Support NeoGAF

[Huge Succeeded]

yeah, no, Lex. You are seriously projecting what you want to see onto the character for the sake of your argument and it's clear as day to anyone willing to take the 30 seconds to look up these events on Youtube...

Fusion's little half-second cutscene has like 2 frames of animation on Samus's part and is literally just a dramatic sweep introducing Ridley. There's nothing there to imply that Samus is 'freaking out'. She stares down Ridley as he swoops in, for half a second, and then the battle starts immediately. That's it, and to infer pretty much nothing from it is a whole lot more reasonable than to infer that she's particularly shocked or afraid or freaking out there.
Here's a Youtube snippet. What do you all think?

and as far as Prime goes, you're just making shit up and it's transparent

 

[A Link to the Past]

Gosh I hate Zero Suit Samus

That said there's some definite attempts to invent characterization for Samus, but she's absolutely above Link in terms of being a defined character (beyond simply the appearance of Samus).

 

[georly]

If you pick male you play as Link.
If you pick female you play as Zero Suit Samus.

Nintendo should hire you.

 

[Green Mamba]

The fuck is going on in here.

 

[diaspora]

Gosh I hate Zero Suit Samus

That said there's some definite attempts to invent characterization for Samus, but she's absolutely above Link in terms of being a defined character (beyond simply the appearance of Samus).

The neon blue bodysuit is... stupid. Even Fusion's two-piece version of it made more sense since it looked like generic workout gear.

Hopefully whatever female character LOZ uses won't pander to the male fantasy.

 

[Dremark]

Being incapable to reading intent and characterization from actions and backstory isn't really my problem.

It's not, your problem is that you're deluding yourself to try to discredit a game you don't like and trying to act like Samus is some untouchable figure that can't be changed or excluded, but Link is.

Again if this characterization is so well established and important why was Sakamoto unfamiliar with it despite having worked on the series from the start and having written and directed the series Magnum Opus?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Ultimately, here's the difference between Link and Samus:

Virtually all fans want Samus to stay a woman

Some fans want Link to be a man, and others want Link to be a woman

That's a pretty clear distinction, and hopefully a good explanation for why Link changing makes sense, and Samus changing does not.

 

[LegendofLex]

yeah, no, Lex. You are seriously projecting what you want to see onto the character for the sake of your argument and it's clear as day to anyone willing to take the 30 seconds to look up these events on Youtube...

What's clear as day? The only source of any interpretations of what Samus is thinking at any point in any of the Metroid games where there's no dialogue is always the player, 100% of the time.

I've never really had any personal headcanon about what she's thinking because until the Other M debacle I never really cared and didn't have any investment either way. But when I went back and looked at the scenes, I noticed that there's always some kind of unique flourish to Samus's reactions to Ridley's appearance, and that Other M is just a continuation of that tradition, though obviously with a really badly executed drama behind it.

I truthfully don't have an actual opinion about what those scenes mean; I don't even really subscribe to the interpretations I'm advancing here, I just see them as no less plausible than the one where Samus is just a stoic badass all the time because that's what people want her to be. And I think it's dumb to substitute "what the players want her to be" with "what the character actually is," even if betraying that expectation is always a bad idea. I think players should of course feel free to continue having their own expectations for the sake of their own enjoyment (I feel quite free to ignore Sakamoto's comments that the Prime games aren't part of the canon, for example), but there's no reason to lord those expectations over other players as if they're gospel.

There's no explicit contradiction because the way these scenes are perceived exists purely in the imagination of the players; it's just that Nintendo hadn't really established a backstory for the grudge between the two characters, and their choice obviously doesn't suit the way people perceived the character, universe, and story. This is true for pretty much the entire direction Other M took.

This is likewise true for Link's depiction in the Zelda games. While the developers may have had things like romance in mind for Link in Skyward Sword (for example), they generally let the player insert their own imaginations onto the character. They shouldn't outright betray those expectations like the Metroid developers did with Other M, but there's nothing there to actually contradict, unless he just wasn't courageous at all or something.

Samus's characterization exists beyond the kinds of things fans project onto her. She has a defined history and backstory and is a fixed character in the space of the Metroid universe. But her "personality" was never really part of that picture, even if it's part of the broader meta-mythos behind the character. The real reason why Other M is so bad is simply because it's bad; it doesn't enrich the character beyond what players had already imagined, and it's of course a worse depiction than what fans had imagined.

This is where Link and Samus really diverge; you couldn't replace Samus with another character without some kind of reboot (even Other M attempted to be a soft reboot of her backstory). With Link, you're constantly replacing him with other characters, and even past Links are only obliquely referenced as ancient heroes.

 

[jnWake]

I want Samus and Ridley Superstars Saga.

 

[diaspora]

Ultimately, here's the difference between Link and Samus:

Virtually all fans want Samus to stay a woman

Some fans want Link to be a man, and others want Link to be a woman

That's a pretty clear distinction, and hopefully a good explanation for why Link changing makes sense, and Samus changing does not.

Suggestions that Samus could work as a man generally I think are born from this idea that people somehow deserve male options in another franchise when Zelda gives people a female options even with a total disregard of the context of the heroes and the characters.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Sure they did.

Just like how all those scenes played out explicitly with Samus not being freaked out, right? We're totally told what she's thinking when a boss appears all the time in the other games, amirite?

I saw this scene, and I recognized her freezing as shock.

Just like you saw this scene, and don't recognize it as that. She's just standing there watching him fly away like she does with all the other bosses, right?

Oh wait, we're both just projecting what we want to see onto the scene?



Yeah, several minutes after he'd already shown up, she runs into him again and finally fights her...after losing her cool and failing to adequately fight him off before getting knocked into a pit.

How very un-Samus of her!

You can see whatever you want to see in the Zero Mission and Prime scenes. You've chosen to see a fearless Samus going after Ridley. I see a Samus who keeps having specific attention thrown on her getting caught off guard at his appearance (which doesn't happen for any other bosses).

Suffice to say that the thrust of my argument is that Nintendo's typically depicted their characters without much in-game characterization up to this point. That includes Samus, even though she's also an established character - Other M's fault is that it badly characterized Samus and that the vision for the character was in conflict with the player's. It's not that Other M was actually an internal contradiction within the artists' depiction of the character.

There's no shock in ZM from Samus. She sees Ridley and proceeds to beat its ass to a pulp. That's it. There's no paralyzing fear, no whimpering "RIDLEEEEY?!", and no loosing her suit over the shock.

You're just seeing what you want to see in order to justify one of many of Other M's shortcomings.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Suggestions that Samus could work as a man generally I think are born from this idea that people somehow deserve male options in another franchise when Zelda gives people a female options even with a total disregard of the context of the heroes and the characters.

That's ultimately the issue to me. I understand why people want to keep Link male (or to have no gender option and to just have a female Link), and I understand the Samus comparison, but at the same time, the comparison inherently fails because it's entirely a Devil's Advocate argument. To the people who want a gender option (or just to have female Link), it should be an option because they legitimately want it, but they legitimately want it in part because a lot of people do view Link as a character meant to represent the player to some extent, and the desire to have gender represented in this fact is found in the fact that Link is a reincarnation that persists throughout three different timelines (and often can just be "some kid" as he was in The Wind Waker). It's not simply "I want this", it's "I want this because..."

 

[Mael]

It's not, your problem is that you're deluding yourself to try to discredit a game you don't like and trying to act like Samus is some untouchable figure that can't be changed or excluded, but Link is.

Again if this characterization is so well established and important why was Sakamoto unfamiliar with it despite having worked on the series from the start and having written and directed the series Magnum Opus?

He didn't give a shit about past characterization,
It's in direct contradiction with the manga he oversaw himself.
Why should we assume he gave 2 shits about it to begin with?

 

[hupla]

How did this thread turn into an other m disscusion have we not suffered enough

 

[A Link to the Past]

How did this thread turn into an other m disscusion have we not suffered enough

Female Link may be a controversial topic, but even it can't sustain 37 pages without Other M.

 

[RedZaraki]

WiiU + NX: I'm okay with this, as long as the Wii U version isn't gibbed.

Male/Female Link: Okay with this.

VA: Hopefully they do it well. Have to wait and see.


I just want the Wii U version to be soon and be good. I can't forgive the NX if it stinks.

 

[diaspora]

He didn't give a shit about past characterization,
It's in direct contradiction with the manga he oversaw himself.
Why should we assume he gave 2 shits about it to begin with?

Worse still is that people think that Link can be changed which isn't what advocates are saying- it's that a new incarnation of Link can be anyone because it wouldn't require changing anything. There is no just "Link" as a singular entity unlike Samus. Nobody's suggesting that Nintendo retroactively makes past versions of Link dual genders.

 

[MoonFrog]

Suggestions that Samus could work as a man generally I think are born from this idea that people somehow deserve male options in another franchise when Zelda gives people a female options even with a total disregard of the context of the heroes and the characters.

I think it's more from the rhetoric that "there should be choice, because choice is always best! How dare you not support choice!" If there always should be choice, then wouldn't that apply to Samus too? It's the dumb rhetoric that tries to moralize the issue and berate people who want a male Link as not supporting some principle of choice, which, frankly, is a ridiculous principle. Heck, even a modified principle that whenever the character is male or whenever it is a 'CRPG' like game is ridiculous. Is this really a stipulation that we need to support and if we don't we're backwards and suspect?

Basically, you have plenty of people in this thread taking grand stands that are greater in scope than the issue they actually care about.

You can want choice in LoZ and think it is supported by the lore but the idea that it should or needs to have it is over the top and you can really see that in how ridiculous the Samus or Mario arguments seem to be.

The Samus highlights that, yes there are persistent characters it is okay to care about. Even persistent minimally characterized Nintendo characters. The Mario argument highlights that, no, even if it is a new Mario every life and would make as much sense as Libk if he changed sex or gender between lives, that there are characters, of which people just don't care to have a female form.

It's a matter of wanting Link as female. Not a matter of there should be choice or Link should be female. And then there are people who disagree and these are to be labeled misogynist with whatever over zealous argument is available. They then get defensive and respond in a similarly confused fashion. This is what this thread is to a large extent with the occasional actual misogynist piping up. Well and the lore arguments. Those are big too.

 

[diaspora]

I think it's more from the rhetoric that "there should be choice, because choice is always best! How dare you not support choice!" If there always should be choice, then wouldn't that apply to Samus too?

The suggestion that there should always be a choice with regards to Zelda, is because it works from the established context of the franchise. Nobody's been suggesting that we retroactively make WW or TP Link gender indeterminate only that there's no reason given how Zelda is structured for it to not be introduced into the new game.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Nothing I say will ever answer your question because you don't actually care about what it is I have to say. Your only interest is in proving me wrong and not in understanding how other people develop views of characters differently.

You're asking for cold hard logic to something that doesn't work that way, not with a long running series like this that develops in the minds of fans over a long period of time. People consciously and, more often, subconsciously make connections with fictional works and place greater and lesser importance on different aspects of those works. Link as a character, his shared attributes between titles were what stuck with me. The fact that I never considered him an avatar of me in the game made him immediately his own character in my mind and that only increased over time and with each new game. That most games technically are not the same Link, placed at different times, with different backgrounds were inconsequential to my image of the character. Which was only reaffirmed by his depiction outside the series in media and in games like SSBs. Link and certain other elements of the series were always constant, even when the settings, timeline and apparent lore were not and didn't make sense. Whether that's acceptable to you or not really doesn't matter because that's how it happened for me and a lot of other people. Whether Nintendo cares that some fans feel this way, which I doubt, is their issue and choice to make.

We clearly have different definitions of what makes a character then. Because the line "The fact that I never considered him an avatar of me in the game made him immediately his own character in my mind and that only increased over time and with each new game. That most games technically are not the same Link, placed at different times, with different backgrounds were inconsequential to my image of the character." Makes absolutely no sense. How can something be a "character" to you if it is so incredibly undefined that none of those details matter. That's what I'm trying to understand. You're talking about a place filler in a green tunic. And how is it that a girl wouldn't fit in that place in a green tunic in a different time? You are describing an image, not a character. The very definition of an avatar. "Character" includes inconsequential things like backstory, and family, and location.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think it's more from the rhetoric that "there should be choice, because choice is always best! How dare you not support choice!" If there always should be choice, then wouldn't that apply to Samus too? It's the dumb rhetoric that tries to moralize the issue and berate people who want a male Link as not supporting some principle of choice, which, frankly, is a ridiculous principle. Heck, even a modified principle that whenever the character is male or whenever it is a 'CRPG' like game is ridiculous. Is this really a stipulation that we need to support and if we don't we're backwards and suspect?

Basically, you have plenty of people in this thread taking grand stands that are greater in scope than the issue they actually care about.

You can want choice in LoZ and think it is supported by the lore but the idea that it should or needs to have it is over the top and you can really see that in how ridiculous the Samus or Mario arguments seem to be.

The Samus highlights that, yes there are persistent characters it is okay to care about. Even persistent minimally characterized Nintendo characters. The Mario argument highlights that, no, even if it is a new Mario every life and would make as much sense as Libk if he changed sex or gender between lives, that there are characters, of which people just don't care to have a female form.

It's a matter of wanting Link as female. Not a matter of there should be choice or Link should be female. And then there are people who disagree and these are to be labeled misogynist with whatever over zealous argument is available. They then get defensive and respond in a similarly confused fashion. This is what this thread is to a large extent with the occasional actual misogynist piping up. Well and the lore arguments. Those are big too.

But the reason why people want Link to be female is not just "why not?" It's "I've always seen him as a representation of the player, so it'd be cool if this character who has been many different people could be female." You're looking at "why not?" in a vacuum, when it's a combination of there being good logic supporting the decision, fan demand, and a lack of objective consequences associated with the implementation of the feature.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

How did this thread turn into an other m disscusion have we not suffered enough

Because what Sakamoto did with Metroid was so bad that all of us suffering from OtherMophobia can't shake the fear of it infecting other Nintendo franchises.

 

[Malcolm9]

Nintendo could go with a male Samus, set it so many years in the future, he could be the son of Samus with the same name, it's possible.

 

[hemo memo]

If a game is written with it in mind what you have is a generic writting so both genders can fit ANY situation. We are again on Pokémon levels of writting.

This is the same company with Zelda Hyrule Historia book and timelines linked in complex way just to show how they care about details and fans with theories about the moon and Link being dead. This is not Pokemon and it'll not be just a simple swap.. They're not that foolish.

 

[Galactic Fork]

It's a matter of wanting Link as female. Not a matter of there should be choice or Link should be female. And then there are people who disagree and these are to be labeled misogynist with whatever over zealous argument is available. They then get defensive and respond in a similarly confused fashion. This is what this thread is to a large extent with the occasional actual misogynist piping up. Well and the lore arguments. Those are big too.

It's not that simple. You can't use the argument for many other series because this situation is very specific to this series. And as the series is, it's set over hundreds of years with a new hero much of the time. So it's really not a matter of just "wanting Link as female". The real question is, given the lore of the series, why is the hero always a boy? Is it just boys are default heroes to the makers? It's fictional, so it's not simply "just is." They choose these details. And if they said "yes, it must always be a boy," and deemed it so that would say that about them as creators. And I am not just talking about a "main character type hero" I mean hero hero. Because if a side character was playable, it'd be a side story. If it was really important, a Link would have been tapped.

 

[MoonFrog]

But the reason why people want Link to be female is not just "why not?" It's "I've always seen him as a representation of the player, so it'd be cool if this character who has been many different people could be female." You're looking at "why not?" in a vacuum, when it's a combination of there being good logic supporting the decision, fan demand, and a lack of objective consequences associated with the implementation of the feature.

Is wanting Link to be female a disinterested "why not?" I think I mentioned fan demand and lore logic in my post. I've said more about the latter in a previous post.
There are also are arguments about changing the tone of the games to be gender neutral but my point still stands.

That doesn't take away from all the misguided zealotry going on.

 

[MoonFrog]

It's not that simple. You can't use the argument for many other series because this situation is very specific to this series. And as the series is, it's set over hundreds of years with a new hero much of the time. So it's really not a matter of just "wanting Link as female". The real question is, given the lore of the series, why is the hero always a boy? Is it just boys are default heroes to the makers? It's fictional, so it's not simply "just is." They choose these details. And if they said "yes, it must always be a boy," and deemed it so that would say that about them as creators. And I am not just talking about a "main character type hero" I mean hero hero. Because if a side character was playable, it'd be a side story. If it was really important, a Link would have been tapped.

I think the other side would see it as one Link. Not new Links. And then that the hero spirit could perhaps not be in a Link.

Look: I've said my piece before. I'd prefer male Link. I like the tradition and I see Link as a male. I simultaneously don't think that female Link is against the Zelda lore and that outside changing the perspective in Zelda games, the aesthetics, and riling some Otaku to make Zelda threads more cringeworthy it will not be a bad thing. I just am not enthused by it and I can see why others feel the same way. And I don't think that's misogyny.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Is wanting Link to be female a disinterested "why not?" I think I mentioned fan demand and lore logic in my post. I've said more about the latter in a previous post.
There are also are arguments about changing the tone of the games to be gender neutral but my point still stands.

That doesn't take away from all the misguided zealotry going on.

What zeal? By whose metrics do you define "misguided"? Would it be appropriate to say that people are zealously defending the idea that Link cannot be a woman? If not, why not?

You were responding to the specific comparison of Samus and Link, and you explained that the comparison is being made because people were saying that "choice is good!" which, if it was the one point being made in defense of a female Link, the comparison would be apt. Yet there are indisputably several other points to why Link should be female that do not apply to Samus. As such, the "Devil's Advocacy" argument is invalid, because it relies on ignoring certain arguments and focusing only on one. Once the other arguments are introduced, the comparison fails.

 

[MoonFrog]

What zeal? By whose metrics do you define "misguided"? Would it be appropriate to say that people are zealously defending the idea that Link cannot be a woman? If not, why not?

You were responding to the specific comparison of Samus and Link, and you explained that the comparison is being made because people were saying that "choice is good!" which, if it was the one point being made in defense of a female Link, the comparison would be apt. Yet there are indisputably several other points to why Link should be female that do not apply to Samus. As such, the "Devil's Advocacy" argument is invalid, because it relies on ignoring certain arguments and focusing only on one. Once the other arguments are introduced, the comparison fails.

Umm..I think it is okay to not have choice when the fans want it, when the lore allows it, etc. To think its not okay is what I'm calling being over the top.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I think the other side would see it as one Link. Not new Links. And then that the hero spirit could perhaps not be in a Link.

Look: I've said my piece before. I'd prefer male Link. I like the tradition and I see Link as a male. I simultaneously don't think that female Link is against the Zelda lore and that outside changing the perspective in Zelda games, the aesthetics, and riling some Otaku to make Zelda threads more cringeworthy it will not be a bad thing. I just am not enthused by it and I can see why others feel the same way. And I don't think that's misogyny.

Well, it's all dependent on why they don't want it to be a girl. (I'm not sure what you were getting at with your first part, who would see what as "One Link, not new Links." I'm not sure what you're responding to there exactly. sorry.)

 

[Heroman]

How did this thread turn into an other m disscusion have we not suffered enough

People Really dont like Other M.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Umm..I think it is okay to not have choice when the fans want it, when the lore allows it, etc. To think its not okay is what I'm calling being over the top.

I have no idea what you're talking about lol, and the people saying that something isn't okay are the people who don't want a female Link. You also shouldn't talk about zeal when you're summing up the other side as being irrational and/or illogical ("there should be choice, because choice is always best! How dare you not support choice!" is not something anyone has said, at least not in the hysterical fashion in which you have posed it).

I am replying to you taking one element of an argument and ignoring everything else. Nintendo doesn't have to make Link female (but if this rumour is true, they sure do seem fine with it). If you are arguing that the comparison is valid, then you are incorrect. It is an invalid comparison because it requires inherently dishonest tactics to make work (ie, willfully ignoring certain arguments in order for it to apply) - Samus is simply not relevant to this discussion. So ultimately:

1. Link can validly be a woman according to lore
2. Link can validly be a woman if Nintendo decides that fan demand is worth catering to in this case
3. Link being a woman does not create any real problems

 

[504]

1. It's super easy to say representation doesn't matter when nearly all characters in games already look like you.

2. It's an option being described. If you don't like a female Link, happily no one would be forcing it on you.

3. How can it be anti-artist or anti-creator when the artists and creators of the Zelda franchise (largely the same people who've worked on these games since Ocarina at least) chose to do this? Do you think Nintendo is going to force them to put in a female Link? Nintendo doesn't have to add a female Link. I don't think anyone here expects them to. I just think it's a cool idea. Even if it were true, people presume that character gender was somehow not majority male because of societal pressures of the time of Link's creation? What argument could there possibly be for the creative team to ignore the vibes of modern society and just continue on as they always have?

4. The word your searching for is milquetoast. If you're going to throw a word like that out there, please do learn to spell it.

5. What thematically is gained by the person who is the hero, clad in green being male? Specifically? What would change in the plot of any Zelda game if this had always been an option? Other than maintaining patriarchal standards, of course.

6. Your daughters disinterest in Linkle is anecdotal, not equivalent to her possible positive reaction to a genuine female protagonist Link (as opposed to a ditzy afterthought knock off) and is a poor tool to use when demanding the denial of representation for everyone who would like to see it.

Know please that this is not venom (except for #4. That shit is 100% hate filled.) I'm not challenging you because you make me angry. If mildly patriarchal shit like this got me angry, I'd live my whole life enraged. I'm challenging your opinions because I think you're wrong. I don't think you're a monster for holding these opinions. I just think you're throwing a privileged tantrum over a feature that literally does not affect you at all, which is silly but not purposefully malicious.

I didn’t plan to respond to anything here because I didn’t expect to see anything that went beyond reactionary. But while most responses to my post came off as someone who’s just happy for the chance to repeat (in confirming unison with their fellow devotees) the silly dogmas that they’ve been trained to believe and base their identities on, yours seems like it came from a thoughtful person who actually believes what they’re saying. I appreciate your style, so here goes:

1. Your statement in this context can only be made out of true prejudice (i.e. only a white male could agree with my positions). Also, I’ve enjoyed all manner of creative works with all manner of characters without letting their gender, race, or species affect my ability to receive what their creators offered through them. That’s how people should be, and more easily could be, if not for the forces that promote the superficial nonsense that I’m arguing against here.

2. Mostly agreed, but a female Link likely forces story limitations within this game and retroactive mythology changes for the entire franchise, which is unnecessary and almost certainly detrimental.

3. After 30 years of Link being male, why would he suddenly, in 2016 when this kind of superficial nonsense just happens to be fashionable, become female? Are you saying this is purely a creative decision that took them 30 years to imagine? Is this such a unique nugget of creative thought that it would take teams of devoted minds working for three decades to make it a reality? Of course not. This is purely a ham-handed reaction to the kind of misguided social pressures that well-meaning people are mindlessly succumbing to right now. Whether or not the creators made the decision on their own is irrelevant. The motivation is misguided regardless. This is anti-creativity because it is a slippery slope that increasingly forces artists to focus on preemptively appeasing various and endless mobs rather than having the true creative freedom to follow only their vision without distraction.

4. Haha, you were starting to feel a little too clever here. “Milquetoast” is the proper name of a fictional character who was named after “milk toast” in order to reinforce the blandness of his personality. I chose to use the original rather than the derivative.

5. What is gained, or rather, preserved, is consistency with the rules of the Zelda universe that we have been led to accept. If those rules had always included a female option and thus the maleness of Link had not been interwoven into the story and reinforced for 30 years, then of course there would be no problem at all. But that’s not the situation so to force this onto an established character at this point and presumably patch the story with workarounds is wrongheaded and probably detrimental. Although I am open to the possibility that they solve this problem creatively, my point is that creating this problem in the first place is wrongheaded and unnecessary.

As for how this would change any previous games; a main subplot of Skyward Sword was the idea that the BOYS in the school were seeking the affection Zelda, and Groose especially was jealous because Zelda had a thinly-veiled crush on Link. This went on to affect Groose’s motivations and actions throughout the game, which eventually played a major role in Link’s success against Demise. Now maybe you’d be happy to see this whole story turned into some needlessly convoluted multi-sexual situation, but even so you must admit that doing so would constitute a major change and a clunkier plot. And that’s just one example. Most Zelda games at least hint at some level of attraction between Link and Zelda, which is then used to reinforce how exceptionally mature and responsible the characters are as they sacrifice their own comfort for a greater good.

6. Maybe I could explain the point better. The point is that the whole concept of needing to have yourself validated by the degree to which you conform to superficial images is, without exception, pure damaging foolishness. This teaches a little girl that her self-worth is determined by something or someone external, and further that it is based on superficial aspects of herself. This is the exact opposite of what asinine campaigns like this aim to accomplish, hence my repeated use of the word “wrongheaded”. A child (or an adult, for that matter) should know that their validation is inherent and their abilities are whatever they make of them. They should not be led to believe that they are only as capable or valuable as someone who bears a superficial resemblance to themselves, as determined by a video game developer in Japan. So in summary, I love the intentions, but to force it in such a ham-handed way is misguided, foolish, and detrimental not only to creativity in general, but also to the very people that it is supposed to “empower”. Again, it’s a stupid idea.

 

[Mael]

female link force a restriction to the story? How?
Link is inherently male? The guy who is dressed in a shirt is inherently male?
And if Nintendo want to make Link female or even give the choice to the player, it's going to contradict the lore? how?
Can I get some receipt or something for it to make sense?

 

[royox]

1. Link can validly be a woman according to lore

Not if the game is on the "Heroe" timeline as Link has to be the Hero reborn again as Hylia said.

2. Link can validly be a woman if Nintendo decides that fan demand is worth catering to in this case

Nintendo can do what they want with their games, but it would be stupid to release a game and a big as f*ck book to stablish a lore for fucking it up in the next game.

3. Link being a woman does not create any real problems

Only in situation 1. Make a Zelda game out of the Heroe timelines (like 4 swords) with a Main Character not related to the original Hero and there would be no problems. But of course...you would complain because "it's not the main line"...right?

 

[diaspora]

Not if the game is on the "Heroe" timeline as Link has to be the Hero reborn again as Hylia said.

There's no restriction in what gender the hero can be reborn as.

 

[MoonFrog]

I have no idea what you're talking about lol, and the people saying that something isn't okay are the people who don't want a female Link. You also shouldn't talk about zeal when you're summing up the other side as being irrational and/or illogical ("there should be choice, because choice is always best! How dare you not support choice!" is not something anyone has said, at least not in the hysterical fashion in which you have posed it).

I am replying to you taking one element of an argument and ignoring everything else. Nintendo doesn't have to make Link female (but if this rumour is true, they sure do seem fine with it). If you are arguing that the comparison is valid, then you are incorrect. It is an invalid comparison because it requires inherently dishonest tactics to make work (ie, willfully ignoring certain arguments in order for it to apply) - Samus is simply not relevant to this discussion. So ultimately:

1. Link can validly be a woman according to lore
2. Link can validly be a woman if Nintendo decides that fan demand is worth catering to in this case
3. Link being a woman does not create any real problems

You could know what I said about the Samus case if you read my post...

If you admit that it's not necessary that Nintendo do it and it is not imperative than I've made my point. Doubly so by your tone while accepting this point and blowing past it.

I'm not arguing for male Link. I never was.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Not if the game is on the "Heroe" timeline as Link has to be the Hero reborn again as Hylia said.

For this to be true, you need to demonstrate that it is impossible for the interpretation that the Hero must be reborn as a man.

Nintendo can do what they want with their games, but it would be stupid to release a game and a big as f*ck book to stablish a lore for fucking it up in the next game.

Again, you are assuming that Nintendo considers Link to be male-only because you interpreted the lore in a certain way. I want to actually see proof that Nintendo holds this view, not things that sound to you like they do.

Only in situation 1. Make a Zelda game out of the Heroe timelines (like 4 swords) with a Main Character not related to the original Hero and there would be no problems. But of course...you would complain because "it's not the main line"...right?

Protip: if you're going to mock someone for "complaining", do it in a post where you're not constantly complaining about the idea of a female Link and the people who support it. It makes you seem oblivious.

 

[Mael]

Not if the game is on the "Heroe" timeline as Link has to be the Hero reborn again as Hylia said.

Not even in the French version of Skyward Sword is Hylia making a comment on the gender of the reincarnation of the hero.
And in that language it's really easy to make that known even if the original script doesn't mention it.

 

[User 73706]

The hell? MZM's Ridley moment is just a dramatic closeup considering the entire thing is done in a pseudo-Western / comic book style.

 

[royox]

There's no restriction in what gender the hero can be reborn as.

Ok.

You are a Goddess.
You choose a guy to fight for you and your land.
You find out such guy is the bravest and righteous man alive.
You fall in love with that man.
That man dies in battle giving you enought time to save your land and the triforce.
You, as a goddess, state a prophecy saying that you will make him "inmortal" through time so you can see each other every time Hyrule is in danger.

And now tell me if you won'tt make sure AS A GODDESS that the guy you loved and died defending you will be reborn EXACTLY AS HE WAS.


No, there's no place where the book/manga states "AND YOU WILL BE A MALE AND HAVE A DICK" but you only have to apply common sense. She was in love with HIM. She wanted to see HIM again and again and again till the end of times. That's why she left her god powers and is reborn as Zelda with HIM every time Hyruyle is in danger.


So yeah, if there's no restriction in what gender he is reborn there's no rectriction of the living thing he can be reborn. Maybe next zelda Link is a Cucco because, you know "there's no restriction"..

 

[A Link to the Past]

Clarify - are you claiming that a spirit has a gender?

 

[diaspora]

Ok.

You are a Goddess.
You choose a guy to fight for you and your land.
You find out such guy is the bravest and righteous man alive.
You fall in love with that man.
That man dies in battle giving you enought time to save your land and the triforce.
You, as a goddess, state a prophecy saying that you will make him "inmortal" through time so you can see each other every time Hyrule is in danger.

And now tell me if you won'tt make sure AS A GODDESS that the guy you loved and died defending you will be reborn EXACTLY AS HE WAS.

But, you just made that up. Any intention of how the goddess chooses to have the hero reborn is bullshit on your part.

 

[User 73706]

No, there's no place where the book/manga states "AND YOU WILL BE A MALE AND HAVE A DICK" but you only have to apply common sense.

lmao jesus christ

 

[Galactic Fork]

I didn’t plan to respond to anything here because I didn’t expect to see anything that went beyond reactionary. But while most responses to my post came off as someone who’s just happy for the chance to repeat (in confirming unison with their fellow devotees) the silly dogmas that they’ve been trained to believe and base their identities on, yours seems like it came from a thoughtful person who actually believes what they’re saying. I appreciate your style, so here goes:

1. Your statement in this context can only be made out of true prejudice (i.e. only a white male could agree with my positions). Also, I’ve enjoyed all manner of creative works with all manner of characters without letting their gender, race, or species affect my ability to receive what their creators offered through them. That’s how people should be, and more easily could be, if not for the forces that promote the superficial nonsense that I’m arguing against here.

But then why are most characters white guys?

2. Mostly agreed, but a female Link likely forces story limitations within this game and retroactive mythology changes for the entire franchise, which is unnecessary and almost certainly detrimental.

How does a female link force story limitations that a male link wouldn't?

3. After 30 years of Link being male, why would he suddenly, in 2016 when this kind of superficial nonsense just happens to be fashionable, become female? Are you saying this is purely a creative decision that took them 30 years to imagine? Is this such a unique nugget of creative thought that it would take teams of devoted minds working for three decades to make it a reality? Of course not. This is purely a ham-handed reaction to the kind of misguided social pressures that well-meaning people are mindlessly succumbing to right now. Whether or not the creators made the decision on their own is irrelevant. The motivation is misguided regardless. This is anti-creativity because it is a slippery slope that increasingly forces artists to focus on preemptively appeasing various and endless mobs rather than having the true creative freedom to follow only their vision without distraction.

The question becomes why are all the Links historically male? Weren't they all male because of social pressures, political beliefs and biases at the time? Why are social pressures that exclude women OK to you but not ones that include them?

5. What is gained, or rather, preserved, is consistency with the rules of the Zelda universe that we have been led to accept. If those rules had always included a female option and thus the maleness of Link had not been interwoven into the story and reinforced for 30 years, then of course there would be no problem at all. But that’s not the situation so to force this onto an established character at this point and presumably patch the story with workarounds is wrongheaded and probably detrimental. Although I am open to the possibility that they solve this problem creatively, my point is that creating this problem in the first place is wrongheaded and unnecessary.

Again, it comes down to biases at the time of creation. But they left it open with the new hero throughout the ages idea. So now that the biases are shifting, it's a reasonable question. and we're talking about an ongoing history. You could easily say they've only shown the ones featuring boys so far and maybe the next few could be girls exclusively.

I would personally prefer that to a gender choice, but eh. You can have lots of details there that aren't focused around gender specifically.

6. Maybe I could explain the point better. The point is that the whole concept of needing to have yourself validated by the degree to which you conform to superficial images is, without exception, pure damaging foolishness. This teaches a little girl that her self-worth is determined by something or someone external, and further that it is based on superficial aspects of herself. This is the exact opposite of what asinine campaigns like this aim to accomplish, hence my repeated use of the word “wrongheaded”. A child (or an adult, for that matter) should know that their validation is inherent and their abilities are whatever they make of them. They should not be led to believe that they are only as capable or valuable as someone who bears a superficial resemblance to themselves, as determined by a video game developer in Japan. So in summary, I love the intentions, but to force it in such a ham-handed way is misguided, foolish, and detrimental not only to creativity in general, but also to the very people that it is supposed to “empower”. Again, it’s a stupid idea.

Yet some how most stories feature boys. Wouldn't your logic suggest that it's more damaging to teach boys to expect it constantly by constantly shoving it down their throat?

 

[A Link to the Past]

If the Goddess truly loved Link, he would look like he does in Skyward Sword all the time, full stop!

 

[georly]

Ok.

You are a Goddess.
You choose a guy to fight for you and your land.
You find out such guy is the bravest and righteous man alive.
You fall in love with that man.
That man dies in battle giving you enought time to save your land and the triforce.
You, as a goddess, state a prophecy saying that you will make him "inmortal" through time so you can see each other every time Hyrule is in danger.

And now tell me if you won'tt make sure AS A GODDESS that the guy you loved and died defending you will be reborn EXACTLY AS HE WAS.


No, there's no place where the book/manga states "AND YOU WILL BE A MALE AND HAVE A DICK" but you only have to apply common sense. She was in love with HIM. She wanted to see HIM again and again and again till the end of times. That's why she left her god powers and is reborn as Zelda with HIM every time Hyruyle is in danger.


So yeah, if there's no restriction in what gender he is reborn there's no rectriction of the living thing he can be reborn. Maybe next zelda Link is a Cucco because, you know "there's no restriction"..

What if aonuma and zelda team say "eh, he can be a girl this time?"

Then what?

 

[Mael]

Ok.

You are a Goddess.
You choose a guy to fight for you and your land.
You find out such guy is the bravest and righteous man alive.
You fall in love with that man.
That man dies in battle giving you enought time to save your land and the triforce.
You, as a goddess, state a prophecy saying that you will make him "inmortal" through time so you can see each other every time Hyrule is in danger.

And now tell me if you won'tt make sure AS A GODDESS that the guy you loved and died defending you will be reborn EXACTLY AS HE WAS.


No, there's no place where the book/manga states "AND YOU WILL BE A MALE AND HAVE A DICK" but you only have to apply common sense. She was in love with HIM. She wanted to see HIM again and again and again till the end of times. That's why she left her god powers and is reborn as Zelda with HIM every time Hyruyle is in danger.

We already know that the goddess has limitations to her power, otherwise she wouldn't need Link fighting for him to begin with.
We also know that she's more limited than the 3 original goddesses.
And please do provide the script reference for your points, that way we know you're not making stuffs up.

So yeah, if there's no restriction in what gender he is reborn there's no rectriction of the living thing he can be reborn. Maybe next zelda Link is a Cucco because, you know "there's no restriction"..

So now women are on the level of poultry?

 

[diaspora]

What if aonuma and zelda team say "eh, he can be a girl this time?"

Then what?

commit sudoku

 

[A Link to the Past]

6. Maybe I could explain the point better. The point is that the whole concept of needing to have yourself validated by the degree to which you conform to superficial images is, without exception, pure damaging foolishness. This teaches a little girl that her self-worth is determined by something or someone external, and further that it is based on superficial aspects of herself. This is the exact opposite of what asinine campaigns like this aim to accomplish, hence my repeated use of the word “wrongheaded”. A child (or an adult, for that matter) should know that their validation is inherent and their abilities are whatever they make of them. They should not be led to believe that they are only as capable or valuable as someone who bears a superficial resemblance to themselves, as determined by a video game developer in Japan. So in summary, I love the intentions, but to force it in such a ham-handed way is misguided, foolish, and detrimental not only to creativity in general, but also to the very people that it is supposed to “empower”. Again, it’s a stupid idea.

We can observe that a lack of representation in media can often have a negative effect on younger people.