Just based on the lore that would be unnecessary and counter-productive. In addition to being a princess, Zelda is literally the moral incarnation of the Goddess Hylia and central to the very fabric of the series. Although it follows Link's exploits, he's simply an extension of Zelda, barely his own person. He was once, but his existence is entirely predicated on the cycle of conflict that Hylia established to combat Ganon. He's Hylia's chosen sword to fight that recurring darkness and nothing more.
Granted, I am not saying you can't do a story where Zelda herself-- perhaps even becoming a goddess again --in general, but Link is explicitly a tool, his existence is predicated on the need for it. Whenever we see him, it's really supposed to be at the brink of destruction (even if it doesn't always seem like it). Having them fight together even though Link is simply a wind-up soldier conflicts with the central premise. Of course, that doesn't mean that there always has to be stories that follow that verbatim, Nintendo could very well break that trend entirely and actually rebuke the cycle and give Link and Zelda both separate destinies.
However, thus far that hasn't happened, so in "The Legend of Zelda" proper, Link needs to be the hero (such as it usually is, which is an evidently thankless role, seeing as Zelda is the most important part of the story.)
"I heavily disagree that we have always have "great female leads""
Honestly, all I can say is that you've probably never looked hard enough. In mainstream titles it was always pretty rare (but then, in the mainstream it's rare to see something that isn't an FPS, or notable exceptions like GTA or The Elder Scrolls achieving any real cross-over popularity) but, I've been around a long time and I've seen a lot of well defined female leads over the years, especially in less popular genres. I am a big fan of RPGs and while those are more broad, tending to have multiple protagonists rather than a single lead character, there has always been that balance of great (and even not so great) female characters present in the genre.
Generically, by referencing a couple of modern games it's more about the point where the mainstream industry's been heading the last decade or more.
"but...in the past, this was a pretty small portion compared to male characters."
Part of the problem is, and I know this doesn't feel good, but heritage is a major factor in the prevalence of males in lead roles. People made what they knew and what they knew would sell. Personally, many of my favorite games of some 30+ years of modern gaming have had female leads and that's a long time and many games that did feature women prominently simply could never compete with mainstream fair, which has always been dominated by FPS's and such (and by extension predominantly male protagonists hewn from fucking obsidian).
Honestly, though, I think if you took some time to look heavily into the less mainstream fair, you would actually be really surprised by the prevalence of noteworthy female protagonists in many games, even many of which where there is still a male protagonist but a female comrade (especially where RPGs are concerned) completely outshine them in every conceivable way and steal the show. There's a lot more than you might think. Not that I am saying it's never been a problem, but there's a tendency to overlook a lot of great examples over the last 30+ years in favor of more dramatic examples.
"Especially when you consider that a lot of female characters in games are...one character type - overly sexualized."
Some certainly are, sure. But not all of them and it really depends on what you're dealing with. And the truth is, even when women are heavily sexualized, more often than not men aren't treated much better. Like any medium, there is always a tendency to rely on lazy caricatures and that extends further than just poor representation of women. The vast majority of male protagonists are written off as 'power fantasies' and argued as being positive representations despite the shamelessness of it all. The truth is, a lot of entertainment media just doesn't try.
"because of the inbalance that already exists in the media."
That's just an excuse, though. Just because something isn't represented as well as some people would like doesn't mean that changing an established character is any less detrimental. It's the same thing, but some people need to create biased distinctions about the inherent value of changing characters for the 'right' reasons. It isn't endearing, and does a disservice to the lead characters of different backgrounds carving out a legacy. Instead of undermining them, we want to see them flourish, but how can we if we don't respect established characters enough to value the very facets of their creation, regardless of the circumstances. Changing white people isn't a win for representation, rather it's a loss for the integrity of the expression. Putting beliefs ahead of the expression. Frankly, that doesn't jibe with me no matter who the character/setting/story/etc. is.
I would rather see new legacies carved out for characters from different backgrounds.
Technically, I mentioned a bunch of games that are Action/Adventure/RPGs, because the truth is that very few games these days are actively entrenched in either category anymore. Short of going back to examples of either genre from PC history, where both were quite well represented for decades, much of the modern example of the fantasy-inspired action-adventure also happens to be, to one extent or another, an RPG-- which in large part grew out of the popularity of modern WRPGs like The Elder Scrolls. The Legend of Zelda is, indeed, one of the few franchises that has stuck with the standard action/adventure conventions, but it is by no means true high fantasy or even particularly close to being serious high fantasy.
Ultimately, the closest the series ever comes is Twilight Princess and even then continues to eschew the trappings of high fantasy and plays fast and loose with fantasy as a setting in general. Granted, including Assassin's Creed simply stretches my meaning a little too far given the colonial setting, but the thing is even with that setting it's still evidently fantasy inspired, playing fast and loose with the actual time period to such an extent and the introduction of mythical elements, it might as well be light fantasy.
"games where you can (to an extent) design your own player character don't count"
Genuinely curious, but why not? Many modern games build their narrative around player-defined characters in order to avoid the very problem that you, and a minority of others, are frustrated with about Zelda in order to better appeal to the widest possible audience. Is it because they tend to lack the voice and internal perspective of a character with fixed characteristics, and as a consequence tend to get lost within the narrative as is so often the case? Because that is really the only reason I have a problem with them, even if they are the most effective way of avoiding the trap of a fixed character experience.
"Are they really Zelda-style Action-adventures? [...]"
Well, that really depends on what exactly you're looking for. Legend of Zelda has always been rather unique with the 'fantasy but not' setting, the reliance on puzzles more than combat, and the general look and feel. Nothing is entirely quite like it, not least that it's one of the few pure action/adventure titles left that hasn't adopted RPG elements (while most RPGs, influenced by the popularity of action-based WRPGs, heavily adopted action/adventure elements). So to that extent, if you're looking for something that's explicitly Zelda but not, with a female lead, you're going to come up somewhat dry, not even that many games like Axiom Verge exist as a carbon copy of the experience.
However, looking for familiar aspects of the series quite a bit easier. On average, most action/rpgs today ostensibly tend to have more in common with Zelda than classic RPGs, so the experience of the game is going to be inherently similar in a variety of ways. Zelda's influence on the modern Western RPG, over classic convention, is hard to ignore especially where quirky settings are concerned, but you do still miss puzzle elements and the unrelenting charm of Nintendo experiences. However, even then there are titles like: 3D Dot Game Heroes, Beyond Good and Evil, Okami, and Kameo: Elements of Power that broadly attempted to bridge that gap with quirky, fantasy-inspired settings.
"when was Link's gender a main unchangeable trait"
Technically, always. The mere fact of his creation is sufficient to being fixed, let alone being largely consistent over the past 30 years of the franchise's history, much less that his purpose and role is defined within the lore such that changing anyone's gender (or even ethnicity) would fundamentally change that character. For example, with Zelda being the mortal incarnation of the Goddess Hylia, the guardian of creation and holder of the ultimate power, even simply changing her gender would upset the lore of the series. Hylia is the warrior goddess tasked with protecting everything and Link is her chosen hero, the sword by which she fulfills her role. Link and Zelda re both specific and established characters in the lore that continually reincarnate to fulfill their purpose.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't upset the balance of a lore so deeply entrenched like that. But there largely needs to be more to it than just the frivolous reason of wanting Link to be a girl. Unfortunately, being beneficiary in another's vision of a story, you don't always have the luxury of getting exactly what you want. Often creators make decisions you might not always like, or that might not represent the things you want. In the end, it's down to you to decide what you're willing to support.
"Nothing in the series itself indicates the Hero needs to be male,"
Technically it does, both as a function of the character that has existed for the past 30 years and that the lore that binds Zelda and Link together is literally about a young man named Link in his first life and becoming Hylia's own, chosen weapon against the darkness. If creating the character a specific way is insufficient reason, then I literally wouldn't know what is, but by that logic no character has sufficient reason to be male or female and if we're going there, there's still a whole host of male and female characters in the industry we could change for no reason (and certainly not in service of the narrative) just because. Provenance is relevant.
"If you think Diablo is high-fantasy you must not have played the original games, seriously."
Not seriously, no. But there's simply no getting around that the Diablo series, like many other PC titles of that sort, literally have the most high fantasy-inspired setting you could get this side of Icewind Dale and certainly moreso ostensibly than any Zelda title has ever been. Zelda is at best light fantasy.
"f any of the games you mentioned are [...]"
Like I've said, Action/Adventure is basically a dead genre. But Action/Adventure/RPGs are about the closest that you're ever going to get to what Zelda is doing, aside from older games like 3D Dot, Beyond, Okami, and Kameo. However, most of the games I listed-- aside from Assassins Creed, which is too modern --definitely share ideas common to the Zelda series, albeit with vastly different settings, tone, and charm. Much of those examples take respective fantasy concepts very seriously by contrast with Zelda. But Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Amalur, Fable, Dragon Age, and Elder Scrolls certainly emphasize many shared characteristics.
The real question is, can you tolerate RPG elements and a lack of puzzles in your action/adventure experience, because that's really the direction these experiences have gone over the last decade or so.
Sure it is. Link is an established character in a series that has been around for 30 years now, by changing that character on a whim, you're not only sacrificing the integrity of the character and franchise (legacy is important), but undermining the actual value of even having characters of different backgrounds if you're only concerned when a game doesn't cater to your explicit interests and does a disservice to the great games that do feature these characters.
Further, it's also a big deal because it conflicts with the lore of the game. The series is called Legend of Zelda because Zelda, quite literally, is the most important character. As the mortal incarnation of the Goddess Hylia, everything follows because of her role as guardian. While the series might follow Link, he's a nobody in the grand scheme of things. He's simply the person that Hylia chose as her sword to defend the world and thwart Ganon's return to power. His existence is predicated on Ganon, while Zelda is the through-line that connects the series. Changing Link's gender by necessity must change who he is and the role he serves in the series. Not because women are lesser, but because a female Link would be a different person.
"If someone ever manages to make one"
Right, because no one has ever made one in the history of the industry, which is why we need to pressure well established franchises into changing, right? Which must mean games like... Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Dragon's Dogma, White Knight Chronicles, Kingdoms of Amalur, Dragon Age, Dark Souls III, Assassin's Creed: Liberation, Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, Fable 2, Fable 3, and The Elder Scrolls don't exist, just to name a few off the top of my head. Granted, Heavenly Sword is more Asian themed and Assassin's Creed plays fast and loose with historic time periods, but the rest of them are pretty well entrenched with traditional, Tolkien-inspired fantasy, even if they play fast and loose with it. And that isn't even getting into games like Diablo and such that take high fantasy far more seriously than anything Zelda would ever do.
Acting like they don't exist is really kind of silly. (And that's to say nothing of turn-based RPGs in high fantasy settings with female leads).
@madeforyou: In all fairness, though, there are also a shit ton of popular games with character creators that explicitly allow you to create female characters. In fact, such features are more common than ever outside of narrative-heavy titles where a character is specifically interwoven into the fabric of the experience (Witcher, for example) and even that doesn't always hold true, as games like Fallout, Skyrim, Mass Effect, etc. eschew that entirely simply by having a more malleable experience as a whole. And it isn't like we're not seeing compelling new (or revived) IPs featuring female characters. Tomb Raider is still going very strong, Horizon features a female protagonist and looks great, Dark Souls III introduced a female Ashen One, and the list goes on.
Women, contrary to popular belief, have never really been hurting for representation in the industry, and taking time to simply look into the abundance of great female leads in past 30 years would be illuminating, especially in genres away from typically mainstream fair (which is another topic entirely and the whole controversy over Battlefield 1 not having women in their setting of World War 1 is laughable since only one country at the time even allowed women in the military and they still weren't really well represented). Can we do better? Sure and the industry already is. However, arbitrarily changing established characters of franchises that have existed for decades isn't the way to do it. It undermines the integrity of the character and franchise, while simultaneously diminishing the value of characters from different backgrounds.
Technically, no. As a gamer, you're the beneficiary of the creator's vision. As a consumer, you're merely a user of the goods or services produced by others. In neither case are you entitled to anything but a competent, well-made good of a particular value. And even then, it's down to you to choose what you're willing to support and the reality is, there are a wealth of great female-lead games in the industry to choose from. The reality that the one you like best simply doesn't cater to your interests is irrelevant.
Not every game can or will appeal to everyone, that's just the way it is and rather than complaining when one doesn't you need to take a step back and accept that for what it is. Actively changing established characters for such flippant and asinine reasons not only undermines the importance of the character, but sends a clear message about integrity of characterization. Rather than supporting games which feature prominently the sort of characters you want to play, you're happy to sacrifice the integrity of the character and franchise to get what you want. It undermines the value of having characters of different backgrounds at all if the only reason you care is because a franchise doesn't have one and it's actively insulting to the great franchises that have such characters.
"Link is not a defined character but mearly the vessel to carry the player"
Except that no, he's absolutely a defined character, which is why he has looked virtually the same for the last 30 years now with at best minor discrepancy. Blond hair, blue eyes, green tunic and in every game he has his own history, both as a function of his own history and personal relationships. The only thing he doesn't have is a voice or active opinion about the world around him. He is exactly what he needs to be and has been established as such over a series which has spanned multiple decades.
@greenpolyp But that has nothing to do with the experience of a Mario game as a concept, and knowing as we do how that turned out for Little Big Planet, it's really not an idea that would float well with Nintendo's image of Mario. Worse, though, change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a great way of approaching doing worthwhile things.
@burrito_tester That might be true, but they're all different. Mario is Nintendo's diverse IP that can and has gone anywhere and everywhere as a familiar face to a specific style of game development. And even when the Mario experiences seem to be the same on the surface, they're always changing cumulatively over time as a rule.
Improve, while maintaining the charm, accessibility, familiarity, and most importantly the enjoyability, that your audience appreciates most about the games you make. You don't need to radically change an experience to effect change on the series.
On the surface, Pokemon may seem like the same game, but in their original transition to a more 3D overworld in generations 4 and 5, it highlighted just how different the experience has become since its humble beginnings while still remaining familiar. This is a staple of Nintendo's offerings, but isn't an attribute many in this industry can lay claim to.
@matastig Yeah, but neither does anything else, either. The only thing games are yet to explore to death are heavily rich and narrative-driven experiences such as The Last of Us. Just because Nintendo doesn't radically change its properties for the sake of change doesn't make them any less relevant.
Nintendo has a philosophy that guides how it makes games, where gameplay is the most important element, growing and changing over time, in order for them to preserve the experience of their important franchises. A Mario game should be just as familiar, as engaging, and as accessible now as it was some twenty years ago, for new and old players alike, while also making the game experience feel like it's fresh. They don't change things for the sake of going and changing things, because you often overwhelm the essence of what has made a game enjoyable.
Super Mario Sunshine wasn't a great game because it fundamentally upset a core element of the franchise, or changed things in a significant way. It was great because it made subtle, mechanical changes, which made the game feel as fresh as it was familiar, and retained all of the charm and accessibility that Nintendo games are known for. The same was true of Super Mario Galaxy, as well as even Super Mario 64.
The truth is, it may seem like Nintendo is regressing by going back to older concepts with the 3D Land/World and NSMB series, but there's also been a marked level of demand for those style of experiences. Mario is a character that is multifaceted, and has shown his diversity in the type of experiences which have been built around him.
Nintendo remains relevant, because while other game makers are exploring radical change for no other reason than the quest for diversity at a lack for a coherent focus on growing the experience, and being invariably successful, Nintendo has shown a keen awareness of where to take its franchises. Now, that doesn't mean that they too couldn't use some new IPs into the mix, but they definitely remain relevant in a day where most modern games are just aping one another. Having a game maker that does its own thing while also being chiefly concerned with the execution of a quality gameplay experience is an absolutely necessary ingredient within this industry.
@stolley88 They wont be going anywhere, but Sony and Microsoft have already shown incredulity to the value of consumers digital purchases. So, while they might stick around yet, there's no telling whether your purchases will survive in their future, since they have already failed to several times.
Physical, at the very least, still provides consumers a level of autonomy and assurance that so long as you have the disc and don't treat it poorly, the company is not in a position of authority regarding it, nor is it at any point subject to their continued existence or the ongoing support.
And until we have proper regulations in the digital space, physical product is still our best safety net.
@stolley88 Yeah, until the next hardware iteration comes around. It has since been demonstrated by both Microsoft and Sony alike, but it is absolutely true of Microsoft, that neither have any qualms at all in just... not carrying digital purchases over. This is a big problem that we'll have to deal with going forward, since the digital space is controlled by publishers, and creates a further economy of intangibility while we as consumers have no existing recourse if and when they decide not to carry purchases forward.
Before we jump head-long into the digital space, we need some regulation over the market to protect us as consumers from this level of of exploitation, and it's just not happening yet.
jayatcg's comments