Topic: What if Link is gender neutral?

wow 14 sites. can't believe people are still talking about this

"What if Link is gender neutral?"
We can play the "What if" game all day long.
"What if that's NOT Link?"
"What if that's Zelda?"
"What if Link is customizable?"
"What if you have multiple playable characters?"
etc etc. This is really just speculation on something we know so little about.

Since when does left/right only address economics? The sense in which I use it, and everyone else I know (including wikipedia by the way) is just to mean left=liberal, right=conservative.
I also disagree that no school of political thought is completely rational. I think there are rational strands of all ideologies. They just differ in their premises. Which you either have to accept or reject, and rationality can have no say over them.

The reverse of progressive is bigoted? That's a ridiculous statement. You're essentially saying that all social conservatives are bigots. That's a disastrous attempt to understand the actual intent behind social conservatism. Bigotry is usually defined as irrational hated or fear of someone based on an immutable characteristic. To claim that anyone who doesn't accept a social progressive view is bigoted is tantamount to asserting they can have no possible good reasons for rejecting it. In plenty of cases that may well be true, but to generalise ahead of time, before you engage with individual people and hear their reasoning, is just an intellectually lazy way of dismissing people you disagree with. And ironically, is quite close to being a bigoted view itself.

I can't remember who said it but there's a lot of truth in the quote:
"the problem with partisan politics is that all conservatives think liberals are idiots and all liberals think conservatives are evil."

Sorry, gonna apologize up front. I have not read this entire thread.

Link is gender neutral from the perspective of the player. He is a non committal character by design because you are supposed to put yourself in his place. I've been playing zelda for almost 20 years now and I firmly believe Nintendo succeeded at that. Link is nothing more than a avatar to me, a title bearer that could be anyone. I fully understand that Link is a male hylian but because he is so muted I don't acknowledge him a in the same sense I would another character.

Also I've always loved the myth aspect of the legend of Zelda series In a way its not really about WHO saves Hyrule but what they do during the saving. Each game also like a myth keeps some constant elements (Ganon, Link, Zelda) but usually everything else is up for interpretation. Look at how different cultures borrow myths from each other and make changes yet still keep certain elements that tie them together. I'm also not bothered too much by Zelda's various roles (she hasn't been a pure damsel in distress in a very long time ...that would be Peach unless its a multiplayer game) but she represents the stability of Hyrule as she is its ruler or heir and since Gannondorf disrupts that stability, I think it makes sense that she doesn't take the forefront of the game. However she is a constant, her wisdom guides Link, sometimes assists him directly and once he has done his part her wisdom guides Hyrule. Link's intervention represents a small part of Hyrule's history (I mean per Link) while Zelda's rule and that of her family shapes the world Link helps save. That is also why I think the name of the series is fitting. When Ganon is defeated Link fades into obscurity and passes into legend. Zelda and her family endure, but nobody wants to play a game with her ruling (Sim Hyrule? Princess Zelda's Story?) and it would be a bad idea for the ruler of the country to run out to the front lines with no heir of her own.

To be honest characters generated via a character creation are far harder for me to have represent as avatars of myself than Link is. When I create a character, I instantly metagame a whole backstory for that character: I'm not playing myself, instead I get to have a small part of the writer's job when I play those types of games. Don't get me wrong I like like the option of choice but the things that I like about books are what happens to the characters and how they interact in their world. Games are an extension of that for me, so while I like to see diversity in games its usually because it makes the game world more immersive (as in "hey there are lots of people in this world", not "it feels like its my life") and I like the story telling potential diverse characters bring.

Well then I disagree with the idea of dividing politics into "left" and "right" entirely then. This idea that you're either a socially progressive communist or a socially conservative capitalist is nonsense. If you want to cite the wiki article on the left/right divide then I'd also quote this part of that same article:

Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between sociocultural issues and economic issues

I, like plenty of others, put left-right on the economics and then divide progressive/conservative onto another axis. It's a pretty well established and widely used way of looking at it. And no, I entirely disagree with the idea that one school of political thought is the rational one. The most rational politics is the kind that's happy to test ideas from all sides of the spectrum and use the ones that work.

Sometimes market deregulation is the way to go (trade), sometimes the market needs more regulation (finance, environment). Sometimes it's better to restrict social freedoms (drugs, guns), sometimes it makes sense to let people be (civil rights). Sometimes a dude who lists policy positions that are rational is wrong (like this skywake dude here). Saying that one ideology is rational or that all ideologies are rational ignores the fact that there's not one best approach to various problems. Ideological purity isn't a way to solve problems.

Not what I said but I'll quote the rest of your rant anyways. What makes you think I was saying that the reverse of socially progressive is conservative? I didn't say it was. Socially progressiveness is all about actively being more inclusive of people. The reverse would be to actively try to be less inclusive. That's not conservatism, conservatism is just a state of not wanting things to change. That said bigots will naturally rather things not change, true, but not everyone who doesn't want to push change is a bigot. The only thing social progressiveness can claim is that if you're socially progressive in one area it's hard if not impossible to also be a bigot in that same area.

To bring that into Zelda, that's what this thread is BTW, a progressive Zelda story would be one that gave more realistic representations of the characters. Good, strong female characters would be the main thing I'd assume. A more conservative Zelda story would be one where nothing changed, the same old Zelda. Now for me I'd be fine with either of these. However a bigoted Zelda story would be one where Zelda was a 2D character with big breasts who spends most of the game locked up cooking Ganon sandwiches while a muscular Link moans about how useless she is.....

Anyways, off topic again, I'm just sick of this idea that politics is only two sides. Saying there are just two sides and making it about a two sided boxing match? Doing that rather than actually considering each policy or idea for it's own merit? The guy from your "team" says something so it must be right, the other guy says it he's a Stalin/Hitler so of course he'd say that? Now that's intellectually lazy.

The problem with partisan politics is that they don't care about doing anything. They're more interested in winning power. The good thing about democracy but is that in the long run the public doesn't look kindly at leaders who are only interested in beating their opponents. The only way to keep power is to actually do things, good things, not necessarily partisan things. What a crazy idea ey?

Well yes, I wouldn't want to join economics up with social issues at all to be honest. When I say left wing, I usually just mean, "the view that liberals tend to take on this particular issue". And I find that to be the most reliable when it comes to social issues. I tend to find that conservatives agree more on economics than liberals do. But that could just be a bad intuition I have, I don't know if there's data that supports it.

I didn't say one school of political thought is the rational one. I said each ideology has a rational strand within it. I think we're maybe using 'rational' in slightly different ways though. I'm using rational in the sense that, based on a set of premises, each deduction then follows logically from the next.
I'd also say that, this sense of the word 'rational' is precisely why people can't do what you suggest (try things out and see what works best). They have different premises so they'll never agree on which outcome is best. It's self-perpetuating circularity.

I'm not seeing a huge amount of distinction here though. By your rationale, it would seem that a bigot is just a conservative who lives in a country where the laws haven't gone their way. So if you're against gay marriage for example, if there's no gay marriage currently and you want that to remain the case, you're a conservative. However, the second that law changes and gay marriage is legal, that same person instantly becomes a bigot? Because by your definition, their position has now instantly become one of wanting to exclude. Doesn't that seem like a bit of troublesome definition? You could go to bed a conservative and wake up a bigot.
It seems to me that the definition of bigotry HAS to be tied into the rationality of the position. Some people think they have very good reasons for excluding some people or groups in some situations. I think they're often wrong but should never be just disregarded through the application of an emotionally loaded label.

Man is this even about Link anymore?

Nope

I don't think people know the difference between gender and sex.

It's a false division, to quote part of a book from Australian Independent Rob Oakeshott

Above all else, I have never been one to swallow all this Left versus Right, progressives versus conservatives world view. I consider it a spectrum disorder that awkwardly puts people with a range of views on a range of topics in predictable boxes. This is a false division that only provides a platform of convenience for certain views. Andrew Bolt wouldn't have anything to write about unless he was attacking 'the Left'. He needs this spectrum of political division to frame an opinion. Without it, his arguments struggle on their public policy merits alone. Bolt is just one of many who live on this 'Left-Right' crusade, and I have forever found their certainty of approach to the grey and complex world of public policy lazy and boorish

'nuff said (and if you don't know who Bolt is... well... http://youtu.be/HkDDpzWOrU8 )

The simplest definition of rational would be to base your decisions on evidence. No ideologically pure politician is completely rational because they choose to ignore evidence when it is politically inconvenient. Or they'll get spin doctors to present their view in a way that can more easily be sold. They'll refuse to change their position when new evidence comes in in fear of being framed as a 'flip-flopper'. None of these things are rational. You can't get a rational policy platform if there's partisan politics.

In that country where the laws haven't gone their way and they continue to push for it to go back to how it was? Even when the law is well established? On something to do with social equality? Targeting a specific minority? Yeah, if someone kept that up they would eventually be considered a bigot. Period. End of discussion.

Haven't enough threads gone down that road?

"Actually that comment I made jokingly. It's not that I said that it wasn't Link. It's that I never said that it was Link. It's not really the same thing, but I can understand how it could be taken that way. It seems like it has kind of taken off where people are saying 'oh it's a female character' and it just kind of grew. But my intent in saying that [was humour]. You know, you have to show Link when you create a trailer for a Zelda announcement.
"I don't want people to get hung up on the way Link looks because ultimately Link represents the player in the game. He's a vehicle. I don't want to define him so much that it becomes limiting to the players. I want players to focus on other parts of the trailer and not specifically on the character because the character Link represents, again, the player." - Eiji Aonuma

So... Link is still the same, get over it.

source: http://mmgn.com/wiiu/articles--mr-aonuma-talks-the-size-of-ze...

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be attempting to use anecdotal evidence about one child as proof that all female gamers are actually okay with the status quo as-is and change in player-character representation in terms of (near-)silent protagonists isn't desired on any level. You're talking about what you want, not what she wants, because you can't speak for her (or anyone else for that matter).

Lets be honest here, Link IS pretty much gender neutral. At least when it comes to his appearance.
In OoT every kokiri wore the same tunic, in SW it was a uniform worn by all members etc. He has a rather feminin face and a pretty neutral physique overall.
He has no "character" and is pretty much a blank slate for the player. Sure, hes depicted to be heroic and brave, but thats just part of the job i guess and in no way a gender thing
So yeah, if you ask me, it wouldnt change a thing about "him" is he suddenly became a she. To me, it doesnt even matter and i certainly wouldnt care about it.

I think when you do that it'd be very hard not to make the story segments sound too formulaic and stilted.

If anything that supports what most of us here have been saying.

Link represents the player, so why should females have to be represented by males?

Because it's a story, that's the way it works. "I don't want people to get hung up on the way Link looks because ultimately Link represents the player in the game. He's a vehicle.'' I don't think Aonuma ever intended Link to be a copy of the player, if anything, he's just an ''empty character'', a vehicle as he called it himself. As said many times before, there's no reason to change his gender, nor is there any reason to make him african, or asian, or whatever you can do with Link. Besides, I don't understand why male characters should even have this ''female'' option, to make it more fair. I don't complain about Samus' gender either.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this but here you go:
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/features/30-minutes-with-eiji-ao...

In case you missed it from earlier you will find Aonuma himself saying that Link is not a blank slate.
You can also see the Iwata asks interview on Oot 3d to find Shigeru Miyamoto speaking about Link as a character.
This "blank slate" and "avatar" idea needs to die already. Link is a character, when you play a Zelda game you step into the shoes of a character who is designed to be someone you will want to play as.