At E3 this month, Nintendo released the first images for the new Legend of Zelda game, and while it made me question every choice in my life that did not lead to me playing that exact game this very moment, it also raised another question.
"Hey... is Link a girl in that video?"
Not just in the sense that yes, haha, Link is no slate chested, grizzled white guy with a five o'clock shadow and probably a dark past (like every other main character at E3), instead he's usually under powered for his enemies, and tends to be a bit more... feminine.
Which if you're playing the home game, being less manly than a man who's pecs require zip codes, makes you about normal.
No, the question came about with the art, the motion of his body, the different angles of the face... all seemed to point that "he" might be a "her" this time around.
Now, Nintendo did point out that "Link is a guy in this", but the question had already been asked: why not? Link is probably one of the most easily identifiable characters in video game history, and certainly one of the easiest for players to identify with. Unlike many protagonists in games, Link works for both genders.
Take the very first Zelda, Link was a blank slate. Mega Man at that time, was a person with a story behind him. He was "Rock", a robot made by Dr. Light, who had a "strong sense of Justice" and took to becoming a warrior to save the day. That's four more points than Link got. Link was literally "just a guy, basically you". Link was not a destined hero, he was not a master of all things. His motivations, history, and all else were up to the player. He saved Zelda because the player wanted to save Zelda.
Flash forward a few years, and we have "Ocarina of Time" wherein Link is... a kid, living in a forest. His history is really not given. He doesn't have a fairy, but wait... he gets one. His character arch is that Link is summoned by the Deku tree, that's it. There's no "Link must learn to be a hero", as it's pretty damn obvious for everyone he knows in the forest; Link is already a stand-up guy everyone but one of them is fine with. There's no vengeance, there's no "I am fated to save the world!" Link just goes off to save the world because the player wants to help.
All the way through the series, Link is a rather androgynous character. He pushes no gender boundaries, he exemplifies no stereotypes. This is likely one of the reasons the bulk of the gamers I know (male and female) have an affection for this game: we're not playing "Link" we're playing "us in a green outfit".
How many female Link's go to conventions? Less than the amount of girls I've known who love Link as a character, someone they can identify with. As a guy, I can't identify with Ivy, the bondage assassin lady from Soul Caliber, nor half of the DoA cast. Playing a shape shifting witch who walks around in vinyl outfits made of hair, is not something I can see myself as. I can't find myself absorbed into this characters life.
But as a scared, lonely person trapped on an island of savages all trying to murder the hell out of me? Well, I'm sure Laura Croft and I would have a lot in common on the "oh God I'm going to die" mentalities. I can see many a young girl sitting before a TV, asking themselves the question as to "why is Link saving Zelda?" It's not because he loves her, in many cases, he's never met her. It's not because Ganon killed his wife and kids. He doesn't have to do anything actually, Link has all the ability to literally peace out of Hyrule forever.
Link fights Ganon, and saves Zelda because he wants to. It's the easiest motivation to get behind. We as gamers want to fight to save something, and beat back the tides of evil forces, and honestly, we don't care about what the hero wears under the armor.
The industry needs to stop pretending like we do.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
The Worst Defence is a Good Offence.
Offence is one of those things that people take, but never want. Well, some people want to be offended, it's like candy for bitches. We've all met someone who enjoys nothing more than meeting someone who's opinion differs from them drastically, because in that moment they get to shout.
They do not get to "discuss" or "educate", no, they simply want to have a reason to be very loud about something they like to think they know about.
Since blogs are nothing more than soapboxes, here's mine:
You should deeply care about if you offend someone, even if you hate them.
Offending someone is not a good thing, the exact meaning of the word negates it as being something to be proud of. Too many times I have to sit through an entire media feed, filled with posts and pages about how "I DON'T CARE IF THIS OFFENDS YOU!" or "if this offends you, you can fuck right off."
It's trolling, on a more personal level. Akin to saying "u mad?" after doing something with the intention of making someone angry. It creates a situation where you have trapped someone into either feeling the intended, ambushed emotion, or lying about how they're a Zen master.
There are likely no Zen masters anywhere near anyone reading anything on Facebook. Unless you are taking a selfie with the Dali Lama, you've never met one.
Say you don't believe in "God" or any "gods", so you're an atheist. Now, if you just don't believe because of reasons, that's fine, the only people who really care likely won't waste their time on you. Though, if you want attention, you can be a militant atheist. You can post demeaning things about other people, call them idiots, tell them horrible things, insult every aspect of their intellect, and then, after all of it you can just scoff at them for being offended. It's fine, because only stupid people would be offended for it.
It makes you sound smarter, to dismiss other people, just like pushing someone makes you seem stronger.
Fun Fact: Scientologists schools spend all day copying words out of the dictionary, which means that their children will grow up having a vocabulary that will dwarf every one of their peers. They may not have the actual schooling to back it up, but they will speak in words that make "smart folks" feel like "dumb folks". It's very much like what most atheists do today.
Now, I'm beating up on atheists, and I don't mean to. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you're an atheist. I don't care if you literally believe in the Flying Speghetti Monster. In all honesty, I have never cared about religion, I care about actions.
Believe me, I have strong opinions, ones I will defend, but I will not defend them by offending others. If you truly want to have strong opinions, you have to learn to explain and defend them while not hurting someone's feelings. We tend to diminish that, making "hurting your little feelings" into an insult all on its' own. Remember, suicide and murder both happen because of hurt feelings. Wars as well.
To offend while speaking your opinion, ruins your opinion's merit, for example:
"Them niggers and faggots ain't too bad."
Well, that sentence is going to offend someone. Rightly so, because it's goddamn offensive. Even though it's merit is "these people are good", it's delivery negates that. The speaker might really care about the rights of those people, to their very core... but who's going to take that? Even if you agree with them, you're going to feel insulted, and you might even repremand them for it. Imagine that, you're repremanding someone for voicing an opinion of tolerance and understanding. Why? U Mad?
Voicing one's opinion should only be done to educate others to the merits of one's opinion. If done in a way that rebukes the exact people one is trying to educate, it's not "voicing an opinion" it's "being a massive dickhead." No one ever says "Hitler was bad", because it's a damned given at this point. Yes, we're well aware extermination of a people is wrong. No one would say, to a group of their friends "Hitler is a fucking monster, and you guys are fucking shits if you think otherwise, and if you're offended by this, you can go fuck yourself."
No one speaks to their friends like that, they don't need to. Their friends likely either know, or even if they did not, yelling at them and threatening insult is only going to convince your friends you're an asshole. If you said that line to a person who had never heard of Hitler, you're not going to convince them.
If you're intention in voicing your opinion is not to educate those who might not fully understand, but to exclude those who may disagree with you, you are not voicing an opinion. In this, you are secluding yourself from other opinions, so you may listen to your opinions echo. A person who argues with his echo, is a moron.
They do not get to "discuss" or "educate", no, they simply want to have a reason to be very loud about something they like to think they know about.
Since blogs are nothing more than soapboxes, here's mine:
You should deeply care about if you offend someone, even if you hate them.
Offending someone is not a good thing, the exact meaning of the word negates it as being something to be proud of. Too many times I have to sit through an entire media feed, filled with posts and pages about how "I DON'T CARE IF THIS OFFENDS YOU!" or "if this offends you, you can fuck right off."
It's trolling, on a more personal level. Akin to saying "u mad?" after doing something with the intention of making someone angry. It creates a situation where you have trapped someone into either feeling the intended, ambushed emotion, or lying about how they're a Zen master.
There are likely no Zen masters anywhere near anyone reading anything on Facebook. Unless you are taking a selfie with the Dali Lama, you've never met one.
Say you don't believe in "God" or any "gods", so you're an atheist. Now, if you just don't believe because of reasons, that's fine, the only people who really care likely won't waste their time on you. Though, if you want attention, you can be a militant atheist. You can post demeaning things about other people, call them idiots, tell them horrible things, insult every aspect of their intellect, and then, after all of it you can just scoff at them for being offended. It's fine, because only stupid people would be offended for it.
It makes you sound smarter, to dismiss other people, just like pushing someone makes you seem stronger.
Fun Fact: Scientologists schools spend all day copying words out of the dictionary, which means that their children will grow up having a vocabulary that will dwarf every one of their peers. They may not have the actual schooling to back it up, but they will speak in words that make "smart folks" feel like "dumb folks". It's very much like what most atheists do today.
Now, I'm beating up on atheists, and I don't mean to. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you're an atheist. I don't care if you literally believe in the Flying Speghetti Monster. In all honesty, I have never cared about religion, I care about actions.
Believe me, I have strong opinions, ones I will defend, but I will not defend them by offending others. If you truly want to have strong opinions, you have to learn to explain and defend them while not hurting someone's feelings. We tend to diminish that, making "hurting your little feelings" into an insult all on its' own. Remember, suicide and murder both happen because of hurt feelings. Wars as well.
To offend while speaking your opinion, ruins your opinion's merit, for example:
"Them niggers and faggots ain't too bad."
Well, that sentence is going to offend someone. Rightly so, because it's goddamn offensive. Even though it's merit is "these people are good", it's delivery negates that. The speaker might really care about the rights of those people, to their very core... but who's going to take that? Even if you agree with them, you're going to feel insulted, and you might even repremand them for it. Imagine that, you're repremanding someone for voicing an opinion of tolerance and understanding. Why? U Mad?
Voicing one's opinion should only be done to educate others to the merits of one's opinion. If done in a way that rebukes the exact people one is trying to educate, it's not "voicing an opinion" it's "being a massive dickhead." No one ever says "Hitler was bad", because it's a damned given at this point. Yes, we're well aware extermination of a people is wrong. No one would say, to a group of their friends "Hitler is a fucking monster, and you guys are fucking shits if you think otherwise, and if you're offended by this, you can go fuck yourself."
No one speaks to their friends like that, they don't need to. Their friends likely either know, or even if they did not, yelling at them and threatening insult is only going to convince your friends you're an asshole. If you said that line to a person who had never heard of Hitler, you're not going to convince them.
If you're intention in voicing your opinion is not to educate those who might not fully understand, but to exclude those who may disagree with you, you are not voicing an opinion. In this, you are secluding yourself from other opinions, so you may listen to your opinions echo. A person who argues with his echo, is a moron.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)