Support NeoGAF

[Solid Raiden]

Yep. No one cares when you ask about a black link. Join me in the silent protest.

I'm of the opinion that race is even easier to implement into games than sex. It's not always a valid excuse, but there are indeed some stories developers want to tell which don't allow interchangeable female or male leads (and no, the tomb raider reboot claiming that they need a female lead so that they can paint her as vulnerable so we will want to protect her is not a viable example). I can't think of a reason why every game can't allow you to choose your race, though.

 

[Heart of Black]

I'll just leave this here - Video Games' Blackness problem (Written by Evan Narcisse, Austin Walker, me, Catt Small, and Tronmaximum)

This is basically my bag, what I write a bunch, and talk a lot about, so I won't go too far into it here. But I think this article is pretty good.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

”People say Cindy is too sexy, but they also want female party members. That seems contradictory to me."

I had not heard this quote before.

I don't even know what this means. Is he saying it is impossible to have non-sexualized female characters or that simply having a woman in the cast is good enough or .... ? Like what the fuck is he trying to say.

Nah what're you talking about. Werewolves and Steampunk can't exist in the same reality as black characters.

Yeah seriously that dismissive tone is straight disgraceful.

"The Witcher is only emulating women's role in feudal society."

 

[Dynheart]

I really do not have a horse in this race, but I take to one issue that bothers me across all forms of media. Be it on Facebook, Twitter, any forum you choose, the behavior is the same: goalposts are constantly being moved. Not only that, but the position of the posts always, conveniently, fit the argument being presented at that time.

Let us take Zelda for instance. I constantly read that if the developers would have outright said "no," instead of the weird response we were given, there would be no issue take. I say that is completely 100% false. As strongly as the industry feels about these issues, a simple "no," or even an elaborate "no," would have garnered the same response. Why? Because the expectation was already set through hype. We all know that this industry fall for hype every single time, and the rumor mill was turning like crazy for a female Link at that time. People, not just around here, but at other websites (all kinds of media websites) were pretty sure it was going to happen.

So if you ask me, no matter how Nintendo presented their "no," it would have turned into a shit show either way, and STILL talked about to this day.

 

[HammerFace]

Yep. No one cares when you ask about a black link. Join me in the silent protest.

Would a Gerudo link count? Because if so I'd be super down for a Gerudo Link.

It's a weak argument however you run it.

In an ideal world everyone would be free to write the characters and stories and lore they wanted, and there would be enough diversity that it would be fine to do so.

However, that's not reality. There is a huge imbalance, and it's always a shame when a creator doesn't take an opportunity to include more diversity.

"Inclusion for inclusions sake" is such a stupid idea as a counter argument, we should absolutely be including more for the sake of diversity!

This doesn't mean a white male writer should sit down with a checklist before he writes his story, but it does mean if he's writing a story about a straight white male he should probably put some thought into a few things before he begins: why is his story going to be about a white male protagonist, why would it be good to try to expand his perspective and write outside of his immediate experience, what kind of responsibility do we all have to push diversity, and so on...

These questions being asked in good faith and a healthy dose of self-awareness are what's going to move us forward. And if these questions are asked this way we'll see things naturally become more diverse.

We all need to break down our own prejudices and default ideals, we all have them to a degree.

I agree completely and not enough people acknowledge this fact.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I'm of the opinion that race is even easier to implement into games than sex. It's not always a valid excuse, but there are indeed some stories developers want to tell which don't allow interchangeable female or male leads

Legend of Zelda is literally one of those as Link's heterosexuality is rarely touched upon let alone Zelda's.

 

[SolomonGrundy]

It's an interesting subject.

I think part of it is due to narrative. In a story you typically have to have a contrast between characters otherwise they can all blend together visually.

As far as sexuality I think in stories like Batman. He's supposed to be this particular "type" of macho that doesn't usually go after women. Despite his being handsome, wealthy and physically at his peak he doesn't very easily give into temptation. I see that as a reflection of how manhood sometimes works in real life. A man who sleeps around or chases women a lot can be seen as insecure, lonely or even weak. He's not confident in himself and has to seek approval from the women he sleeps with.

Catwoman on the other hand would be same as Batman but in some ways opposite. She seduces through sexuality but is in control of it as much as he is. Like some of the female characters in batman's story she may try to seduce him because she perhaps legitimately likes him or is just trying to put him on his heels so that he makes a mistake she can exploit.

She's seductive and alluring to his dower expressionlessness. But this is a simplification of the human condition and doesn't run the full gamut of human experience or expression. However it works as a narrative framework.

Those are my 2 cents though. Like I said it's an interesting discussion. I also think characters should represent as many facets of real life as they can. But I'm more on the side of having more stories rather than forcing stories that already exist to include everything. Stories that already exist can be modified but I wouldn't expect them to be overhauled completely. Sorta like how comics will often have future based stories or alternate realities to introduce new ideas and plots while preserving in large measure the original that started that particular franchise.

 

[Zakalwe]

Forgive me, on pain killers right now so I may not be being as articulate as I'd like...

But should we not have those kinds of games at all? That's where my problem lies. A lot of people say "of course we shouldn't censor developers", then later post about how "MGSV should never have been shipped with that version of Quiet in it".

Which one is it? I, for one, found Quiet a silly addition to the MGS5, but I know some people who enjoyed it. Heck, I'm currently enjoying playing through DOAX3. It's very relaxing and yes, I'm partially motivated by being able to unlock new animations and stuff to watch in VR mode. This is definitely sexual objectification. Is it wrong? If you think these kinds of games shouldn't be on shelves, then isn't the only solution to ban them, effectively censoring developers?

Titillation itself isn't an evil, exploring sexuality is a healthy part of growth as is enjoying our sexuality.

Objectification is wrong, imo, if it's being done for the sole purpose of titillation because of the imbalances that exist. We might even be able to say that if the world were fair then it might even be fine to create a game where the characters are objectified for titillation, but currently I think these things do far more harm by perpetuating negative expectation than they benefit us.

For example, if we created two games. Game A has a straight female protag who is objectified sexually, Game B has the same character male. Game B is a lot less harmful because straight males have plenty of representation across the board. Both games should ideally be able to exist, but one does more harm right now than the other. It's something we need to be aware of.

Also, we could write a story about a girl who is being objectified, and in that story the girl might be wearing skimpy clothing, but the surrounding material would support it in a way that gives i meaning outside of the visual.

It's not about censorship, it's about calling for more intelligent stories. When we get to the point that we have more diversity the games you're talking about wouldn't stand out as much and wouldn't do the damage they do now.

Really, however you put it, Quiet was a fairly stupid design.

 

[Solid Raiden]

I'll just leave this here - Video Games' Blackness problem (Written by Evan Narcisse, Austin Walker, me, Catt Small, and Tronmaximum)

This is basically my bag, what I write a bunch, and talk a lot about, so I won't go too far into it here. But I think this article is pretty good.

I've read this before. It's a really good piece. It's true that sexism is rampant in video games and many of the females who appear in video games are highly sexualized. At the same time, I'm hard pressed to think of a single black character who is positively portraid in a video game and I can't help but wonder why we don't talk more about that in addition to the sexism.

 

[Lime]

I've read this before. It's a really good piece. It's true that sexism is rampant in video games and many of the females who appear in video games are highly sexualized. At the same time, I'm hard pressed to think of a single black character who is positively portraid in a video game and I can't help but wonder why we don't talk more about that in addition to the sexism.

Mainstream games media sucks when it comes to diversity. It's mostly just white dudes.

You need to dig a little deeper to find excellent and widely represented voices that actually offer interesting insight into games (and not just in terms of diversity). You should check out:

SpawnOnMe podcast
Fresh out of tokens
Not Your Mama's Gamer (both podcast and website with excellent articles)
Simply Undrea
Catt Smalls and Code Liberation
Shawn Alexander Allen
Shareef Jackson's Gaming Looks Good
Rami Ismail
Brooklyn Skill Tree
I Need Diverse Games
Different Games Conference
Tariq Moosa
Tanya DePass
Sidney Fussel

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Plenty of interesting voices out there that do address some of the stuff you are talking about.

In terms of games, we've had non-white representation in the form of
Mirror's Edge Catalyst
Walking Dead: Michonne
Mafia 3
Watch Dogs 2
Remember Me (a bit older though)
Battlefield 1 (somewhat)
1979
Never Alone
AC: Freedom Cry
AC: Liberation HD
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (support cast)
Walking Dead Season 1, 2, 3
Prey
Battletech

But generally it's still white dudes everywhere, both in games and in the media. And you'll usually get shit on if you mention this.

 

[Zakalwe]

I'm of the opinion that race is even easier to implement into games than sex. It's not always a valid excuse, but there are indeed some stories developers want to tell which don't allow interchangeable female or male leads (and no, the tomb raider reboot claiming that they need a female lead so that they can paint her as vulnerable so we will want to protect her is not a viable example). I can't think of a reason why every game can't allow you to choose your race, though.

I can't think of many stories in games that require a specific gender to work either though, even in games with really well written characters and narratives it's rare they explore these characters in ways that would make a gender switch break anything.

Like, there are some very specific stories that could be told that would require a specific gender or sexuality or colour, but really the majority of characters in the majority of games could be gender/colour swapped forever without the stories being affected at all.

Take TLoU and make Joel a women and Ellie a boy, the same story could be told in the exact same way. Is a father's perspective different enough to a mother's that it would change things to the point the story loses impact? I don't think so (unless I'm missing some kind of important subtext).

 

[CaramelMarx]

I'm with you in spirit OP about the lack of diversity/ overabundance of flawed arguments, but IMO it's exactly this tone of talking down to those who think differently that makes it difficult to change minds.

People who insist on a single ideological interpretation as fact, often about games they haven't even played or been released, don't seem to realize their own complicity in polarizing issues (I'm thinking of the Quiet 'controversy' here, which began well before the game released).

Just as all the flawed approaches you've highlighted don't work, neither IMO can elements separated from their context/larger structure be critiqued fairly or accurately. To me, it's a flawed argument to suggest that each and every instance of something people find 'offensive' comes from the same place/motive/purpose.

When we make sloppy generalizations, paint with too broad a brush, and forget context, we progressives can be guilty of presenting pretty flawed arguments ourselves (present company excluded). That, too, can hurt discussions of this sort. (Just my two cents.)

 

[PtM]

Legend of Zelda is literally one of those as Link's heterosexuality is rarely touched upon let alone Zelda's.

Sadly, the trend seems to buckle.

 

[Zakalwe]

I'm with you in spirit OP about the lack of diversity/ overabundance of flawed arguments, but IMO it's exactly this tone of talking down to those who think differently that makes it difficult to change minds.

People who insist on a single ideological interpretation as fact, often about games they haven't even played or been released, don't seem to realize their own complicity in polarizing issues (I'm thinking of the Quiet 'controversy' here, which began well before the game released).

Just as all the flawed approaches you've highlighted don't work, neither IMO can elements separated from their context/larger structure be critiqued fairly or accurately. To me, it's a flawed argument to suggest that each and every instance of something people find 'offensive' comes from the same place/motive/purpose.

When we make sloppy generalizations, paint with too broad a brush, and forget context, we progressives can be guilty of presenting pretty flawed arguments ourselves (present company excluded). That, too, can hurt discussions of this sort. (Just my two cents.)

I'm not really understanding your point here... I mean, it's obviously good to not rush to conclusions or make assumptions, but we're prone to that as humans... but that's not really the point of this debate...

Also, obviously you can't avoid offending everyone, and this is absolutely not about sterilising creativity like that, but sometimes we can create things with good intent that cause problems and it's absolutely okay to critique that. So I'm not really sure what value this part of your post has here...

Could you perhaps clarify or condense your point a little please?

 

[the_lizard]

I can't think of many stories in games that require a specific gender to work either though, even in games with really well written characters and narratives it's rare they explore these characters in ways that would make a gender switch break anything.

Like, there are some very specific stories that could be told that would require a specific gender or sexuality or colour, but really the majority of characters in the majority of games could be gender/colour swapped forever without the stories being affected at all.

Take TLoU and make Joel a women and Ellie a boy, the same story could be told in the exact same way. Is a father's perspective different enough to a mother's that it would change things to the point the story loses impact? I don't think so (unless I'm missing some kind of important subtext).

But fatherhood is a very specific piece of the human experience. Not saying motherhood isn't but I believe the tone of TLoU would r drastically different were it what you described. If anything I'd say that TLoU is a bad example for what you're trying to posit.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

there are several fairly simple answers. It's great that you're engaging with this.

1. A key thing is that being sex positive means treating sexiness, sex and the body with total respect and even handedness. If your game has all-clothed non-sexy men but every woman is a sex goddess, that's not sex positive, that's reductive and paints an uneven (potentially harmful) picture of sex politics.

2. Usually the problem is that the characters are being objectified, rather than them being sexualised. For instance, say I think Lara from RotR is sexy - and she is definitely sexualised - that doesn't mean she's objectified. The game's narrative, camera and design don't go out of their way to focus just on how sexy she is (reducing get character to visual stimuli, a "simulation object" rather than a person) and 90% of her on screen time is pushing her personal adventure/story forward. She is sexy, but not focused on as a sexual object and not developed only as a sexual object. Again, she's developed as a person. She just happens to be a sexy person - but if she wasn't sexy, it wouldn't make a difference.

Then look at Quiet. Her back story, camera work and design go out of their way to focus just on how sexy she is - literally in every scene she's in. What's worse, she barely has a scene about her own autonomous story or decisions - and the 2/3 she does have constantly focus on her T&A or are narratives revolving around the male protagonist. She's sexy - which itself is great - but she's flat. She's just a sexy object pushed around the game's board and ogled at even during serious "character development" scenes.

3. Similar to point 1, whenever there are complaints about a sexualised character, a massive issue and often focal point is that the character is being treated differently to other characters (eg the one woman is sexy while all the men are "normal"). This happens all the time and shows how women are being thought about differently. I love how sexy Quiet is and she's brilliantly modelled but i literally become livid whenever i think about how all the men in the game are humdrum dullos that never get sexy.

The simple answer is that if you're going to sexualise women in a game, sexualise the men, too. Even if you're going to objectify them - Make it a two way street.

Games like God Hand are great for this. There are plenty of sexy women enemies in this comedy/cartoon wild west, but there are plenty of ripped, hench men in thongs too. It's fantastic.

It's really simple: Sexy isn't bad, but objectifying is. Skimpy outfits can be suitable but fan-service to the point it's just for titillation is childish.

We can create sexy characters without falling into the obvious pitfalls like Kojima's Quiet.

Thank you both. I appreciate the responses.

 

[HammerFace]

But fatherhood is a very specific piece of the human experience. Not saying motherhood isn't but I believe the tone of TLoU would r drastically different were it what you described. If anything I'd say that TLoU is a bad example for what you're trying to posit.

Could you give some examples of how it'd change?

 

[Enduin]

Yeh, that's a pretty shitty argument.

I mean, it really equates to "the comfort I get from seeing my old character return as he was is more important than diversity", which is weak as hell.

And, again, I don't even think this /should/ happen, but it /would/ be a wonderful gesture. I've no idea why anyone would be against it unless they have an agenda opposed to diversity or they're simply being selfish.

This is a rather unproductive attitude to have on the subject as it completely ignores and negates the ways in which people connect with and develop wildly different attachments to media and characters, especially with a franchise as old and prolific as the LoZ, though it's an issue that extends beyond just this franchise. .

It's definitely born from selfishness, but that is not inherently wrong and it is wrong to paint it as such. Just because it is selfish is hardly unreasonable or in conflict with the need/desire to have more diversity in games. It's perfectly fine for people to create certain attachments to fiction and be opposed to certain changes to it. More diversity is an absolute necessity for so many reasons, but that need does not make it so that everything must bow to it and for someone to have developed certain attachments and preferences, especially for long running franchises, and to oppose changes in those instances shouldn't automatically mean that those people are against diversity. That's a dangerous line of thinking and no way to hold a debate or approach a discussion on the subject.

It's certainly something that requires being addressed on a case by case basis though. Tradition for tradition's sake is just as faulty an argument. Plenty of people have developed attachments to objectively negative things in games that are staples within certain series, but in the case of the LoZ keeping Link male is in no way an attack on diversity or perpetuation of sexism or anything like that. It's definitely important to challenge people in order for them to better understand the larger issues and to better understand their own line of thinking and what it can mean, but it's also important to understand why they may have reached that line of thinking in the first place and to distinguish whether or not it's actually wrong or not. Because it's not always that clear cut.

The desire for Female Link is just as selfish as the desires for keeping Link as he is in many cases. It just happens to align with issue of diversity in games which gives it more weight. It's a completely acceptable desire to have, many people view the character of Link as totally transmutable due to the series' lore and how they've approached the character over the years as an avatar of themselves. So it's perfectly natural that many have that desire to extend that reflection to include Link's gender. But many people share the opposite view of Link and have formed different bonds and connections to the series and character to the point that Link is not transmutable in that way, which is also acceptable and not surprising. Neither side is inherently wrong or right. It's just a matter of perspective and how they approached the character and series over the years. Nintendo is not wrong to honor or refuse either desire/viewpoint and no one really has a leg to stand on should their desires be ignored. There is no inherently right or wrong answer or approach to this issue.

But I will say this: Female Link does not at all address the issues of gender roles and diversity within the series itself to me. It's a misplaced solution, or only tangentially related topic, to the real problem of how Princess Zelda has been portrayed throughout the series. A problem that won't fully be rectified in my mind until Zelda herself is the hero of the story.

Sure you would have a major character and icon of gaming as a female character, that's a milestone for sure and not without its merits, but you wouldn't actually be addressing the issues within the series itself. You would still have 30 years of the titular character getting thrown under the bus in one way/degree or the other and no actual solution to that problem. The two might be related, but they're not connected. And while not relegating Zelda to damsel status and developing her character in a more well rounded direction that doesn't play into empowering the male player character would certainly be a huge improvement, and it is something they have done to one extent or another over the years though not without their share of missteps, it still won't fully address the main issue until she herself is shown to be a hero on her own. And this is something I think many people fail to realize or address when they bring up the Female Link and diversity issue.

 

[thefil]

*edit* never mind

 

[thunder_snail]

I'm with you in spirit OP about the lack of diversity/ overabundance of flawed arguments, but IMO it's exactly this tone of talking down to those who think differently that makes it difficult to change minds.

People who insist on a single ideological interpretation as fact, often about games they haven't even played or been released, don't seem to realize their own complicity in polarizing issues (I'm thinking of the Quiet 'controversy' here, which began well before the game released).

Just as all the flawed approaches you've highlighted don't work, neither IMO can elements separated from their context/larger structure be critiqued fairly or accurately. To me, it's a flawed argument to suggest that each and every instance of something people find 'offensive' comes from the same place/motive/purpose.

When we make sloppy generalizations, paint with too broad a brush, and forget context, we progressives can be guilty of presenting pretty flawed arguments ourselves (present company excluded). That, too, can hurt discussions of this sort. (Just my two cents.)

Agreed. Labeling counter arguments as flawed and pre-emptively shutting them down without knowing the context wouldn't lead to a good discussion.

 

[Zakalwe]

But fatherhood is a very specific piece of the human experience. Not saying motherhood isn't but I believe the tone of TLoU would r drastically different were it what you described. If anything I'd say that TLoU is a bad example for what you're trying to posit.

I addressed this already, there would definitely be stories that require a very focused perspective, but for the majority the stories simply aren't written in ways that a gender switch would matter.

 

[Funyarinpa]

I'm really glad that this thread is proceeding without vitriol and with respect from all sides

 

[Solid Raiden]

I can't think of many stories in games that require a specific gender to work either though, even in games with really well written characters and narratives it's rare they explore these characters in ways that would make a gender switch break anything.

Like, there are some very specific stories that could be told that would require a specific gender or sexuality or colour, but really the majority of characters in the majority of games could be gender/colour swapped forever without the stories being affected at all.

Take TLoU and make Joel a women and Ellie a boy, the same story could be told in the exact same way. Is a father's perspective different enough to a mother's that it would change things to the point the story loses impact? I don't think so (unless I'm missing some kind of important subtext).

In a perfect world, I'd tend to agree with you. However, it's just not as easy to supplement sex in games as it is for race. Story based games with a lot of dialogue would have to record dialogue multiple times, possibly have to change dialogue, etc. And not only is this not economical but sometimes I'd agree that it's just not feasible. A game such as the Last of Us is lauded for its acting, but it wasn't as simple as just recording dialogue in a box. The acting was so successful because the voice actors became those roles and acted out the scenes together. I truly believe it's not feasible for a game like that to just allow you to choose your sex.

 

[Mik317]

great thread and tons of work you put into it.

that being said, I think at the end of the day a lot of choices are made because the person at the helm thinks it is cool or simply they wanted it to be that way. For all of the "words and deeds" or other shit excuses I think basically designers and directors and the like simply are creating things they like.

And the best way to get more diversity; is to have people in those positions and then most importantly support them. The latter being the most important part. Too many times a game with the exact type of diversity people have been calling for is then ignored because of some small reason (oh the framerate isn't good; Oh that costs too much...I'll wait for a sale). Valid reasons often but sometimes you gotta take the bullet....

People often rag on the Otaku audience (again for valid reasons at times) but like it or not; they support their shit (for better or for worse lol).

This is why I think people should spend more time lifting up things that do it right rather than those who don't. Humans are weird creatures in that the moment we feel like you are going to take away my thing, we get defensive and cornered and thus any actual discussion goes out the window.

Support those doing it "right"; give them all the press they need and overtime more people will be put in position to actually make the things you like..because it is now viable.

 

[Lady Gaia]

Love the OP. It's great to see all the usual themes and counterarguments pulled together in one place.

I'm with you in spirit OP about the lack of diversity/ overabundance of flawed arguments, but IMO it's exactly this tone of talking down to those who think differently that makes it difficult to change minds.

Most of the time the only way to change the status quo is through controversy. I can't think of a time in history when issues of race, gender, class or any other societal distinctions were addressed without some fairly boisterous disagreements.

People who insist on a single ideological interpretation as fact, often about games they haven't even played or been released, don't seem to realize their own complicity in polarizing issues (I'm thinking of the Quiet 'controversy' here, which began well before the game released).

The line about Quiet sounded like complete nonsense to justify a character showing a lot of skin and people called Kojima out on it. It turned out they were right. Why is this a problem, exactly?

When we make sloppy generalizations, paint with too broad a brush, and forget context, we progressives can be guilty of presenting pretty flawed arguments ourselves (present company excluded). That, too, can hurt discussions of this sort. (Just my two cents.)

I don't know why you'd exclude anyone from the potential for making sloppy generalization. Chances are we all do from time to time, and yes I'm including myself. To think that one side owns the whole truth and just needs to phrase it the right way is as hubristic as anything you're suggesting the OP is guilty of. No, a healthy conversation involves people on both sides of a discussion learning something from the other and refining their own argument and viewpoint as a result.

 

[the_lizard]

I addressed this already, there would definitely be stories that require a very focused perspective, but for the majority the stories simply aren't written in ways that a gender switch would matter.

Right, but I'm saying that TLoU is a bad example of a game that the gender can be switched. It would completely alter the dynamic of the story they're trying to tell. Fatherhood and motherhood are vastly different.

 

[Zakalwe]

This is a rather unproductive attitude to have on the subject as it completely ignores and negates the ways in which people connect with and develop wildly different attachments to media and characters, especially with a franchise as old and prolific as the LoZ, though it's an issue that extends beyond just this franchise.

It's definitely born from selfishness, but that is not inherently wrong and it is wrong to paint it as such. Just because it is selfish is hardly unreasonable or in conflict with the need/desire to have more diversity in games. It's perfectly fine for people to create certain attachments to fiction and be opposed to certain changes to it. More diversity is an absolute necessity for so many reasons, but that need does not make it so that everything must bow to it and for someone to have developed certain attachments and preferences, especially for long running franchises, and to oppose changes in those instances shouldn't automatically mean that those people are against diversity. That's a dangerous line of thinking and no way to hold a debate or approach a discussion on the subject.

I guess my point would be this:

It's a very, very tiny sacrifice. If I could offer one of my most beloved characters to be changed to give representation to a marginalised group I would do it without thinking.

I find it strange that anyone with an abundance of representation wouldn't want to do the same, and especially if the character in question has had a very large amount of content created for them already.

It's certainly something that requires being addressed on a case by case basis though. Tradition for tradition's sake is just as faulty an argument. Plenty of people have developed attachments to objectively negative things in games that are staples within certain series, but in the case of the LoZ keeping Link male is in no way an attack on diversity or perpetuation of sexism or anything like that. It's definitely important to challenge people in order for them to better understand the larger issues and to better understand their own line of thinking and what it can mean, but it's also important to understand why they may have reached that line of thinking in the first place and to distinguish whether or not it's actually wrong or not. Because it's not always that clear cut.

I didn't ever suggest keeping Link male is an attack on diversity, I said switching Link's gender would be a wonderful gesture.

That's the simple fact of it, we shouldn't have to do it but it would be really, really good if we did.

The desire for Female Link is just as selfish as the desires for keeping Link as he is in many cases.

Woah, though, this is just not true and you're veering into the traps laid out in the OP.

It wouldn't be selfish at all for a girl to ask Nintendo to make the new Link female /because/ the girl, I mean as a technical human emotion it's originating from the self... but as an overall assessment knowing full well the state of things we couldn't call that a selfish act in any kind of good faith.

It just happens to align with issue of diversity in games which gives it more weight. It's a completely acceptable desire to have, many people view the character of Link as totally transmutable due to the series' lore and how they've approached the character over the years as an avatar of themselves. So it's perfectly natural that many have that desire to extend that reflection to include Link's gender. But many people share the opposite view of Link and have formed different bonds and connections to the series and character to the point that Link is not transmutable in that way, which is also acceptable and not surprising. Neither side is inherently wrong or right. It's just a matter of perspective and how they approached the character and series over the years. Nintendo is not wrong to honor or refuse either desire/viewpoint and no one really has a leg to stand on should their desires be ignored. There is no inherently right or wrong answer or approach to this issue.

And you lose me here entirely... at this point you're finding ways to argue against diversity whether that's your intent or not.

I've clearly explained we shouldn't expect anyone to make these kinds of switches, merely that it would be a really good gesture and would help push the cause.

Forget Link, Link isn't important here. The important thing is that there are lots of ways the industry could make progress, and if a large developer with a prominent IP made this kind of gesture it could do a lot of good.

But I will say this: Female Link does not at all address the issues of gender roles and diversity within the series itself to me. It's a misplaced solution, or only tangentially related topic, to the real problem of how Princess Zelda has been portrayed throughout the series. A problem that won't fully be rectified in my mind until Zelda herself is the hero of the story.

Again, it was just an example to make a border point. It was never intended to be a solution.

Sure you would have a major character and icon of gaming as a female character, that's a milestone for sure and not without its merits, but you wouldn't actually be addressing the issues within the series itself. You would still have 30 years of the titular character getting thrown under the bus in one way/degree or the other and no actual solution to that problem. The two might be related, but they're not connected. And while not relegating Zelda to damsel status and developing her character in a more well rounded direction that doesn't play into empowering the male player character would certainly be a huge improvement, and it is something they have done to one extent or another over the years though not without their share of missteps, it still won't fully address the main issue until she herself is shown to be a hero on her own. And this is something I think many people fail to realize or address when they bring up the Female Link and diversity issue.

Again, you're focusing far too much on the example being used and not the point being made.

Right, but I'm saying that TLoU is a bad example of a game that the gender can be switched. It would completely alter the dynamic of the story they're trying to tell. Fatherhood and motherhood are vastly different.

I guess I'm missing how fatherhood is an essential theme to TLoU then, because if anything it's "parent hood".

How is "fatherhood" inherent to the core story of TLoU when "motherhood" couldn't be in the exact same ways? I mean, it seems to be more that you have pre-conceived notions of masculinity and femininity, like Joel needs to be a man for some reason for the story to work. How would Joel being a female mother change anything?

I'm asking in good faith here, I could be missing something obvious...

 

[Nepenthe]

Fantastic OP! Basically lays the issues I have against anti-diversity arguments bare. I want to go further in depth on the artistic freedom section, because this has been something that's been eating at my tits for a long time and I just want to vent about it. You covered the main points I would've made in my own topic, although there's one point I feel that tends to be overlooked in all of this:

The way "artistic freedom" is used as a bludgeon does nothing but devalue, infantalize, undermine, and insult artists.

The inherent implications of the very sentiment of "protecting the artist's integrity and creative freedom!" positions artists as sniveling, whimpering victims unable to stand up to the armored hordes of social justice armies hosing us off with their disagreements and shooting us down with the existence of women and black people, until of course the gallant straight white male consumers can rush over that shining hill of self-importance to come to our aid.

Artists know that their work will be criticized, sometimes very harshly. We're also aware that our work perpetually exists within a sociopolitical context, because our ideas are informed by that as much as they're informed by our biology, our upbringing, and our pop culture inspirations, because our world and cultures are in part defined by sociopolitical contexts and borders. Mario saves a princess because it's a generic fairy tale cliche', which in turn was born in ancient contexts of chivalry, knighthood, and sexism, in turn themselves born of the sociopolitical realities of Medieval European culture. Ideas- like words themselves- have histories and etymologies, and it's fair game for people aware of them to bring them forward in a discussion about any idea that may be outdated, inappropriate, or just plain offensive in the modern day.

Any artist who calls themselves a professional is primed and armed through experience, education, and self-growth to engage in these conversations in a healthy and positive way, to not inherently take them as personal attacks on our character but rather the different viewpoints that they are. We're ideally able to learn from these discussions and take that new knowledge forward to be better artists than we were the day before, in the same way that someone pointing out a design flaw or coding error in turn strengthens a game designer's ability to make engaging content, resulting in absolutely amazing shit like the jump from Skyward Sword to Breath of the Wild. We don't all want to be like Digital Homicide, a group of men who were stifled from the act of properly engaging in criticism, a group of men who believe they are perfect in their artistic expression and above it all, and thus do nothing at the end of the day but churn out shit. I don't want an industry full of Digital Homicide games that are stagnant and up their own ass. I want more Breaths of the Wild, games that take critique to heart to make something new and glorious and exciting! And here's another kicker to all of this:

Artists can disagree with criticism!

Crazy, right? We can defend our work by ourselves! We can say "I understand your complaint, but my intent with this idea was x and therefore that's why I chose that." Or simply "I'm not changing it!" Artists have the agency and decision-making skills like any other fucking person on the planet, because it's still ultimately their work and they can do as they wish with it.

Going back to Zelda, Aonuma has assured us that we're probably not getting a female Link anytime soon. I can criticize his reasoning to the moon and back, but in the end Link is probably always gonna be a guy so long as Aonuma is living and in charge. And that's fine! He doesn't have to acknowledge that criticism and change Link no more than I have to acknowledge that he has a point in there somewhere (he doesn't). That's what free speech actually looks like. This is a what creative freedom is. It's an exchange of ideas and debates that continuously molds the cultural landscape over time into new and better things, not an attempt to shut down that exchange and subsequently the ability to evolve into something greater under the ironic guise that it's a threat to the act of expression.

Artists like Aonuma, myself, and anyone else don't need anyone- especially gamers whose ulterior motives are plain as day- positioning themselves as their guardians or protectors from the "peril" that is social criticism. We've got this shit.

And that's the cherry on top: Gamers aren't fooling anyone with that kind of coded language. We all know what you really mean by "defending artistic integrity." You know why the OP extensively pointed out that the idea of "defending artistic integrity" only extensively applies to criticism of representation and sexism, and not criticism of image quality, game mechanics, or whatever else? It's because at the end of the day, gamers just want to see the same shit over and over again: Heroic white dudes, guns and blood, and tits and ass. Which is fine. Everyone has their preferences. I'd personally prefer to shove all that faux-mature shit to the backburner and usher in a new age of colorful mascot platformers, because that's what I personally like. However, the difference is that I don't need to couch my preferences in codified language and shallow defenses that position them and myself as anymore noble than what they really are.

So just say you like white dudes, guns and blood, and tits and ass being everywhere. Don't tell me you're trying to defend me as an artist when I criticize how eye-roll worthy these things are in the cultural wasteland that is gaming. Don't try to put this shit on a pedestal or make this out into a moral battle for the perseverance of free speech. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Because the sooner we can be honest with ourselves, the sooner gaming can move towards being less of an embarrassment.

 

[the_lizard]

Could you give some examples of how it'd change?

Plot point by plot point it might not change in a huge way. The story could still focus on the same end goal, etc. But the tone would be completely different, I think.

 

[InterMusketeer]

[...] if the world were fair then it might even be fine to create a game where the characters are objectified for titillation, but currently I think these things do far more harm by perpetuating negative expectation than they benefit us.

[...] Both games should ideally be able to exist, but one does more harm right now than the other. It's something we need to be aware of.

So what does this mean in practice? That's the question I have when I read stuff like this.

Would you say games with those characteristics shouldn't be released right now? Or maybe they should be changed? "Being aware of it" is too vague. What are some actual solutions you'd have for games you deem problematic.

 

[Zakalwe]

So what does this mean in practice? That's the question I have when I read stuff like this.

Would you say games with those characteristics shouldn't be released right now? Or maybe they should be changed? "Being aware of it" is too vague. What are some actual solutions you'd have for games you deem problematic.

Well, if you read the rest of my post you'd have my answer..

The solution is to simply be more aware of all these things and to try to unpick our own desires while creating characters and stories.

If we do this in good faith then progress will become a natural thing. Of course this isn't a decisive solution, but I don't think that exists.

 

[HammerFace]

Plot point by plot point it might not change in a huge way. The story could still focus on the same end goal, etc. But the tone would be completely different, I think.

Fair enough, I'm not a parent so I wouldn't be able to give a decent reason using that kind of perspective but in my experience as being a child my mother was the attentive parent, she took care of me, worried about me, and would sacrifice anything for me. So I could easily see a mother taking the same role as joel and having a very similar tone. But again I'm not a parent so I can't say for certain

So just say you like white dudes, guns and blood, and tits and ass. Don't tell me you're trying to defend me as an artist when I criticize how eye-roll worthy these things are in the cultural wasteland that is gaming. Don't try to put this shit on a pedestal or make this out into a moral battle for the perseverance of free speech. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Because the sooner we can be honest with ourselves, the sooner gaming can move towards being less of an embarrassment.

 

[Zakalwe]

Yeh Nepenthe, that's a damn good post.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Which is better, a Zelda game with female Link or a game with Zelda as the playable lead?

Just assume that you have to choose one over the other, and the game is a mainline Zelda game, which one would you folks pick, and why?

 

[NHarmonic.]

I would like to think that the Triforce bit is more in reference to the Link & Zelda dynamic, not so much Ganondorf aspect. In Hyrule Historia Miyamoto's opening statement ends with him saying basically that whenever evil threatens the world a boy and a girl will emerge to face it.

So in that regard a female Link would upset that boy/girl dynamic they have going with the series, especially as of late in many of the games where Link and Zelda have come together to defeat the various evils threatening Hyrule. Not a fantastic line of reasoning by any means but not totally shit either. But I am biased as I do like the boy/girl dynamic, my only wish is that Zelda was developed more and could lead a game of her own.

Which makes the whole "what would Link do" statement just complete and total shit. No excuses for that.

This could be mind blowing but, maybe, just maybe, they could make zelda a man if link is a girl, and so there's no disturbance in the triforce or some shit like that.

 

[Platy]

Someone challenged an article that gets reposted repeatedly about this here on GAF

Yes ... and that person, like I said, only disproved the article. Didn't proved that sex sells.
It is only in need of proof if it is against what they believe.

If I say that "bayonetta, DoAXBV and Keijo shows that it will sell less compared to DMC, Beach Spikers and a generic Shonen" they will say it is not scientificaly perfect study because games were made in different ways, which for them is a proof that sex sells while in reality is simply saying we don't know.

Would a Gerudo link count? Because if so I'd be super down for a Gerudo Link.

Like I said before, Ganon making some magic to change races with Link so Ganon can be born as a children fitting the prophecy of the hero of time would be an AWESOME way to make Zelda story feel fresh.

Legend of Zelda is literally one of those as Link's heterosexuality is rarely touched upon let alone Zelda's.

Actualy after Skyward Sword it means that every link and zelda are in love .... bu then again if you change link their souls are so connected that you will change zelda at the same time =P

That being said, I am 300% against choosing a character for zelda games. Fixed gender protagonist gives MUCH more story potential ... and part of me says that IF I DIDN'T HAD A CHOICE TO PLAY 16 MALE LINKS THAN THEY WILL SURVIVE PLAYING ONE WOMAN LINK

 

[Mysterious Stranger]

Didn't they make some feminist games for gamers and they bombed in sales.

Like Mirror's Edge Catalyst for one. Yeah for Diveristy

 

[Zakalwe]

Which is better, a Zelda game with female Link or a game with Zelda as the playable lead?

Just assume that you have to choose one over the other, and the game is a mainline Zelda game, which one would you folks pick, and why?

A female Link would be a more powerful statement that's for sure. A playable Zelda could be waved away as an off-shoot and might not challenge the same kinds of expectations.

Either would be good though as a stop forward.

 

[Lime]

Didn't they make some feminist games for gamers and they bombed in sales.

Like Mirror's Edge Catalyst for one. Yeah for Diveristy

That game didn't bomb as it met expectations

Also, San Andreas was until recently the bestselling gta game. Mafia 3 sold really well. It's not like nonwhite protagonists aren't selling.

 

[Nuu]

I just wanted to make a comment that this is the best OP I've ever read. Props.

 

[TissueBox]

Because the sooner we can be honest with ourselves, the sooner gaming can move towards being less of an embarrassment.

Exactly.

Before you enter an argument, first know yourself. That is important if you want to be serious, and even moreso if you are actually very far from who you think you are.

The ethical-knight delusion is the most problematic fallacy committed by people involved in this debate for me, personally.

If you want sexual objectification, make a case for that. If you want more (more [more]) white people, make a case for that. At least then everyone will be on the same page instead of getting tied in a knot that doesn't go anywhere. This applies to everyone, not just gaming conservatives. But that's a subject for another time.

The point is a lot of people get confused by thinking they're not confused. This can't be helped most of the time, but by acknowledging the existence of this problem, (which, yes, is a bit ridiculous, but hey no use whining about it now), a lot of people can be saved the trouble.

 

[Nepenthe]

Which is better, a Zelda game with female Link or a game with Zelda as the playable lead?

Just assume that you have to choose one over the other, and the game is a mainline Zelda game, which one would you folks pick, and why?

Female Link. It increases the breadth of the canon's lore and can potentially snowball into a whole bunch of unique scenarios (if the "Hero" can be female, can they also be Gerudo?), puts a woman in a traditionally male role, and potentially throws in some LGBT representation to increase the demographic reach while simultaneously making the homophobic sect of our community squirm in their seats. It'd be awesome.

But, none of this is to say I hate male Link. SS Link in particular is my little baby boo. xD I love his expressiveness and the way his relationship with Zelda is outlined in the game, and I'm hoping BotW makes them as much of an adorable couple as SS did.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Which is better, a Zelda game with female Link or a game with Zelda as the playable lead?

Just assume that you have to choose one over the other, and the game is a mainline Zelda game, which one would you folks pick, and why?

Female Link, easy. Zelda games have new Links all the time and all of them are different anyway.

A Zelda game with Zelda as the protag wouldn't be mainline, especially if she played differently. It would be the super princess peach or yoshi's island or donkey kong country to the Link led title's Super Mario Bros. And if Zelda didn't play differently, if she was just a silent knight that uses boomerangs, bombs, etc, why not just use Link instead? Zelda has been far more consistent from entry to entry than Link has.

Basically, shifting Zelda to a warrior protagonist would be a far larger change than changing Link's gender, something that isn't any more necessary to his portrayal than his ever changing age, hair color, eye color, background, and dominant hand.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Fantastic OP! Basically lays the issues I have against anti-diversity arguments bare. I want to go further in depth on the artistic freedom section, because this has been something that's been eating at my tits for a long time and I just want to vent about it. You covered the main points I would've made in my own topic, although there's one point I feel that tends to be overlooked in all of this:

The way "artistic freedom" is used as a bludgeon does nothing but devalue, infantalize, undermine, and insult artists.

The inherent implications of the very sentiment of "protecting the artist's integrity and creative freedom!" positions artists as sniveling, whimpering victims unable to stand up to the armored hordes of social justice armies hosing us off with their disagreements and shooting us down with the existence of women and black people, until of course the gallant straight white male consumers can rush over that shining hill of self-importance to come to our aid.

Artists know that their work will be criticized, sometimes very harshly. We're also aware that our work perpetually exists within a sociopolitical context, because our ideas are informed by that as much as they're informed by our biology, our upbringing, and our pop culture inspirations, because our world and cultures are in part defined by sociopolitical contexts and borders. Mario saves a princess because it's a generic fairy tale cliche', which in turn was born in ancient contexts of chivalry, knighthood, and sexism, in turn themselves born of the sociopolitical realities of Medieval European culture. Ideas- like words themselves- have histories and etymologies, and it's fair game for people aware of them to bring them forward in a discussion about any idea that may be outdated, inappropriate, or just plain offensive in the modern day.

Any artist who calls themselves a professional is primed and armed through experience, education, and self-growth to engage in these conversations in a healthy and positive way, to not inherently take them as personal attacks on our character but rather the different viewpoints that they are. We're ideally able to learn from these discussions and take that new knowledge forward to be better artists than we were the day before, in the same way that someone pointing out a design flaw or coding error in turn strengthens a game designer's ability to make engaging content, resulting in absolutely amazing shit like the jump from Skyward Sword to Breath of the Wild. We don't all want to be like Digital Homicide, a group of men who were stifled from the act of properly engaging in criticism, a group of men who believe they are perfect in their artistic expression and above it all, and thus do nothing at the end of the day but churn out shit. I don't want an industry full of Digital Homicide games that are stagnant and up their own ass. I want more Breaths of the Wild, games that take critique to heart to make something new and glorious and exciting! And here's another kicker to all of this:

Artists can disagree with criticism!

Crazy, right? We can defend our work by ourselves! We can say "I understand your complaint, but my intent with this idea was x and therefore that's why I chose that." Or simply "I'm not changing it!" Artists have the agency and decision-making skills like any other fucking person on the planet, because it's still ultimately their work and they can do as they wish with it.

Going back to Zelda, Aonuma has assured us that we're probably not getting a female Link anytime soon. I can criticize his reasoning to the moon and back, but in the end Link is probably always gonna be a guy so long as Aonuma is living and in charge. And that's fine! He doesn't have to acknowledge that criticism and change Link no more than I have to acknowledge that he has a point in there somewhere (he doesn't). That's what free speech actually looks like. This is a what creative freedom is. It's an exchange of ideas and debates that continuously molds the cultural landscape over time into new and better things, not an attempt to shut down that exchange and subsequently the ability to evolve into something greater under the ironic guise that it's a threat to the act of expression.

Artists like Aonuma, myself, and anyone else don't need anyone- especially gamers whose ulterior motives are plain as day- positioning themselves as their guardians or protectors from the "peril" that is social criticism. We've got this shit.

And that's the cherry on top: Gamers aren't fooling anyone with that kind of coded language. We all know what you really mean by "defending artistic integrity." You know why the OP extensively pointed out that the idea of "defending artistic integrity" only extensively applies to criticism of representation and sexism, and not criticism of image quality, game mechanics, or whatever else? It's because at the end of the day, gamers just want to see the same shit over and over again: Heroic white dudes, guns and blood, and tits and ass. Which is fine. Everyone has their preferences. I'd personally prefer to shove all that faux-mature shit to the backburner and usher in a new age of colorful mascot platformers, because that's what I personally like. However, the difference is that I don't need to couch my preferences in codified language and shallow defenses that position them and myself as anymore noble than what they really are.

So just say you like white dudes, guns and blood, and tits and ass being everywhere. Don't tell me you're trying to defend me as an artist when I criticize how eye-roll worthy these things are in the cultural wasteland that is gaming. Don't try to put this shit on a pedestal or make this out into a moral battle for the perseverance of free speech. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Because the sooner we can be honest with ourselves, the sooner gaming can move towards being less of an embarrassment.

 

[Messofanego]

Hallelujah, Llyrwenne! Completely agreed with your OP and explains the false arguments quite succinctly. I'll have to use this as a reference point.

I see it as people being new to cultural criticism or politics and feel defensive so they try to spin it as fascism.

 

[Lo_Fi]

Fantastic OP! Basically lays the issues I have against anti-diversity arguments bare. I want to go further in depth on the artistic freedom section, because this has been something that's been eating at my tits for a long time and I just want to vent about it. You covered the main points I would've made in my own topic, although there's one point I feel that tends to be overlooked in all of this:

The way "artistic freedom" is used as a bludgeon does nothing but devalue, infantalize, undermine, and insult artists.

The inherent implications of the very sentiment of "protecting the artist's integrity and creative freedom!" positions artists as sniveling, whimpering victims unable to stand up to the armored hordes of social justice armies hosing us off with their disagreements and shooting us down with the existence of women and black people, until of course the gallant straight white male consumers can rush over that shining hill of self-importance to come to our aid.

Artists know that their work will be criticized, sometimes very harshly. We're also aware that our work perpetually exists within a sociopolitical context, because our ideas are informed by that as much as they're informed by our biology, our upbringing, and our pop culture inspirations, because our world and cultures are in part defined by sociopolitical contexts and borders. Mario saves a princess because it's a generic fairy tale cliche', which in turn was born in ancient contexts of chivalry, knighthood, and sexism, in turn themselves born of the sociopolitical realities of Medieval European culture. Ideas- like words themselves- have histories and etymologies, and it's fair game for people aware of them to bring them forward in a discussion about any idea that may be outdated, inappropriate, or just plain offensive in the modern day.

Any artist who calls themselves a professional is primed and armed through experience, education, and self-growth to engage in these conversations in a healthy and positive way, to not inherently take them as personal attacks on our character but rather the different viewpoints that they are. We're ideally able to learn from these discussions and take that new knowledge forward to be better artists than we were the day before, in the same way that someone pointing out a design flaw or coding error in turn strengthens a game designer's ability to make engaging content, resulting in absolutely amazing shit like the jump from Skyward Sword to Breath of the Wild. We don't all want to be like Digital Homicide, a group of men who were stifled from the act of properly engaging in criticism, a group of men who believe they are perfect in their artistic expression and above it all, and thus do nothing at the end of the day but churn out shit. I don't want an industry full of Digital Homicide games that are stagnant and up their own ass. I want more Breaths of the Wild, games that take critique to heart to make something new and glorious and exciting! And here's another kicker to all of this:

Artists can disagree with criticism!

Crazy, right? We can defend our work by ourselves! We can say "I understand your complaint, but my intent with this idea was x and therefore that's why I chose that." Or simply "I'm not changing it!" Artists have the agency and decision-making skills like any other fucking person on the planet, because it's still ultimately their work and they can do as they wish with it.

Going back to Zelda, Aonuma has assured us that we're probably not getting a female Link anytime soon. I can criticize his reasoning to the moon and back, but in the end Link is probably always gonna be a guy so long as Aonuma is living and in charge. And that's fine! He doesn't have to acknowledge that criticism and change Link no more than I have to acknowledge that he has a point in there somewhere (he doesn't). That's what free speech actually looks like. This is a what creative freedom is. It's an exchange of ideas and debates that continuously molds the cultural landscape over time into new and better things, not an attempt to shut down that exchange and subsequently the ability to evolve into something greater under the ironic guise that it's a threat to the act of expression.

Artists like Aonuma, myself, and anyone else don't need anyone- especially gamers whose ulterior motives are plain as day- positioning themselves as their guardians or protectors from the "peril" that is social criticism. We've got this shit.

And that's the cherry on top: Gamers aren't fooling anyone with that kind of coded language. We all know what you really mean by "defending artistic integrity." You know why the OP extensively pointed out that the idea of "defending artistic integrity" only extensively applies to criticism of representation and sexism, and not criticism of image quality, game mechanics, or whatever else? It's because at the end of the day, gamers just want to see the same shit over and over again: Heroic white dudes, guns and blood, and tits and ass. Which is fine. Everyone has their preferences. I'd personally prefer to shove all that faux-mature shit to the backburner and usher in a new age of colorful mascot platformers, because that's what I personally like. However, the difference is that I don't need to couch my preferences in codified language and shallow defenses that position them and myself as anymore noble than what they really are.

So just say you like white dudes, guns and blood, and tits and ass being everywhere. Don't tell me you're trying to defend me as an artist when I criticize how eye-roll worthy these things are in the cultural wasteland that is gaming. Don't try to put this shit on a pedestal or make this out into a moral battle for the perseverance of free speech. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Because the sooner we can be honest with ourselves, the sooner gaming can move towards being less of an embarrassment.

Can...can this just be stickied to the front page of GAF?

Completely agree. The fantastic thing about feedback is that we as artists get to choose which feedback to listen to. We can listen to all of it, none of it, or some of it. And sure, we might choose the wrong feedback to listen to, but being a great game designer means deducing which feedback to listen to and how to change the game according to that feedback. Any experienced game developer has been doing this for years.

 

[Mik317]

no one is going to say "yeah I want more sexual objectification and less diversity"

come on now.

 

[GLAMr]

Which is better, a Zelda game with female Link or a game with Zelda as the playable lead?

Just assume that you have to choose one over the other, and the game is a mainline Zelda game, which one would you folks pick, and why?

Female link for sure. Also gender swapping Zelda at the same time would be cool. Seeing a prince having to rely on a woman to save his kingdom would be an interesting reversal of a common trope. Mixing skin tones and ethnicities (Like making the female Link a Gerudo) would also be fascinating to explore.

 

[JC Lately]

no one is going to say "yeah I want more sexual objectification and less diversity"

come on now.

I want more of both, TBH. It's not an ethier/or proposition.

I look forward to the next Huniepop and the next Life is Strange in equal measure.

 

[Nepenthe]

no one is going to say "yeah I want more sexual objectification and less diversity"

come on now.

But that's what this issue amounts to at the end of the day. One side wants to see more diversity and less objectification of female characters

Spoiler

(or perhaps more male objectification to balance it out a little; I have a sexuality too, goddammit)

, and not necessarily at the entire expense of games with a limited or more traditional scope; the other side is vehemently against that every single time the subject comes up.

If your basic opinion when laid bare without the bells and whistles of obfuscation, gish-galloping, and moral grandstanding ultimately sounds like shit, well, maybe it's a shit opinion?