Is Link a character?

[CaptainMarvelous]

Regardless, Legend of Zelda mythology is so ambiguous that you can't draw definitive conclusions about it.
And that in and of itself negates your point, because you are assuming certainty where there is none.

All I'm saying is the "Link could be a girl cos reincarnation" theory doesn't hold up because every time he re-incarnates Link looks near exactly the same. Linkle not withstanding, idk what her deal is.

Yes, but that's my point in the first place. The statement 'every time he reincarnates he looks exactly the same' is actually false.
This is absolutely true when considering in-game appearance, but since technology is a factor there, a more reliable source is official supporting artwork.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/historyofhyrule/albums/72157629221232021/page4

This is all official artwork related to the very first game.

Sure, you can argue the point, but a large majority of these suggest a character with brown hair.

http://zeldawiki.org/Gallery:Link

Here's more from various games.
Again note the brown hair of early links, and where it is visible at all, green eyes.

Note how later incarnations got progessively more and more blonde, and largely had blue eyes.
(arguably somewhere along the line there was a reddish tinge to things as well)

For good measure, note the radically different appearance of the link from the cartoon series, notably very obviously brown hair. (and a quite different physical build, but again, art style makes that hard to draw any real conclusions from)

Differences in hairstyle, the exact details of the costume, facial features and such also exist, but the nature of the varying art styles used over time make that pretty difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from.


Sure, it's a minor point, but a single counter-example is all it takes to prove something wrong.

Unless you're going to argue that certain versions of link depicted in official artwork related to the games (And other media he has appeared in) don't count for some reason, your statement that all versions of Link have an identical appearance just isn't true.

But you're ignoring the period in which they were created. The NES Sprites couldn't BE blond due to the cartridge limitations and the TV series was based on that. Link's a brunette solely due to hardware issues and even then you could argue it's the lighting of the world being more orange and colourising his whole outfit rather than he's actually got brown hair.
Sorry, I know this is kinda shitty debate practice, but I don't believe I can accept that as a valid counter point.

The problem is that once we achieved graphics with enough fidelity that Link has consistent features he tends to look, well

I DO get what you're saying but I don't think flat out false acknowledges the evidence.

I don't really think you can claim that. Let's remember the old wisdom (represented as a joke)

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are on a train going through Scotland. The engineer sees a black sheep, and says, "Aha! The sheep in Scotland are black!" The physicist shakes his head and says, "Ha! You're wrong! One sheep in Scotland is black!" The mathematician shakes his head sadly and says, "You're both wrong. One sheep in Scotland is black on one side..."

What you can say for definite is that every reincarnated Link you've been shown so far is the same. That's more accurate. It also doesn't automatically mean that they are all the same, however.

You are, of course, right. But there've been an awful lot of black sheep so far.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I'd be more convinced if...

a) Those weren't all just different skins for the same character in one game
b) The game in question wasn't manufactured in a country where using hair as the #1 defining physical identifier wasn't a common practice

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I'd be more convinced if...

a) Those weren't all just different skins for the same character in one game
b) The game in question wasn't manufactured in a country where using hair as the #1 defining physical identifier wasn't a common practice

You make a good point but it saved me copy pasting four different images to make the same point.

 

[DoPo]

You are, of course, right. But there've been an awful lot of black sheep so far.

*shrug* Typical problem for induction. But it's induction nonetheless. Given that (as far as my understanding goes) there are potentially infinite alternative universes or timelines or whatever actually separates different events from different games, then the Links seen so far may as well be completely non-representative of the whole.

 

[Fox12]

Nintendo once said that the player was meant to project himself in Link but if that was the idea then that idea has changed.

Why is it so bad to be a player avatar? I don't really consider this a negative. I think Zelda tends to be more about theme then plot or character. OOT is about growing up. Majora's Mask is about death and grief. These are still interesting works of art with a lot of thought put into them. They just don't have a complex protagonist. It's more about how the player chooses to interact with the world. I think that's a unique form of art that only games are capable of. Some would say it's one of the purest forms of art.

I wouldn't say its bad but its definitely a matter of taste. The reason so many people like Wind Waker Link is because of how expressieve he is. Its easy to like the little guy because he is depicted as a very happy, dorky and somewhat dopey kid who also seems to have rather poor luck to boot.

Skyward's Links relation with Zelda was also very well received. Its fairy impressive how they managed to get that so right despite Link being mute.

Its not about how complex a main character is but about how much charms he brings into a scene. I always found Nintendo to be very good at characterizing their mutes with charm. Captain Toad isn't much of a talker either but everything he does conveys his personality and I think that is the best way to portray Link, silent but with a clear personality.

Does that make him less of an avatar, though? He rolls his eyes when he bumps his head. He winces when he gets hit. It's charming, but that doesn't define him as a person. Those are normal human reactions. He can make faces for photos, but those are controlled by the player. Even in windwaker, where he's at his most expressive, he doesn't have much in the way of real character. At best he's an archetype, or an idea. Complexity is important for real "character."

I've heard people defend Link, or Gordon Freeman, by saying that their brave, or that other characters care about them. But that doesn't distinguish an avatar from a character. A character has to have a real independent personality from the player. If there's a real sense of dissonance between me and a character I'm playing, then I know I'm not using an avatar. When Cloud Strife makes a choice I would never make, then I know I'm not using an avatar. I don't get that with Link, because so much of his personality is left up to the player. He may have more going for him then The Chosen Undead, but he's still essentially a puppet. And, honestly, I'm okay with that. They tried to make Samus into a real character with mixed results. It worked okay in Metroid Fusion, but it was disastrous in Other M. Part of this was because so many people had their own idea of who Samus was as a character. This wouldn't happen if Samus had a developed personality. If Link was suddenly a full fledged character with a deeply developed personality in the next game then I think a lot of people would actually be upset, because he probably wouldn't match up with the character they had created in their head.

 

[CaitSeith]

In general, each game has its own Link. In some he has more personality than in others. But remember, actions define character. And seeing how similar the actions of Link in the plot of each game are, I'd say he's defined enough to be called a character.

 

[laggyteabag]

Technically, yeah, but he sure as hell isn't a good one. Link is pretty much just a cameraman for the player, and does little else for the story than whack monsters, or save princesses, or whatever. He doesn't really have that much of a personality, or a personal plot, so there is nothing there to really build on.

He is more of an icon or a poster boy than anything, kinda like Mario.

 

[Dragonbums]

Link is a character in the absolute loosest sense of the word. In fact he kind of sticks out in that the characters all around him in the world are pretty fleshed out with their own motivations, personalities, goals, and failings. This includes Princess Zelda and Ganondorf. But Link? Noobdy can really say what Link's personality is.

The only consistent trait is that he is brave (because triforce of courage.) and mute.
Other than that anyone can headcanon whatever they want for Link and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong in that.

So no, having Link the ability to be a woman (and let's be real the lore is very much open for that being a possibility anyway.) it doesn't really matter.

 

[Auron225]

Is Link a character?

No, but not for the reason you think. He is not a character, he is a collection of characters. It is not one Link who stars in every Zelda game; most of them are completely different people who share the green tunic, master sword and name of "Link" (or not, considering you can call him whatever the hell you want).

Since it is almost ALWAYS a different Link from before (and is in the case of the new one coming out), I don't see why the next one cannot be a female (or why a choice is such a bad thing). It'll shake up the stagnant formula easily and fits in with the established canon without any problems. In fact this is the ONLY game franchise which could pull this off. It is in no way, shape or form the same as suddenly having Mario being female or Samus being male since they are established characters who continue across all games.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Is Link a character? Well sure. Not much of one, but he does the job.

And considering there's been at least one LoZ game where Zelda and the Triforce are MiA, I'm not seeing how adding options to how this particular Link looks or what octave they grunt in would matter.

 

[Bellvedere]

Yeah I think Link is a character but I don?t think he?s a single character. There are multiple Links across multiple timelines with multiple appearances (even if based around many of the same features+outfit).

Looking at all the different versions of Link and what they have in common you?re not left with much characterisation. I guess I would say Link the over arching concept isn?t a character, however I do think that the various Links individually are.

Don?t get me wrong, he doesn?t have a strong characterisation (some representations less so than others) but there?s enough that players can make some assumptions and fill in some gaps about who they think Link is in any particular Zelda title.

 

[MHR]

He's a character. He does have personality in that he does seem happy when doing well, get scared when being chased by gorons trying to give him a painfully rough hug, and his facial expressions in windwaker were particularly involved. Being an introverted mute does not preclude one from being a person. Besides not being able to talk, he's not much different than a lot of cliche'd male anime protagonists that all the story's events and love interests just "happen to" with hardly any input on his part. He can't be compared to Gordon Freeman since gordon truly has no reaction to anything, not even falling 3 stories and breaking his leg. The damn robot-lady voice in his suit shooting him full of morphine is more characterized than him.

Link is the same character between games, just conveniently reincarnated at times when the world needs saving. One of these days, like with Doctor Who, he's could just be reincarnated as a chick just 'cuz and people are going to have to go with it.

The only hiccup in this would be giving the player the option to toggle between sexes inexplicably. If Link is truly a defined character, then they're defined by the world's fate, not directly by the player. So if it's boob time, it's boob time.

There's nothing wrong with Link being Linkle in a new Zelda game. Even as someone generally opposed to over-inclusion just for inclusion's sake or SJW nonsense, I see no problem with this one change just to mix things up. Link has been the same forever. Having Zelda change to a prince at the same time though would reek of rule 63, something we could do without thanks. There's nothing wrong with some lesbian undertones either

 

[Zenja]

He's a character with no characterization, if that makes sense.

Pretty much this. While certain characteristics have become associated with him, he hasn't really been characterized through personality. We mostly just get child-like innocence and we are told he is a hero of courage. (Though bravery vs. ignorance could be argued here) He is certainly a character by definition, he even has very strong associated trademarks.

If Nintendo decided to do the whole female Link thing, I think you should be able to choose your gender at the beginning of the game. Basically, work Link like Shepard in Mass Effect or the Fallout/TES player character. Or bring in a new female hero counterpart to Link. I do not like the idea people put forth of having Link be female and only female in a game though. If the purpose is for inclusion, then include without excluding.

 

[Hades]

Nintendo once said that the player was meant to project himself in Link but if that was the idea then that idea has changed.

Why is it so bad to be a player avatar? I don't really consider this a negative. I think Zelda tends to be more about theme then plot or character. OOT is about growing up. Majora's Mask is about death and grief. These are still interesting works of art with a lot of thought put into them. They just don't have a complex protagonist. It's more about how the player chooses to interact with the world. I think that's a unique form of art that only games are capable of. Some would say it's one of the purest forms of art.

I wouldn't say its bad but its definitely a matter of taste. The reason so many people like Wind Waker Link is because of how expressieve he is. Its easy to like the little guy because he is depicted as a very happy, dorky and somewhat dopey kid who also seems to have rather poor luck to boot.

Skyward's Links relation with Zelda was also very well received. Its fairy impressive how they managed to get that so right despite Link being mute.

Its not about how complex a main character is but about how much charms he brings into a scene. I always found Nintendo to be very good at characterizing their mutes with charm. Captain Toad isn't much of a talker either but everything he does conveys his personality and I think that is the best way to portray Link, silent but with a clear personality.

Does that make him less of an avatar, though? He rolls his eyes when he bumps his head. He winces when he gets hit. It's charming, but that doesn't define him as a person. Those are normal human reactions. He can make faces for photos, but those are controlled by the player. Even in windwaker, where he's at his most expressive, he doesn't have much in the way of real character. At best he's an archetype, or an idea. Complexity is important for real "character."

I've heard people defend Link, or Gordon Freeman, by saying that their brave, or that other characters care about them. But that doesn't distinguish an avatar from a character. A character has to have a real independent personality from the player. If there's a real sense of dissonance between me and a character I'm playing, then I know I'm not using an avatar. When Cloud Strife makes a choice I would never make, then I know I'm not using an avatar. I don't get that with Link, because so much of his personality is left up to the player. He may have more going for him then The Chosen Undead, but he's still essentially a puppet. And, honestly, I'm okay with that. They tried to make Samus into a real character with mixed results. It worked okay in Metroid Fusion, but it was disastrous in Other M. Part of this was because so many people had their own idea of who Samus was as a character. This wouldn't happen if Samus had a developed personality. If Link was suddenly a full fledged character with a deeply developed personality in the next game then I think a lot of people would actually be upset, because he probably wouldn't match up with the character they had created in their head.

It might very well just be me but when I think of a player Avatar then I think of a ''mere'' player Avatar like the Dragonborn or the warden from Origins. Characters who are nothing without the player character, don't respond to anything themselves and are without some imagination on the players part the dullest person in the world. You can customize them to your hearts content and their reaction is yours to shape, either by using dialogue boxes or by just imagining them talking yourself.

Link isn't like that. The customization you can give him is limited and at least in the newer games you don't imagine his reaction because he shows them on his own accord. There is little chance for dissonance with later Links because they show their personality from the get go. Wind Waker Link had never pretended that there was room for any other interpretation of him then as a happy lil guy and Skyward sword leaves little interpretation about Link either.

What makes me think that Link is a character and the Dragonborn is not is that the Dragonborn really is yours alone to shape while Nintendo does a lot of the job themselves when it comes to Link.

 

[Zenja]

The only hiccup in this would be giving the player the option to toggle between sexes inexplicably. If Link is truly a defined character, then they're defined by the world's fate, not directly by the player. So if it's boob time, it's boob time.

There's nothing wrong with Link being Linkle in a new Zelda game. Even as someone generally opposed to over-inclusion just for inclusion's sake or SJW nonsense, I see no problem with this one change just to mix things up. Link has been the same forever. Having Zelda change to a prince at the same time though would reek of rule 63, something we could do without thanks. There's nothing wrong with some lesbian undertones either

I disagree with this. If the name Link means Link between player and game, then the player should be allowed to choose whether or not it is boob time as it is their "link". Second, the name should be gender neutral. Choosing gender shouldn't change the name Link as per the idea of it being a "link" between player and game. Third, changing gender in no way 'mixes things up'. It is still silent protagonist. Chell isn't a drastically different character than Gordan Freeman. Making Mario a girl and naming him Maria but keeping the gameplay the same doesn't really change anything. Fourth, making Link a girl IS rule 63, I see no reason why Zelda couldn't be made male if Link is made female. Fifth, I will pass on lesbian undertones, not every game needs sex injected into it and I like the innocence of the Zelda franchise.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Tokenism is great.
Especially in cases like the Zelda universe. I mean it doesn't even have any eponymous heroes to make games about. Ones who had really interesting characters (for the first half) in Windwaker, or say weren't doing anything unexplored and interesting for seven years in Ocarina of Time.
And it's not like they could make a game pretending it was about solid link and then replace him after the first dungeon or so with that character we don't have. I guarantee no game with a 96% (i had to look this up) metacritic score has ever or will ever do this.

 

[Lieju]

When I played the games as a kid I never assumed Link was a boy anyway. I named Link after myself and I'm not a boy so...

And I'd agree Link is a different 'character' in different games, who has more individual personality in some of them.
Generally I tend to think of the series as a retelling of a myth, and having female Link would fit right in how I see the series.

 

[Brandon Lowdermilk]

A female link sounds interesting

 

[CaitSeith]

The only hiccup in this would be giving the player the option to toggle between sexes inexplicably. If Link is truly a defined character, then they're defined by the world's fate, not directly by the player. So if it's boob time, it's boob time.

There's nothing wrong with Link being Linkle in a new Zelda game. Even as someone generally opposed to over-inclusion just for inclusion's sake or SJW nonsense, I see no problem with this one change just to mix things up. Link has been the same forever. Having Zelda change to a prince at the same time though would reek of rule 63, something we could do without thanks. There's nothing wrong with some lesbian undertones either

I disagree with this. If the name Link means Link between player and game, then the player should be allowed to choose whether or not it is boob time as it is their "link". Second, the name should be gender neutral. Choosing gender shouldn't change the name Link as per the idea of it being a "link" between player and game. Third, changing gender in no way 'mixes things up'. It is still silent protagonist. Chell isn't a drastically different character than Gordan Freeman. Making Mario a girl and naming him Maria but keeping the gameplay the same doesn't really change anything. Fourth, making Link a girl IS rule 63, I see no reason why Zelda couldn't be made male if Link is made female. Fifth, I will pass on lesbian undertones, not every game needs sex injected into it and I like the innocence of the Zelda franchise.

At the end in most cases, you don't inherently win anything by just changing the character's gender. Giving Link or Chell a different skin and a different voice (Link screams while attacking and Chell sometimes grunts when she gets hurt) while keeping everything else the same, doesn't bring anything new. It just makes the characters more generic (just like the Chosen Undead, the Last Dragonborn, the Lone Wanderer, the Courier, the Hero of Kvatch, etc...)

EDIT:

Spoiler: And don't forget The Hunter

 

[Silvanus]

At the end in most cases, you don't inherently win anything by just changing the character's gender. Giving Link or Chell a different skin and a different voice (Link screams while attacking and Chell sometimes grunts when she gets hurt) while keeping everything else the same, doesn't bring anything new. It just makes the characters more generic (just like the Chosen Undead, the Last Dragonborn, the Lone Wanderer, the Courier, the Hero of Kvatch, etc...)

It's not about "winning anything"; merely offering an option a subsection of the players want.

I don't see, either, how it would make Link more generic. He is a near-blank slate from the start, and intentionally so.