Should Nintendo make a game with a romantic relationship between Link and Zelda?

What I liked in SS was that it was implied, and ended like that. For me, I'd like it if Link got with Zelda. Yeah, just not during the game. If they force the relationship or start off with it, I wouldn't feel like Link, but that I was playing someone else. Skyward Sword Link can actually look like me if I try to think about it. Since he's short (I'm like 5'6" and still growing) and can pull off a 14 year-old, I make it seem like he's me. The fact that he's not really dating Zelda makes him an open character. Otherwise, it wouldn't be.

In the end, though, I wouldn't care. As long as I feel like I'm Link saving a friend who's open and not someone controlling a dude saving his girlfriend.

Why not?

I think it would be so satisfying to actually see it happen.

Originally Posted by Double A

In SS, this implied "romance" was granted its own cutscenes. While I agree that romance doesn't come close to, say, the swordplay in how "major" it is, having more than a couple of minutes of screen time (or, heck, simply being one of the more major things emphasized in cutscenes) brings it out of the realm of "very minor".

Being granted a moderate amount of screentime in one game of a series that spans decades does not constitute becoming a major plot element in the series as a whole.

The Zelda series still markets itself as an adventure. The fact that modern Zelda games "aren't lent to making the gamer feel like it's open-ended" is an issue I'm quick to highlight when I talk about certain games. Regardless, this particular discussion isn't about open-endedness in general, but simply providing the ability to make a particular set of choices.

It markets itself as an adventure, not as an open-world role playing game.

What reason would a game designer have to not go the extra mile and provide a choice in this particular situation? Perhaps I don't want to see the cheesy cutscenes associated with romance, but still want the plot to still feel consistent/unbroken (the result of skipping cutscenes).

Because they're telling a story, not letting you make your own in the wider framework. It's not meant to be an interactive movie. If you go to see a movie in the theatre and dislike romance elements, cover your eyes like a good little boy.

In terms of SS, you're suggesting we omit fundamental character motivations because you personally dislike romance.

I suppose all it would take would be to make it so that talking to certain characters activates/unlocks certain cutscenes. Perhaps responding to characters in the right way could intensify such a relationship between two characters. How could the existence of choice possibly have a negative impact on anyone who plays the game, least of all the players that actually want to see a ZeLink romance (heck, having the ability to intensify the romance would arguably benefit them)?

Maybe, if this was Fable, which it isn't.

But why not anyway? The only reason I can think of is that the person who designs these cutscenes/blocks of dialogue wants to force everyone who plays the game to experience these particular things. Being restrained in some ways (mainly gameplay-wise) isn't inherently bad, since some limits need to be placed on the player in order to make the choices they DO make more interesting. But in this particular case, the lack of such a simple set of choices is inherently anti-gamer, as it prioritizes the developer's vision over the gamer's experience.

Perhaps, but that's not inherently bad. I've emphasized it already. The type of game that Zelda games are is the type of game that exists to make you the main character, not make the main character you. It's akin to a movie or novel.

Unless you suggest we ban such forms of fiction or you wish to foot the bill for commissioning the game yourself, I don't see how it makes a difference.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Being granted a moderate amount of screentime in one game of a series that spans decades does not constitute becoming a major plot element in the series as a whole.

But I'm looking at the game on its own.

If we want to look at the series as a whole, then it seems that the series is only going to go toward each game having more of these kinds of cutscenes.

It markets itself as an adventure, not as an open-world role playing game.

To fix this particular problem, it doesn't need to be an open-world role-playing game. Heck, I for one don't want to be bogged down with heaps upon heaps of dialogue options. At the very least, this is a plot element that could really benefit from being optional.

Because they're telling a story, not letting you make your own in the wider framework. It's not meant to be an interactive movie. If you go to see a movie in the theatre and dislike romance elements, cover your eyes like a good little boy.

The very nature of interactivity in a videogame means that any story that occurs is occuring to you (the player). The difference between movies and games is that I'm not a spectator in the latter. Interactivity grants me influence over the events that transpire, and if that influence turns out to be largely meaningless then the addition of interactivity in the game loses meaning.

I'm more tolerant of romance elements in movies because I'm merely a spectator. The lack of interactivity takes away the whole "this is happening to me" sort of feeling.

In terms of SS, you're suggesting we omit fundamental character motivations because you personally dislike romance.

Originally Posted by Me, in a PM to Claus

You missed the point. When there is a decision to be made by the developer regarding any [plot element that is secondary to the adventure (the meat of any adventure game)], the choices are "allow player to bypass minor plot element" and "force player to play through plot element", where the latter is inherently detrimental to the game experience of players who happen to not like this particular minor plot element.

The fact that the developer wants to tell a story is completely irrelevant. The story is still being told.

What is being omitted? I'm suggesting that the player be given a choice about whether to "activate" certain side character interactions that are secondary to the adventure for which he bought the game.

But I'm looking at the game on its own.

And the thread deals with the future of the series.

If we want to look at the series as a whole, then it seems that the series is only going to go toward each game having more of these kinds of cutscenes.

Perhaps.

To fix this particular problem, it doesn't need to be an open-world role-playing game. Heck, I for one don't want to be bogged down with heaps upon heaps of dialogue options. At the very least, this is a plot element that could really benefit from being optional.

The very nature of interactivity in a videogame means that any story that occurs is occuring to you (the player). The difference between movies and games is that I'm not a spectator in the latter. Interactivity grants me influence over the events that transpire, and if that influence turns out to be largely meaningless then the addition of interactivity in the game loses meaning.

I'm more tolerant of romance elements in movies because I'm merely a spectator. The lack of interactivity takes away the whole "this is happening to me" sort of feeling.

Not really. We're talking about removing a single element in the structure of the dictated game as a whole. If you want to promote some form of completely open ended type of game, that's fine, but that's a different topic really. But to say you want to remove romance simply because you don't like it seems a tad childish.

You missed the point. When there is a decision to be made by the developer regarding any [plot element that is secondary to the adventure (the meat of any adventure game)], the choices are "allow player to bypass minor plot element" and "force player to play through plot element", where the latter is inherently detrimental to the game experience of players who happen to not like this particular minor plot element.

The fact that the developer wants to tell a story is completely irrelevant. The story is still being told.

No, part of the story is being told. And in fact, what the developer wants is ultimately the relevant point. If they make and game and tell a story with it, that's their call, not your's. Of course, we don't exist in a vacuum. You can react by stopping your purchasing of the franchise, but whether they continue or remove the element despite that is a choice that's up to them.

What is being omitted?

Originally Posted by Great White North

fundamental character motivations

I'm suggesting that the player be given a choice about whether to "activate" certain side character interactions that are secondary to the adventure for which he bought the game.

All that requires is the ability to skip cut-scenes. It's kind of absurd to suggest that despite the developer having a very set purpose in making the game and presenting the plot as they did, they ought to shake up the plot in optional non-canonical ways to satisfy the shippers.

Further, saying that the game was bought solely for the adventure is only true when we include plot elements. One of the major selling points and lauded characteristics of the Zelda franchise is its detailed and expansive story and history.

I think optional would be a good way to go because it would make the player feel more involved. basically they could do what they did in SS and imply the romance, and then if the player chooses certain options the romance becomes expressly stated. This wouldn't affect the ability to tell the story, it gives people who don't like ZeLink and out and it allows those who do like ZeLink to feel more connected to the story

^Indeed. That's very much tied in with what I'm saying, except expressed in a clearer way . When you have greater control (or, well, any control at all) over events in a videogame (especially those events that happen to your character), then that experience becomes more personal.

Originally Posted by Great White North

And the thread deals with the future of the series.

"Should Nintendo make a game with a romantic relationship...?"

If you want, you can apply everything I'm saying to all of the hypothetical future Zelda games.

Not really. We're talking about removing a single element in the structure of the dictated game as a whole. If you want to promote some form of completely open ended type of game, that's fine, but that's a different topic really. But to say you want to remove romance simply because you don't like it seems a tad childish.

Originally Posted by Great White North

fundamental character motivations

Think about what you're saying here in response to what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that Nintendo re-write what's already been written in the plot. I'm not suggesting that Nintendo remove anything. I'm saying that it would be inherently beneficial for players to have a choice as to whether they want to engage in particular character interactions that are secondary to the main adventure structure (e.g. the entire relationship thingie between Link and Zelda in SS). More specifically, I'm asking for the choice to "opt out" of these interactions (without needing to skip cutscenes, which makes the progression of the plot feel fragmented - no gamer should have a subpar experience simply because he didn't like a particular element).

I'm also saying that such a move would not require any significant effort on the part of the Zelda team, given the effort that's already gone into the game. I'm saying that the refusal to implement a relatively minor set of changes for the sake of forcing their own "vision" on players, when these minor changes to the programming would make a significant difference to the player's experience, is anti-gamer.

No, part of the story is being told. And in fact, what the developer wants is ultimately the relevant point. If they make and game and tell a story with it, that's their call, not your's. Of course, we don't exist in a vacuum. You can react by stopping your purchasing of the franchise, but whether they continue or remove the element despite that is a choice that's up to them.

Whether or not it's "up to them" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm saying that a certain set of decisions made by the Zelda team regarding romance and choice might turn out to be inherently detrimental to the gamers' experience with the game(s) overall.

Further, saying that the game was bought solely for the adventure is only true when we include plot elements. One of the major selling points and lauded characteristics of the Zelda franchise is its detailed and expansive story and history.

Not "solely", but "primarily".

What I was getting at was that the word "adventure" implied a sense of "exploration" which itself implied a sense of "freedom". Taking away that freedom is not conducive to creating the feeling of "adventure".

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I think optional would be a good way to go because it would make the player feel more involved. basically they could do what they did in SS and imply the romance, and then if the player chooses certain options the romance becomes expressly stated. This wouldn't affect the ability to tell the story, it gives people who don't like ZeLink and out and it allows those who do like ZeLink to feel more connected to the story

I agree. I think they should add a ZeLink romance but as an option. Its only fair for the people who dislike romances or want to see other relationships with Link in future Zelda games.

Think about what you're saying here in response to what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that Nintendo re-write what's already been written in the plot. I'm not suggesting that Nintendo remove anything. I'm saying that it would be inherently beneficial for players to have a choice as to whether they want to engage in particular character interactions that are secondary to the main adventure structure (e.g. the entire relationship thingie between Link and Zelda in SS). More specifically, I'm asking for the choice to "opt out" of these interactions (without needing to skip cutscenes, which makes the progression of the plot feel fragmented - no gamer should have a subpar experience simply because he didn't like a particular element).

I said it in the PM, but since it's being discussed here, I'll say it again -

The relationship between Link and Zelda is entirely crucial to the game. Link does not go to the surface into order to save the world. That comes later. He goes to the surface to find his friend. The entirety of the first part of the game (in Skyloft, Wing Ceremony) serves to present and solidify their relationship, and serves as Link's absolute primary motivation for his adventure.

It would require much more than some "minor efforts" to keep the same plot while nixing Link and Zelda's relationship. That is, if they wanted it to still be effective, and not like TP's "oh hey I guess I might as well just go save this kingdom I have nothing to do with."

Again, we already have an optional relationship with Peatrice D:

Originally Posted by Claus

The relationship between Link and Zelda is entirely crucial to the game. Link does not go to the surface into order to save the world. That comes later. He goes to the surface to find his friend. The entirety of the first part of the game (in Skyloft, Wing Ceremony) serves to present and solidify their relationship, and serves as Link's absolute primary motivation for his adventure.

It would require much more than some "minor efforts" to keep the same plot while nixing Link and Zelda's relationship. That is, if they wanted it to still be effective, and not like TP's "oh hey I guess I might as well just go save this kingdom I have nothing to do with."

Yes. Going to save Zelda is what started Link on his adventure. It has been since the start of the series. But it's entirely up to the player whether having the ability to forego "ZeLink" (i.e. the relationship) in SS would have killed the "story motivation" (as you put it).

Again, we already have an optional relationship with Peatrice D:

"You don't like your brussels sprouts? Here, let me give you the option of ALSO eating broccoli with your brussels sprouts. "

We almost got this out of the failed amalgamation that was Skyward Sword, and obviously fans are heavily attracted to ZeLink, so why not? It would be seen as Nintendo actually caring about their characters, though I can immediately see how shippers of other fandoms would be pretty...pretty ticked off. I support a game that showcases ZeLink.

I haven't read any of the thread except the first three posts, but perhaps the problem of not everyone wanting the Zelink pair or even to pair up Link could be fixed by doing it Harvest Moon-style. That way, people who are dead set on Link being with a certain character are motivated to make it happen, and those who'd rather not won't bother with it, and their gaming experience will go on as normal.

I personally think they should leave it out. Not that i don't enjoy my fair amount of mushy gushy but you're trying to save the world not find a mate. If they want to hint or imply it ok as long as it doesn't mess with my sword swinging.

Originally Posted by NotAllThatEvil

I personally think they should leave it out. Not that i don't enjoy my fair amount of mushy gushy but you're trying to save the world not find a mate. If they want to hint or imply it ok as long as it doesn't mess with my sword swinging.

Technically speaking, "trying to save the world" is what a romance is all about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(heroic_literature)

So in a way, the formula is incomplete without the "mushy gushy" element.

I ship Link and Malon. They need to bring Malon back in another game or all hell will break loose.

Yes,for the love of Din,let's see that actually.
Fans are being asking for that for over 20 years.
Mario always gets kisses and hugs from Peach,why poor Link is a forever alone guy ?
It would be interesting to see Link getting more personal motivation for doing whatever he has to do.

Originally Posted by Alithinos

Yes,for the love of Din,let's see that actually.
Fans are being asking for that for over 20 years.
Mario always gets kisses and hugs from Peach,why poor Link is a forever alone guy ?
It would be interesting to see Link getting more personal motivation for doing whatever he has to do.

That's what SS is for.

Originally Posted by Alithinos

And I really liked that on SS.

As did I!
But shouldn't his motivation be something other than Zelda next time?

Originally Posted by Super Dude

I haven't read any of the thread except the first three posts, but perhaps the problem of not everyone wanting the Zelink pair or even to pair up Link could be fixed by doing it Harvest Moon-style. That way, people who are dead set on Link being with a certain character are motivated to make it happen, and those who'd rather not won't bother with it, and their gaming experience will go on as normal.

I was going to suggest this myself. A relationship system in Zelda sounds like a fantastic idea, and one of several ways Nintendo can make Link feel like your own character instead of one that's decided for you. Aside from Zelda, I'd at the very least like to see the equivalents of Malon and Ruto as well as a Gerudo among the options available. And to add even more variety, why not a selection of candidates from each tribe? With Zelda and Malon you already have at least two Hylian females. Why not at least two Zoras and Gerudo as well? To make the subplot more worthwhile you earn a Piece of Heart upon its completion, that way it's still a true blue Zelda sidequest.

I'm thinking the quest involves a particular location or event in the central city of the game, some couples' restaurant or dance hall perhaps. This location/event is where the subplot resolves regardless of who you choose. But the sidequests and events building up to the big moment vary based on your choice; a number of other sidequests in the game boost your relationship with particular characters, any or all of which you can complete at your discretion.

I also like the idea of a partner system of sorts in Zelda, basically consisting of a character who accompanies you on your adventure and assists you in battle and when solving puzzles. This can double as a means of "dating" your intended partner by bringing her along on your travels frequently. The better you treat her, the more likely she is to warm up to you. Giving her a gift at some point also seems like a good flag for progressing the relationship.

This all can be worked into the game so it doesn't disrupt the natural flow. Remember how Link helped Romani protect the ranch from alien ghosts or escorted Cremia to Clock Town? Those kinds of things would be prime for a relationship system.

And the story doesn't have to end in a full-blown marriage. The game can end with Link still merely dating the female in question, which might be more interesting; once the bad guy's beat and the kingdom is saved, Link embarks on another adventure with his lady friend, perhaps to see the world. That ends the story on a more dynamic note, showing our hero's adventures are far from over.

I think that Skyward Sword did a decent enough job of Link+Zelda. I don't think we need anything more serious really.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I havent actually played skyward sword so I can't judge its affect on the game but the videos and descriptions I have seen online seem like they fit the game well, but at the same time if the come right out and say it, it would ruin the mystery or the... I don't know how to put it but it would take something away from the game. If nintendo did it well it might not be a problem though

I like how SS did their relationship. The love was there, but is was just subtle enough that it's cute and hinted at, but not totally telling you straight out and turning it into a romantic game.