Hopefully Zelda will be playable. Link will be playable. That's clear. I hope Zelda gets a role too
When games consistently remind me of how the real world continues to snub us of anything, its not an escape anymore, its just dealing with the shit we deal with on a daily basis but now in our entertainment too.
Id love even just a playable Zelda, but i dont expect it, because Nintendo is basically gaming Disney and theyd rather avoid all social progress as long as possible.
All this cuz a single Nintendo series won't let you play as a female character. Nevermind the other series they have that have improved in terms of representation, because LoZ doesn't let you play as Zelda/have a female Link, they're avoiding social progress...What is the point of this argument?
When games consistently remind me of how the real world continues to snub us of anything, its not an escape anymore, its just dealing with the shit we deal with on a daily basis but now in our entertainment too.
Id love even just a playable Zelda, but i dont expect it, because Nintendo is basically gaming Disney and theyd rather avoid all social progress as long as possible.
Is Zelda actually kidnapped in any games beyond the first three? I don't recall any other instances (okay the trash move at the end of TP too).I hope it's like AC: Syndicate where you can swap between Link and Zelda. Would really stink if she's just kidnapped again.
She isn't kidnapped at the outset of the game as often but she does get captured or similar towards the end of the game pretty commonly.Is Zelda actually kidnapped in any games beyond the first three? I don't recall any other instances (okay the trash move at the end of TP too).
Is Zelda actually kidnapped in any games beyond the first three? I don't recall any other instances (okay the trash move at the end of TP too).
Wait, I haven't been in the direct thread for a while, do we have something substantial hinting for this week?Get ready everyone. This could be the week we get confirmation of BotW 2 for holiday 2020
What' are you basing this on?Get ready everyone. This could be the week we get confirmation of BotW 2 for holiday 2020
Is this a made up timer?Get ready everyone. This could be the week we get confirmation of BotW 2 for holiday 2020
We have the maintenance before the Pokémon direct also this is the second week of March. Nintendo has to have a direct either now or first/second week of April. They have no games dated after AC releaseWait, I haven't been in the direct thread for a while, do we have something substantial hinting for this week?
no. If there's a direct this week that's when it would be announced
We have the maintenance before the Pokémon direct also this is the second week of March. Nintendo has to have a direct either now or first/second week of April. They have no games dated after AC release
no. If there's a direct this week that's when it would be announced
It's a Nintendo direct. Anything is possible. Many believe BotW 2 will be the holiday game.But is there any particular reason to think this will have to do with Zelda?
So... nothing.It's a Nintendo direct. Anything is possible. Many believe BotW 2 will be the holiday game.
So you don't listen? I never said there was proof Zelda was going to be there.
If you post a count-down timer in a BoTW sequel development thread I'd expect it to be based on more than useless speculation. Like any sort of legit basis.So you don't listen? I never said there was proof Zelda was going to be there.
AgreedGet ready everyone. This could be the week we get confirmation of BotW 2 for holiday 2020
I made it clear from the beginning.If you post a count-down timer in a BoTW sequel development thread I'd expect it to be based on more than useless speculation. Like any sort of legit basis.
Get ready everyone. This could be the week we get confirmation of BotW 2 for holiday 2020
We always know the holiday title before E3 during Switch era. If BotW 2 is coming this holiday there's a high chance it will be confirmed before E3
uuugh the recipes!! :(
this is like them not having the tutorial archive in xenoblade x/xenoblade 2 anymore for no apparent reason. such an obvious and easy thing to throw into a menu somewhere.
They're doing maintenance to get their servers ready for the shadow drop of Metroid prime Trilogy HD.
Correct
None of these were announced as the holiday title or given a deeper/2nd trailer before E3. You've literal given the evidence for why Nintendo isn't going to talk about Zelda before E3. They've already announced the game so they have Zero reason to bring it back up. Just like how they didn't bring up Mario, Pokemon or Smash after their initial announcements nor did they announce their release dates until E3 (Pokemon got a "late 2019" when first revealed but that's it. No additional Direct until it was close to E3).We always know the holiday title before E3 during Switch era. If BotW 2 is coming this holiday there's a high chance it will be confirmed before E3
2017- Super Mario Odyssey
2018- Smash Ultimate
2019- Pokémon Sword/Shield
2020-??
One day your 2020 general Direct countdown will get something right :PGet ready everyone. This could be the week we get confirmation of BotW 2 for holiday 2020
Um, branding and licensing is, like, the whole reason why this series exists. It's a commercial product and is designed to sell to a commercial audience. That's what it is. Heck, the "lore" people keep talking about was created just to give Nintendo an excuse to keep doing the same thing over and over.Because those are established individual characters in canon. "Link" is just a soul that reincarnates every few generations or so, but there's nothing in the legend that says that soul needs to be a man to be The Hero. Nintendo have written themselves into a situation where they can technically have all types of heroes! But the only reason Link is still a man is because of branding and licensing, and it becomes more and more obvious as time goes on.
The answer is because Nintendo wants to be consistent with franchise branding and merchandising, not because him being a man is intrinsic to what little identity he has across 30-something years of this franchise's existence, which is "courageous person with a sword," and that in turn isn't a characterization that is inseparable from manhood.
Oh, gosh, I go away for a couple of weeks, and we start talking about turning Link into a female again.
Ah, he was "obviously male?" Wow, I didn't know that. And I've beaten the game three times too. Thank you for the mansplaining!And Link, if we're going by "lore," is a reincarnation of the Skyward Sword Link, who was quite obviously male.
Actual people meaning just men, right?This isn't even an argument of the merits (functional, philosophical, or whatever) of having Zelda be playable, or in any kind of role other than damsel in distress. This is about you just outright making stuff up and completely ignoring the series' actual, literal history as a commercial product in the physical world that is intended to be purchased by actual people.
So I'm too intellectual and thinking of games as art. Got it.You're thinking in terms of a English major, or a social science major, or a political activist, or something. You're being way, way too abstract and theoretical.
The fact that you thought your response was in any way constructive is absolutely fascinating. Gonna show this one to my other intellectual friends.Anyway, people get really worked up over this, and unfortunately it tends to become an emotional issue, which makes it hard to have a constructive conversation.
Oh, gosh, I go away for a couple of weeks, and we start talking about turning Link into a female again. I was really hoping that after the debacle of E3 2016 this argument would be over.
Um, branding and licensing is, like, the whole reason why this series exists. It's a commercial product and is designed to sell to a commercial audience. That's what it is. Heck, the "lore" people keep talking about was created just to give Nintendo an excuse to keep doing the same thing over and over.
And Link, if we're going by "lore," is a reincarnation of the Skyward Sword Link, who was quite obviously male. Just as Zelda (and her own later reincarnations) is an incarnation of Hylia, a female goddess.
Ergo, Link is Male and Zelda is Female. That's... pretty well set in stone for anybody who doesn't have their head stuck in the sand. And that was the point Aonuma was making with his whole "balance of the Triforce" comment a few years ago (which people didn't understand, of course), where he was saying that 1 male hero and 1 female goddess always team up against evil.
You're just making things up now. You really mean to tell me that an IP that has based its existence off of rescuing damsels in distress since its very beginning isn't fundamentally geared towards a male audience identifying with a male protagonist? That the cartoon and the books that came out based on the NES games weren't aiming at an audience of pre-teen boys? You mean to tell me that OoT Link growing up and getting strong enough to wield the Master Sword and defeat Ganon wasn't representative of a common masculine desire to grow up and become strong enough to defeat enemies? You're really trying to convince people that a series that once had a commercial that asked viewers, "Wilst thou get the girl, or play like one?" wasn't thinking of its audience almost exclusively in terms of adolescent males? Or a commercial that told of the story of a boy who became a man all that so he could save a girl locked up in a tower(Zelda, presumably)? The series was first introduced to U.S. audiences with commercials of a guy running through corridors screaming "Zelda!" and ranting about having to fight off all these hordes of evil creatures. Or how the blockbuster BotW trailer featured Zelda crying on Link's shoulder and literally ended with the king telling the player "You must save her... my daughter!" Are you really trying to tell me this series wasn't fundamentally intended for a male audience? Seriously? You're making this argument and actually meaning it?
This isn't even an argument of the merits (functional, philosophical, or whatever) of having Zelda be playable, or in any kind of role other than damsel in distress. This is about you just outright making stuff up and completely ignoring the series' actual, literal history as a commercial product in the physical world that is intended to be purchased by actual people. You're saying stuff that doesn't make sense because you seem to have some sort of philosophical hang-up about the idea of Link's "spirit" being malleable enough that he could be born as a she in some incarnation or another. But you're completely getting Nintendo's development approach backwards. The storyline explanation for Link's existence was written explicitly to justify keeping him the same in every game! You're thinking in terms of a English major, or a social science major, or a political activist, or something. You're being way, way too abstract and theoretical. Nintendo thinks in terms of industrial design. You're so far away from where Nintendo is, conceptually, that it's no wonder you're so confused.
Anyway, people get really worked up over this, and unfortunately it tends to become an emotional issue, which makes it hard to have a constructive conversation. But the "lore" isn't the "Gotcha!" answer that you seem to think it is. First of all, you're getting the lore wrong, and secondly and much more importantly, you're misunderstanding Nintendo's reasoning for it.
I really really think you should lean back and be a little less invested in this particular line of argument. Mostly because you're wrong but also really just because of that tone. Jeez.Oh, gosh, I go away for a couple of weeks, and we start talking about turning Link into a female again. I was really hoping that after the debacle of E3 2016 this argument would be over.
[...]
But you're completely getting Nintendo's development approach backwards. The storyline explanation for Link's existence was written explicitly to justify keeping him the same in every game! You're thinking in terms of a English major, or a social science major, or a political activist, or something. You're being way, way too abstract and theoretical. Nintendo thinks in terms of industrial design. You're so far away from where Nintendo is, conceptually, that it's no wonder you're so confused.
And this is just chef kiss levels of irony here. I know you're gonna say you're not emotional but read your post again...Anyway, people get really worked up over this, and unfortunately it tends to become an emotional issue, which makes it hard to have a constructive conversation.
I've had that feeling though... That maybe the whole teaser is just a setup where:I hope it's like AC: Syndicate where you can swap between Link and Zelda. Would really stink if she's just kidnapped again.
I still don't see co-op working well in this game. It feels to me like it runs against the spirit of BotW and just being dropped into this world with little to no interference. AC: Syndicate style feels way too artificial for BotWs style if they had some kind of hub where we could go and switch between the two. Syndicate gets away with the idea that both Fryes are doing stuff when not being played, but the world and events in Zelda don't lend themselves to that. So just sticking one of the main characters to sit around as the world ends sounds weird.I hope it's like AC: Syndicate where you can swap between Link and Zelda. Would really stink if she's just kidnapped again.
Dunno but why can't Zelda do research, which seems to be her thing in that BotW-world while if you switch to her, Link cooks and improves armor. You could even layer a meta management system in there. Think Galactic Readiness from ME3 that ties into the plot ("we have to solve this and that or find out about this Big Piciture Mystery/Get Ready/Gear Up") which would completely justify the other character's "absence" during your playtime with the respective other. Simple solve.I still don't see co-op working well in this game. It feels to me like it runs against the spirit of BotW and just being dropped into this world with little to no interference. AC: Syndicate style feels way too artificial for BotWs style if they had some kind of hub where we could go and switch between the two. Syndicate gets away with the idea that both Fryes are doing stuff when not being played, but the world and events in Zelda don't lend themselves to that. So just sticking one of the main characters to sit around as the world ends sounds weird.
Not a bad idea, but still feels off to me. Zelda doing research sounds plausible and reasonable, hell it could make for a good role for her within the game as just an NPC we can interact with and get quests and stuff from as she oversees research into combating Ganondorf and the Zonai and just general rebuilding/ruling of her kingdom. But Link sitting on the sidelines cooking or tinkering not so much. Just comes across as a rather flimsy justification/scenario. I'm not sure anything they could come up with could justify him voluntarily not being out in the field while Zelda is.Dunno but why can't Zelda do research, which seems to be her thing in that BotW-world while if you switch to her, Link cooks and improves armor. You could even layer a meta management system in there. Think Galactic Readiness from ME3 that ties into the plot ("we have to solve this and that or find out about this Big Piciture Mystery/Get Ready/Gear Up") which would completely justify the other character's "absence" during your playtime with the respective other. Simple solve.
"...if we have princess Zelda as the main character who fights, then what is Link going to do," Aonuma asked.