When I was watching the footage of a dragon flying, I thought something was off.

To me, the dragon's legs appear disproportionately huge and the wings seemed too frail to support its flight. This is not good because, if I don't believe the dragon is real-looking, or think it looks scrawny, it won't scare me. At the moment, it doesn't scare me because it looks weak.

So I tweaked it a bit, and my question for you is, which one would you prefer in-game?
[img]http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt10/NealKenneth/DragonComparison.jpg[/img]

---------

Excuse me, but doesn't the lore state that dragons fly by using magic?

Yes, and even with the extra flap of skin, dragons would not be able to fly with just their wings. Therefore, the extra flap does not conflict with lore. It simply appears more realistic, and allows the wings to help with flight.

Wouldn't the extra flap prevent dragons from articulating certain moves, or drag on the ground when walking?

If the flap of skin is elastic, it will not drag or prevent any movements.

If you're saying the dragon's wing skin should be connected to the body, I agree with you.

Meh

Well said sir.

For future reference, yes, that is what I am saying. haha

yea maybe it will scare me lol.. the apearence of the dragons are awesome

Me do too.

This is a bit of immersion and "realism" that I actually don't mind the dev teams working on.

It doesn't really matter to me, so I'll agree with meh.
Though, not to get you down on your attempt, but I find it a bit dubious that Bethesda will alter the dragons that they spent two years constructing because someone on the forum sends them an email, even if the poll backs it up.

I disagree since it's already established in the lore that their wings can't naturally sustain flight. They are aided by being "magical"

Moraelyn asked with a smile, "All right then, I've always wanted to know this - considering the shape of your mouth and teeth, how do dragons manage to speak the humanoid languages so clearly?"

Akatosh paused, and then carefully responded, "Why, in much the same way that we can fly, even though our wings are not naturally strong enough to support such heavy torsos."
http://www.imperial-library.info/content/daggerfall-king-edward-part-xii

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ClKfchxZ48&feature=youtube_gdata_player
/thread

Um... right. The dragons look great the way they are, its THEIR design and they can do whatever they want with it. Its not "a tiny, but important detail" (you're right about the tiny part though, wrong about it being anywhere near important), its their own idea of what a dragon looks like and since they are the ones in charge its up to them, not you, to decide their appearance.

And btw you need a "don't care / meh" option for the poll.

Dragons fly by their language in TES. The wings are for stability.

Meh

Yep... Some might argue that King Edward isn't the most reliable source, but I'd say to them; What source is truly reliable in Elder Scrolls lore eh? it's all ambiguous and contradictive. Which is why I like it! Makes it far more believable and realistic like the real world

I'm hoping that the change would be minor enough to consider, I wouldn't dare suggest something like another pair of legs.

To me, personally, its not that big of a deal. It would be nice if they could rework the dragons to look more realistic, but I don't think I will have time to study one if I happen to see it up close and personal.

Interesting response...but maybe the flight is just a little less magical? ;P

This. Aerodynamics are irrelevant, it's freakin' magic!

Dragons are fine as they are.

Haha, I'm counting on the "meh" people to not vote.

Your bias is showing.

It's true, it's not a major change. And I'm not faulting you for suggesting.

But first, think about what happens for Bethesda when they start accepting and responding to change-petitions while in the development cycle. Suddenly, everyone is going to submit their tweaks, and Bethesda will either have to ignore them and look hypocritical, or they'll have to take them on and be swamped with fan-changes until the release.

Second, responding to fans in direct specificity waters down Bethesda's own creative and cohesive world-view for what it is and how it is they want to portray the world. While this may seem a bit hyperbolic with your particular tweak, over a broad scheme, it can present a problem.

Third, Bethesda's past history is that they will respond to broad sweeping reactions regarding broad sweeping concepts. But they rarely change or omit something on a specific level unless it was universally reviled or taken issue with.

And Fourth, let's examine the issue a bit more closely here. There's been some grumbling about two-legged versus four-legged (ie four-limbed or six-limbed) dragons. The design currently in use is a four-limbed creature with two definite legs, and two hybrid wing/leg limbs. It's perfectly plausible (being fantasy, the term "realistic" is just a flag for "incoming comic relief") that the wing membrane is unbound to allow for greater range of movement at the shoulder when it's being used as an arm/leg rather than as a wing. As in, so it can swipe at you with an arm while on the ground without tearing a wing like a fat man flexing his arms in a too-small suit jacket and tearing the sleeves off.

Sorry, http://www.imperial-library.info/content/daggerfall-king-edward.

"These books should be regarded as historical novels, not official lore or history."

In other words, King Edward should be considered (fictional) historical fiction, not an account of past events.

all that I fear is the possible "dragon crashes into mountain and bounces in the opposite direction" glitch, it would be awesome if they implemented a feature that if its going to crash into a mountain he uses his feet to "jump" when he touches the surface...

Son of a mudcrab. I completely missed that little bit...

Though, fiction still has a basis in reality. And what he says in the fictional book makes sense. Seeing as how we have no knowledge to say otherwise. I'd accept it as a plausible explanation.