-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Would you be able to accept it if Link was reincarnated as a Gerudo woman?
- Thread starter A Link to the Past
- Start date
Well, the Mario series is more like the Mario characters are actors and their games are plays they are acting in.
In Zelda the plot is actually important, but you could see it as the various Links being different characters who are played by a handful of actors; Link and Toon Link.
In Zelda the plot is actually important, but you could see it as the various Links being different characters who are played by a handful of actors; Link and Toon Link.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Paper Mario is an art style thing, just like Wind Waker. You can cite that they behave differently, but characters and enemies behave differently in WW too. Link reacts by being shot into the air when touching lava, while other Links just flinch.
Mango The Magician
Banned
I wouldn't say that it's the same thing, at least not exactly, I mean no one in WW makes a point to point out the art style and the gameplay doesn't capitalize on it by using the art style to allow Link to turn into a paper airplane or a tube or anything, and in PM these powers aren't actually just random they're a part of the games story, which means that that individual Mario series is canonically bound by different physical rules than say regular Mario. Again, I wasn't saying that Link is somehow not multiple in the lore, merely that PM universe (at least in canonical physics) is a different universe than regular Mario.
A Link to the Past
Banned
That's an argument that it's more subtle. Characters defy physics in TWW.
Come on Mango. No they're not. While I'm not 100% sure about Mario since I haven't played all the Mario games, Samus is a singular character. Link on the other hand has had multiple iterations of the character. Similar, but all different characters entirely.
Mango The Magician
Banned
How exactly, by the Deku Leaf? Or the cutscenes, that other Zelda games have matched equally in their ridiculousness? I mean, WW looks great and all, but I don't remember them making a plot point in the actual game about the art style; no one suddenly remarks that the Hylians went from anime characters to chibi anime characters. Basically, you could easily swap the WW art style with any art style of Zelda, and it'd be the same thing, you can't do the same thing with PM and say Sunshine, because no one in Sunshine is gonna remark about how they're made of paper.
That's why I said that they respective lores are different. When I said they're identical in how they're designed, I'm referring to their visual design. I mean, I don't know how Nintendo develops games, but I don't think they go into each game by first checking the timeline, like FSA for example, they didn't bother to stop to check to see if the Ganon backstory matched with what there was, they just put Ganon in the game cause they wanted Ganon, and when they found out that lol the fans want a timeline, then they were just like "lol whatever he's a different nearly visually identical Ganon whose backstory is nearly the same thing, because we ain't got to explain shit." I mean y'all fooling yourselves if you think, Nintendo puts more credence over the story of Zelda over the iconic characters of Zelda. They do not go into each game like "what can we do with this new set of characters?" they be like "ok what can Link do in this game? and what kind of bosses do you want? should Ganon be a boss? What kind of moves should Ganon have?"
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
There's no reason Nintendo couldn't gender flip any of those.
A Link to the Past
Banned
By the fact that Link acts in a cartoonish fashion that defies reality. Like I said, Link jumps into the air a dozen feet when he gets burnt by lava. This choice in physics is art style.
Mango The Magician
Banned
I'm pretty sure SS does the same thing, and the lava isn't really that comparable to PM, no one in WW is all like "omg you just jumped a billion feet!" much like no one in SS is all like "you're somehow falling from above the clouds and not dying because you've got a flimsy piece of cloth" These are suspensions of disbelief while PM actually turns the paper concept into a plot point.
Dice// I wasn't even having a debate with you, all I did was point out that X is more similar to Y than Z, you said that you disagree, and I said 'that's fine, I don't necessarily agree but whatever, it's cool.'
Sure, the older games had a bare bones plot holding it together and it was all gameplay mechanics at its core so there was no reason for characters to differ. I won't argue with that.
But I think going forward with the console Zeldas since TP (maybe perhaps wind waker as well but that is still on my to buy list to check out later), there has been a growing focus on characters and the actual plot line. Whether that will keep going with Zelda U, idk, but I personally don't think they'll just stop at Skyward Sword.
...wtf are we arguing about lol
But it wouldn't make sense. Samus is just one character for example. She is the same person.
See, this is where I differ with this other faction. I don't see the point of just gender flipping characters when it doesn't make sense plot wise.
Unless the next Metroid game is set years after Samus somehow dies, we're not going to see a change in character.
Mario? Idk yo.
Mango The Magician
Banned
I'm referring to how Nintendo treats Link and Zelda and Ganon, independent of the Zelda lore, in fact put the lore out of your mind before you read this; basically Nintendo doesn't treat him any different than say Mario or Samus, or even DK, there's a design for Link that has evolved over the years just like there's a design for Mario that's evolved over the years, Link always follows this design, meaning when it comes to how Link looks he's treated no different than Mario or Samus. This is why I said that Link's identical to Mario and Samus outside the lore.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Except, again, PM is a depiction of the same character. A written Mario. It is absolutely not equivalent because PM's sole existence is to be Mario in a different, in-universe format.
Mango The Magician
Banned
Now, there's no need for harsh feelings my friend.
I wasn't saying it was equivalent to Link, I was saying that it's a different depiction of Mario and since it's bound by different rules that are canonical it can not be the same depiction that isn't bound by those rules; basically we're like on the same page man.
No not really it's a bit more complicated than that.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Link is the green shirt and hat.
What person wears it is irrelevant.
What person wears it is irrelevant.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
True, but there is no reason Nitnendo couldn't just opt to make Samus a man. It's a fictional character that they can manipulate as they so choose.
Link's been rather consistent in appearance and gender. (Though noting trends just nets you catalls of "tradition" and logical fallacies there is a notable trend there.) How does it make more sense to flip him?
The best reason is, "Lore doesn't explicitly say no." which really isn't a rock solid reason.
That's one way to view it I suppose.
You can't suddenly change a character when every game has been a direct plot continuation in a series. That's like saying you want Harry Potter to suddenly become a girl in book 5.
The Legend of Zelda's individual games on other hand are individual self contained plots (for the most part, not counting the few games that directly continue). There may be a time line connecting each game but these Links are separate entities from each other. Who's to say one game in a now branching time line can't have a female Link? Because it can happen. A plot reason is not a flimsy reason. It's an established fact now.
oh man, i'm so glad we've finally come here.
1) the metroid series is obviously one continuous story, unlike zelda's constantly reinvented worlds
2) we have more than enough games featuring a male protagonist, changing one of the few strong female leads in gaming to a man is an asinine idea
i assume you're being facetious anyway, but you can never tell these days
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
It pretty much is.
Unless you go super deep in the lore, Link is a blank state - it's main characteristic is being the protagonist of Zelda games and wearing the heroic garb: green vest and hat, the master sword and the fancy shield.
……forgetit
Member
It would be odd but Nintendo would never do it anyway. In my opinion at that point she wouldn't be lunk, she'd be a completely different character. I mean link has been basically the same for 28 years. Just because the CAN do it doesn't mean they ever will.
Mango The Magician
Banned
Since when did the lore define the entirety of a character?
SilverArrow20XX
Walks in the Light of the Crystal
Unless you go super deep in the lore, Link is one character. HIS characteristics being what you listed plus his hairstyle.
Also, anybody who thinks sex only minimally affects character design is delusional. It's generally the very first thing people notice when looking at a person/character.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Now you're just citing tradition. Logical fallacy. Easy enough to introduce a gender ray gun or whatever to explain away the chest hair.
They already gutted Samus with Other M regardless. They turned a genetically engineered alien superwoman into Private Benjamin with PTSD. There's no recovering from that.
Not that I'd actually want a male Samus (I prefer they don't change up an established character just for the sake of feels which is partly why Other M enrages me to this day) but realistically, Nintendo could flip that switch whenever they wanted with little effort.
Also the reason I've provided for such a change are just as valid as the ones you've presented for changing Link. (Just a bit less delusional since I don't think changing Samus into a man would do anything to affect a broader social agenda.)
I'm just seeing if you can explain the logic behind the posting in a way that makes it make some kind of sense. Because it still makes no sense to me.
Basically I see the only reason for changing Link is "Just because women might buy more AAA games or become programmers for... Reasons."
There's no support in the lore for it really. Just no explicit statement to the contrary.
So the whole point of this is really just a social landscaping program which just happened to trundle into Zelda and it's not about the games at all (as you've stated before) which is troublesome.
Derive what conclusions from that what you will. All I'll say is look at my posting history. I really don't run the agenda you think I do. I simply deplore significant change. (And Zelda voice acting thread, any previous Save Zelda thread, Watchmen threads, Lord of The Rings threads etc will demonstrate I'm rather consistent on this point.)
I don't mean to sound harsh, but it does irk me when people say that the series has been playing it safe when each new game that's released gathers a legion of detractors. Playing it safe usually means that you're basically pandering and not messing around with any of the established franchise principles in order to please the fanbase, but how is that any of that true when games like SS, PH, ST, and MM exist in the catalogue? Those games all took risks and you could argue they paid heavy prices. People hate the DS entries because of touch screen controls and dungeons. People hate MM because of the time limit restrictions. SS is constantly bashed for motion controls and a seemingly small overworld. Each one of those games could've been something more familiar like Minish Cap (the last game that probably had a true consensus of being a great game) or OoT, but they weren't. Nintendo went off in their own direction and made some more interesting and unique.
That was my original point. Now, I realized that you were talking about story and plot, which I do agree that it can come off as a stale especially if you're a general consumer who doesn't understand the intricacies of a Zelda game. I would actually like to see some new material. One of the reasons why I liked LaNayru in SS is because it completely messed with my expectations. I thought it was just desert at first but then you're off in a sand ocean, raiding a robot factory, and boarding a pirate ship. It was completely out of left field. It was awesome and I would like to see more crazy stuff like that rather than the forest, fire, water themes.
One last thing: art makes a huge difference. It's why people flipped their shit when WW was revealed and it's why people cried themselves into hysteria when TP was revealed. It's been said before, but if Link were designed more like a tough guy, and the game was more meaner and darker, more violent, Zelda would probably resonate a lot more with modern audiences. That's just my cynical view. I don't ever want to see Zelda become something like that.
Twilight Princess is a bolder game than ALBW. I just can't agree. I can go off and list all the reasons why, but I think it should be obvious to anyone that TP is its own game. I know a lot of people like to say that it's like OoT 2.0 but that's being extremely reductive and ignores all the improvements made in level design and story presentation. There are a bunch of mechanics in TP that wouldn't have even been possible in OoT.
ALBW is an awesome game and I stated that it has its own unique traits, but lets not ignore the fact that the game is built on literally the same foundation as LttP: the map is the same, some of the bosses are recycled, and most of the core mechanics stay the same. The game is intended to be a sequel but if you would've called ALBW a remake, would anyone have doubted you? They can be confused for the same game.
D
Deleted member 8095
Unconfirmed Member
I don't give a fuck what or who Link is as long as the game is good. It's not like there is going to be a voice actor and Link usually sounds pretty feminine anyway. Couldn't care less.
A Link to the Past
Banned
TP did new mechanics because it was allowable. What did Twilight Princess do that was really, genuinely new? To further my point, what did TP do new that was completely unlike anything that Zelda had ever gone, ever?
To answer my own question for ALBW, ALBW does multiple things differently. For example...
1. Exploration is completely turned on its head by adding 3D movement to a 2D overhead world through the use of the wall-fusion thingy
2. Items are no longer found in dungeons or on the overworld (not typically, anyway), but rather rented/purchased, creating a value for Rupees that never existed before.
3. There is a huge variance in the order of the dungeons. If I recall correctly, the only dungeons that follow any order are the first Light World dungeon and the final Dark World dungeon.
And all of these things are constantly on the players' minds, so it's not as though they're just tossed in there. Death means losing all of your item rentals, after all. You're always thinking "which should I do?", and the wall-fusion mechanic is constantly used. The game also features a floor system that allows for a smooth transition from one floor to the next, but it is not as big of a deal as the other three things so I did not list it. Nevertheless, it is the first 2D Zelda to do such a thing.
And if we want to talk about feeling like a remake, what did Twilight Princess do to set itself apart from OoT in that respect? You got Epona, you started in a village down south, you went to Kakariko and Hyrule up north. Your first dungeon is a forest dungeon, your second dungeon is a fire dungeon, your third dungeon is a water dungeon. Heck, the third dungeon boss is called "Morpheel"! As far as items go, almost every item TP introduces falls under two categories:
A. Item that becomes useless, or
B. Item that is an enhanced or altered version of an item that they already made before
The Spinner, Dominion Rod, and Ball-and-Chain are definitely welcomed into the first category, while the Clawshot, Double Clawshot, Hawkeye, underwater bombs, Bombling, Gale Boomerang, and Fishing Rod fall under the second category. TP strongly emphasizes rehashed ideas. As much as it wants to say "I'm different!", the reality is that even though it may not seem like it, TP apes OoT a lot, and in lazier ways than the way ALBW expands upon ALttP (different choice of words because ALBW wears its inspiration on its sleeves). You can say that bosses were recycled, but to what degree? Sure, Blind is in the game, but he plays in a radically different way that requires you use your wall-fusion skill to outsmart him. It's a game that takes heavy inspiration from it, so I view it as a situation wherein these giant baddies, many years down the line, their species propagated or changed. Moldorms and Arrghuses stayed largely the same, but the name - Stalblind - is a nice story detail that suggests that this is a phantom Blind. A lot of the dungeons also have a lot of personality, including the Thieves' Hideout, where you interact with a number of the thieves occupying it.
You can cite ALBW's similarities to ALttP, but it's awfully silly to be using them as a counter for all of the innovation it puts into Zelda, all of the things about it that never "were" until it came around. TP meanwhile is all about the status quo. For me and many others, it's when we figured out that Zelda was no longer going to surprise us, and for me specifically, that trend maintained itself all the way until A Link Between Worlds. Hell, for as much as you cite the world map as an example of how it rehashes another game, its "rehash" makes it more exciting! As a fan of ALttP, it's super fun to see what they did to change the overworld, and to see how much my knowledge of ALttP's overworld would benefit me while playing this game. Saying that ALBW could feel like a remake of ALttP is as silly as if you said that Majora's Mask was a remake of OoT because it used the same engine, the same graphics (more or less), much of the same character assets, and mostly the same items.
None of these images changes the fact that Link isn't at his most identifiable in the above pictures. I mean, that TP picture? If I showed that to my Mom, who is aware of Link well enough, she would not be able to guess in a million years who that was. Meanwhile, she would look at the bottom image with the three people in goggles and say "well they look like Link."
Degrees dude. You make it sound as if I said ALBW is creatively stagnant. It's not my point. My original point was that even in "safe" Zelda game, there's still a lot of creative things going on like the wall merging and the inventory system that causes rifts between the fanbase. I still think Twilight is a more ambitious game in every single aspect. Feel free to disagree. I know I'm not alone in thinking ALBW stuck a little to close to LttP. The game is still amazing though.
A Link to the Past
Banned
With all respect, you've said TP is a bolder game multiple times, while I've demonstrated that ALBW is a bolder game. TP did nothing special or unique, while ALBW did things that made people raise a massive eyebrow. People at first weren't sure about the wall mechanic, people weren't sure about rentals. Suggesting that ALBW was safe because it "rehashes" ALttP's overworld is objectively wrong because the only way it would be safe is if they copied it wholesale, which they definitely, absolutely did not. It was modeled after ALttP's overworld, but it was hardly effortless. The initial claim of ALBW being a "safe Zelda" was disingenuous, while TP went to great lengths to please the fanbase. Like I said, there has never been a safer Zelda than TP.
What does TP do that makes it bold?
thechristoph
Sir!
Zelda would have to be a man then, right? don't they continue the line?
Nostremitus
Member
ALBW was a safe zelda. Everything about it screamed safe. It was a nostalgia play with watered down dungeon and exploration mechanics. Instead of developing a causal system of advancing through the game, they just handed you everything at the beginning. You could go almost anywhere and do dungeons in any order. That wasn't revolutionary, it was lazy. It meant they didn't have to create 80% of the side stories that exist in other modern zelda games that keep places blocked off until you have the right item. It was like the FF13 of Zelda titles.
I still enjoyed the game, but it's the only Zelda game I've ever started cold and played straight through in a day.
A Link to the Past
Banned
So ALBW is safe because it "relies" on nostalgia (and by relies, I mean "utilizes it in addition to elements found in no other Zelda game ever made that a lot of people were really worried wouldn't turn out well at all), while TP is an edgy, extreme game that... has no substance because its point was to appeal to people clamoring for OoT2.
Oh, and let's consider for a moment
1. A game handing you all the tools in the beginning is a game that gives you immediate access. ALBW requires thousands or rupees to get. So yes, you're right - like all JRPGs, you can choose to stop having fun to get all of the items immediately. The game rewards you for skill by allowing you to keep the items for cheap, because you lose them if you die.
2. You don't get all of the items at the beginning. Several items must actually be found on the overworld.
Honestly, the TP defense is silly. Suggesting that ALBW - a game that constantly utilizes multiple major core mechanics that has never been seen before and after it - is less safe than a game that does NOTHING new besides make it "teh realizstic" is so silly.
velvet_nitemare
Member
I'm high and i just had a thought.
What if Nintendo included a character editor like u find in the Souls games and Dragon Age.
What if Nintendo included a character editor like u find in the Souls games and Dragon Age.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Honestly, I wouldn't like character creation to that degree :v I don't want this Link:
Nostremitus
Member
I thought TP was ok, it wasn't revolutionary either, but at least it had an epic feel and was a fun playthrough. It also had enough story to last longer than a few hours.
I wasn't defending TP, I was just talking about one of the most disappointing Zelda games to come out lately(ALBW)
.
1. I didn't have to farm and had all the equipment fairly quickly. I didn't have to earn them in dungeons and puzzles. It gave them to me. The game was mostly too easy to die in, so there was really no fear of losing your stuff and no point in farming to buy them permanently.
2. The Pegasus boots were the only item I recall actually having to figure out how to get.
I don't understand the ALBW defense, it's silly (as you say). It was the second-most-lackluster Zelda game I've ever played. It rates just higher than Phantom Hourglass. It may have been my third -most-lackluster but I never played Spirit Tracks due to my dislike of PH. I don't understand how people can view anything done in ALBW as revolutionary. Jumping in and out of walls was a cool gimmick. It brought a sense of 2-D side scrolling back to the series but missed the mark by not allowing Zelda II style fighting while in the walls. The equipment rental aspect was a cop-out for not wanting to invest the time and energy into developing an "if this, then that" type of coherent world that the series is known for. It was a game that started as a remake, and then was turned into something else in the most cost-effective way possible, and it shows.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Your arguments are nothing of "safe" and everything of "I didn't like it." It'd be like if I criticized TP's soundtrack because I didn't like its overworld. Criticize elements accurately. I have no problem with you not liking the unsafe ideas, but the ideas were not safe by any means. Item rental had it open to criticism as soon as the mechanic was announced (thereby making it unsafe), and people were skeptical about the wall-travel mechanic (again, not safe).
As for the idea t hat the item system was a cop-out, are you legitimately suggesting that people who have been doing perfectly fine with designing dungeons in order were frenetically running around without any sense of what's going on, and decided to add that at the last minute because they couldn't follow the formula? Nintendo advertised the non-linearity as a feature, and frankly, a lot of people were happy about it because that's what a lot of people wanted out of an adventure game, especially Zelda. Further, your criticism against the wall gimmick sounds extremely odd. Sure, it would have been neat if it was a mechanic, but the exploration option that it introduces shouldn't be discredited for lacking an optional aspect.
As for the idea t hat the item system was a cop-out, are you legitimately suggesting that people who have been doing perfectly fine with designing dungeons in order were frenetically running around without any sense of what's going on, and decided to add that at the last minute because they couldn't follow the formula? Nintendo advertised the non-linearity as a feature, and frankly, a lot of people were happy about it because that's what a lot of people wanted out of an adventure game, especially Zelda. Further, your criticism against the wall gimmick sounds extremely odd. Sure, it would have been neat if it was a mechanic, but the exploration option that it introduces shouldn't be discredited for lacking an optional aspect.
Wouldn't really bother me to see a female Link.
I don't see why it should happen though. I'd much rather see a new character or just play as Zelda.
Freshmaker put it well.
You can essentially believe what you want about whom Link ends up with. Unless they end up stating it.
I don't see why it should happen though. I'd much rather see a new character or just play as Zelda.
Freshmaker put it well.
It hadn't really been touched on how it goes down exactly.
You can essentially believe what you want about whom Link ends up with. Unless they end up stating it.