You're not wrong, but I guess it hits a bit harder right now since TotK is (allegedly) a direct sequel to my favorite Zelda game.
Spoiler Totk Dragon Ending Theory
- Thread starter Daku Rinku
- Start date
Each game has always been a legend. This idea isn't new. Maybe to the newer fans it is
BotW is your favorite game? That game gets even more flack for it's story lol
How condescending of you. Garbage storytelling doesn't stop being garbage because you cross your fingers and say, "It's okay that the storytelling is crap because each game is just a legend."
It's a story I enjoy for what it is: Link wakes up after a hundred years of sleep. Hyrule is gone, ground into rubble by a great evil bubbling in its center. There's nothing left to save, only avenge.
But then TotK comes along with its plot of "Ooh, but Zelda's right over that hill, Lonk!"
Well, in case you haven't noticed, I haven't said the stories are garbage. So when I say they're simple straight forward stories that mean to leave things open to interpretation, partly because they're legends, that's really all I'm saying.
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
I wouldn't have a problem with "mineru lied or was wrong" as the leading theory if there was anything in the game to support the idea that she could be lying
Which would again minimize the impact of Zeldas sacrifice so maybe I do have a problem with it actually
It's one thing to be like "I liked Zelda coming back at the end!" Vs "I didn't like Zelda coming back at the end!"
The fact is that the things you experience or feel CAN change based on new information. I enjoyed the plot twist of Zelda turning into a dragon forever. When it turned out that Oops, it's not actually forever, I no longer enjoyed the plot twist. This feels worse to me than it would have if it was just a crappy plot twist: imagine if all the foreshadowing just didn't exist and we had a cutscene of Sonia dying and zelda just eats the forbidden gummy and turns into a dragon. That's not as satisfying, even if you can then retroactively go "well see, eating the stone turns you into a dragon and that must be what happened to the other dragons, it was foreshadowed the whole time"
See what I mean?
Which would again minimize the impact of Zeldas sacrifice so maybe I do have a problem with it actually
It's one thing to be like "I liked Zelda coming back at the end!" Vs "I didn't like Zelda coming back at the end!"
The fact is that the things you experience or feel CAN change based on new information. I enjoyed the plot twist of Zelda turning into a dragon forever. When it turned out that Oops, it's not actually forever, I no longer enjoyed the plot twist. This feels worse to me than it would have if it was just a crappy plot twist: imagine if all the foreshadowing just didn't exist and we had a cutscene of Sonia dying and zelda just eats the forbidden gummy and turns into a dragon. That's not as satisfying, even if you can then retroactively go "well see, eating the stone turns you into a dragon and that must be what happened to the other dragons, it was foreshadowed the whole time"
See what I mean?
I do see what you mean. It seems like it just wasn't satisfying for you. That's not the same as it wasn't set up for it to happen though.
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
Yes, I was talking about my own experience when I said I no longer enjoyed the plot twist. I wasn't talking about my own experience when I said it isn't as satisfying, because I haven't experienced the alternate universe where said plot twist springs out of nowhere. there's a difference between setting up a plot twist badly and setting up a plot twist well
That's cool, but I personally don't care about whether the plot twist was good or bad. The possibility of Zelda being able to turn back, and if that was set up, is all I cared about in this conversation.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2021
- Gender
- man
This, I think, is a much stronger argument than "it is a plot hole." Zelda turning back cheapens the twist that she turned into a dragon and it lessens the sacrifice. To that I agree. Tears of the Kingdom's story is, generally, an unsatisfying mess, but that doesn't mean it's inconsistent or illogical.
I do still find Zelda's sacrifice very impactful because between the time I realized it and the time it was confirmed, I felt that I had truly unconvered a massive secret about the world. But then they wouldn't let me tell anyone what happened, which was annoying, and then they turned her back into a person, which made the permanence less impactful. But I still think the moment where she turns into the dragon is one of the best in the series.
Because now the game has literally no stakes or consequences.
Guinea
Basically Tingle
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2022
So what, did you want Ganondorf to not have a gimick? No dragon vs dragon while Link swoops in with the hammer?
Zelda (typical helpless female): Save me, Link!
Link: (typical hero) Aigh't, fo sho.
Ganon: You will not prevail! (typically dies by Link and Link saves Zelda)
That has been the formula forever. Zelda finally matches Ganon's strength and goes dragon mode with Link skydiving in to finish him off and suddenly its a problem because Zelda turned into a dragon in the first place.
No, I thought the Ganon fight was a fun spectacle. I just wanted the game's story to have any consequence. We end the game with the characters in the same place they started: everyone is fine, no one was hurt, no lessons were learned, and the one big sacrifice Zelda could have made was undone without explanation. Ganon accomplishes literally nothing.
Guinea
Basically Tingle
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2022
So it's every other Zelda game, just with a dragon twist this time