Sorry for the reddit crosspost. Just been thinking about this for awhile.
I remember a friend of mine brought this point up in past conversations during the height of the first few Tropes vs. Women videos. And it'd be nice if we actually had some gamers discuss this aspect on their channels as to what the symbolic one man army protagonist is, more than a blunt instrument or damsel rescuer or avenger. I don't know if Kite Tales covered this aspect when she was responding to Tropes vs Women all those years ago, but here goes.
Anyhow, with Mario and Link, he said they were rogue elements. Now this is a guy who isn't fazed by most video game attempts at drama, but mostly looks at the metaphysics of the game's conflict and if the story shows any relevance to competitive gameplay. Other than that, couldn't give two shits about story in a video game.
He suggested that they weren't just damsel rescuers or not even essentially 'her majesty's secret service' which is how I perceive the insulted Nintendo fans REALLY regarded the relationship between Mario/Peach and Link/Zelda but moreso tactical advantages in the overall conflict.
Those familiar with Super Mario and Zelda know that Peach and Zelda's kidnapping symbolized their kingdoms pivoting into chaos, because they held the state together. Now if they could have simply defeated Ganondorf and Bowser with their own strength and hiked it all the way back home themselves, it'd take a bit more effort on their part to restore order.
We can infer, the villains knew enough about these despots to successfully kidnap them, and after these princesses take out the head villains, they've got one little bitty problem.
their kingdoms are still under siege,
and without the lead villain keeping his underlings at bay.....well we can only imagine what happens next to the precious captive citizens. So its still a hostage situation.
Now the plumber from the outside and farmer boy come into the picture. They AREN'T as much known quantities to Hyrule and the Mushroom Kingdom as the princesses and because of this they make perfect distractions. They take out their enemy's army gradually from the smaller opponents all the way up and freeing the land as they go. Even if they were surveyed the entire time from afar, the bigger upset they create, the more of Ganondorf and Bowser's attention they take, which is less time the villains have to absorb power, and press their captive princesses for magical or political concessions.
Even if you brought out the critique from the list of "100 things I'd do if I were a Super villain", that says; instead of leaving weaker henchmen to deter a rising protagonist, and letting them acquire more power, instead why doesn't the villain send stronger opposition to crush their ascension from the very start....
The response to that is, its still a gamble. It depends on what you have available as a villain. You have to control the environment, especially for an unknown quantity. In video games, the protagonist often manipulates or masters the environment in their favor. Thats how a one man army is able overcome so many henchmen/creatures, they're technically not doing it alone. (Unless they're bayonetta or Dante)
Lets assume you as a lead villain risk your stronger opposition, and lead them right into a trap. Now what happens? Now this rogue element whose potential is still not completely accounted for, is ultimately still at large. Now you have to compensate and gather as many of the weaker henchmen/monsters into a front to make up for the formidable ones you just wasted.
All this is distressing to a super villain of their kind. They're not some lone menace like Doomsday that only has to worry about their licking their own wounds and destroying everything in sight, but these are managers, managing resources. They're likely to leave their backs turned caught up in the pressures of failed field generalship.
So the typical roles of villain sending gradual opposition and planning traps, while the hostage bids their time waiting for the best opportunity, can also be looked at tactically. They can't play their best hands too early. The phrase "work smarter, not harder" seems to apply, and it shows there are many ways to exercise power. The protagonist appears to be the one in this case working the hardest.
But overall my point is, this is another perspective that gets completely lost when only looked at through that lens of woman=weak, man=evil (even when he's benevolent)
I remember a friend of mine brought this point up in past conversations during the height of the first few Tropes vs. Women videos. And it'd be nice if we actually had some gamers discuss this aspect on their channels as to what the symbolic one man army protagonist is, more than a blunt instrument or damsel rescuer or avenger. I don't know if Kite Tales covered this aspect when she was responding to Tropes vs Women all those years ago, but here goes.
Anyhow, with Mario and Link, he said they were rogue elements. Now this is a guy who isn't fazed by most video game attempts at drama, but mostly looks at the metaphysics of the game's conflict and if the story shows any relevance to competitive gameplay. Other than that, couldn't give two shits about story in a video game.
He suggested that they weren't just damsel rescuers or not even essentially 'her majesty's secret service' which is how I perceive the insulted Nintendo fans REALLY regarded the relationship between Mario/Peach and Link/Zelda but moreso tactical advantages in the overall conflict.
Those familiar with Super Mario and Zelda know that Peach and Zelda's kidnapping symbolized their kingdoms pivoting into chaos, because they held the state together. Now if they could have simply defeated Ganondorf and Bowser with their own strength and hiked it all the way back home themselves, it'd take a bit more effort on their part to restore order.
We can infer, the villains knew enough about these despots to successfully kidnap them, and after these princesses take out the head villains, they've got one little bitty problem.
their kingdoms are still under siege,
and without the lead villain keeping his underlings at bay.....well we can only imagine what happens next to the precious captive citizens. So its still a hostage situation.
Now the plumber from the outside and farmer boy come into the picture. They AREN'T as much known quantities to Hyrule and the Mushroom Kingdom as the princesses and because of this they make perfect distractions. They take out their enemy's army gradually from the smaller opponents all the way up and freeing the land as they go. Even if they were surveyed the entire time from afar, the bigger upset they create, the more of Ganondorf and Bowser's attention they take, which is less time the villains have to absorb power, and press their captive princesses for magical or political concessions.
Even if you brought out the critique from the list of "100 things I'd do if I were a Super villain", that says; instead of leaving weaker henchmen to deter a rising protagonist, and letting them acquire more power, instead why doesn't the villain send stronger opposition to crush their ascension from the very start....
The response to that is, its still a gamble. It depends on what you have available as a villain. You have to control the environment, especially for an unknown quantity. In video games, the protagonist often manipulates or masters the environment in their favor. Thats how a one man army is able overcome so many henchmen/creatures, they're technically not doing it alone. (Unless they're bayonetta or Dante)
Lets assume you as a lead villain risk your stronger opposition, and lead them right into a trap. Now what happens? Now this rogue element whose potential is still not completely accounted for, is ultimately still at large. Now you have to compensate and gather as many of the weaker henchmen/monsters into a front to make up for the formidable ones you just wasted.
All this is distressing to a super villain of their kind. They're not some lone menace like Doomsday that only has to worry about their licking their own wounds and destroying everything in sight, but these are managers, managing resources. They're likely to leave their backs turned caught up in the pressures of failed field generalship.
So the typical roles of villain sending gradual opposition and planning traps, while the hostage bids their time waiting for the best opportunity, can also be looked at tactically. They can't play their best hands too early. The phrase "work smarter, not harder" seems to apply, and it shows there are many ways to exercise power. The protagonist appears to be the one in this case working the hardest.
But overall my point is, this is another perspective that gets completely lost when only looked at through that lens of woman=weak, man=evil (even when he's benevolent)