| TheLegendofDS said: 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. |
See, this is where you contradict yourself. You claim that making changes to the main games in the franchise is stupid, because people is already established to be those types. But Ganondorf isn't only a pig monster, he has been changing and evolving into different things from his first iteration until now. He wasn' a pig monster in Wind Waker, was he? You thought that was stupid? Of course not, because characters CAN change. Heck, sometimes he isn't even the villain or is not present at all in certain main entries of the franchise.
So, the fact that Ganondorf change isn't a social narrative, you can agree with that, right? Then why changing Link IS a social narrative? See, a contradiction. That's because changing Link IS NOT a social narrative. It's a sign of a franchise that evolves and diversificates itself, just like Ganondorf ISN'T ALWAYS a pig.
Again, Zelda as a hero would be a good option, but what we've shown already of Zelda U points at Link being in charge, once again. Why not take this oportunity and, you know, just like Ganondorf isn't always a pig, make Link something else than a white male? Your opinion actually supports this view, not the other way around.
