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.
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.
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
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
3DS Friend Code: 3995-7085-4333 | Nintendo Network ID: GustavoSF
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."
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
It's like, I just love a cowboy
You know
I'm just like, I just, I know, it's bad
But I'm just like
Can I just like, hang off the back of your horse
And can you go a little faster?!
Before Other M happened, she very much was. Are you saying you acknowledge Other M exists?
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).
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!"
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.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
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
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.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
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.
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.
This topic isn't even about politics. You guys are derailing the train off of a cliff. XD
The only political system in gaming is anarchy. Let us get back to freely playing the games we want to play and be a happy community that protects each and every right for us to be different and unique individuals instead of bringing each other down. ^-^
This topic isn't even about politics. You guys are derailing the train off of a cliff. XD
Well I did try to bring the topic into every single post except the last one. My opponent doesn't seem to want to talk about it and is instead more interested in making this about Gay Marriage again
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
@Skywake Hahaha! I would bring up the fact that he's arguing "controversial" (heavy sarcasm on controversial) issues in a puny and trivial internet topic that the big wigs in the world will never see. XD
Is this about Link's gender or Link's sex? Cuz those are two totally different things.
Wi-Fi Game List:
Xenoblade Chronicles X
Splatoon
Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS + All DLC
Mario Kart 8 + All DLC
Mario Golf: World Tour + All DLC
Mario Kart 7
Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon
Wii U & 3DS Game Wish List:...
3DS Friend Code: 3737-9553-9610 | Nintendo Network ID: Toadette75
Forums
Topic: What if Link is gender neutral?
Posts 281 to 300 of 317
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.