and they've been out here looking really weird, fun and unique for ages. I get that the site sort of wanted to follow the Dungeon and Dragon archetype for its main breeds, with the same body plan (4 legs, 2 (useless) wings, a lizard-y head, that kind of stuff), but I was sort of led to believe Ancients would break the mold. I'm a little bummed they didn't, but hey, who knows what the future holds? For all we know, they're getting all the bland breeds out of the way first, and the real treats will come later :) Anyway. Give me a little funny guy : [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Uccello_-_Saint_Georges_terrassant_le_dragon%2C_1430-35.jpg[/img] [/quote] This funny guy is exactly what I hope to see someday! And yeah I don't think the old moderns are that diverse either, it's just disappointing that ancients, which were billed by many as a way to diversify the dragons, are significantly less diverse in their basic shapes.

sixthdoctor

348

670

747

650

April 16, 2024 10:27:42

ColonelChicken wrote on 2024-04-16 01:31:47:

Gaolers aren't really big either, honestly, they look a little less skinwrapped than their fellow ancients because they're covered in fur, but they're still not fat. Even Obelisks and Bogsneaks, who definitely look sturdy enough, aren't really fat.

I think modern breeds have their own issues with diversity in their designs as well, with pretty much all of them being given a dog-like anatomy (Snappers and Bogsneaks are notable exceptions), which isn't really my thing either. I'd rather see new breeds, modern or ancients, that really take inspiration from... Well. Dragons. Dragons aren't dogs, they aren't reptiles or dinosaurs, they're their own special little thing and they've been out here looking really weird, fun and unique for ages.

I get that the site sort of wanted to follow the Dungeon and Dragon archetype for its main breeds, with the same body plan (4 legs, 2 (useless) wings, a lizard-y head, that kind of stuff), but I was sort of led to believe Ancients would break the mold. I'm a little bummed they didn't, but hey, who knows what the future holds? For all we know, they're getting all the bland breeds out of the way first, and the real treats will come later :)

Anyway. Give me a little funny guy :

Uccello_-_Saint_Georges_terrassant_le_dragon%2C_1430-35.jpg

Uccello_-_Saint_Georges_terrassant_le_dragon%2C_1430-35.jpg

This funny guy is exactly what I hope to see someday!

And yeah I don't think the old moderns are that diverse either, it's just disappointing that ancients, which were billed by many as a way to diversify the dragons, are significantly less diverse in their basic shapes.

i do agree that we need more bulkier dragons, but im not really sure if the intentions behind the similar body types is due to just marketing appeal with ancients, as most modern breeds also suffer from it with the exception of snappers and maybe bogsneaks. i think it's just a design choice which is not a defense but rather explain it? like it isn't just a recent thing with ancients, from the images you showed it looks like it's just always been a thing (as for undertides im actually glad they went for that face shape, makes them look more leviathn-y)

i do like the dragon designs here but i can admit they can be kinda same-y anatomy wise, and it does make me sad how the chunkie breeds and breeds with more unique anatomy get less attention due to them being "ugly". with ancients i was kinda hoping they'd go more crazy with designs seen as they don't have the same restrictions. the earth ancient seems to be based on armadillos so hopefully another chunkier breed maybe?

astrojelly

321

40

68

738

April 16, 2024 10:30:07

i do agree that we need more bulkier dragons, but im not really sure if the intentions behind the similar body types is due to just marketing appeal with ancients, as most modern breeds also suffer from it with the exception of snappers and maybe bogsneaks. i think it's just a design choice which is not a defense but rather explain it? like it isn't just a recent thing with ancients, from the images you showed it looks like it's just always been a thing (as for undertides im actually glad they went for that face shape, makes them look more leviathn-y)

i do like the dragon designs here but i can admit they can be kinda same-y anatomy wise, and it does make me sad how the chunkie breeds and breeds with more unique anatomy get less attention due to them being "ugly". with ancients i was kinda hoping they'd go more crazy with designs seen as they don't have the same restrictions. the earth ancient seems to be based on armadillos so hopefully another chunkier breed maybe?

she doesnt even know
basic math--->

- she/her
- avatar
- please ping

in reply+quote

Last edited on Apr 16, 2024 10:33:09 by astrojelly

@ColonelChicken what do you mean the breeds look like dogs? i know every breed minus bogsneaks have legs underneath them but that's not a manmal exclusive trait (non avian dinosaurs and birds for example). bogsneaks are an exception to pretty much every rule of design on site though they're literally just moniter lizards.

honestly there seems to be 2 types of people who like dragons, people who understand dragon is an almost meaningless term and can apply to anything big and reptilian enough and people who take the definition really rigidly and call dragons with different amounts of limbs a different species (wyverns, drakes, lindwyrms, ect). trying to appeal to both types of fans while also keeping in mind that snakes not lizards are the basis for a large amount of beliefs/folklore in parts of the world (there's a very large amount of chinese users i see on this site for example) is going to be difficult and im not surprised one direction is being heavily favored. though similar design beats in a row makes it feel like more of a problem than it probably is. i'd love to see more dragons with less sinious body plans though, if a snail is a dragon the sky's the limit.

bulrush

711

196

1211

3027

April 16, 2024 10:43:27

@ColonelChicken what do you mean the breeds look like dogs? i know every breed minus bogsneaks have legs underneath them but that's not a manmal exclusive trait (non avian dinosaurs and birds for example). bogsneaks are an exception to pretty much every rule of design on site though they're literally just moniter lizards.

honestly there seems to be 2 types of people who like dragons, people who understand dragon is an almost meaningless term and can apply to anything big and reptilian enough and people who take the definition really rigidly and call dragons with different amounts of limbs a different species (wyverns, drakes, lindwyrms, ect). trying to appeal to both types of fans while also keeping in mind that snakes not lizards are the basis for a large amount of beliefs/folklore in parts of the world (there's a very large amount of chinese users i see on this site for example) is going to be difficult and im not surprised one direction is being heavily favored. though similar design beats in a row makes it feel like more of a problem than it probably is. i'd love to see more dragons with less sinious body plans though, if a snail is a dragon the sky's the limit.

While I like the new ancients, I wouldn't mind for there to be a more rotund ancient breed- and honestly I'd be damn shocked if this upcoming one is thin.

I mean...Sandshrew (something that seems to be generally similar concept to this one) is a circle, and so are the new lads seemingly. I do recall something about different body types being something they want to do (I think it was back around when Baldwin got his current art...?) So hopefully they'll be different in that way!

~~I also want a Chinese dragon or something- even if it's a rotund one.~~

StarDay

612

378

1041

1852

April 16, 2024 10:54:54

While I like the new ancients, I wouldn't mind for there to be a more rotund ancient breed- and honestly I'd be damn shocked if this upcoming one is thin.

I mean...Sandshrew (something that seems to be generally similar concept to this one) is a circle, and so are the new lads seemingly. I do recall something about different body types being something they want to do (I think it was back around when Baldwin got his current art...?) So hopefully they'll be different in that way!

~~I also want a Chinese dragon or something- even if it's a rotund one.~~

I have nothing substantial to add to the conversation, I just want to see that I agree with you. It's hard to ignore when you put all of the species together, and when I look back on it, I think that it might contribute to my lack of interest in the new Ancients. That being said, I hope the new guys are buff and stocky like pangolins.

BlackDiamond13

526

208

970

812

April 16, 2024 10:55:44

I have nothing substantial to add to the conversation, I just want to see that I agree with you. It's hard to ignore when you put all of the species together, and when I look back on it, I think that it might contribute to my lack of interest in the new Ancients. That being said, I hope the new guys are buff and stocky like pangolins.

i definitely agree with wanting more fat and interesting body types/faces with the breeds, you laid it out well with plenty of evidence for people who haven't considered it before. people have been hoping for more fat dragons, bulky/buff dragons, more interesting bodies/faces, more ancients that actually take advantage of the lack of rules that moderns have (like aberrations), etc for years, since its also been an issue that predated ancients and was a topic with moderns too. its a bummer we dont have any fat ancients. gaolers are closest to even being bulky, and they're not really bulky they're just furry. theres so many animals (including reptiles) that could be used as inspiration for more interesting shapes than just noodles. hoping for something different with the next breed

Promare

504

201

982

4537

April 16, 2024 12:41:35

i definitely agree with wanting more fat and interesting body types/faces with the breeds, you laid it out well with plenty of evidence for people who haven't considered it before. people have been hoping for more fat dragons, bulky/buff dragons, more interesting bodies/faces, more ancients that actually take advantage of the lack of rules that moderns have (like aberrations), etc for years, since its also been an issue that predated ancients and was a topic with moderns too. its a bummer we dont have any fat ancients. gaolers are closest to even being bulky, and they're not really bulky they're just furry. theres so many animals (including reptiles) that could be used as inspiration for more interesting shapes than just noodles. hoping for something different with the next breed

The eyes of Lio Fotia and Galo Thymos from Promare in official art by Hiroyuki Imaishi staring dramatically past the viewer. There is a ball of fire in their colors (blue, pink, and white) between them

Last edited on Apr 16, 2024 12:43:13 by Promare

big agree, im obsessed with auraboas rn but snappers and bogsneaks are all time favorites too.

sarebaas

564

255

322

521

April 16, 2024 13:03:28

big agree, im obsessed with auraboas rn but snappers and bogsneaks are all time favorites too.

sssshhhh

Velvet Autumn Hatchery

ssshhh

sssshhhh

Avatar Dragon

sssshhhh

Last edited on Apr 16, 2024 13:08:23 by sarebaas

[quote name="RhythmMachine" date="2024-04-16 09:23:12" ] Sometimes I also find it a bit strange that there isn't more variety in the "monstrous dragon" department, considering plague is a highly popular flight. I'm under the impression that plaguelings aren't playing this game for the cute an fluffy breeds. Maybe I am wrong? I'm always confused. [/quote] This thread is making a lot of great points on the noodles, but also - yes, this 1000%. I jumped on Plague the moment I joined the game, and it was 100% because of the monster/spooky draw. I’m here for the monsters, ya’ll. Please give me more monsters. That being said, if you can forgive me for not articulating my own thoughts the best on this (today has been mega stressful), I do also want to say - since coming back from my hiatus, I have definitely noticed the art has gotten a little samesy and I think FR is missing a bit of the key demographic and [i]point[/i] by sticking to that cutesy noodle design. The point of dragons is that they don’t exist, and part of the appeal of things that don’t exist is that by definition, they are… unconventional, for a lack of a better word. If they WERE conventional, they would be a regular part of our lives - either by existing (which they don’t), or being more mainstream popular than they are as a fictional entity. And while yes, it can be argued that probably something like 95% of this site’s users grew up reading books with dragon riders or something, I think people forget that the reason we are drawn to unconventional things (such as fictional monsters commonly depicted as creatures of mass destruction), is because we ourselves feel unconventional and different from the norm. And what is the norm? Thin. Pretty. Cutesy, in some cases. Clean, and put together. Non-offensive - but only in the way that can be sold to the largest demographic available. You could call catering to that norm fatphobic, but I think that misses a broader point; the thing these dragons have in common are that they are just regular, non-offensive, ordinary modern fantasy dragons, and if you saw a toy like them on a shelf at Walmart, you wouldn’t even blink. To me, they feel like they lack the appeal of being unconventional and dangerous that draws people to dragons in the first place. Or to put it simply; I’m non-binary, fat, and not conventionally attractive, and I’m drawn to monsters and dragons because I don’t feel like I conform to society’s standards. It’s a little disappointing that I can’t even escape the norm on a virtual pet site. Also I vote the next dragon should look like this; [img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Hu4YgPvAdIPdRNDlI4dgIYOpli8=/0x0:1837x770/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1837x770):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24551732/big_dragon_2.jpg[/img]

PhantomAsh

310

90

276

331

April 16, 2024 13:49:31

RhythmMachine wrote on 2024-04-16 09:23:12:

Sometimes I also find it a bit strange that there isn't more variety in the "monstrous dragon" department, considering plague is a highly popular flight. I'm under the impression that plaguelings aren't playing this game for the cute an fluffy breeds. Maybe I am wrong? I'm always confused.

This thread is making a lot of great points on the noodles, but also - yes, this 1000%. I jumped on Plague the moment I joined the game, and it was 100% because of the monster/spooky draw. I’m here for the monsters, ya’ll. Please give me more monsters.

That being said, if you can forgive me for not articulating my own thoughts the best on this (today has been mega stressful), I do also want to say - since coming back from my hiatus, I have definitely noticed the art has gotten a little samesy and I think FR is missing a bit of the key demographic and point by sticking to that cutesy noodle design. The point of dragons is that they don’t exist, and part of the appeal of things that don’t exist is that by definition, they are… unconventional, for a lack of a better word. If they WERE conventional, they would be a regular part of our lives - either by existing (which they don’t), or being more mainstream popular than they are as a fictional entity.

And while yes, it can be argued that probably something like 95% of this site’s users grew up reading books with dragon riders or something, I think people forget that the reason we are drawn to unconventional things (such as fictional monsters commonly depicted as creatures of mass destruction), is because we ourselves feel unconventional and different from the norm. And what is the norm? Thin. Pretty. Cutesy, in some cases. Clean, and put together. Non-offensive - but only in the way that can be sold to the largest demographic available.

You could call catering to that norm fatphobic, but I think that misses a broader point; the thing these dragons have in common are that they are just regular, non-offensive, ordinary modern fantasy dragons, and if you saw a toy like them on a shelf at Walmart, you wouldn’t even blink. To me, they feel like they lack the appeal of being unconventional and dangerous that draws people to dragons in the first place.

Or to put it simply; I’m non-binary, fat, and not conventionally attractive, and I’m drawn to monsters and dragons because I don’t feel like I conform to society’s standards. It’s a little disappointing that I can’t even escape the norm on a virtual pet site.

Also I vote the next dragon should look like this;

ash | late 20s | they / them | FR+0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
» Free Dragons & Hatchlings
» Wishlist by Dragon or Price
» Personal Long Drop Challenge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
talk to me if you're selling G1s
in the cinnamon > auburn range

[quote name="RhythmMachine" date="2024-04-16 09:23:12" ]Hope that this doesn't come across as a whiny post, but I get OP's point. It feels like artwork is definitely leaning on the safe side, with cute/fluffy/elegant being the main design themes. The body shape seems to be mostly sticking to "average and already tried and tested" instead of something very different, but since I have literally 0 interest in ancients, that doesn't affect me much. In relation to other art choices: I've accepted a few years ago that the design direction that the devs are taking isn't specifically catering to my tastes, and that's fine, because it doesn't have to. I've also accepted that the definition of what passes here as a "dragon" is vastly different to what I consider to be a dragon. For instance, to me, skydancers are just hippogriffs/birds with 4 legs and obelisks are cats with horns and wings. If I showed that to a random person on the street, I don't think they'd describe it as a dragon, unless they knew FR. In my head, I'm actually playing "Magical Creature Rising" instead of "Flight Rising" haha, because most of the breeds here are way too diverse for me to describe as draconic. Something menacing, reptilian, dangerous, not cute etc, what some others have described would fit that bill better, for me.[/quote] Agree. I think the only even-vaguely menacing breeds we've had in the past few years are aberrations, banescales and sandsurges, and even the latter 2 only look menacing in one of their poses & abbies in particular are a chimeric mix between avian with a dash of rat. I guess they made auraboa faces like a hybrid between hognoses and pugs to avoid them being called feathery undertides, but it does feel strange that aura[i]boas[/i] don't really resemble, well, [i]boas[/i]. I'm going to assume it's a mixture of pragmatic decision and personal taste on the part of staff, since the likes of skydancers and aethers are more popular than ridgebacks or banescales. It's probably just me, but it does feel like (even outside of FR) dragon designs are becoming more mammalian/cutesy/elegant to the point that something like Dungeon Meshi's red dragon* feels like a breath of fresh air. It's why aethers felt very safe to me design-wise, since although they were based on moths they... feel more like a ferret with a cat-pug face that just happens to have moth wings if that makes sense? *which is basically what would've been mostly** a generic DnD dragon (aka spicy sauropod) before like, what, the mid 2010s or so? (don't get me wrong, I love DM's red dragon precisely because I'm basic and think spicy sauropods are peak dragon designs) **since it doesn't have wings [quote name="PhantomAsh" date="2024-04-16 13:49:31" ] Also I vote the next dragon should look like this; [img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Hu4YgPvAdIPdRNDlI4dgIYOpli8=/0x0:1837x770/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1837x770):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24551732/big_dragon_2.jpg[/img] [/quote] Also this.

Seadramon

742

261

1144

1477

April 16, 2024 14:13:42

RhythmMachine wrote on 2024-04-16 09:23:12:

Hope that this doesn't come across as a whiny post, but I get OP's point. It feels like artwork is definitely leaning on the safe side, with cute/fluffy/elegant being the main design themes. The body shape seems to be mostly sticking to "average and already tried and tested" instead of something very different, but since I have literally 0 interest in ancients, that doesn't affect me much.

In relation to other art choices: I've accepted a few years ago that the design direction that the devs are taking isn't specifically catering to my tastes, and that's fine, because it doesn't have to. I've also accepted that the definition of what passes here as a "dragon" is vastly different to what I consider to be a dragon. For instance, to me, skydancers are just hippogriffs/birds with 4 legs and obelisks are cats with horns and wings. If I showed that to a random person on the street, I don't think they'd describe it as a dragon, unless they knew FR.

In my head, I'm actually playing "Magical Creature Rising" instead of "Flight Rising" haha, because most of the breeds here are way too diverse for me to describe as draconic. Something menacing, reptilian, dangerous, not cute etc, what some others have described would fit that bill better, for me.

Agree. I think the only even-vaguely menacing breeds we've had in the past few years are aberrations, banescales and sandsurges, and even the latter 2 only look menacing in one of their poses & abbies in particular are a chimeric mix between avian with a dash of rat. I guess they made auraboa faces like a hybrid between hognoses and pugs to avoid them being called feathery undertides, but it does feel strange that auraboas don't really resemble, well, boas.

I'm going to assume it's a mixture of pragmatic decision and personal taste on the part of staff, since the likes of skydancers and aethers are more popular than ridgebacks or banescales. It's probably just me, but it does feel like (even outside of FR) dragon designs are becoming more mammalian/cutesy/elegant to the point that something like Dungeon Meshi's red dragon* feels like a breath of fresh air. It's why aethers felt very safe to me design-wise, since although they were based on moths they... feel more like a ferret with a cat-pug face that just happens to have moth wings if that makes sense?

*which is basically what would've been mostly** a generic DnD dragon (aka spicy sauropod) before like, what, the mid 2010s or so? (don't get me wrong, I love DM's red dragon precisely because I'm basic and think spicy sauropods are peak dragon designs)

**since it doesn't have wings

PhantomAsh wrote on 2024-04-16 13:49:31:

Also I vote the next dragon should look like this;

Also this.

Last edited on Apr 16, 2024 14:20:06 by Seadramon

[quote name="PhantomAsh" date="2024-04-16 13:49:31" ] Or to put it simply; I’m non-binary, fat, and not conventionally attractive, and I’m drawn to monsters and dragons because I don’t feel like I conform to society’s standards. It’s a little disappointing that I can’t even escape the norm on a virtual pet site. Also I vote the next dragon should look like this; [img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Hu4YgPvAdIPdRNDlI4dgIYOpli8=/0x0:1837x770/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1837x770):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24551732/big_dragon_2.jpg[/img] [/quote] you really hit the nail on the head with this. real animals, even just reptiles, have so much more bodily variety than fr dragons have had as of late. i do have high hopes for the earth ancient— i hope it’s chunky and weird

Pirarucu

513

66

537

426

April 16, 2024 14:37:43

PhantomAsh wrote on 2024-04-16 13:49:31:

Or to put it simply; I’m non-binary, fat, and not conventionally attractive, and I’m drawn to monsters and dragons because I don’t feel like I conform to society’s standards. It’s a little disappointing that I can’t even escape the norm on a virtual pet site.

Also I vote the next dragon should look like this;

you really hit the nail on the head with this.
real animals, even just reptiles, have so much more bodily variety than fr dragons have had as of late. i do have high hopes for the earth ancient— i hope it’s chunky and weird

check out:
fishainsley.art
thanks love you