By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheLegendofDS on 01 April 2016
Edit Thread
Wright said:
mornelithe said:

It IS a social narrative, and let's be crystal clear here, everytime an LGBT, or PoC character is written you get the avalanche of 'written by a white dude' (even though, you know, where Nintendo is concerned, the vast majority were written by PoC) critiques.  So, hire LGBT workers who can create realistic characters, they can relate to.  Nothing wrong with that.  But, you're not exactly giving that LGBT individual any kind of freedom when you force them to wrap Hyrule around it.  A new world, new universe etc... gives them the freedom to create whatever they want to.  Instead of, you know, trying to make it automatically profitable by using the Zelda name.

As far as the 'standard male save the day hero' blah blah blah, seriously, broaden your horizons, there are thousands of different types of games and stories out there (Hi, Metroid called, and says your narrative is shite).  Just like there are with books (and yes, they still write books where a guy saves the day), and movies (same).  Somehow, there's room for all to co-exist in books and movies, but not in games, eh?  In games a guy saving the day, well goddamn we have to do something about that right?  Not, you know, create our own unique characters, we need to take everyone else's away.  Now that's what I call inclusive, that's what I call adding something positive to the industry.

As I said, hire LGBT writers/directors etc... give them free reign.  And you can try to explain it however you want, but I'll never understand taking an established character and wrapping a narrative around it, other than for what it is.  Trying to get the game to be profitable before it even launches by latching onto an established name.  

 

I think you're missing the point. There's no need to hire LGBT writers; what the article points out is that a well-established franchise like Zelda isn't going to suffer because, surprise, they could ditch their stereotiped hero and show that there are different Links that could take his place: like a transgender one. Link is a reincarnated hero in each version, WW's link isn't the same as SS's Link, but they're always a cliché white male who saves the day.

I'm not too good explaining this, so I suggest going to the original source (where the full article lies, I only copy/pasted what I thought were the most important parts), and Anita actually makes great points when pointing out the importance of swapping this archetype of a hero for a less common one. It's the virtue of variety, don't think this is just for the transgender collective's sake. (Hence why your point about Amita defending a collective that isn't herself makes no sense). There's no point in creating a new world (I mean, there is, but not in this context) when we can take a established one and show that everyone can be a hero. Look at Hyrule Warriors. They added Linkle without any much trouble, didn't they? Did anyone ask for it? Probably not, but in a stroke of genius and tolerance, Nintendo rolled with it. They just need to do the same here.

Again, it's not social narrative. It's diversification. Diversification is good.

Ok my question to you is if this is not a social narrative then why change an establish charater in an establish IP? Why not create a new IP and not pander to the minoraty?Linkle(and any version of fem.Link) in a side game is fine but in a main one is just stupid since it makes no sense.Link is a guy,Zelda a girl and Ganon a pig monster,and if we are to get a female lead in a Zelda game why do we have to change Link? Why can't we just have Zelda as the hero and Link as the prince?

I for one would much rather play a new version of Ocarina were you play the 7 missing  years as Zelda/Sheik than Zelda U with an shoehorn Trans/Fem. Link.Also most of the 3D Zelda's the story is not just the hero saves the princess and in many of them Zelda as a major role in the  story and in 1 there isn't even a princess to save.