Spoiler Totk Dragon Ending Theory

[Guinea]

It supposes nothing. The resolution supposes a great deal.

Lemme emphasize the direct comparison I've been using a lot. I've brought up Baldur's Gate 3 a lot when talking about this particular story beat.

View attachment 77652

The Mindflayer tadpole is one of the earliest and longstanding plot points introduced in Baldur's Gate 3. It's the main method by which the (mostly) evil space of starfaring tentacles monsters known as the Mindflayers reproduce. They capture you, force one through your eye socket, and let it eat your brain. If the process has begun at all then it's regarded by the wider D&D world as irreversible, because it's eating your brain and then consuming your biomass to become a Mindflayer.

Like in Tears of the Kingdom, multiple characters we meet outright state that we should be dead and transformed by the time we meet them. An archmage, an arch druid, multiple healers, and a soldier whose species has dedicated itself to the extermination of mindflayers all tell us outright that this change should have taken days ago. We should have been quivering messes within hours of the thing being injected, but we aren't. Something is stopping this previously unstoppable transformation from taking place. It's the core mystery of the game's first act, but the reveal becomes a key narrative element across the rest of the game.

But now imagine if that mystery was never resolved. At the end of the game the tadpoles just plop out our heads without so much as a reaction from the player, only for it to be revealed in the 2024 D&D player's handbook that it was because the god of toilet paper reached down and plucked them from our brains.

That would suck. It is not the player's job to write the game for them. A key plot point in your game should never be left so unexplained and unresolved that the players have to write ****ing fanfiction to explain why it happened.

You would adore Final Fantasy 15 (sarcasm)

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

You would adore Final Fantasy 15 (sarcasm)

Gotta love a game where the main plot happens off screen in the form of a movie.

 

[Guinea]

Gotta love a game where the main plot happens off screen in the form of a movie.

I WISH it were only in that movie! I had to watch that movie, watch an anime, play another game and read a short novella before playing the main game, then I had to read another novella.

Edit- BUT I FIGURED IT OUT. I NOW KNOW THE STORY OF FF15. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

It supposes nothing. The resolution supposes a great deal.

Lemme emphasize the direct comparison I've been using a lot. I've brought up Baldur's Gate 3 a lot when talking about this particular story beat.

View attachment 77652

The Mindflayer tadpole is one of the earliest and longstanding plot points introduced in Baldur's Gate 3. It's the main method by which the (mostly) evil space of starfaring tentacles monsters known as the Mindflayers reproduce. They capture you, force one through your eye socket, and let it eat your brain. If the process has begun at all then it's regarded by the wider D&D world as irreversible, because it's eating your brain and then consuming your biomass to become a Mindflayer.

Like in Tears of the Kingdom, multiple characters we meet outright state that we should be dead and transformed by the time we meet them. An archmage, an arch druid, multiple healers, and a soldier whose species has dedicated itself to the extermination of mindflayers all tell us outright that this change should have taken days ago. We should have been quivering messes within hours of the thing being injected, but we aren't. Something is stopping this previously unstoppable transformation from taking place. It's the core mystery of the game's first act, but the reveal becomes a key narrative element across the rest of the game.

But now imagine if that mystery was never resolved. At the end of the game the tadpoles just plop out our heads without so much as a reaction from the player, only for it to be revealed in the 2024 D&D player's handbook that it was because the god of toilet paper reached down and plucked them from our brains.

That would suck. It is not the player's job to write the game for them. A key plot point in your game should never be left so unexplained and unresolved that the players have to write ****ing fanfiction to explain why it happened, and it especially shouldn't be left unresolved so that it can be explained in a source book or interview.

TotK doesn't build up to the idea of a cure, it builds up the opposite. We see through flashbacks of conversations that the dragon transformation is said to be a permanent thing. Characters with established expertise on the subject tell us it's a one way street, with the flashback plot culminating in said transformation. Not only is there is zero buildup to a reversion, but some of the characters who tell us it's a one way street just show up at the end to change Zelda back without explanation.

I get it. You prefer one story over the other. Comparing the the two creates a false equivalence. The games were written by different people, who wrote their stories with a different purpose. Most obvious difference being that one was written to work within the established lore, expand it, and drive the over all world narrative forward, in a way that continues to work with the established 5e lore. The other explicitly wants to include space for the player to formulate their own narrative, and intends for the lore to evolve as time goes on.

It's like trying to compare Stephen King to H. P. Lovecraft, to try explaining why Lovecraft was a bad writer.

You also say there "is zero buildup." Yet as I already pointed out:

That said, there were story elements to support the empowered recall, at the end. After all, we know that when a teacup falls (without getting caught), there is no getting it back either. Using recall relies on the memories of what is being recalled, and collecting Zelda's memories is a big issue, in this game. We are shown that individuals can combine powers to boost another's power. Then there's the visual elements of the empowered recall. (This is just off the top of my head, so there may be more story elements.)

Would I have liked more? Yes. But, as is, in game, that's not zero.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I get it. You prefer one story over the other. Comparing the the two creates a false equivalence. The games were written by different people, who wrote their stories with a different purpose. Most obvious difference being that one was written to work within the established lore, expand it, and drive the over all world narrative forward, in a way that continues to work with the established 5e lore. The other explicitly wants to include space for the player to formulate their own narrative, and intends for the lore to evolve as time goes on.

It's like trying to compare Stephen King to H. P. Lovecraft, to try explaining why Lovecraft was a bad writer.

You also say there "is zero buildup." Yet as I already pointed out:


Would I have liked more? Yes. But, as is, in game, that's not zero.

I'd call it preferring good story telling conventions. It's introducing a thing as impossible to undo and then paying off narratively why that impossible to undo thing is able to be undone. TotK and BG3 both say multiple times that their respective transformations are impossible to undo, but only BG3 actually pays off why that's the case when it comes to undoing them.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

Actually, the art of Kintsugi works into my point. While a broken cup, mended back together, shows the history of the break, a recalled cup would not show that history, despite the break still have happened.

To be fair, much like BotW, the majority of the game is optional. Link's memories of her are not the only ones at play.

Kintsugi/wabisabi isn't my point, it was just an illustrative example. Broken things can be mended. Physical changes are reversible. Chemical changes are irreversible. This isn't always the case, but it usually is. If you're told something is a chemical change, you wouldn't expect it to be reversible. And if someone reversed a chemical change, it would be surprising. For the story to reverse an irreversible change while emphasizing so heavily it can't be is akin to the stretch of disney films putting every effort into hiding their twist villains before rewriting their characters at the last minute

And I have no idea what you could possibly mean by your second paragraph lol. Yes, optional content is optional. There should be an optional ending that rewards that optional content in a connected way

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

I'd call it preferring good story telling conventions. It's introducing a thing as impossible to undo and then paying off narratively why that impossible to undo thing is able to be undone. TotK and BG3 both say multiple times that their respective transformations are impossible to undo, but only BG3 actually pays off why that's the case when it comes to undoing them.

Still two different approaches, to different goals. And, both do give the why. Some people just missed it, in one case.

Kintsugi/wabisabi isn't my point, it was just an illustrative example. Broken things can be mended. Physical changes are reversible. Chemical changes are irreversible. This isn't always the case, but it usually is. If you're told something is a chemical change, you wouldn't expect it to be reversible. And if someone reversed a chemical change, it would be surprising. For the story to reverse an irreversible change while emphasizing so heavily it can't be is akin to the stretch of disney films putting every effort into hiding their twist villains before rewriting their characters at the last minute

Issue is, we are not actually talking about repair, when it comes to time manipulation. We are talking about returning something to it's previous state, in alignment with it's own timeline. When it comes to time manipulation, it may still be entirely impossible to causally "fix" something; but having the ability to manipulate time always allows the natural flow of causality to be broken, bent, redirected, cheated, and so on. The whole story revolves around solving the situation with time manipulation. Zelda being flung back in time to help set up Ganondorf's eventual defeat. The Master Sword traveling back to be repaired. Zelda granting Link the recall ability from the distant past, that Link uses constantly through the game. Not to mention the numerous other games in the series that include time manipulation story elements. Using time manipulation to over come an impossible situation is not only an old hat, at this point, but not a big surprise at the end of this story in particular. Zelda sending Link back, with the power of the ocarina, at the end of OoT had less narrative lead up, and I don't see anyone complaining about that moment.

And I have no idea what you could possibly mean by your second paragraph lol. Yes, optional content is optional. There should be an optional ending that rewards that optional content in a connected way

To be fair, much like BotW, the majority of the game is optional. Link's memories of her are not the only ones at play.

I agree that getting all of the memories should have a greater impact on the end scenes, but at the same time, there are three people involved with using the recal ability on Zelda. their memories could very easily fill in the gaps in Link's memories. Their combined powers, their combined memories.

-------------------------------------

So, by my count, so far, there are more story elements that tell us that time manipulation is the solution, than there are story elements that tell us that there is no going back from going scaly.

Teacup scene, where we not only get an explanation of the ability, but are told that it relies on the memory of the thing.
The story telling us that the dragon memories are important.
Link being granted recall directly from Zelda, as apposed to the others, highlighting it's importance.
Link using the ability countless times in game play.
the scene where Sonia and Zelda boost one of Rauru's abilities.
Zelda using her knowledge of the future to stack the deck in Link's favor.
The Master Sword going back in time so it can be repaired in time for the final battle.
Then there's the visual elements of the recall ability being used on Zelda at the end, as a final reminder that time manipulation is a thing.

Vs.

Mineru telling Zelda that it can't be undone.
Zelda remembering that conversation.
Zelda being sad about the self sacrifice. (I'm being generous with this one)
The dragons being around current day.


Still going off of memory, so anyone, please, let me know if I forgot anything for either side.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

I agree that getting all of the memories should have a greater impact on the end scenes, but at the same time, there are three people involved with using the recal ability on Zelda. their memories could very easily fill in the gaps in Link's memories. Their combined powers, their combined memories.

Great so we're back to fanfiction

 

[Azure Sage]

Great so we're back to fanfiction

Extrapolating from what is presented in the story isn't the same as writing fanfiction. Literally anybody who paid attention to the game they were playing figured that out on their own. Extrapolation from text is just a regular critical thinking ability that normally goes hand in hand with consuming media. Complaining about having to do critical thinking when engaging with a piece of media is like complaining about about having to turn the pages when you read a book. You could at best say the story relied too much on player engagement if you wanted a complaint that didn't sound ridiculous.

 

[Angopik]

Right? The Zelda series has done this since the beginning. If something isn't outright confirmed, it can be inferred pretty easily through critical thinking. It works really well for this series because it affords fans with having their own unique experience with each legend being told

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

I just want to highlight this statement right here:

Extrapolating from what is presented in the story isn't the same as writing fanfiction.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

I think watching the ending of tears and thinking "oh, yeah, that makes sense" is the opposite of critical thinking lol
can't express how big of a difference there is between using evidence in the game to come up with a theory and spitballing that something happened to fill in gaps that exist because the story isn't written well

The story told by zelda's memories depend entirely on the weight of the sacrifice she's making. For that to be undone (for absolutely NO gain btw lol, that's the craziest part, the story is already over) also undoes the rest of the story. I adore Big Hero 6, and there are a lot of genuinely good things about it, but I'm not gonna sit here and defend the movie spending so much time getting you to think krei is the bad guy only to drop in a guy that the story established was DEAD. That's bad writing. It's the same exact situation here. Not only do I fail to understand how you think it's defensible, I also can't understand why you want to defend it so badly

 

[Azure Sage]

I think watching the ending of tears and thinking "oh, yeah, that makes sense" is the opposite of critical thinking lol
can't express how big of a difference there is between using evidence in the game to come up with a theory and spitballing that something happened to fill in gaps that exist because the story isn't written well

The story told by zelda's memories depend entirely on the weight of the sacrifice she's making. For that to be undone (for absolutely NO gain btw lol, that's the craziest part, the story is already over) also undoes the rest of the story. I adore Big Hero 6, and there are a lot of genuinely good things about it, but I'm not gonna sit here and defend the movie spending so much time getting you to think krei is the bad guy only to drop in a guy that the story established was DEAD. That's bad writing. It's the same exact situation here. Not only do I fail to understand how you think it's defensible, I also can't understand why you want to defend it so badly

Not gonna comment on the Big Hero 6 thing since I completely did not mind that twist, but as far as TotK goes... It definitely does not undo the rest of the story. Her sacrifice was made, the emotional beats of the story from that were felt. Zelda herself perceived it as being permanent. That hit hard. But she did her time. She spent thousands of years as a mindless dragon. That is the consequences of her choice. Spending an eternity as a dragon, never to be undone, despite the core story quest of the game being "Find Princess Zelda" which by the way doesnt count as cleared until you actually bring her home at the end, would have been running completely counter to what the story set up. Where even is the emotional value in that kind of ending? That sounds like something pinkarry would say ("zelda needs to be punished!"). At that point it goes beyond consequences and into shallow punishment porn. Consequences dont stop mattering just because they don't last forever. I want to reiterate the point that she spent thousands of years as a mindless dragon. That's already pretty crazy heavy for a Zelda game. The emotional payoff of her coming home was extremely well-delivered, and I would think wanting her to return home would be the natural instinct of the player.

"can't express how big of a difference there is between using evidence in the game to come up with a theory and spitballing that something happened to fill in gaps that exist because the story isn't written well" Good thing that we're doing the first one. There's no need for spitballing. If you paid attention to what the game was presenting you, it's the natural conclusion to come to. So way to tell on yourself, I guess?

"Not only do I fail to understand how you think it's defensible, I also can't understand why you want to defend it so badly" I want to defend it because its genuinely good and had a huge positive impact on me, and all most of what yall have to say about it are the most internet-poisoned cinemasins takes I've ever seen and it's disappointing to watch that happen to a game that I love so much. Guy who likes game wants to stick up for it when guy who doesnt like it talks some smack: shocking development, more tonight at 6.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

Not gonna comment on the Big Hero 6 thing since I completely did not mind that twist,

I also didn't mind it. It's objectively bad

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Still two different approaches, to different goals. And, both do give the why. Some people just missed it, in one case.

If you have to write threads worth of fanfiction explaining the thing that the game never built up to or explained then it didn't give a reason why.