The Lurkdragon's Lair

Fifty percent animals, fifty percent fandom, one-hundred percent nerd.

Posts tagged legend of zelda

372 notes

bluechirri:

little zelda headcanon time

the goddesses and their closest creations communicate with each other not in spoken language, but through light and motion and melody

that’s why when Fi translates Hylia’s messages to Link in Skyward Sword, she dances - she’s actually “speaking” in this ancient divine form of communication and verbally relaying what it means to Link as she does so

and it’s why music is such a keystone of the games and why when characters say they’re praying what they often mean is they’re playing an instrument or singing, because making music is the closest mortals can come to speaking in the divine language

when Link learns a certain song needed to reach a particular area or some such thing, he’s learning the “password” to accomplish this task

objects like the Wind Waker and the Ocarina of Time that use music as magic can tap into the power of the gods by “speaking” to the world around them and “asking” nature to do them a favor, and offer their mortal users just the smallest taste of the goddesses’ abilities, which is why they’re so sought after and so closely guarded by members of the royal family

…yeah

(via ryttu3k)

Filed under legend of zelda others' headcanon music magic headcanon accepted queue

413 notes

ryttu3k:

sinsofthesage:

ryttu3k:

xelestial:

ryttu3k:

Some quick photoshopping. Original image on the left, my version on the right.

Is she not allowed to show a little skin? To each his or her own I guess, but I think the original is fine. It’s practical enough with a little punch of femininity. Unless there’s something else I’m missing. To add more clothes gives up some of the whimsical look they seemed to be going for.

If she was just a princess sitting around in the castle? Yeah, it’d be fine. But Zelda is an active combatant in this. The miniskirt-and-thigh-high combination is basically unnecessary, so I gave the poor girl some actual leggings - the shape of the dress itself isn’t bad, it allows free movement, but you don’t want her legs to be too exposed.
As for the upper body, she basically has boob cutouts. The purple corset thing looks to be pretty sturdy, might have some boning in there, and would be good extra protection for her stomach, but that leaves the upper part of her chest, throat, and arms completely exposed. The armour dips down pretty low on the sides in the original, you see? So an arrow or blade would be able to puncture her lung or even her heart, both from the side under her arm, and above the breast cup (also not a good idea, actually, since any blunt force will drive the edge straight into her sternum).
Now, granted, fabric isn’t going to protect her completely, but it DOES act as a slight protection, and more to the point, it doesn’t wave a big flashing sign that says HEY LOOK AT ME I’M A VULNERABLE POINT. Plus, it serves as another barrier just for environmental concerns - we’ve already seen a lava stage, there’s probably going to be a lot of arduous elements to deal with, and you don’t really want bare skin there.
I mean, weird miniskirt-and-thigh-highs thing aside, she’s not showing any more skin than in, say, Twilight Princess, and I have zero problems with that costume. I think her costume is really pretty, and is suitable for a character that mostly just sits around quietly, or at least attacks from a great distance. But when she’s being an active melee combatant, you need a little more protection.
(I also personally think it’d be more practical if her hair was in a braid that was wrapped around her head, since, as it stands, it could be easily grabbed (or hell, she could whack HERSELF in the face if she spins around too fast!), but that’s beyond my ability to photoshop, heh.)
Why does adding more clothes mean it’s less ‘whimsical’? I don’t see people saying that Link’s costume isn’t fitting, and literally all we can see of his skin are his fingers, throat, and face!

As a game designer in training in only a few years it will be me behind the lines designing characters for games, and I’m afraid to make a mistake that might offend people. Offending people, realistically, will always be a thing, but I don’t want to alienate masses of people either if I can help it.
I think both designs are fantastic in my honest opinion, and though I did grow up in the ages where scantily clad women was always (and I mean always) the normal and seeing the stomach and tops of boobs and thighs has gotten boring, I still rather like it. Not from a sexual appeal stand point, it’s just, a girl showing a bit of skin is not a bad thing, or a guy for that matter. Specially in a design like Zeldas up there on the right. She’s not in any showing skin for the sake of it, not like I expect there to be epic boob jiggle in the game or anything… although it is Team Ninja… but regardless I don’t think that designs bad at all. In fact I think it’s a fantastic and refreshing take on Zelda we have not had before.
This being said your edit on the right OP is awesome too. More coverage gives us designers more to work with. More chances for decorating and a better ability to incorporate culture into a character. More covered, as you also mentioned above, is logical from a fighting stand point.
But, being too logical is really stunting too. In design for the arts, and in real life. Restrictions on what an artist is allowed to design a character in, should we really impose restrictions?
I really do enjoy this idea the fandom is implementing that more coverage is needed, specifically for certain characters, but it shouldn’t be such a thing for every character. Some characters should still be allowed to bear a little here to there, have long hair flowing in the wind, face uncovered by a helmet, whatever they want; other wise we’ll find every one covered from the neck down.
So I just want to ask because being a game artist is a dream of mine, but I’m also a gamer and a fandom community member and I really want to know where everyone thinks we should draw the line? Which restrictions should I impose upon myself in future designs to not offend the female gamers out there? And I’m being completely serious here, what’s okay and what’s not? Can I ever have a character expose some skin, and if so how much? And if it’s the villain is it okay? Or only heroine? What’s the safe area now?
Please someone serious answer me cause I’m trying in honest to impose some serious questions here. And if I’m not understanding then please help me too because I’m a guy and while I think I get it, maybe I don’t I don’t know for sure.

Hey there, thanks for a really well-thought-out reply!
So, you asked where you draw the line between logic and design, and my honest opinion is that you don’t have to draw the line - logical design can be gorgeous. My edit is fundamentally no different from the one on the left, aside from the coverage. It still has what I think are the standout features of the design - the armour (aside from the danger that armour like that would pose, since it’d press into her sternum - a smoother profile without moulded cups would help reduce that), the split dress, and the crown. The colours are the same (and I actually think having her arms covered in the dark fabric makes the pink under the shoulder armour pop out more), the detailing is the same.
The big question you should be asking isn’t, “Where do you have to be logical, which characters can you loosen up on?”, it’s, “What is logical for this individual character?” Every character will (or should!) have their own unique role in a game, so their costuming should be tailored for that role. If Zelda had the same position as some of her predecesors, in that they were less active, her outfit would be fine. However, she’s going to be out there in the middle of melee combat, and so you have to ask what works for both the character, taking into account their position and role in the story (Zelda and Impa are both combatants in the game, but they have very different costumes!), and what works for the role they will be playing (active fighters).
Outfits that reveal skin? Long, flowing hair? Sure, they have their places! But does it make sense for the internal logic of the world? Put yourself in that character’s shoes, and ask, “If I was this person, if I had to go do what they had to do, what would I be wearing?”
And yeah, some characters would dress for flamboyance and drama rather than logic, that’s true. But here, you do have to tread carefully, because you are making these characters up from the start. A lot of people defending Cia’s outfit are saying, “Well, she’s probably just sexually confident and isn’t ashamed of her body, so she’s more comfortable with showing her skin!” But they’re ignoring the fact that she was created by a development team, who made the conscious decision to have her almost naked. Zelda was designed by a development team, who made the conscious decision to leave skin exposed, and there is rather a lot exposed, as you can see in this screencap:

Look at how much of her torso is exposed there! It would be so easy for an enemy to sneak up behind her and stab her in the chest, or an opportunistic archer could fire at her, and at that point, it’d catch (depending on the angle and side) her lungs, heart, or spine. Not exactly places you want to be stabbed!
Zelda is supposed to be intelligent and wise. If she knew she was going out into a battlefield (and she is more armoured than usual - note the boots and greaves, chest pieces, gauntlets, pauldrons, and whatever those hip pieces are called), why would she pay so little attention to the part of her body where her internal organs are kept? I’d rather be protecting my entire torso than, say, my shins!
You asked whether there are different standards for antagonists versus protagonists, and I don’t think so. Everything needs to work to internal logic, and every character - no matter what their role - needs to have their design carefully considered.
And just before I finish up this long-winded ramble, I do want to add another point. There’s been a lot of comments, largely from men, who think that people protesting Cia or Zelda’s designs as ‘oversensitive’, and claim that male character design is often unrealistic as well. To that end, I’d like to point out that while, yes, male character designs can be unrealistic, they’re usually male power fantasies - they’re muscular, powerful, strong people who are capable of doing whatever the story depends on them doing. When female characters are designed unrealistically? They’re usually sexualised and overexaggerated - large breasts, wide hips and a narrow waist, long legs, round and prominent buttocks, long hair, revealing clothing (and revealing clothing, incidentally, can be completely covering, too - Zero Suit Samus is a good example of a character whose outfit is completely revealing and overly sexualised while still covering her skin), often contorted into various painful-looking shapes. They’re not a power fantasy for women - they’re a sex fantasy for men. Power fantasies for women do exist, but even they can be unrealistic at times! (Fem!Shep, from Mass Effect, has a thigh gap. Why does a military woman have a thigh gap?! Yes, okay, it’s to do with pelvis shape, but that’s in the real world and fem!Shep is a video game character, so why intentionally design her with something that’s meant to be sexually appealing?)
Dynasty Warriors, as a franchise, may have some pretty ridiculous character designs, but Zelda (as a general rule) does not, and the characters that do tend to show skin have that as part of their character role. Telma is a bartender, a role where she would be playing up sex appeal. The Great Fairies are magical, non-human beings, and are never in a position where their nudity would be problematic. Midna is in a similar position, and if you watch her demo in Hyrule Warriors, she’s actually mostly using wide-ranged magical attacks with her hair - she doesn’t let people get close enough to hit her. The only one who seems to be sexualised for the sake of being sexualised is Veran, who appeared as a tiny sprite in-game and thus wouldn’t exactly be displayed on a big TV screen in all her skin-bearing glory, who people have compared Cia’s design to as if that makes it okay. (It doesn’t. Both are fairly objectifying.) If you’re coming in to Hyrule Warriors as a Zelda fan, as I and a lot of others are, then yeah, those designs seem completely unnecessary.
And all this sexualisation and objectification would be iffy but ignorable if it just happened occasionally. But it happens over and over and over again, and we are thoroughly sick and tired of it.

ryttu3k:

sinsofthesage:

ryttu3k:

xelestial:

ryttu3k:

Some quick photoshopping. Original image on the left, my version on the right.

Is she not allowed to show a little skin? To each his or her own I guess, but I think the original is fine. It’s practical enough with a little punch of femininity. Unless there’s something else I’m missing. To add more clothes gives up some of the whimsical look they seemed to be going for.

If she was just a princess sitting around in the castle? Yeah, it’d be fine. But Zelda is an active combatant in this. The miniskirt-and-thigh-high combination is basically unnecessary, so I gave the poor girl some actual leggings - the shape of the dress itself isn’t bad, it allows free movement, but you don’t want her legs to be too exposed.

As for the upper body, she basically has boob cutouts. The purple corset thing looks to be pretty sturdy, might have some boning in there, and would be good extra protection for her stomach, but that leaves the upper part of her chest, throat, and arms completely exposed. The armour dips down pretty low on the sides in the original, you see? So an arrow or blade would be able to puncture her lung or even her heart, both from the side under her arm, and above the breast cup (also not a good idea, actually, since any blunt force will drive the edge straight into her sternum).

Now, granted, fabric isn’t going to protect her completely, but it DOES act as a slight protection, and more to the point, it doesn’t wave a big flashing sign that says HEY LOOK AT ME I’M A VULNERABLE POINT. Plus, it serves as another barrier just for environmental concerns - we’ve already seen a lava stage, there’s probably going to be a lot of arduous elements to deal with, and you don’t really want bare skin there.

I mean, weird miniskirt-and-thigh-highs thing aside, she’s not showing any more skin than in, say, Twilight Princess, and I have zero problems with that costume. I think her costume is really pretty, and is suitable for a character that mostly just sits around quietly, or at least attacks from a great distance. But when she’s being an active melee combatant, you need a little more protection.

(I also personally think it’d be more practical if her hair was in a braid that was wrapped around her head, since, as it stands, it could be easily grabbed (or hell, she could whack HERSELF in the face if she spins around too fast!), but that’s beyond my ability to photoshop, heh.)

Why does adding more clothes mean it’s less ‘whimsical’? I don’t see people saying that Link’s costume isn’t fitting, and literally all we can see of his skin are his fingers, throat, and face!

As a game designer in training in only a few years it will be me behind the lines designing characters for games, and I’m afraid to make a mistake that might offend people. Offending people, realistically, will always be a thing, but I don’t want to alienate masses of people either if I can help it.

I think both designs are fantastic in my honest opinion, and though I did grow up in the ages where scantily clad women was always (and I mean always) the normal and seeing the stomach and tops of boobs and thighs has gotten boring, I still rather like it. Not from a sexual appeal stand point, it’s just, a girl showing a bit of skin is not a bad thing, or a guy for that matter. Specially in a design like Zeldas up there on the right. She’s not in any showing skin for the sake of it, not like I expect there to be epic boob jiggle in the game or anything… although it is Team Ninja… but regardless I don’t think that designs bad at all. In fact I think it’s a fantastic and refreshing take on Zelda we have not had before.

This being said your edit on the right OP is awesome too. More coverage gives us designers more to work with. More chances for decorating and a better ability to incorporate culture into a character. More covered, as you also mentioned above, is logical from a fighting stand point.

But, being too logical is really stunting too. In design for the arts, and in real life. Restrictions on what an artist is allowed to design a character in, should we really impose restrictions?

I really do enjoy this idea the fandom is implementing that more coverage is needed, specifically for certain characters, but it shouldn’t be such a thing for every character. Some characters should still be allowed to bear a little here to there, have long hair flowing in the wind, face uncovered by a helmet, whatever they want; other wise we’ll find every one covered from the neck down.

So I just want to ask because being a game artist is a dream of mine, but I’m also a gamer and a fandom community member and I really want to know where everyone thinks we should draw the line? Which restrictions should I impose upon myself in future designs to not offend the female gamers out there? And I’m being completely serious here, what’s okay and what’s not? Can I ever have a character expose some skin, and if so how much? And if it’s the villain is it okay? Or only heroine? What’s the safe area now?

Please someone serious answer me cause I’m trying in honest to impose some serious questions here. And if I’m not understanding then please help me too because I’m a guy and while I think I get it, maybe I don’t I don’t know for sure.

Hey there, thanks for a really well-thought-out reply!

So, you asked where you draw the line between logic and design, and my honest opinion is that you don’t have to draw the line - logical design can be gorgeous. My edit is fundamentally no different from the one on the left, aside from the coverage. It still has what I think are the standout features of the design - the armour (aside from the danger that armour like that would pose, since it’d press into her sternum - a smoother profile without moulded cups would help reduce that), the split dress, and the crown. The colours are the same (and I actually think having her arms covered in the dark fabric makes the pink under the shoulder armour pop out more), the detailing is the same.

The big question you should be asking isn’t, “Where do you have to be logical, which characters can you loosen up on?”, it’s, “What is logical for this individual character?” Every character will (or should!) have their own unique role in a game, so their costuming should be tailored for that role. If Zelda had the same position as some of her predecesors, in that they were less active, her outfit would be fine. However, she’s going to be out there in the middle of melee combat, and so you have to ask what works for both the character, taking into account their position and role in the story (Zelda and Impa are both combatants in the game, but they have very different costumes!), and what works for the role they will be playing (active fighters).

Outfits that reveal skin? Long, flowing hair? Sure, they have their places! But does it make sense for the internal logic of the world? Put yourself in that character’s shoes, and ask, “If I was this person, if I had to go do what they had to do, what would I be wearing?”

And yeah, some characters would dress for flamboyance and drama rather than logic, that’s true. But here, you do have to tread carefully, because you are making these characters up from the start. A lot of people defending Cia’s outfit are saying, “Well, she’s probably just sexually confident and isn’t ashamed of her body, so she’s more comfortable with showing her skin!” But they’re ignoring the fact that she was created by a development team, who made the conscious decision to have her almost naked. Zelda was designed by a development team, who made the conscious decision to leave skin exposed, and there is rather a lot exposed, as you can see in this screencap:

Look at how much of her torso is exposed there! It would be so easy for an enemy to sneak up behind her and stab her in the chest, or an opportunistic archer could fire at her, and at that point, it’d catch (depending on the angle and side) her lungs, heart, or spine. Not exactly places you want to be stabbed!

Zelda is supposed to be intelligent and wise. If she knew she was going out into a battlefield (and she is more armoured than usual - note the boots and greaves, chest pieces, gauntlets, pauldrons, and whatever those hip pieces are called), why would she pay so little attention to the part of her body where her internal organs are kept? I’d rather be protecting my entire torso than, say, my shins!

You asked whether there are different standards for antagonists versus protagonists, and I don’t think so. Everything needs to work to internal logic, and every character - no matter what their role - needs to have their design carefully considered.

And just before I finish up this long-winded ramble, I do want to add another point. There’s been a lot of comments, largely from men, who think that people protesting Cia or Zelda’s designs as ‘oversensitive’, and claim that male character design is often unrealistic as well. To that end, I’d like to point out that while, yes, male character designs can be unrealistic, they’re usually male power fantasies - they’re muscular, powerful, strong people who are capable of doing whatever the story depends on them doing. When female characters are designed unrealistically? They’re usually sexualised and overexaggerated - large breasts, wide hips and a narrow waist, long legs, round and prominent buttocks, long hair, revealing clothing (and revealing clothing, incidentally, can be completely covering, too - Zero Suit Samus is a good example of a character whose outfit is completely revealing and overly sexualised while still covering her skin), often contorted into various painful-looking shapes. They’re not a power fantasy for women - they’re a sex fantasy for men. Power fantasies for women do exist, but even they can be unrealistic at times! (Fem!Shep, from Mass Effect, has a thigh gap. Why does a military woman have a thigh gap?! Yes, okay, it’s to do with pelvis shape, but that’s in the real world and fem!Shep is a video game character, so why intentionally design her with something that’s meant to be sexually appealing?)

Dynasty Warriors, as a franchise, may have some pretty ridiculous character designs, but Zelda (as a general rule) does not, and the characters that do tend to show skin have that as part of their character role. Telma is a bartender, a role where she would be playing up sex appeal. The Great Fairies are magical, non-human beings, and are never in a position where their nudity would be problematic. Midna is in a similar position, and if you watch her demo in Hyrule Warriors, she’s actually mostly using wide-ranged magical attacks with her hair - she doesn’t let people get close enough to hit her. The only one who seems to be sexualised for the sake of being sexualised is Veran, who appeared as a tiny sprite in-game and thus wouldn’t exactly be displayed on a big TV screen in all her skin-bearing glory, who people have compared Cia’s design to as if that makes it okay. (It doesn’t. Both are fairly objectifying.) If you’re coming in to Hyrule Warriors as a Zelda fan, as I and a lot of others are, then yeah, those designs seem completely unnecessary.

And all this sexualisation and objectification would be iffy but ignorable if it just happened occasionally. But it happens over and over and over again, and we are thoroughly sick and tired of it.

Filed under long posts rock on feminism legend of zelda hyrule warriors queue

9 notes

musings on the trailer.

ryttu3k:

sheikofthesheikah:

cant speculate on the gender of the character in the new trailer, but thems definitely some curved hips going on there, lil bit more feminine than Link is normally portrayed. he’s typically androgynous but with masculine features like shoulder hip ratios of a dorito and sharper facial features. 

this character has a curvier, less angular figure and their face is softer. 

couple that with the wind waker nod clothes and the strangely gerudo patterned arm guards and it’s a giant mindfuck of MANY HINTS IN ONE SPOT BUT NOT ENOUGH TIME TO ANALYSE IT PROPERLY.

sibling? my bet is sibling. 

could be zelda on the run? 

it’s funny watching the ZI forums explode because all the fanboys are like SIDEBURNS + NO BOOBS MEANS NOT GIRL. clearly.

theres also speculation that it’s a kid of link and zelda’s, but i’m blowing that one off. nintendo wouldn’t cement a pairing like that after letting it stay ambiguous for so long. 

i’m positive that the character is not Link, after staring at it for so long. but they seem to be related to him some how. this character shares some features typical of Link as well, but not enough to convince me it’s him, especially after aonuma’s mad teaser drop. 

theory:

sibling of Link’s, set after the wind waker timeline. possibly post-spirit tracks, since there is all that extra advanced tech that seams a bit steampunk. patterning on his arm guards is either a nod to gerudo, a clue that the gerudo tribe is involved somehow, or a red herring. 

I’m thinking sibling is the most likely at this stage (AND OH GOSH I WOULD LOVE POST-SPIRIT TRACKS), but it still could be a ruse and they are Link, there’s just some misdirection going on - I’m loving a theory I’ve seen that says that he was raised by the Gerudo and isn’t aware of his real name and identity as Link, the Chosen Hero.

As for appearance, honestly, I’d love an androgynous Link, heh. Or a female Link. I would be SO okay with that. …I mostly just want to watch ZI work itself into a collective froth over the sheer idea, really.

Filed under long posts legend of zelda zelda wii u

491 notes

ryttu3k:

ferisae:

The following comes from Mr. Aonuma when he was asked why Link looked so different in the debut Legend of Zelda Wii U trailer.

“No one explicitly said that that was Link.”

http://www.gonintendo.com/s/230420-aonuma-says-we-didn-t-necessarily-see-link-in-the-legend-of-zelda-wii-u-trailer

OOOOOH FUCKING SNAAAAAAAAAAP. (it kinda confirms some wierd feelings I was getting about  “Link”) BUT OOOH SNAAAP. Can it be that this time Link.. IS ZELDA? or maybe a sibling? A RELATIVE?  A NEW HERO/HEROINE? A GOAT IN THE FORM OF A HYL-… okay that’s it. COLOR ME INTRIGUED, I WANT MORE.

:o

Filed under huh zelda wii u legend of zelda