Support NeoGAF

[James Scott]

I think Nintendo didn't set a release date for Zelda U just in case the NX is delayed. Saying "Zelda U and the NX are coming out in March" and then "BOTH Zelda U and NX are delayed again!" Would probably be worse PR than just delaying the NX

 

[Skittzo0413]

I think Nintendo didn't set a release date for Zelda U just in case the NX is delayed. Saying "Zelda U and the NX are coming out in March" and then "BOTH Zelda U and NX are delayed again!" Would probably be worse PR than just delaying the NX

This is likely the case, yeah. Also it makes me wonder how close Zelda U/NX is to being finished. Are they really sitting on a complete game for essentially 4-5 months, or do you think they might be adding some new content, polishing, etc.?

 

[James Scott]

This is likely the case, yeah. Also it makes me wonder how close Zelda U/NX is to being finished. Are they really sitting on a complete game for essentially 4-5 months, or do you think they might be adding some new content, polishing, etc.?

I think that's what happened with SS. Don't remember where I read it, but I think I remember it being basically done for several months but they wanted the holiday slot

 

[Dark Cloud]

This is likely the case, yeah. Also it makes me wonder how close Zelda U/NX is to being finished. Are they really sitting on a complete game for essentially 4-5 months, or do you think they might be adding some new content, polishing, etc.?

Wherever NX goes, Zelda U/NX will follow. It's key to the NX it launches with it and Zelda U doesn't release prior to it.

 

[LegendofLex]

Why you'd want to play as a female Link when you already have a perfectly good female character in Zelda is beyond me, especially when she's the titular character. That seems more damning to Zelda than anything to me, especially after 30 years where people haven't gotten to play as her.

She's the titular character, but she's also definitively the second string protagonist compared to Link.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I think that's what happened with SS. Don't remember where I read it, but I think I remember it being basically done for several months but they wanted the holiday slot

That I understand, and I'm betting a lot of games over a lot of companies have sat completed to get those holiday sales. But it's a little strange in this instance given how many times the game has been delayed, and how it's now going to miss the holiday.

Wherever NX goes, Zelda U/NX will follow. It's key to the NX it launches with it and Zelda U doesn't release prior to it.

To some extent that's likely true, but I would hope that Nintendo will have more big launch window software and that they aren't banking totally on Zelda NX. Having as many games as possible can't hurt though, I guess.

 

[The_Lump]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but why is Link still a Righty in the artwork?? Thought we'd seen the last of that with the death of waggle.



Or maybe...

Girl Link = Righty
Boy Link = Lefty

Calling it.

She's the titular character, but she's also definitively the second string protagonist compared to Link.

That's what he/she's saying isn't it; Zelda should have been playable by now.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

I think any horse will be "epona" even If you can change the name, is just the way to identify it.
Instead of saying "it's a horse!" its easy to say "it's epona!" because when you hear "epona" you know they are talking about the horse you use in Zelda games, so yeah, just a way to identify the character.

I dont think so, those white horseys were just wild horse. It would be strange if Link just got on them in start riding them when in previous game with Epona he always had a relationship with the horse.

 

[Enduin]

That's what he/she's saying isn't it; Zelda should have been playable by now.

If I'm not mistaken Lex is arguing that Zelda is not a viable playable character because they think she's been permanently relegated to being second to Link. And so people wouldn't accept her being the hero given her role in the series thus far. Which is silly. Nothing about her role or position in the series is set in stone. Given a proper chance people could easily accept her as proper hero.

If anything her historical role provides a much more meaningful and important reason for making her the playable character in the series. To put the two main characters on more equal footing, rather than to resign to the fact that the titular, female, character of the series will never be good enough to take the leading role. Yet changing Link's gender, or providing an option for it, is a much less radical or risky choice.

 

[LegendofLex]

That's what he/she's saying isn't it; Zelda should have been playable by now.

And what I'm saying is that a playable Zelda either

1) Would play differently than Link, being that she's a different character. The flaw with this is that the gameplay of The Legend of Zelda series is based on hero tropes that are embodied in Link, not Zelda (who represents different tropes). You'd have to actively change the gameplay of the series to adapt the existing Zelda character into the main protagonist.

2) Would play identically to Link, meaning that you'd basically be shoehorning an established character (Zelda) based on established tropes (medieval princess/goddess/priestess/ruler) into the hero trope. The flaw with this, of course, is that there's really no point in using an established character based on a different trope in a role based on a trope for which there's already an existing character - especially when Link is already supposed to be a stand-in for the player anyway (Zelda is not).

You'd either get a Zelda that is an alt to Link and doesn't embody the hero trope the series is based on, or you'd get a Zelda who might as well be a female version of Link.

There's no benefit to the series to have Zelda be the only playable female alt to Link in a mainline title. The series is built on the legendary hero trope embodied by Link. Let's allow that trope to be a mantle that women can wear rather than taking the meaningless step of giving an already-established character playable time.

 

[James Scott]

Zelda and Link are different characters so having them play similarly and go on the same quest would be weird.
Zelda usually goes on her own quest or with Link, so maybe DLC could work, but I'm probably against FemLink being Zelda.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but why is Link still a Righty in the artwork?? Thought we'd seen the last of that with the death of waggle.



Or maybe...

Girl Link = Righty
Boy Link = Lefty

Calling it.



That's what he/she's saying isn't it; Zelda should have been playable by now.

Link has been right handed since the initial trailer. You put the arm guard on the hand on your dominant hand because a shield would make the one on the non-dominant one useless and detrimental

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Is link being a lefty all that important? Are you really going to left handed conventions and praising Nintendo because someone's dominant hand was the same as yours? Nothing is stopping a reincarnation being a righty.

And yes true nothing is stopping the reincarnation from being a woman, man, a different ethnicity, race, etc but good luck convincing Nintendo to have a black link.

 

[thefragrance]

Just making sure I'm getting this right: woman Link is still a rumor, right?

I'm hoping it's a true thing. In fact, I'm hoping woman Link is the only Link we'll get to play as in Zelda NX.

 

[Enduin]

And what I'm saying is that a playable Zelda either

1) Would play differently than Link, being that she's a different character. The flaw with this is that the gameplay of The Legend of Zelda series is based on hero tropes that are embodied in Link, not Zelda (who represents different tropes). You'd have to actively change the gameplay of the series to adapt the existing Zelda character into the main protagonist.

2) Would play identically to Link, meaning that you'd basically be shoehorning an established character (Zelda) based on established tropes (medieval princess/goddess/priestess/ruler) into the hero trope. The flaw with this, of course, is that there's really no point in using an established character based on a different trope in a role based on a trope for which there's already an existing character - especially when Link is already supposed to be a stand-in for the player anyway (Zelda is not).

You'd either get a Zelda that is an alt to Link and doesn't embody the hero trope the series is based on, or you'd get a Zelda who might as well be a female version of Link.

There's no benefit to the series to have Zelda be the only playable female alt to Link in a mainline title. The series is built on the legendary hero trope embodied by Link. Let's allow that trope to be a mantle that women can wear rather than taking the meaningless step of giving an already-established character playable time.

This is so many flavors of wrong.

There's nothing difficult about adapting Zelda to the role of the hero or the role of the hero to Zelda. These Hero/Princess tropes are so vague and ambiguous that it's silly to even consider them a hurdle for using her in the role. She's already been portrayed in a whole number of different ways throughout the series that have shown her ability to buck the soft princess trope. From Sheik to Tetra to even a brief moment in Twilight Princess and much of her journey in SS. It wouldn't be hard at all to have a game with her play similarly to Link while still maintaining her unique attributes that differentiate her enough. You automatically jump to the two extremes when there's a very cushy middle ground that would allow for familiar gameplay while not being exactly the same.

Link is just a character, there's nothing significantly special about him that makes him Hero worthy, other than the fact that he's always been the hero. Zelda could just as easily embody that spirit and more importantly show that different people can be the hero despite their historical role.

You say it would be a meaningless step is beyond ridiculous. Taking the titular character of one of the most famous video game franchises around who has been all too often relegated to the sidelines and used a reward or object due solely to her gender would be meaningless in the role of the hero? Sorry what? That's literally one of the most important reason ever to elevate her to the position. To show that history and depiction is wrong.

Yet somehow turning a male character into a female character has meaning? That's a really terrible message to be sending. You're essentially saying that a girl can be the hero so long as she is exactly like the original male version, but the already female character who has been around just as long cannot because she's represents too much of a girl. That's pretty messed up.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Just making sure I'm getting this right: woman Link is still a rumor, right?

I'm hoping it's a true thing. In fact, I'm hoping woman Link is the only Link we'll get to play as in Zelda NX.

Well we know thats not happening Aonuma already said Link is a guy

 

[Richie]

I am pretty interested to see if, on top of whatever new mechanics this game introduces, it may also revisit some from past titles. Masks from Majora? Multifunctional magical instrument? Outfits a lá Triforce Heroes? Aonuma IIRC has said something about the new title having similarities to Twilight Princess, hmm...

 

[LegendofLex]

This is so many flavors of wrong.

There's nothing difficult about adapting Zelda to the role of the hero or the role of the hero to Zelda. These Hero/Princess tropes are so vague and ambiguous that it's silly to even consider them a hurdle for using her in the role. She's already been portrayed in a whole number of different ways throughout the series that have shown her ability to buck the soft princess trope. From Sheik to Tetra to even a brief moment in Twilight Princess and much of her journey in SS. It wouldn't be hard at all to have a game with her play similarly to Link while still maintaining her unique attributes that differentiate her enough. You automatically jump to the two extremes when there's a very cushy middle ground that would allow for familiar gameplay while not being exactly the same.

Link is just a character, there's nothing significantly special about him that makes him Hero worthy, other than the fact that he's always been the hero. Zelda could just as easily embody that spirit and more importantly show that different people can be the hero despite their historical role.

You say it would be a meaningless step is beyond ridiculous. Taking the titular character of one of the most famous video game franchises around who has been all too often relegated to the sidelines and used a reward or object due solely to her gender would be meaningless in the role of the hero? Sorry what? That's literally one of the most important reason ever to elevate her to the position. To show that history and depiction is wrong.

Yet somehow turning a male character into a female character has meaning? That's a really terrible message to be sending. You're essentially saying that a girl can be the hero so long as she is exactly like the original male version, but the already female character who has been around just as long cannot because she's represents too much of a girl. That's pretty messed up.

I don't think it's so much that you couldn't have a character named Zelda who inherits visual/design/personality traits from the existing character named Zelda but now has many things in common with Link as well. I think it's more that the visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character named Zelda - down all the way to her name - exist as the result of Nintendo's design mantra where the form of a thing complements and telegraphs its function.

The visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character Link already accomplish the task of matching up the function of "hero in a fantasy world" with recognizable forms:

- the sword and shield
- the green tunic
- the heroic youth who is the last of his kin
- the name Link (which, as has been the case from the beginning, is a stand-in for the player's own name)

There's nothing wrong with having a woman named Zelda wear those forms, even one that as a character descends from the Princess Zelda we already know.

Neither is there anything wrong with having the existing Princess Zelda take on a starring role in a game, without wearing those forms.

What I'm questioning is whether there's really any reason to have the woman wearing the hero tropes be named/based on the Princess Zelda we already know, or whether having the existing Princess Zelda (who take on the starring role in a game would be more effective at achieving the mission of the Zelda series - to put the player in the role of the hero archetype.

Specifically, I'm questioning whether either of those strategies is more effective at achieving the goal of "being inclusive of women in Nintendo's interpretation of the hero archetype" than simply allowing the option for their existing hero archetype player-avatar-who-can-take-the-player's-name character to also be female.

If the only problematic thing about Link as a stand-in for the player is that his traditional depiction has limited the hero to always be a white male, then the solution is to remove that limitation.

Princesses can be heroes. No one's disputing that. Zelda's already taken on this role in several games.

But The Legend of Zelda series gameplay is built on the back of a very specific kind of sword-and-shield, green tunic fantasy hero - one that girls should be able to be, too, instead of having to be heroes of the princess variety. And, like with other occupations like firefighters and police, I think that's best served by just letting women be firefighters and police - and legendary heroes of the Link variety.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

I don't think it's so much that you couldn't have a character named Zelda who inherits visual/design/personality traits from the existing character named Zelda but now has many things in common with Link as well. I think it's more that the visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character named Zelda - down all the way to her name - exist as the result of Nintendo's design mantra where the form of a thing complements and telegraphs its function.

The visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character Link already accomplish the task of matching up the function of "hero in a fantasy world" with recognizable forms:

- the sword and shield
- the green tunic
- the heroic youth who is the last of his kin
- the name Link (which, as has been the case from the beginning, is a stand-in for the player's own name)

There's nothing wrong with having a woman named Zelda wear those forms, even one that as a character descends from the Princess Zelda we already know.

Neither is there anything wrong with having the existing Princess Zelda take on a starring role in a game, without wearing those forms.

What I'm questioning is whether there's really any reason to have the woman wearing the hero tropes be named/based on the Princess Zelda we already know, or whether having the existing Princess Zelda (who take on the starring role in a game would be more effective at achieving the mission of the Zelda series - to put the player in the role of the hero archetype.

Specifically, I'm questioning whether either of those strategies is more effective at achieving the goal of "being inclusive of women in Nintendo's interpretation of the hero archetype" than simply allowing the option for their existing hero archetype player-avatar-who-can-take-the-player's-name character to also be female.

If the only problematic thing about Link as a stand-in for the player is that his traditional depiction has limited the hero to always be a white male, then the solution is to remove that limitation.

Princesses can be heroes. No one's disputing that. Zelda's already taken on this role in several games.

But The Legend of Zelda series gameplay is built on the back of a very specific kind of sword-and-shield, green tunic fantasy hero - one that girls should be able to be, too, instead of having to be heroes of the princess variety. And, like with other occupations like firefighters and police, I think that's best served by just letting women be firefighters and police - and legendary heroes of the Link variety.

And also black characters, with a red tunic, wielding magic and a staff instead of sword and shield, green tunic.

 

[LegendofLex]

And also black characters, with a red tunic, wielding magic and a staff instead of sword and shield, green tunic.

Sure, I think it's totally fine to have other stuff in addition to the sword and shield and green tunic. Aside from being able to be a black girl/guy, both of the things you mentioned (magic/staff and red tunic) were in the first game. ;p

But I think the foundational stuff - the sword and shield, the basic legendary hero shtick - always needs to be there in some form, at least in the mainline titles.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Sure, I think it's totally fine to have other stuff in addition to the sword and shield and green tunic. Aside from being able to be a black girl/guy, both of the things you mentioned (magic/staff and red tunic) were in the first game. ;p

But I think the foundational stuff - the sword and shield, the basic legendary hero shtick - always needs to be there in some form, at least in the mainline titles.

They werent in the first game how Im thinking of it.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I don't think it's so much that you couldn't have a character named Zelda who inherits visual/design/personality traits from the existing character named Zelda but now has many things in common with Link as well. I think it's more that the visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character named Zelda - down all the way to her name - exist as the result of Nintendo's design mantra where the form of a thing complements and telegraphs its function.

The visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character Link already accomplish the task of matching up the function of "hero in a fantasy world" with recognizable forms:

- the sword and shield
- the green tunic
- the heroic youth who is the last of his kin
- the name Link (which, as has been the case from the beginning, is a stand-in for the player's own name)

There's nothing wrong with having a woman named Zelda wear those forms, even one that as a character descends from the Princess Zelda we already know.

Neither is there anything wrong with having the existing Princess Zelda take on a starring role in a game, without wearing those forms.

What I'm questioning is whether there's really any reason to have the woman wearing the hero tropes be named/based on the Princess Zelda we already know, or whether having the existing Princess Zelda (who take on the starring role in a game would be more effective at achieving the mission of the Zelda series - to put the player in the role of the hero archetype.

Specifically, I'm questioning whether either of those strategies is more effective at achieving the goal of "being inclusive of women in Nintendo's interpretation of the hero archetype" than simply allowing the option for their existing hero archetype player-avatar-who-can-take-the-player's-name character to also be female.

If the only problematic thing about Link as a stand-in for the player is that his traditional depiction has limited the hero to always be a white male, then the solution is to remove that limitation.

Princesses can be heroes. No one's disputing that. Zelda's already taken on this role in several games.

But The Legend of Zelda series gameplay is built on the back of a very specific kind of sword-and-shield, green tunic fantasy hero - one that girls should be able to be, too, instead of having to be heroes of the princess variety. And, like with other occupations like firefighters and police, I think that's best served by just letting women be firefighters and police - and legendary heroes of the Link variety.

A lot of what you're saying about the roles/tropes in the game is actually personified in Zelda games by the Triforce: the sword and shield hero is the embodiment of courage, the magic wielding benevolent ruler is the embodiment of wisdom, and the evil man-becoming-a-monster is the embodiment of power.

If Nintendo really wants Zelda to take up Link's role in this (or any of the games) they've built themselves a perfect vehicle with which to do it- give Zelda the Triforce of Courage. Maybe the great evil causes some problem which switches around who gets which Triforce. The exact details aren't really important- but it would be a very cool way to actually turn around the roles and conventions of the Zelda series in a way that's not just consistent with the lore but made more interesting because of the lore.

 

[Enduin]

I don't think it's so much that you couldn't have a character named Zelda who inherits visual/design/personality traits from the existing character named Zelda but now has many things in common with Link as well. I think it's more that the visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character named Zelda - down all the way to her name - exist as the result of Nintendo's design mantra where the form of a thing complements and telegraphs its function.

The visual/design/personality traits already assigned to the existing character Link already accomplish the task of matching up the function of "hero in a fantasy world" with recognizable forms:

- the sword and shield
- the green tunic
- the heroic youth who is the last of his kin
- the name Link (which, as has been the case from the beginning, is a stand-in for the player's own name)

There's nothing wrong with having a woman named Zelda wear those forms, even one that as a character descends from the Princess Zelda we already know.

Neither is there anything wrong with having the existing Princess Zelda take on a starring role in a game, without wearing those forms.

What I'm questioning is whether there's really any reason to have the woman wearing the hero tropes be named/based on the Princess Zelda we already know, or whether having the existing Princess Zelda (who take on the starring role in a game would be more effective at achieving the mission of the Zelda series - to put the player in the role of the hero archetype.

Specifically, I'm questioning whether either of those strategies is more effective at achieving the goal of "being inclusive of women in Nintendo's interpretation of the hero archetype" than simply allowing the option for their existing hero archetype player-avatar-who-can-take-the-player's-name character to also be female.

If the only problematic thing about Link as a stand-in for the player is that his traditional depiction has limited the hero to always be a white male, then the solution is to remove that limitation.

Princesses can be heroes. No one's disputing that. Zelda's already taken on this role in several games.

But The Legend of Zelda series gameplay is built on the back of a very specific kind of sword-and-shield, green tunic fantasy hero - one that girls should be able to be, too, instead of having to be heroes of the princess variety. And, like with other occupations like firefighters and police, I think that's best served by just letting women be firefighters and police - and legendary heroes of the Link variety.

None of that really matters though. Ostensibly only the sword and shield are important due to the gameplay. But the green tunic, background, none of it is important to the experience or role of the hero and only somewhat for the actual character of Link. It's simply a motif the series is known for, but it's not dependent on that. All that is required to be the hero is being the hero. Taking up the role within the world to combat the evil that threatens everyone. Whether you assume the trappings of that and your name is Link or not or whether you wear a green tunic with a funny hat or not is largely irrelevant to the experience as what you do in the game is the same regardless. You go on an adventure and save the day.

And I would argue that Zelda as the hero would be far more effective and historically meaningful because of her depiction in most of the series has been that of a vulnerable and in need of rescuing girl. And not the only one at that. Making her the hero would be the most effective way of combating that image. While having a female Link addresses none of those issues the series has had with depicting female characters and only places yet another hurdle for which Zelda has to compete with to gain more equal standing.

And again she has been depicted in a variety of ways across the series. She is not required to be a super Princessy hero every time. She can be but doesn't have to. She could be more like Tetra or SS Zelda too. She could just be a girl in a green like tunic should they want to. She would still very much be Zelda in that case because it's only clothing not some magical character altering costume.

Both characters have been around so long that they aren't defined by such superficial aspects. Having Link not wear a green tunic every time in a game or having Princess Zelda wear a green tunic in a game isn't really important. What they do is what is important, the visual style in which they do it is only important due to the series' long history. But their character, how people remember and recognize them often goes well beyond that and would even more so in the future should they pull away from that.

Hell even the Triforce doesn't matter. In the original game Link doesn't even have the Triforce of Courage, it's not even in the game. He's on a journey to reclaim the Triforce of Wisdom. It's not till AoL that he has to obtain it, same goes for several of the games in the series where Link has to prove and physically obtain it to show he's the Hero. Nothing is stopping Zelda from doing that herself in a game and literally claiming the mantle of hero for herself by physically obtaining the Triforce of Courage.

The big difference between you and me is that Link is a character to me, not a mantle or set of tropes. He exists for me beyond the superficial trappings many know him for. Same for Zelda. Making Link be more reflective of the player makes sense if you view him as an avatar for the player. But I don't. I view them as people within their world. So for me changing Link is meaningless, if not regressive, and it devalues Zelda as a character to do so instead of making her a playable character. Within their world, the setting of the series she's just as capable and deserving as Link. So passing over her like that just doesn't make sense to me. And allowing her to take up that role carries a lot of meaning within the series and setting. She is a character that has been wronged due largely in part because of her gender and position in life. Allowing her to be the hero and not the victim carries a great deal of weight and would be a really important milestone.

 

[zoukka]

Just changing the Link/Zelda pattern for the sake of letting a woman be the hero seems counterproductive to me. It's not like Zelda ever was a hopeless character anyways.

 

[MuchoMalo]

Just making sure I'm getting this right: woman Link is still a rumor, right?

I'm hoping it's a true thing. In fact, I'm hoping woman Link is the only Link we'll get to play as in Zelda NX.

It's still a rumor, but a lot of people tend to take rumors as fact if they trust the source.

 

[LegendofLex]

If the problem with Zelda is that she's a damsel who always needs saving, there's a simple solution: Don't make her a damsel that needs saving. You already brought up Sheik and Tetra as good examples of this, and obviously she often contributes to the adventure even as a princess.

The problem with making Zelda the playable protagonist in a mainline title isn't that she's a woman. It's that she's ostensibly not designed and has never been designed as a stand-in for the player. It's that the project of The Legend of Zelda series is precisely to let players step into that very specific archetype - the avatar - in a fantasy universe, and that a character who isn't designed for that purpose and with that archetype in mind is a poor fit for that purpose and a poor representation of that archetype.

You'd be either saying that The Legend of Zelda is no longer about the only thing it's ever been about...

or you'd be saying that the only way for a woman to stand into that role is to take a well-known female character and put her in that role.

I'd rather have Zelda cease to be a tone-deaf version of a female character... while also having Link cease to be a tone-deaf version of a heroic protagonist.

 

[Peru]

And what I'm saying is that a playable Zelda either

1) Would play differently than Link, being that she's a different character. The flaw with this is that the gameplay of The Legend of Zelda series is based on hero tropes that are embodied in Link, not Zelda (who represents different tropes). You'd have to actively change the gameplay of the series to adapt the existing Zelda character into the main protagonist.

2) Would play identically to Link, meaning that you'd basically be shoehorning an established character (Zelda) based on established tropes (medieval princess/goddess/priestess/ruler) into the hero trope. The flaw with this, of course, is that there's really no point in using an established character based on a different trope in a role based on a trope for which there's already an existing character - especially when Link is already supposed to be a stand-in for the player anyway (Zelda is not).

You'd either get a Zelda that is an alt to Link and doesn't embody the hero trope the series is based on, or you'd get a Zelda who might as well be a female version of Link.

There's no benefit to the series to have Zelda be the only playable female alt to Link in a mainline title. The series is built on the legendary hero trope embodied by Link. Let's allow that trope to be a mantle that women can wear rather than taking the meaningless step of giving an already-established character playable time.

I agree that a choice between Zelda and Link as characters wold be silly.

But I don't agree with your points about Zelda not fitting in with the series at all. Zelda's been many very different characters through the various games. Some passive, regal, guarding the throne - in other games active and adventurous and as capable as going out on a hero's quest as Link.

Besides, your complain is partly "it wouldn't be the exact same thing as playing Link". Well, no, and that's what a lot of people have asked for: A change. It could be a different way of exploring the world. But you could still preserve basically the same qualities: Zelda could still be the one forced to go out and defeat the evil forces through temples, exploration, etc. Lots of interesting plots could be crafted around her perhaps going undercover and hiding her true position.

In summary: I think playing as Zelda would be _the_ most interesting character choice for a new Zelda game, and long overdue. But there are no signs of that happening at this point, and when one of the playable characters is Link, the choice should simply be the gender of Link.

 

[Enduin]

If the problem with Zelda is that she's a damsel who always needs saving, there's a simple solution: Don't make her a damsel that needs saving. You already brought up Sheik and Tetra as good examples of this, and obviously she often contributes to the adventure even as a princess.

The problem with making Zelda the playable protagonist in a mainline title isn't that she's a woman. It's that she's ostensibly not designed and has never been designed as a stand-in for the player. It's that the project of The Legend of Zelda series is precisely to let players step into that very specific archetype - the avatar - in a fantasy universe, and that a character who isn't designed for that purpose and with that archetype in mind is a poor fit for that purpose and a poor representation of that archetype.

You'd be either saying that The Legend of Zelda is no longer about the only thing it's ever been about...

or you'd be saying that the only way for a woman to stand into that role is to take a well-known female character and put her in that role.

That's only from your perspective. There's nothing inherently special about Link that only allows him to fit the role. All that matters is that he's been like that for 30 years, it's what we're used to and have come to know. It's one of the biggest reasons I see Link as an actual character. But there is not a single attribute that he has and Zelda doesn't that makes her incompatible with being the hero in the game.

Also I like that your link goes to the Avatar from Ultima, about as traditional an RPG series as you can get, one which goes rather goofily out of its way in the series' presentation and lore to let you know that its actually you the player in the role of the character. Unlike Link who has always been a pre-existing denizen of his world like the majority of other game characters out there. His only attribute that really stands out from the crowd or allows for the idea of him being you the player is the ability to change his name. And even that is somewhat inconsistent throughout the series. The fact that he doesn't talk is only something noteworthy since OoT and yet that's also the same time when Nintendo started presenting Link as a more defined character both within and outside of the series.

Link is relateable, that's all that matters. He embodies qualities that people find admirable and desirable. Things we wish and hope we have too. But so does Zelda. It's not the same exact qualities or for the same reason but they are still ones everyone can relate to and can admire, which is all that matters. That you can connect with and empathize with the character you are playing as.

 

[what-ok]

This is likely the case, yeah. Also it makes me wonder how close Zelda U/NX is to being finished. Are they really sitting on a complete game for essentially 4-5 months, or do you think they might be adding some new content, polishing, etc.?

Was thinking the same thing. OK, so the NX version will include additional content and possible graphic differences to get you to buy twice and make those $$$$. Oh and you will buy it twice. Don't kid yourself.

Spoiler

This is based off nothing factual. (=

 

[LegendofLex]

I agree that a choice between Zelda and Link as characters wold be silly.

In summary: I think playing as Zelda would be _the_ most interesting character choice for a new Zelda game, and long overdue. But there are no signs of that happening at this point, and when one of the playable characters is Link, the choice should simply be the gender of Link.

I think we agree more than we disagree.

Where I think we depart is about how we feel about whether a Zelda game where Zelda was in the starring role and had gameplay that is very different than the traditional Link gameplay would be seen as an authentic mainline Zelda game and not a kind of spin-off.

Also I like that your link goes to the Avatar from Ultima, about as traditional an RPG series as you can get, one which goes rather goofily out of its way in the series' presentation and lore to let you know that its actually you the player in the role of the character. Unlike Link who has always been a pre-existing denizen of his world like the majority of other game characters out there.

It's funny that you mention this, because as recently as Skyward Sword, the player got a direct fourth-wall-breaking address in the introductory legend:

This is a tale that you humans have told for many ages, generation to generation... But there are other legends, long hidden away from memory, that are intertwined with this tale.

Now, a new legend bound to this great story stands ready to be revealed. A legend that will be forged by your own hand.

 

[Pejo]

All I see is a right-handed Link. There better not be any damn waggle controls this time.....

 

[sphinx]

this is going to be Resident Evil again, Jill and Chris, two different paths and different strengths and weaknesses.

Zelda is one adventure, Link the other adventure: awesome replay value

 

[James Scott]

All I see is a right-handed Link. There better not be any damn waggle controls this time.....

You play the game with the gamepad, hard to waggle with that.

 

[kunonabi]

That's only from your perspective. There's nothing inherently special about Link that only allows him to fit the role. All that matters is that he's been like that for 30 years, it's what we're used to and have come to know. It's one of the biggest reasons I see Link as an actual character. But there is not a single attribute that he has and Zelda doesn't that makes her incompatible with being the hero in the game.

Also I like that your link goes to the Avatar from Ultima, about as traditional an RPG series as you can get, one which goes rather goofily out of its way in the series' presentation and lore to let you know that its actually you the player in the role of the character. Unlike Link who has always been a pre-existing denizen of his world like the majority of other game characters out there. His only attribute that really stands out from the crowd or allows for the idea of him being you the player is the ability to change his name. And even that is somewhat inconsistent throughout the series. The fact that he doesn't talk is only something noteworthy since OoT and yet that's also the same time when Nintendo started presenting Link as a more defined character both within and outside of the series.

Link is relateable, that's all that matters. He embodies qualities that people find admirable and desirable. Things we wish and hope we have too. But so does Zelda. It's not the same exact qualities or for the same reason but they are still ones everyone can relate to and can admire, which is all that matters. That you can connect with and empathize with the character you are playing as.

Skyward Sword says otherwise. I'm all for a game starring Zelda but it should play to her skills and abilities not just ape Link to prove her credibility.

 

[Enduin]

Skyward Sword says otherwise. I'm all for a game starring Zelda but it should play to her skills and abilities not just ape Link to prove her credibility.

I loathe in game lore in a series that has never really cared about it in the first place. SS and the 25th anniversary Hyrule Historia is the first time they ever put any serious effort to connect everything together and create an overarching lore, which was a mistake in my mind. You have some dozen games before then over the course of 25 years that just shared a general theme and mythos with some interconnected threads here and there but ultimately did whatever they wanted and contradicted one another a great deal. Just look at WW or TP for prime examples. And it worked. These are fairy tale games they don't need a rigid set of rules to work nor some concrete backstory. It limits you for no good reason. Just keep the general theme, certain motifs and attributes from game to game like they had, but don't force yourself to connect each game with the others in some rigid timeline and with some universal curse.

Plus this is the first major game since SS so don't blame me for not putting a ton of stock into Demise's final speech at the end of that game. It's fully within Nintendo's MO to discard that for whatever works best in the next game. Even then it's not explicitly stated Link will always have the spirit of the hero or that someone else cannot have it. It's just assumed due to history of the series. Zelda could have both.

And again there's nothing stopping them or inherently difficult about making Zelda play to her strengths and abilities while also retaining core aspects of Link, ie Sword and Shield. There's plenty of ways to provide the core experience of a Zelda game while also allowing Zelda to not just be a straight copy of Link. She can be both like him and different at the same time. The point is to show she is both capable of being a hero like Link, while also showing that she has unique qualities of her own.

 

[RobotMoses]

You just might, at E3 at least, if they haven't had live recording sessions for the music yet. They probably have recorded some of it, but wouldn't be surprised if there's a few placeholder MIDI tracks for some of the music in the demo. The game's still quite far from release, after all.

Still absolutely unacceptable. I don't care how far away it is from release - that is no excuse. You don't see other AAA titles a year ahead of release without orchestrated music.

 

[ShiftaDeband]

Well we know thats not happening Aonuma already said Link is a guy

Wasn't that almost 2 years ago now? Also, he was confirming that Link was male in the trailer. He was also surprised people were even thinking that.

I'm not buying into the male/female Link idea, still.

 

[NateDrake]

Well we know thats not happening Aonuma already said Link is a guy

Link is a guy, and Linkle is a girl. The Hero of Time doesn't have to be a Link.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Wasn't that almost 2 years ago now? Also, he was confirming that Link was male in the trailer. He was also surprised people were even thinking that.

I'm not buying into the male/female Link idea, still.

Link is a guy, and Linkle is a girl. The Hero of Time doesn't have to be a Link.

I'm talking about Link in the new game. The poster said that he hopes Link is only a girl. Which we already know is not true because of what Aonuma said.

 

[kunonabi]

I loathe in game lore in a series that has never really cared about it in the first place. SS and the 25th anniversary Hyrule Historia is the first time they ever put any serious effort to connect everything together and create an overarching lore, which was a mistake in my mind. You have some dozen games before then over the course of 25 years that just shared a general theme and mythos with some interconnected threads here and there but ultimately did whatever they wanted and contradicted one another a great deal. Just look at WW or TP for prime examples. And it worked. These are fairy tale games they don't need a rigid set of rules to work nor some concrete backstory. It limits you for no good reason. Just keep the general theme, certain motifs and attributes from game to game like they had, but don't force yourself to connect each game with the others in some rigid timeline and with some universal curse.

Plus this is the first major game since SS so don't blame me for not putting a ton of stock into Demise's final speech at the end of that game. It's fully within Nintendo's MO to discard that for whatever works best in the next game. Even then it's not explicitly stated Link will always have the spirit of the hero or that someone else cannot have it. It's just assumed due to history of the series. Zelda could have both.

And again there's nothing stopping them or inherently difficult about making Zelda play to her strengths and abilities while also retaining core aspects of Link, ie Sword and Shield. There's plenty of ways to provide the core experience of a Zelda game while also allowing Zelda to not just be a straight copy of Link. She can be both like him and different at the same time. The point is to show she is both capable of being a hero like Link, while also showing that she has unique qualities of her own.

There is no issue with her being a hero but making her The Hero and the reincarnation of the Goddess is a stupid thing to do plain and simple. She's my favorite character in the series but I don't want to basically play a slightly modified Link when she finally gets her own game that isn't a glorified coaster.

I want to learn magic and run a kingdom though city management and diplomacy while taking Tenchu style missions when playing by the rules isn't good enough. Giving me the same old Zelda game would just be a freaking waste of time and possibilities.

 

[Vena]

I'm talking about Link in the new game. The poster said that he hopes Link is only a girl. Which we already know is not true because of what Aonuma said.

Link isn't even a character, its just a default identifier for the everyman that is the archetypal "Hero". You can name The Hero of *a concept or place* whatever the heck you want. Buttfarts the Hero of Hyrule.

 

[enigmatic_alex44]

There is no issue with her being a hero but making her The Hero and the reincarnation of the Goddess is a stupid thing to do plain and simple. She's my favorite character in the series but I don't want to basically play a slightly modified Link when she finally gets her own game that isn't a glorified coaster.

I want to learn magic and run a kingdom though city management and diplomacy while taking Tenchu style missions when playing by the rules isn't good enough. Giving me the same old Zelda game would just be a freaking waste of time and possibilities.

I ... don't think anyone wants a city management simulator in a Zelda game.

Plus who are you doing Tenchu styled missions with, Sheik? That's just retreading old plot points.

 

[Enduin]

There is no issue with her being a hero but making her The Hero and the reincarnation of the Goddess is a stupid thing to do plain and simple. She's my favorite character in the series but I don't want to basically play a slightly modified Link when she finally gets her own game that isn't a glorified coaster.

I want to learn magic and run a kingdom though city management and diplomacy while taking Tenchu style missions when playing by the rules isn't good enough. Giving me the same old Zelda game would just be a freaking waste of time and possibilities.

I think you're in the extreme minority there. That's basically not even a Zelda game, but a very large departure from the series' standard.

 

[LegendofLex]

Link is a guy, and Linkle is a girl. The Hero of Time doesn't have to be a Link.

Hyrule Warriors makes it pretty manifestly clear that Linkle isn't the Hero of Legend, at least not in that game. (with a capital H and a capital L)

 

[kunonabi]

I think you're in the extreme minority there. That's basically not even a Zelda game, but a very large departure from the series' standard.

So? It's a much better use of her as a character, people could play as Sheik like they've been whining about for years now, and it could be it's own series if it does well. Seems much more desirable to me than some token gesture that ends up just being a footnote years down the line.

 

[Enduin]

So? It's a much better use of her as a character, people could play as Sheik like they've been whining about for years now, and it could be it's own series if it does well. Seems much more desirable to me than some token gesture that ends up just being a footnote years down the line.

Agree to disagree. I don't want a one time game with Zelda as the lead. I want the new shift in the series to be where we have games with Link as the lead, others with Zelda and some with both sharing the role.

Spinoffs are fine but I wouldn't want that to be the only thing she stars in.

 

[enigmatic_alex44]

Agree to disagree. I don't want a one time game with Zelda as the lead. I want the new shift in the series to be where we have games with Link as the lead, others with Zelda and some with both sharing the role.

Spinoffs are fine but I wouldn't want that to be the only thing she stars in.

A cool side series could be "The Legend of Link" with Zelda as the lead. Have it be an offshoot series like how Paper Mario co-exists with the main Mario series.

The gameplay could be more RPG oriented, or a bit more action focused with her using magic and a bow and arrow (think Bayonetta), but nothing as extreme as Sim City Zelda.

The quicker everyone forgets about that flop Linkle, the better.

 

[Mato]

Zelda-Gaf has become impossibly boring. I can't begin to describe how tired I am of clicking on Zelda threads only to find them lost deep into endless gender discussions. There has to be more Zelda fans in here who don't give a shit about this.

 

[LegendofLex]

SS and the 25th anniversary Hyrule Historia is the first time they ever put any serious effort to connect everything together and create an overarching lore, which was a mistake in my mind. You have some dozen games before then over the course of 25 years that just shared a general theme and mythos with some interconnected threads here and there but ultimately did whatever they wanted and contradicted one another a great deal.

Literally every single traditional Zelda game (i.e. not Four Swords or Tri Force Heroes, both of which have entirely sidebar lore that doesn't rely on other titles) has an internally consistent connection to at least one other game.

Zelda II - tells the story of the Triforce of Courage and has the Link from Zelda 1 assemble the complete Triforce

A Link to the Past - tells the story of how the Triforce was brought into the hands of mortals after descending from the gods

Link's Awakening - tells the story of what happened to Link after A Link to the Past

Ocarina of Time - depicts the story of the seven sages who sealed Ganon

Majora's Mask - tells the story of what Link did after returning to his own time

Oracle of Seasons/Ages - serves as a bridge/side-story between A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening

The Wind Waker - tells the story of what happened with Ganon in the future that Link left behind at the end of Ocarina of Time

Phantom Hourglass - tells the story of Link and Tetra's adventures after The Wind Waker

Spirit Tracks - tells the story of the kingdom Tetra founded after The Wind Waker

Twilight Princess - tells the story of what happened with Ganon in the era Link returned to at the end of Ocarina of Time

Skyward Sword - tells the story of the forging of the Master Sword and suggests the origin of the Hylians, their crest, and so on

A Link Between Worlds - tells a story about a parallel world called Lorule and how its princess tried to manipulate the aftermath of A Link to the Past to her own benefit (this is the only game that really contradicts the others, since OoS/OoA would have us believe that the full Triforce is in the hands of the royal family after the end of LttP...however, the contradiction is resolved by the end of the game)

Agree to disagree. I don't want a one time game with Zelda as the lead. I want the new shift in the series to be where we have games with Link as the lead, others with Zelda and some with both sharing the role.

Spinoffs are fine but I wouldn't want that to be the only thing she stars in.

There's no realistic scenario where a game starring only Zelda isn't a de facto spin-off.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Maybe we should wait to see if they're doing a gender thing, and then how they're doing it, first.

 

[Skittzo0413]

Zelda-Gaf has become impossibly boring. I can't begin to describe how tired I am of clicking on Zelda threads only to find them lost deep into endless gender discussions. There has to be more Zelda fans in here who don't give a shit about this.

Yeah I do agree with this. I personally don't care what they do with the gender either way, but I can get why some people really want an option.

Let's get back to dissecting that picture in the OP! Does no one else really see the triforce mark on the back of Epona's hoof?