Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Instead we got some cheap cash-in spinoff that feels NOTHING like a Metroid game, and moreover misses what Metroid is all about. Tone and Atmosphere are 90% of what make Metroid, Metroid. Metroid is a franchise that WORKS because of the emotions of dread and isolation it evokes in the player as they play (going back to what I said about immersion yesterday). The experience is felt, like the first time you walked into Phendrana Drifts and the music kicked in, or were overtaken by the open Skies of Elesia, or the first time Samus stepped into the first cave of Brinstar. It's foreign, it's strange, and it evokes both curiousity, and a sense of danger lurking at every corner. You can ONLY achieve this by setting a serious tone. By donning a cartoony look, Fed Force pretty much immediately tells potential buyers "this game totally misses the point of what Metroid is about," because chibi cartoons are lighthearted by nature, and Metroid doesn't work when it's lighthearted.
Cartoon visuals work for Zelda, because Zelda has always been the experimental franchise, and it's always had a wide variety of tones.. Since Zelda II, it tried a different spin on the established formula, and the art style of the series has been changing pretty much every entry. Metroid doesn't, and has never been like that. And "fun" doesn't cut it here, because half the fun of Metroid is the immersion evoked by the atmosphere. Imagine if Nintendo decided to make a Mario game that was hyper-realistic and gory. I guarantee you the reception wouldn't be so hot either.
I don't think people have a problem with the fact that a spin off is being made, but rather, the fact that the spin off being made has almost nothing to do with the franchise. If Nintendo actually bothered to make Fed Force a serious spin off, with similar concepts, for WiiU, but that thrived as a squad based, Survival Horror, then the reception for it would have been a lot different. Persona is how you do a spin off franchise properly. You takes the established things that make your franchise successful, and you take a new spin on things.
Fed Force on the other hand looks awfully uninspired. Because, rather than going, "ok, so Samus is an OP goddess with her badass power armour, but the Marines, are much more vulnerable than she is, and are a lot more expendable, so lets work off of that." They went, "Hmm, so which franchise could we use to showcase this gimmicky mechanic we wanna try out, I know! Metroid!!" Might as well have made a new IP tbh, because it's glaringly obvious they just used the Metroid name for recognition. The biggest travesty about FF is that it COULD have been good, if Nintendo had greenlighted a good concept rather than **** the Metroid corpse for cheap profit. Federation Force COULD have been a very successful spinoff franchise if it had been taken seriously, but that ship has sailed by now.
Core Metroid games are structured with very strict level design, and it's meant to be more like navigating through an elaborate maze rather than a vast sandbox. However, Metroid already uses Open World elements, and allows players to more or less explore at their own pace through trial and error. Going full OW imo would hurt more than help, since there is little gained as Metroid is already immersive, and you'd only be hurting the gameplay that it's notorious for.
On the other hand, if it was a sort of survival experience, where Samus was stranded on an Alien planet and had to gather resources, manage her energy, armor and ammunition, explore the planet, etc... it MIGHT work. Think something like Pikmin meets Metroid Prime. It all comes down to execution though. The world would have to be very carefully crafted though, and a lot of work would have to go into making the planet progress the player correctly. That said, again, the Prime series already does a lot of that, and it has very linear game design. It's hard to see how full Open World would help more than hurt.
Crossbow Training isn't even a bad game. So unless you're saying "we'd still get a good game, just not the exact one we're asking for", there's a very big flaw in this comparison.
The Zelda series doesn't really have a bad spin-off anyway. It just has three mediocre non-canon games from the CD-i, which aren't nearly as bad as people say they are(they got reasonable scores when released for a reason), and not enough people bother to play them before judging, which doesn't help.
That said, there's still nothing to suggest Federation Force will be bad anyway. It still looks like a good game, but it's nothing more than a spin-off.
And many of us will gladly take a spin-off of a dead series instead of leaving it dead. It's still something.
Well, at least that's a better example. Plus, Crossbow Training didn't have fan backlash, anyway.
But I'll take it over nothing anyway. Fed Force looks pretty fun to me, and that's all that matters in the end. A major important thing is that people need to remember that they aren't going to use the same formula forever and will change it up to keep the series interesting in some way.
I'm part of the Metroid Fanbase and can atleast confirm that the Ridley in Smash fiasco, has nothing to do with the Metroid Fanbase, because those where Smash Bros fans, that thought they could predict Sakurai and just didn't know, when to quite when it was clear he would not be playable, since the Pyrosphere appeared in the pic of the day, but yeah we still get scapegoated 90% of the time because of this fiasco
The only two things Metroid fans really want are either a spiritual successor to the Prime Trilogy or a new 2D Metroid like Fusion or Super
The backslash for Federation Force, was to be expected, because of how the franchise was walking on thin ice, after Other M and they could have prevented alot of the damage, by announcing that "there is also another Metroid game in development", so here is a nice spinoff, but well instead we got a game, that does not resemble the franchise in the slightest (and with that I don't mean the lack of Samus or artstyle) and we only have an assumption that one is in development for the NX, because Retro is still secretive about their next project.
The cancelation poll was childish, I'll give you that, but I'm very confident if Zelda or Pokemon fans would be in the same situation, they would react way worse, then this cancelation poll
Also if you put aside the Metroid elements from Federation Force, you have a very clunky and unpolished game if you look at the Gameplay alone.
TL.DR version, just imaging Zelda being on hiatus for atleast 8-10 years and the only bone you get thrown at after that long wait, would be Links Crossbow training, thats basically what Federation Force is in a nutshell
I've played every Metroid game and have been a fan of the series for years. I share the sentiment of frustration.
But that doesn't excuse the pure venom I see. And it's more than the poll, its the whining and the insulting and the constant negativity I see in it. The inability to just let it be its own thing and just go back to other Metroid games.
It started back in Other M and yeah, it had a ton of flaws, but even then it got way more hate than it deserved. I'm talking about people who liked the game being shunned, insulted and labeled. Any attempt as positive thought was downright shut down and shut down in nasty ways. And it didn't stop there. People wanted the creators heads on platters while ignoring that they had made the same games that they had claimed to love months prior.
I'm so critical of that fanbase because I was super into it for a long time and now I just see a shell of its former glory and I just couldn't understand how it happened for a long time. Other M wasn't the cause. Other fanbases didn't get worse after a bad game.
But the more I step back and watch from a distance, the more I start to understand why.
They won't let go of the bad things and they won't accept that sometimes a bad product is made and that its just life and we need to accept it with grace. The problem I saw was that the fanbase had nice things for so long that they didn't know how to accept that the bad happened.
I'm so critical because I see that thought process spreading to other series.
It's becoming the standard...
And that standard might just drive me out of gaming...
Well, at least that's a better example. Plus, Crossbow Training didn't have fan backlash, anyway.
But I'll take it over nothing anyway. Fed Force looks pretty fun to me, and that's all that matters in the end. A major important thing is that people need to remember that they aren't going to use the same formula forever and will change it up to keep the series interesting in some way.
A change in the formula is fine. But why couldn't they have made a serious game to begin with?
A squad-based survival horror set in the Metroid universe would be very interesting to play, especially since we get to learn more about the galactic federation. You created a universe, now let us see more of that universe.
I've played every Metroid game and have been a fan of the series for years. I share the sentiment of frustration.
But that doesn't excuse the pure venom I see. And it's more than the poll, its the whining and the insulting and the constant negativity I see in it. The inability to just let it be its own thing and just go back to other Metroid games.
It started back in Other M and yeah, it had a ton of flaws, but even then it got way more hate than it deserved. I'm talking about people who liked the game being shunned, insulted and labeled. Any attempt as positive thought was downright shut down and shut down in nasty ways. And it didn't stop there. People wanted the creators heads on platters while ignoring that they had made the same games that they had claimed to love months prior.
I'm so critical of that fanbase because I was super into it for a long time and now I just see a shell of its former glory and I just couldn't understand how it happened for a long time. Other M wasn't the cause. Other fanbases didn't get worse after a bad game.
But the more I step back and watch from a distance, the more I start to understand why.
They won't let go of the bad things and they won't accept that sometimes a bad product is made and that its just life and we need to accept it with grace. The problem I saw was that the fanbase had nice things for so long that they didn't know how to accept that the bad happened.
I'm so critical because I see that thought process spreading to other series.
It's becoming the standard...
And that standard might just drive me out of gaming...
"It's not that bad" is precisely the kind of mindset from the fans that has landed Nintendo where they are right now. Because they're not given proper criticism, or the said criticism is ignored due to massive sales. You're a consumer, vote with your wallet. If a company churns out a mediocre product, then you don't have to buy it. Brand loyalty to products because "it's made by Nintendo" only tells Nintendo that they can get away with mediocre products, since they will always have a core group of people that will always buy whatever they make, simply due to brand recognition, and thus they can ignore the demands of those fans.
Yes, a creator should strive to branch out and innovate from time to time, but critical reception between the creator and the consumer is also very important, and should not be ignored. And the only way the creator can ever have any feedback on their decisions, is by seeing the success and failure of their products.
Saying "it's not that bad" or "I guess it looks kinda fun" when you know the same company has made much MUCH better products before, pretty much tells that company that it doesn't matter what they do, since you'll buy it anyway, and you'll begin down a downward spiral of mediocrity. Feel free to enjoy whatever you like for yourself, but if other people are critical of a company being mediocre, then said criticism is not only justified, but in fact NEEDED. Both FedForce and Color Splash deserved all the negative feedback they got, as did Other M, and Skyward Sword. In fact, BECAUSE SS got all of its negative feedback, only does BotW look promising now.
I find it awfully ironic that people crap on the Sonic fan base for saying "it isn't that bad" too often (even though they really don't say it often).
But it's OK to be overly accepting of any crap Ninendo puts out.
If you like Breath of the Wild, you should see the value in criticism. Aonuma has stated BotW is the way it is because of criticism that was given to Skyward Sword.
My statement wasn't against criticism or in favor of brand loyalty (I hate brand loyalty) and I even lamented that people wouldn't just vote with their wallet in the gosh darn post.
It was against being a little **** about those things.
A change in the formula is fine. But why couldn't they have made a serious game to begin with?
A squad-based survival horror set in the Metroid universe would be very interesting to play, especially since we get to learn more about the galactic federation. You created a universe, now let us see more of that universe.
The only difference is really the genre change anyway. I feel the same things I felt from the Metroid games, a unique universe full of tons of dangerous stuff. Immense training is something not really delved into, and the Federation Force soldiers are quite notable characters, meaning giving them their own game where we learn why they're this good only adds to the story.
I myself am glad to have a neat spin-off that finally tells somebody else's story. I very much dislike it when a series doesn't bother giving the other characters anything notable.
Both FedForce and Color Splash deserved all the negative feedback they got, as did Other M, and Skyward Sword. In fact, BECAUSE SS got all of its negative feedback, only does BotW look promising now.
That's not criticism. Barely any of it is. It's just mindless bashing. Color Splash's actual real issues are the lack of a more unique character set, a lessened story, and that there's still no leveling up of your stats(the best you get is leveling up your new ability, which is better than SS' one). However, it was already declared that it was simply that they didn't want Paper Mario to be an rpg series anymore, giving that design solely to M&L. Thus, the problem is basic balance and making it feel worth doing the battles instead. The story clearly needs more work, of course. The thing is, how many bother to properly point this out? The answer; Barely anyone.
BOTW isn't just because of the SS feedback. It's because they have been using the same formula for ages, based upon ALTTP. They want something new and to experiment again. SS at least wasn't mindlessly bashed, unlike some other games. Other M gets mindless bashing too, which it actually has legit stuff. The gameplay is actually pretty good. Samus has a real personality, and she simply respected the officer she was under(the issue is they didn't do a great job explaining why. Adam wasn't that good of a person to begin with. She always looked up to him, despite it not making much sense. I agree she should follow his rules during it, because she was brought on board solely under his command. This is fair. That's her acting responsibly). Adam was the major issue with it, being a sexist male stereotype. The other characters were fine.
To be fair, most of the time when you jump on someone for being critical, they weren't being toxic.
You have said yourself that you prefer to be really optimistic about things, and it shows, because you very often jump at the slightest criticism towards a Nintendo game.
How is the series sexist? Towards females in particular even?
I mean, most of the important gods, if not all, are female. The majority of the sages throughout the series are female. The majority of Link's sidekicks who help and guide him where female too. Likewise for his friends he has or comes along during the course of his adventures. Zelda herself has done a lot of things in the past to help Link out during the course of his journey.
The only thing that is really male dominated in the Zelda series, is the various incarnations of Link himself as well as (ironically) the villains....
To be fair, most of the time when you jump on someone for being critical, they weren't being toxic.
You have said yourself that you prefer to be really optimistic about things, and it shows, because you very often jump at the slightest criticism towards a Nintendo game.
And they can be safely ignored. And they're not the same people either anyway.
I don't care if Link is female because I'm a feminist. I care because I identify as female and am still disappointed I cannot play as a woman in a canon Zelda till this day. You know, the actual gender I am? Link solely was created to represent the person playing as them. This is why he was given no actual personality(and he still doesn't have a set one in the canon games. Those spin-offs and shows and non-canon games don't count at all) to begin with. This is why the name was called "Link".
Now, if they simply just said "We find Link is iconic as a male and want to keep it that way" instead of these bull**** story excuses(like the Triforce somehow is the cause of this), it wouldn't be too big of an issue. Or let us properly play as Zelda without the bull**** excuse of "Then what would Link do?", meaning that Link not only has to be male, but we aren't allowed a female hero. The best they've given at these suggestions otherwise were "we'll think about it". But it's not like making a playable Sheik is just as good as having Zelda playable either. Sheik has a different set of abilities, and is a transformation. With how sexist Nintendo is, there's the fear they'll make this version of Sheik male, which caters to the same problemsome gender stereotypes; Only men can fight and women only exist to be saved. While they've slowly gotten better about this, they clearly don't intend to actually fix it. Aonuma's views aren't just outdated, but sexist. He makes fun games, but he isn't good at keeping the series from being sexist.
People googly-eyeing shirtless Link are simply just objectifying him. That's all. The problem is nobody is calling this out as well. That's what needs to happen. Likewise, the fact that Link is being made of an object than a character isn't a good thing either. Even if Link could be female in this case, yes, she would be objectified. But if somebody is calling that out but not shirtless Link, then it's a double standard. Either apply it to both males or females, or you really aren't trying to battle any actual sexism.
I want gender stereotypes to die off myself. This game is doing a terrible job at fixing that. The only Zelda games to make an attempt were the CD-i games(due to Zelda being the hero, but still is a Princess, meaning they're battling the stereotype without taking away her normal profession) and a slight bit in ST where Zelda is told she can't just sit home and let the hero do all the work. She has to do it herself if she wants it.
We already talked about this in here and it's one of the things I don't get, why do you need the character you play as to be the same gender as you?
Like, that just sounds petty, you don't see me whining that there's no male Samus and I can play Metroid just fine
Link is already his own character, he became one after the first Zelda and has shown a lot of personality throughout the games(especially in the Toon games)
Aonuma's "reasoning" was half assed, yes, but that doesn't take away the fact that Link is not an avatar character
How is the series sexist? Towards females in particular even?
I mean, most of the important gods, if not all, are female. The majority of the sages throughout the series are female. The majority of Link's sidekicks who help and guide him where female too. Likewise for his friends he has or comes along during the course of his adventures. Zelda herself has done a lot of things in the past to help Link out during the course of his journey.
The only thing that is really male dominated in the Zelda series, is the various incarnations of Link himself as well as (ironically) the villains.
And yet Zelda always has to be saved. She was created solely as an object to be gotten after. This still hasn't changed to this day. She slightly helps once in a while, sure, but she still can't escape this sexist stereotype. Not even Tetra can. While she herself was fine in WW, and once became Zelda, was turned into another object to be saved. At least it wasn't Tetra directly, right? Then came along PH where she's turned into a statue, taking away the entire point of her just to make her an object to save, a literal one in this case.
The series may have a lot of good female characters, but the most important one still hasn't been fixed in any game. That is canon, anyway. The CD-i games were far more progressive with Zelda herself than any canon game has. And that's sad.
And yes, what he said was sexist. He's outright declaring that you have to be male to be the hero, and the person to be saved must be female(at least this doesn't apply to Ganon, as females can be villain in canon, but that wasn't even made entirely by Nintendo in that case. Capcom made Oracle of Ages. That's saying something). This is an extremely sexist stereotype, that women and weak and must be saved, while men are strong and must be the heroes. As I said, only 3rd parties have actively fixed this bull****. That shouldn't have to be the only solution.
We already talked about this in here and it's one of the things I don't get, why do you need the character you play as to be the same gender as you?
Like, that just sounds petty, you don't see me whining that there's no male Samus and I can play Metroid just fine
Samus is actually an established person. Link is you. That's the point of the character. They dropped that, which would be okay if he got an actual personality so he doesn't represent the player anymore. They refuse to do that. His name alone is just an artifact, since if he's supposed to represent the player, he's doing a terrible job at it.
Link is already his own character, he became one after the first Zelda and has shown a lot of personality throughout the games(especially in the Toon games)
Aonuma's "reasoning" was half *****, yes, but that doesn't take away the fact that Link is not an avatar character
Link has never stopped being an avatar character outside of the CD-i games. He's completely one in the other games(and Hyrule Warriors doesn't really bother to give him a real personality either).
And no, he did not. That's not personality. That's not what real personality is. It means you actually have some form of set dialogue that represents you, or something really similar to dialogue. Also, that's one Link at best. A problem is that not every Link is the same, and therefore cannot have a set personality. And therefore, there's a serious design problem with the character. Likewise, BOTW makes him a pure avatar in everything but gender. There's literally no personality traits, nothing set about his weapons, his clothes, his abilities even. You can do everything because you can. You choose everything for him quite literally but the gender. They should either just cut the bull**** and let you choose the gender or cut the bull**** and give him a proper personality(that includes dialogue, and he doesn't need voice acting. SS proved he can have unique dialogue, and the options are all different, ranging from cocky to a real hero).
If there is not a female gender,people who can't identify themselves with a certain gender complain for the lack of it.
If there is a female gender,GGs and SJWs make a crapfest for it's way of portrayal.
Also how can most of the half of FedForce negative feedback can be called criticism at all,most of people were making a backslash for X not being Y in a spinoff game.
That was like complaining about mario sluggers not being mario strikers.
My statement wasn't against criticism or in favor of brand loyalty (I hate brand loyalty) and I even lamented that people wouldn't just vote with their wallet in the gosh darn post.
It was against being a little **** about those things.
It is when it doesn't miss the point.
Honestly, Manly, how did you get from me saying this fanbase didn't know how to deal with a bad thing and get to that I'm against criticism somehow.
People complain however they want to complain. I don't see how it entirely affects you or anyone else how others choose to convey their sentiments, so long as it doesn't include actually hurting anyone, everyone is free to do as they please. Children will be children, obsessed fans will be obsessed fans. If hitting a bunch of dislikes on trailer videos or making petitions gets Nintendo to notice the criticism, then fine by me. In fact, I would even argue that such extreme backlash only came about as a result of constantly having criticism be drowned out by people who defend everything Nintendo does, or people who will complain while still purchasing the product they're complaining about.
You can't just blame one side of the spectrum, when in reality, things always come about in opposition to an established status quo.
To say, "gosh, I'm gonna leave gaming altogether because I can't deal with children being immature," is a very poor way to get your point across. Leave communities if you deem them toxic to your own well-being, but don't "threaten" to leave because people don't behave as you deem fit, that's just childish man.
My way of reacting to all this is very simple. Rather than be continuously frustrated by Nintendo's decisions as a fan, I'll just stop buying their products if they stop making products that cater to me. Modding communities exist. PC gaming is fun, and other franchises inspired by Nintendo IP exist. Plus, venturing out and finding new IP is always great. But if others see it differently, well, they're probably underage to begin with, considering I was a lot more invested in Nintendo's decisions when I was underage as well. Teens will be teens man, end of story. If you wanna let that affect you, well, to each their own. There are more important things going on in the world to actually be emotionally invested about.
The only difference is really the genre change anyway. I feel the same things I felt from the Metroid games, a unique universe full of tons of dangerous stuff. Immense training is something not really delved into, and the Federation Force soldiers are quite notable characters, meaning giving them their own game where we learn why they're this good only adds to the story.
I myself am glad to have a neat spin-off that finally tells somebody else's story. I very much dislike it when a series doesn't bother giving the other characters anything notable.
That's not criticism. Barely any of it is. It's just mindless bashing. Color Splash's actual real issues are the lack of a more unique character set, a lessened story, and that there's still no leveling up of your stats(the best you get is leveling up your new ability, which is better than SS' one). However, it was already declared that it was simply that they didn't want Paper Mario to be an rpg series anymore, giving that design solely to M&L. Thus, the problem is basic balance and making it feel worth doing the battles instead. The story clearly needs more work, of course. The thing is, how many bother to properly point this out? The answer; Barely anyone.
BOTW isn't just because of the SS feedback. It's because they have been using the same formula for ages, based upon ALTTP. They want something new and to experiment again. SS at least wasn't mindlessly bashed, unlike some other games. Other M gets mindless bashing too, which it actually has legit stuff. The gameplay is actually pretty good. Samus has a real personality, and she simply respected the officer she was under(the issue is they didn't do a great job explaining why. Adam wasn't that good of a person to begin with. She always looked up to him, despite it not making much sense. I agree she should follow his rules during it, because she was brought on board solely under his command. This is fair. That's her acting responsibly). Adam was the major issue with it, being a sexist male stereotype. The other characters were fine.
Other M doesn't get mindless bashing. Its criticism is very well documented, and elaborately pointed out by many many critics. The gameplay is flawed, the aiming is atrocious, the level design boring, the layout confusing at times. There were good ideas, but the implementation was awful. Such as deciding to rely on the Wiimote alone, and not use the nunchuk. Or choosing to add this clunk 3rd person to 1st person mechanic which constantly breaks up play.
And Samus' characterization was easily among the worst things about OM. She has had personality in previous games. It was just more subtle, something OM seems to completely fail to grasp. This scene in Echoes:
Conveys MILES more personality than any monologue in OM.
Breaking a strong character, and making her weak and submissive is the opposite of character development. It's breaking character to convey plot.
Anyway, I won't go in full depth as to what's wrong with OM. I actually used to have a handy little image that concisely pointed out the most flaring flaws. but I lost it. Instead, have this:
I'm not getting heated at all or making anything personal.
I'm just pointing something out. You say you only jump on toxic people, but your actions and own words from the recent past say otherwise. So you can understand why people might be confused by your intent.
Even in this instance, I don't believe what Manly said was toxic. Angry, but not toxic. He was still making plenty of valid criticisms of Federation Force and you simply focused on his anger and labelled it as toxic, grouping him with random trolls who just hate Federation Force because everyone else is.
Manly's views on Federation Force are identical to SomecallmeJohnny's. Yet nobody accused the latter of being toxic.
I'm not a mod nor do I have any authority here, but could all of you please stop fueling up this debate? It's already silly in the first place, and the more you keep responding within the argument, the more you harm each other's feelings because you disagree with what the other party says.
On a brighter note, I really dig @Zoroarking's avatar.
I'm mildly positive towards Federation Force myself, but there's one thing that I await - the next step in the Metroid series that we take alongside Samus Aran. It seems I wasn't alone (according to the TVTropes leech) when thinking about Metroid Prime when playing the new Doom game. Unsurprisingly, Metroid Prime was my first FPS game - Samus was the Doomguy/gal for me. I'm now in a sea of space shooters, but there's one planet I can always return to - the world of Metroid. *Still need to finish the Prime Trilogy - and sighs for a new Metroid game beyond Federation Force... And exams...*
I think I'll leave briefly skedaddle from the thread for the night but leave a little thing only a few people on the boards might get - Touhou Genso Rondo is now available for pre-orders from Australian EB Games. 2016 has seen the return of Crash Bandicoot, Zelda bringing Nintendo to the forefront of E3 2016 despite the gamble, and now a Touhou fan game is now available for pre-order on an Australian game distribution site (Wasn't in their database when I went to pre-order Zelda and Titanfall 2 this morning).
...Yet we still don't have Half-Life 3. Now of to bed I go - just some ramblings from someone who needs study for maths.
Both sides have good points but gigantic flaws on it,to settle this we have hyrule warriors.
A spinoff game that have nothing to do with what zelda series stands for a massive cast of female characters,and getting extremely overlooked on these 2 parallel discussions.
Didn't an update come just last week too, or was this the one found last week? I have it blocked for that very reason so I wouldn't know. Wonder what the sudden influx of updates is about.
And yet Zelda always has to be saved. She was created solely as an object to be gotten after. This still hasn't changed to this day. She slightly helps once in a while, sure, but she still can't escape this sexist stereotype. Not even Tetra can. While she herself was fine in WW, and once became Zelda, was turned into another object to be saved. At least it wasn't Tetra directly, right? Then came along PH where she's turned into a statue, taking away the entire point of her just to make her an object to save, a literal one in this case.
I'm not gonna reply to everything, I'm just gonna pick and choose the things that most stood to me.
The series may have a lot of good female characters, but the most important one still hasn't been fixed in any game. That is canon, anyway. The CD-i games were far more progressive with Zelda herself than any canon game has. And that's sad.
I fully agree. I'd love to see Zelda be playable for once.
I wouldn't say this is inherently sexist, nor would I say gender roles, or stereotypes are sexist either. That's just neofeminist nonsense. Would it be cool to see Zelda be heroic for once? Ofc. But saying that the opposite is sexist is misguided, as it's a fantasy trope established by historical and cultural values.
Culture is culture, and culture often has biological roots. Gender roles, in many ways, have very strong roots set in biological roles. That's not saying females can't be or haven't been heroic in history. Vikings for example had badass shield-maidens:
Lagertha is mai waifu, stay away you cretins!!
But to argue the opposite is purposely blinding yourself to the obvious and existing differences between men and women. Things are as they are for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't play around with them, but it also doesn't make them sexist. Because then, nature is sexist.
I would even argue that Zelda has been far more progressive than it's given credit by letting Zelda play more and more prominent roles in modern games.
And yes, what he said was sexist. He's outright declaring that you have to be male to be the hero, and the person to be saved must be female(at least this doesn't apply to Ganon, as females can be villain in canon, but that wasn't even made entirely by Nintendo in that case. Capcom made Oracle of Ages. That's saying something). This is an extremely sexist stereotype, that women and weak and must be saved, while men are strong and must be the heroes. As I said, only 3rd parties have actively fixed this bull****. That shouldn't have to be the only solution.
What he said isn't sexist. You're taking what he said out of context. He's not saying you have to be male to be a hero, he's saying that the owner of the triforce of courage is exlusively male, same as the owner of the triforce of wisdom is exclusively female, and the power is always Ganon. This is the estanlished canon. It is what it is, and it's his vision, and having it be that way, and refusing to cater to the whims of people who wanna have it otherwise is NOT sexist in the slightest. He has every right to execute the lore of the franchise as he sees fit. It's his vision. Don't like it, write your own story.
Samus is actually an established person. Link is you. That's the point of the character. They dropped that, which would be okay if he got an actual personality so he doesn't represent the player anymore. They refuse to do that. His name alone is just an artifact, since if he's supposed to represent the player, he's doing a terrible job at it.
Link has never stopped being an avatar character outside of the CD-i games. He's completely one in the other games(and Hyrule Warriors doesn't really bother to give him a real personality either).
Link is NOT the player. Link is Link. This is perfectly showcased in Smash Bros, where Link is called "Link." Not "The Hero of the Triforce" nor is he given a gender option. He's Link, that's his official name. And his official gender is male.
He stopped being a player avatar by the time Zelda II rolled along. He was always shown as male, and his inspirations have all been male. Zelda is not a role playing game, and connection to Link is intransmutable.
I think the very fact that people can't make a connection to fictional character of the opposite sex speaks more about their own lack of empathy, than gender issues. I'd even argue that HAVING to have a certain gender to identify to is itself more sexist. Because you're lacking empathy for the opposite sex. Because making gender issues an issue, in and of itself IS sexist. The entire POINT of gender equality is to appreciate the differences between genders, while still seeing them as equal opposites. It's about having empathy for the opposite sex, and about not seeing gender when it comes to providing opportunity and the like.
Looking at something and saying "this is sexist cause it doesn't cater to me" is establishing the binary differences between gender, and creates an "us vs. them" mentality, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what people are trying to achieve with gender equality. Men and women should come closer together, not drift further apart.
I play as male and female characters alike, because to me it doesn't matter. It's a character, it's not me. Sometimes seeing a cute girl with a squeaky voice swing a giant sword around to slay a dragon in Monster Hunter, is kinda cool. Sometimes I just wanna play as a dude. I don't care, it's a videogame, and gender issues don't belong in entertainment.
You want REAL sexism?
How about having acid get thrown in your face because you refused to marry the man your parents ordered you to? Or because you wanted to learn how to study? Or how about Taharrush Gamea? An organized **** game where Muslim men surround women in public, tear off their clothes, and publically violate them? Those are REAL acts of sexism. Yet no one ever bothers to speak out about THOSE issue because they're too busy complaining about gender issues where they don't exist. Especially the feminists, since they're all about "being tolerant to foreign cultures," especially Muslim culture, which is objectively the most misogynistic and sexist culture in the world.
Western civilization is the most progressive culture in the world. So rather than be petty and complain about nonissues, how about we turn our attention toward real problems that are happening in the world right now?
If a female character should be playable in a game, it should be out of artistic creativity, and because it offers fresh and new experiences, not to pander to people who have a special snowflake syndrome.
And no, he did not. That's not personality. That's not what real personality is. It means you actually have some form of set dialogue that represents you, or something really similar to dialogue. Also, that's one Link at best. A problem is that not every Link is the same, and therefore cannot have a set personality. And therefore, there's a serious design problem with the character. Likewise, BOTW makes him a pure avatar in everything but gender. There's literally no personality traits, nothing set about his weapons, his clothes, his abilities even. You can do everything because you can. You choose everything for him quite literally but the gender. They should either just cut the bull**** and let you choose the gender or cut the bull**** and give him a proper personality(that includes dialogue, and he doesn't need voice acting. SS proved he can have unique dialogue, and the options are all different, ranging from cocky to a real hero).
He is NOT an avatar. He is Link, and he has a set persona. Same as Zelda. I fail to see why you want a generic gender clone of Link, who is canonically established as male, rather than see Zelda, who has tons of potential as a character get the limelight.
"No, lets not be original and develop our female heroine and titular character, instead, let's make a clone of the male character and change his genitals."
THAT'S more sexists. Because you're basically saying that females can only ever be as good as males when they take on male traits, rather than highlighting the strengths and uniqueness of the female gender.
Going back to Vikings, Shield-maidens weren't Berserkers, nor were they expected to take on male traits. They were shield-maidens, and they were still incredibly badass.
And yet Zelda always has to be saved. She was created solely as an object to be gotten after. This still hasn't changed to this day. She slightly helps once in a while, sure, but she still can't escape this sexist stereotype. Not even Tetra can. While she herself was fine in WW, and once became Zelda, was turned into another object to be saved. At least it wasn't Tetra directly, right? Then came along PH where she's turned into a statue, taking away the entire point of her just to make her an object to save, a literal one in this case.
The series may have a lot of good female characters, but the most important one still hasn't been fixed in any game. That is canon, anyway. The CD-i games were far more progressive with Zelda herself than any canon game has. And that's sad.
And yes, what he said was sexist. He's outright declaring that you have to be male to be the hero, and the person to be saved must be female(at least this doesn't apply to Ganon, as females can be villain in canon, but that wasn't even made entirely by Nintendo in that case. Capcom made Oracle of Ages. That's saying something). This is an extremely sexist stereotype, that women and weak and must be saved, while men are strong and must be the heroes. As I said, only 3rd parties have actively fixed this bull****. That shouldn't have to be the only solution.
That still doesn't stop the fact that there have been a lot of strong and helpful female characters throughout the series though (I mean Hyrule Warriors was even dubbed "Waifu Warriors" by the fans at some point due to the amount of female characters that where made playable in that game). Even with Zelda getting caught mostly happens whenever she lets her guard down or in moments she couldn't expect. And even then, she comes a long to help him out during final battles. Even Link himself and a few other characters (Such as Makar) fell into that trap a few times before too. However, I suppose they should probably cut down on that department for her sake though.
I still haven't played Okamiden. Partially because I'm a leftie and stylus based DS games literally hurt my soul when they make me use the buttons to control things.
I honestly feel like that's grasping at straws quite a bit. Reggie was smiling in an interview with people looking at his face, so that means he's sandbagging?
He's also taking unsupported or backed up rumors over the past year as fact. We still know nothing concrete and have conflicting 'sources' in more areas than one.
I don't doubt the NX is going to be powerful, but we also still don't know a damn thing for certain about it other than it exists.
