Wii U Forum

Topic: What if Link is gender neutral?

Showing 281 to 300 of 323

AuthorMessage
Einherjar

Einherjar

281. Posted:

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.

Einherjar

Nintendo Network ID: EinherjarZX

AuthorMessage
alLabouTandroiD

alLabouTandroiD

282. Posted:

Neoproteus wrote:

What if Nintendo, rather that having the player select Link's gender as many fans have suggested, simply made an androgynous Link and spent the entire game avoiding gender pronouns to describe them?

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

Edited on by alLabouTandroiD

no apple

Nintendo Network ID: LTD_2112

AuthorMessage
Aviator

Aviator

283. Posted:

Octane wrote:

"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 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?

QUEEN OF SASS
In a way exhausting
we're problem solving
Drink 'til she's attractive
We're PARTYNAUSEOUS
Talking 'bout diplomatic
I brought my plastic
Making that peace attractive
We're PARTYNAUSEOUS
PSN: naviator_9

AuthorMessage
Octane

Octane

284. Posted:

Aviator wrote:

Octane wrote:

"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 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.

Edited on by Octane

Octane

AuthorMessage
Usagi-san

Usagi-san

285. Posted:

Einherjar wrote:

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'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.

Edited on by Usagi-san

"I never swear, my lord, I say yes or no; and, as I am a gentleman, I keep my word." - D'artagnan in Twenty Years After

AuthorMessage
shaneoh

shaneoh

286. Posted:

theblackdragon wrote:

shaneoh wrote:

theblackdragon wrote:

While that's awesome for your niece and I'm glad she's enjoying some quality games, forgive me for being blunt about it, bit why do I care? I'm talking about my experience and what i'd like to see in a Zelda game

Why should I, or anyone else care about what you'd enjoy either?

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).

I'm not saying any such things, one person does not equal the whole demographic. What I was saying there is that not everyone finds it a personal issue that you can only play as a single gender (whether it is the same gender as your own or not). Samus is one of my favourite characters and she doesn't need to change even though she is a (near-)silent protagonist. You might say that she can't change due to an already established story, but why not (it's always possible to reboot the series if Nintendo want)? ME3 allowed same sex relations across both sexes despite not having them in full in the previous games (there was one option for women in ME2, but not men). I'm not against women playable characters, I'd like to see some more done well. I'm hoping bayonetta turns out well.

Edited on by shaneoh

The Greatest love story ever, Rosie Love (part 33 done)

AuthorMessage
shaneoh

shaneoh

287. Posted:

Usagi-san wrote:

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

Yeah you're just wasting your time, but I enjoyed it. Ta.

This thread is like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall. I said I was out, now I'm out for good.

The Greatest love story ever, Rosie Love (part 33 done)

AuthorMessage
Tophurion

Tophurion

288. Posted:

Why does it matter if Link is a girl or "gender neutral?" And what could that even mean? No more love interests in the game without it being a mess.

Link has always been a boy. Change in the name of change is not a good reason. There are necessary changes (i.e. old gameplay mechanics). And then there are unnecessary changes to appease a small minority of people who desire a gender neutral character. LoZ is an adventure game. Not a WRPG. It is a linear game with a specific story to tell. Let it tell its story. Don't like it? Vote with your wallet and don't play the game.

Tophurion

AuthorMessage
GuSolarFlare

GuSolarFlare

289. Posted:

Tophurion wrote:

Why does it matter if Link is a girl or "gender neutral?" And what could that even mean? No more love interests in the game without it being a mess.

Link has always been a boy. Change in the name of change is not a good reason. There are necessary changes (i.e. old gameplay mechanics). And then there are unnecessary changes to appease a small minority of people who desire a gender neutral character. LoZ is an adventure game. Not a WRPG. It is a linear game with a specific story to tell. Let it tell its story. Don't like it? Vote with your wallet and don't play the game.

soon someone will come and say to you "Link is meant to represent the player so why do women have to play as a man?" and the same discussion will repeat itself.
and sincerely, I still belive that it's better let the pros working on the game decide what will happen next, if the result is bad all you gotta do is not buy it and hopefully the developers will get the message.

Edited on by GuSolarFlare

goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
salty tears tenderize true beef
my Backloggery
my Banner made by Dark-Luigi!
My Galaxy Bio also by Dark-Luigi!

Nintendo Network ID: GustavoSF

AuthorMessage
Dezzy

Dezzy

290. Posted:

skywake wrote:

The simplest definition of rational would be to base your decisions on evidence.

That does nothing to circumvent the problem that moral values are essentially axiomatic. You can't get evidence to support the claim that inequality is wrong. You have to accept that as an axiom before evidence can factor into it. So evidence isn't going to avoid the circularity and if your definition of rational is just 'whoever follows the evidence', then you end back at the claim I'd already made: "there are rational strands of all ideologies."

skywake wrote:

Yeah, if someone kept that up they would eventually be considered a bigot. Period. End of discussion.

It's only the end of discussion if you're eager to be closed minded about people who hold different views. That's exactly what happens when you use an emotionally crafted label like 'bigot'. When you call someone a bigot, you're not actually engaging in a rational argument. The label is very much a placeholder for saying "I no longer have to even try to argue with your position. It's obviously wrong so I'm just going to demonize you.". For me, that's just not a good way of dealing with people, no matter how damaging you think their beliefs are. And just to be clear, I'm not actually defending any of the beliefs that you would label 'bigotted'. I'm sure we'd agree on the status of those beliefs. I'm just defending people's rights to hold unpopular beliefs, without being bullied by the politically correct mob.

There was a really good TED talk on this very subject by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt. I recommend it if you've got 20 mins free. Might make you reconsider your attitude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

Let me know if any of that sounds persuasive.

Converted from Sony to Nintendo during 7th gen and never looked back.

AuthorMessage
Aviator

Aviator

291. Posted:

Octane wrote:

I don't complain about Samus' gender either.

Because Samus isn't a vehicle for the players.

QUEEN OF SASS
In a way exhausting
we're problem solving
Drink 'til she's attractive
We're PARTYNAUSEOUS
Talking 'bout diplomatic
I brought my plastic
Making that peace attractive
We're PARTYNAUSEOUS
PSN: naviator_9

AuthorMessage
CanisWolfred

CanisWolfred

292. Posted:

Aviator wrote:

Octane wrote:

I don't complain about Samus' gender either.

Because Samus isn't a vehicle for the players.

Before Other M happened, she very much was. Are you saying you acknowledge Other M exists?
Untitled

This Hand of Mine Glows With An Awesome POWER!!! It's Burning Grip Tells Me to Defeat You!!!

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~
Kyoji!!!!!!

AuthorMessage
Dreamz

Dreamz

293. Posted:

CanisWolfred wrote:

Aviator wrote:

Octane wrote:

I don't complain about Samus' gender either.

Because Samus isn't a vehicle for the players.

Before Other M happened, she very much was. Are you saying you acknowledge Other M exists?
Untitled

She was a vehicle for the player if you just went by the games. However, there was an entire Metroid manga series...and her character there matched what we saw in Other M (which I really enjoyed).

My 3rd Party Games List: Click here
U-Wishlist: Splatoon, Zelda U
Currently playing: Bayonetta

AuthorMessage
Pityflame

Pityflame

294. Posted:

Please don't be crude — TBD

but fo real tho, I don't think it matters too much... it would take like 30 seconds to get used to and that's about it lol

Edited on by theblackdragon

Pityflame

AuthorMessage
CanisWolfred

CanisWolfred

295. Posted:

Dreamz wrote:

She was a vehicle for the player if you just went by the games.

And we're not talking about supplimentary source material only super-hardcore fans would ever read, just like how we don't say "Masterchief is such a great and well-developed character in Combat Evolved because of all the events that only happened in the novels!"

...inb4Shinji_70...

This Hand of Mine Glows With An Awesome POWER!!! It's Burning Grip Tells Me to Defeat You!!!

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~
Kyoji!!!!!!

AuthorMessage
kkslider5552000

kkslider5552000

296. Posted:

If I have to go to a different medium to appreciate characterization, you're a failure.

3DS friend code: 2878 - 9709 - 5054
Nintendo Network ID: SliderGamer55

Let's Play MegaMan 64!

AuthorMessage
CaviarMeths

CaviarMeths

297. Posted:

Dreamz wrote:

She was a vehicle for the player if you just went by the games. However, there was an entire Metroid manga series...and her character there matched what we saw in Other M (which I really enjoyed).

Not that I agree with your argument here, but Zelda has a series of official manga too.

A virtual tiger on the back of a big lion that is riding a falcon that is flying through some fire.

AuthorMessage
Dreamz

Dreamz

298. Posted:

CaviarMeths wrote:

Dreamz wrote:

She was a vehicle for the player if you just went by the games. However, there was an entire Metroid manga series...and her character there matched what we saw in Other M (which I really enjoyed).

Not that I agree with your argument here, but Zelda has a series of official manga too.

I was only familiar with the Nintendo Power comic, but a quick google search turned up....quite a bit of Zelda mangas. o.O

My 3rd Party Games List: Click here
U-Wishlist: Splatoon, Zelda U
Currently playing: Bayonetta

AuthorMessage
CaviarMeths

CaviarMeths

299. Posted:

Dreamz wrote:

CaviarMeths wrote:

Dreamz wrote:

She was a vehicle for the player if you just went by the games. However, there was an entire Metroid manga series...and her character there matched what we saw in Other M (which I really enjoyed).

Not that I agree with your argument here, but Zelda has a series of official manga too.

I was only familiar with the Nintendo Power comic, but a quick google search turned up....quite a bit of Zelda mangas. o.O

If you have the Hyrule Historia, the last section in it is a manga prologue to Skyward Sword by Akira Himekawa (which I think is actually just a pen name for a writing duo). The same author has done full adaptations of most of the series, each with a fully characterized Link.

They're not canon of course, but I don't think you can call the Metroid manga canon either, though it is quite good.

A virtual tiger on the back of a big lion that is riding a falcon that is flying through some fire.

AuthorMessage
skywake

skywake

300. Posted:

Dezzy wrote:

skywake wrote:

The simplest definition of rational would be to base your decisions on evidence.

That does nothing to circumvent the problem that moral values are essentially axiomatic. You can't get evidence to support the claim that inequality is wrong. You have to accept that as an axiom before evidence can factor into it. So evidence isn't going to avoid the circularity and if your definition of rational is just 'whoever follows the evidence', then you end back at the claim I'd already made: "there are rational strands of all ideologies."

In the pristine hypothetical world where politics is debated in that way sure. Not in the real world. In the real world these issues are debated at length from every possible angle. Someone always makes a claim that can be tested even in social politics. The whole "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" excuse for shutting down debate is BS. If someone holds a view they should be able to defend it. If they can't handle defending and whine about their opponents calling them out on it then it's a position not worth holding. More often than not both sides make statements that can be tested and found to be false.

I'm also not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me here. I simply said that you can't really define one political philosophy or another as being the 'rational' kind. Because we're irrational creatures. But if someone only or predominantly backs their decisions up with testable evidence? Well that guy can be called rational. But if they're doing that I highly doubt that they're wedded to one particular political ideology/party/system.

Dezzy wrote:

skywake wrote:

Yeah, if someone kept that up they would eventually be considered a bigot. Period. End of discussion.

It's only the end of discussion if you're eager to be closed minded about people who hold different views. That's exactly what happens when you use an emotionally crafted label like 'bigot'. When you call someone a bigot, you're not actually engaging in a rational argument. The label is very much a placeholder for saying "I no longer have to even try to argue with your position. It's obviously wrong so I'm just going to demonize you.". For me, that's just not a good way of dealing with people, no matter how damaging you think their beliefs are. And just to be clear, I'm not actually defending any of the beliefs that you would label 'bigotted'. I'm sure we'd agree on the status of those beliefs. I'm just defending people's rights to hold unpopular beliefs, without being bullied by the politically correct mob.

You're so caught up in the idea that I'm attacking the conservative movement. I mean perhaps you could read it like that but it wasn't my intent. Instead what I was saying was that what once were seen as "progressive" and "conservative" views as time moves on become seen as "conservative" and "bigoted" views. And that in general that social conservatism taken to its extreme is something that is best described as bigotry.

A good 100 years or so ago it would have been the conservative view that mixed race and mixed faith marriages were to be frowned upon. Or the idea that women, minorities and people who don't own property shouldn't be allowed to vote. Those were conservative views. As time has gone on it has gotten to the point where someone who pushed those ideas as part of their political agenda will rightly be called a bigot. When we're all dead you can pretty much guarantee that some of the ideas being debated today will be looked at in the same way.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake