I never stated inability to relate, just that it was easier for me to relate to male characters.Treblaine said:That definition is far too narrow and irrelevant, and is purely semantic anyway. The opposition to female protagonists for no other reason than their gender is wrong, no matter what you call it. Being unable to relate to a character simply because they aren't the same sex as you is BAD! You never added any caveats for "this particular character being female makes it hard to relate because I'm a male" you talked in broad terms, yet now you seem to have recanted it.
Do you really think a lot of girls can relate to Marcus Fenix?
Do you?
I would go so far as to say that there are a lot of girls who can NOT relate to Duke Nukem at all.
Now fem-Link wouldn't be as much of a female caricature, but you see the point that gender has an impact on how you relate to a character. Men and women are, in my opinion, equal, but only when you consider all qualities. There are many aspects in which men and women are NOT equal, and they both have strengths, weaknesses, and traits that differentiate them from one another.
Certain characters work better as one gender instead of the other. I would be much more likely to write a militant, ignorant monarch, ignoring the warning plea of the protagonist, as a male. Having a King as a static character would work better IMO than having a Queen. Women are generally less stubborn with their resolve. On that same leaf, however, I would be much more likely to write a militant, but emotional monarch, lowering her guard sympathetically to a conniving antagonist, as a female. Having a Queen as a dynamic character would work better IMO than having a King.
Shakespeare is a great example of a writer using these familiar motifs very effectively. Both of those characters I described kind of suck, but their impact can be intensified by playing upon our instinctive gender roles, and the culturally based gender roles that we have in our society.
The game SHOULD be whatever Nintendo wants it to be. I don't think it's either of our place to say what the game SHOULD be.I have explained this to you already. You are mistaking your personal preference for the way a game SHOULD be. And the narrative of the series is entirely relevant for what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be in the game series.
And preference is separate from an inability to relate to a character because of their gender.
You think that the game SHOULD have a female in the next one for a few reasons (I'm paying attention) and they make sense in a lore kind of way, but they also center around lore being more important than gameplay/sales/etc...
If these three facts are true (I think the last two are arguable since the ENTIRETY of the extended plot has yet to be disclosed) then yes, your logic is sound, and then next Link SHOULD be a girl as far as lore is concerned.
1. Link is a mantle passed down to capable citizens of Hyrule
2. There is no stipulation involved in the choosing of the next Link that would make a male more likely than a female
3. There are an equal number of males and females in Hyrule
But like we've said, SHOULD means a lot of things... Miyamoto himself said that the gameplay is more important to him than the story, and that's how I make games as well. You'd be surprised how much extra work a female Link would be for concept artists, writers, and even programmers and animators (breasts and hair are not fun lol), and that time is better spent on gameplay innovation and concentrating on the world and the plot and the other characters.
And again, I never stated an inability to relate.
I can relate to a lot of female characters in a lot of things (admittedly more outside of games). Of course, I obviously relate to guys better.
Hey, I was saying that last statement before you did. But let's agree on that. Neither one of us should say what the game SHOULD be based on personal preference.Then if it is NOT for inability to relate to a character because of their gender, THEN WHAT REASON?!?!! Long ago you associated yourself with the argument that it doesn't fit with the lore, now you seem to be saying it does fit.
Also I'd like you to acknowledge that your personal preference is inappropriate to equate to a "should" apply for a game everyone else plays.
And I don't think I ever argued that it wouldn't* fit the LORE, but if I did, what I meant what that it wouldn't fit the thematic traditional consistency that follows the main character. It's really not a huge deal to me, and if they had started off by changing more about him in each game I'd be much more for it.