Spoiler Totk Dragon Ending Theory

[Angopik]

The story simply does not foreshadow her survival. Instances of the use of recall are not foreshadowing. We have examples of foreshadowing already in the game to compare to

Again. You're arguing against something, nobody was arguing for.

You have not pointed to any evidence that a reversion is possible, you've pointed to someone not associated with the game trying to explain how Recall works to transform Zelda back.

In game, Sonia explains how recall works. Ryuu reiterated it. I only used Ryuu's quote becuase you said nobody provided evidence of build up to Empowered Recall being what reversed Zelda's draconoification.

Nobody was arguing there was evidence that draconification being reversed was possible. People are arguing there was evidence of Empowered Recall.

There is no indication in game that Recall has such a power and the dragon transformation is described multiple times by the users of those powers to be irreversible.

Self admittedly, they argue that based on legends of Draconification. They aren't arguing it as a matter of fact.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

In game, Sonia explains how recall works. Ryuu reiterated it. I only used Ryuu's quote becuase you said nobody provided evidence of build up to Empowered Recall being what reversed Zelda's draconoification.

Nobody was arguing there was evidence that draconification being reversed was possible. People are arguing there was evidence of Empowered Recall.


Self admittedly, they argue that based on legends of Draconification. They aren't arguing it as a matter of fact.

The issue is that the characters who can suddenly use "enhanced recall" are the same ones who told us that the transformation was irreversible. It'd be one thing if we watched them come to the realization that maybe there's hope for those who made the draconic sacrifice by tapping into a previously unseen evolution of their powers, but that just isn't the case. All we see is a couple of characters who told is that the transformation is irreversible say, "Nah, jk."

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

Again. You're arguing against something, nobody was arguing for.

so we can all agree that it was never foreshadowed
good enough for me

 

[Angopik]

The issue is that the characters who can suddenly use "enhanced recall" are the same ones who told us that the transformation was irreversible.

Again, based on a legend they were told. That doesn't make it true though. As shown at the end of the game, it was proven to BE reversible. Do you understand what legends are?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Again, based on a legend they were told. That doesn't make it true though. As shown at the end of the game, it was proven to not be reversible. Do you understand what legends are?

Yes, which means that the the game has established an important bit of information through its storytelling: the transformation into a dragon is a permanent one. Multiple characters assumed knowledgeable on the subject say that this is the case and there is nothing indicating otherwise in the story. It would be awful storytelling to iterate multiple times that the transformation is permanent only for the same characters who said it was permanent to just undo it at the very end with no explanation.

The explanation can't just be "Well, everyone in Hyrule is an utter dip****, so we shouldn't trust anything they say".

 

[Angopik]

so we can all agree that it was never foreshadowed
good enough for me

We're finally on the same page that you were arguing against something nobody was arguing for. Yayyyyy!

Yes, which means that the the game has established an important bit of information through its storytelling: the transformation into a dragon is a permanent one. Multiple characters assumed knowledgeable on the subject say that this is the case and there is nothing indicating otherwise in the story. It would be awful storytelling to iterate multiple times that the transformation is permanent only for the same characters who said it was permanent to just undo it at the very end with no explanation.

The explanation can't just be "Well, everyone in Hyrule is an utter dip****, so we shouldn't trust anything they say".

Being wrong about something based on a legend you were told or read, doesn't make you a dip××××.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Being wrong about something based on a legend you were told or read, doesn't make you a dip××××.

It certainly does in the storytelling sense. We are given no reason to doubt the knowledge of these characters, so good writing sense would dictate that you build up to Zelda's reversion from the dragon form by showing characters learn more about the powers or figure out some way to undo it. As TotK is now, it is quite literally them saying, "The dragon transformation is a great sacrifice... jk."

 

[Angopik]

We had no reason to doubt them, but we also couldn't say for sure they were right. Again, Mineru's knowledge was based on essentially a tall tale she heard or read about.

That's why there is leeway given in regards to Mineru's statement about Draconification.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

We had no reason to doubt them, but we also couldn't say for sure they were right. Again, Mineru's knowledge was based on essentially a tall tale she heard or read about.

That's why there is leeway given in regards to Mineru's statement about Draconification.

And that is some absolute dog**** writing. "Let's establish the rules of magic in our world, but then they just break them at the end because how do we really know those were the rules?"

If you lay down the rules for how your magic works then you stick by those. If the rules are broken then you need to establish how they were broken. If you're just disregarding that when writing then you might as well toss everything out. How do we really know that Zelda was turned into a dragon? Maybe everyone just suffered from a specific sort of brain damage that made them think she was a dragon? All their knowledge is just based on the assumption that they don't have brain damage.

 

[Angopik]

And that is some absolute dog**** writing. "Let's establish the rules of magic in our world, but then they just break them at the end because how do we really know those were the rules?"

I made a mistake with what I said. Excuse me. I'm on a cell phone.

What I meant was we had no reason to doubt their belief they were right. BUT, since that belief was based on a legend, that does cause doubt. Or should. This was why I asked if you understood what a legend is.

Hope that clears it up for you

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I made a mistake with what I said. Excuse me. I'm on a cell phone.

What I meant was we had no reason to doubt their belief they were right. BUT, since that belief was based on a legend, that does cause doubt. Or should. This was why I asked if you understood what a legend is.

Hope that clears it up for you

I'm not really sure. The story introduces the draconic transformation as irreversible and and has reputable characters affirm this, thus establishing the rules of magic system. If you're going to break those rules then you need to establish how they can be broken within the game. You shouldn't have to assume that the basic rules of your world don't actually apply.

 

[Angopik]

The story introduces the draconic transformation as irreversible and and has reputable characters affirm this, thus establishing the rules of magic system

This isn't fully true. You're still leaving out the fact it was based on a legend. That's very important to acknowledge.

If you're going to break those rules then you need to establish how they can be broken within the game. You shouldn't have to assume that the basic rules of your world don't actually appapply

Rules weren't established though. Mineru believed there were, but again, her belief in the legend was proven to be partially wrong.

That's not bad storytelling. That's just you misinterpreting the storytelling.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

This isn't fully true. You're still leaving out the fact it was based on a legend. That's very important to acknowledge.


Rules weren't established though. Mineru believed there were, but again, her belief in the legend was proven to be partially wrong.

That's not bad storytelling. That's just you misinterpreting the storytelling.

That legend is the only basis we have for how it works. Unless something else is introduced to amend those rules or to build on the idea that they're inaccurate, those multiple affirmations of the draconic transformation being permanent are the currently established rules regarding that particular spell. To just undo it at the end is to say, "It's a great sacrifice and permanent transformation... jk, we're just gonna casually undo literally everything of consequence in the game."

Like I said before, you might as well disregard all lore in the franchise on the basis that people only heard of it through "legend". Is the Master Sword the blade of evil's bane, or is all of Hyrule too damn stupid to try anything else? Are there three pieces of the Triforce, or is everyone in Hyrule so stupid that they misread "sixteen" as "three"?

That's the kind of logic we'd be playing at.

 

[Angopik]

That legend is the only basis we have for how it works.

It's still a legend though. Genuine question. Do you understand what a legend is? I'm really starting to doubt you do.

Unless something else is introduced to amend those rules or to build on the idea that they're inaccurate, those multiple affirmations of the draconic transformation being permanent are the currently established rules regarding that particular spell.

It was never a pre-established rule though. The fact it was a legend to Mineru is evident of that. She thought it was a rule, but she was wrong.

Like I said before, you might as well disregard all lore in the franchise on the basis of a hypothetical. Is the Master Sword the blade of evil's bane, or is all of Hyrule too damn stupid to try anything else? Are there three pieces of the Triforce, or is everyone in Hyrule so stupid that they misread "sixteen" as "three"?

Why would we disregard all the lore though? This kind of instance doesn't come up all the time.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

It's still a legend though. Genuine question. Do you understand what a legend is? I'm really starting to doubt you do.



It was never a pre-established rule though. The fact it was a legend to Mineru is evident of that. She thought it was a rule, but she was wrong.


Why would we disregard all the lore though? This kind of instance doesn't come up all the time.

I guess I don't really know how to take this. If you're happy with the subpar storytelling offered by Tears of the Kingdom then more power to you. I can't really look past a garbage narrative by saying, "Well, it's just a legend about garbage." If you want to keep your standards that low then I wish you luck.