Having long been taboo in the Zelda community, and lately having increased debate and division among fans, Link's voice (or lack thereof) is a touchy subject for most people, branching off especially into more extensive debates concerning Link as a character overall.
Here, however, I'd like to simply make an argument for Link having a speaking role in a future game-- that is, a far more expansive one than the brief statements he was issued in Skyward Sword, perhaps allowing him to hold conversation naturally. Though, let's be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating for this; in fact, I'm not too sure of this idea myself-- I'd simply like to gather other's opinions on the matter.
Of course, the official argument against a voice for Link, one backed by Aonuma himself, is that Link is essentially a link to the player; that the player's emotions are to be represented through Link, and that giving Link a speaking role would interfere with such a philosophy.
But let's get something straight: to say that the player's emotions have been represented through Link in any Zelda game is simply untrue, mainly for two, intertwined, reasons:
Firstly, speech is simply another means of expression; seeing as it's expression by Link Aonuma's trying to avoid, he should therefore be censoring any means of expression by Link, including facial and bodily expressions-- but he doesn't, and therefore Link already has his own, independent emotions and expression. What difference is there in simply speaking these emotions instead of expressing them physically? Less awkward pauses and absent dialogue in cutscenes?
But, of course, it's not the same, right? You're still allowed to input your own emotions in for Link, write? But that's just the thing: you can't.
When Zelda seals herself inside the crystal in SS, you're supposed to feel sad; when Midna is killed by Ganondorf in TP, you're supposed to feel angry; when Zelda is kidnapped in OoT, you're supposed to feel shocked, even panicked. The game is written to elicit these particular emotions from you; that despair, that rage, that panic isn't your emotion, it's the emotion the game is telling you to feel because Link feels it. You think you're instilling your emotions into Link, but he's instilling his emotions into you.
Given these tow points, I think it would make no difference, tangible or intangible, whether Link spoke or not. To those of you who have played Fire Emblem: Awakening, the Avatar functioned precisely as Link might, were he to speak. (S)He's quite plain, and although (s)he does have certain distinguishable characteristics (much like Link), his/her emotions are generally expressed through reactions, as they are in Zelda, and therefore the player can still relate to him/her and feel their emotions represented in him/her, as the script is written in such a way that both the player and the Avatar elicit the same responses, despite the Avatar's speaking role.
Anyway, just some food for thought. Once again, I'm not necessarily advocating this, but I'd like to see what others think of these points.
Here, however, I'd like to simply make an argument for Link having a speaking role in a future game-- that is, a far more expansive one than the brief statements he was issued in Skyward Sword, perhaps allowing him to hold conversation naturally. Though, let's be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating for this; in fact, I'm not too sure of this idea myself-- I'd simply like to gather other's opinions on the matter.
Of course, the official argument against a voice for Link, one backed by Aonuma himself, is that Link is essentially a link to the player; that the player's emotions are to be represented through Link, and that giving Link a speaking role would interfere with such a philosophy.
But let's get something straight: to say that the player's emotions have been represented through Link in any Zelda game is simply untrue, mainly for two, intertwined, reasons:
Firstly, speech is simply another means of expression; seeing as it's expression by Link Aonuma's trying to avoid, he should therefore be censoring any means of expression by Link, including facial and bodily expressions-- but he doesn't, and therefore Link already has his own, independent emotions and expression. What difference is there in simply speaking these emotions instead of expressing them physically? Less awkward pauses and absent dialogue in cutscenes?
But, of course, it's not the same, right? You're still allowed to input your own emotions in for Link, write? But that's just the thing: you can't.
When Zelda seals herself inside the crystal in SS, you're supposed to feel sad; when Midna is killed by Ganondorf in TP, you're supposed to feel angry; when Zelda is kidnapped in OoT, you're supposed to feel shocked, even panicked. The game is written to elicit these particular emotions from you; that despair, that rage, that panic isn't your emotion, it's the emotion the game is telling you to feel because Link feels it. You think you're instilling your emotions into Link, but he's instilling his emotions into you.
Given these tow points, I think it would make no difference, tangible or intangible, whether Link spoke or not. To those of you who have played Fire Emblem: Awakening, the Avatar functioned precisely as Link might, were he to speak. (S)He's quite plain, and although (s)he does have certain distinguishable characteristics (much like Link), his/her emotions are generally expressed through reactions, as they are in Zelda, and therefore the player can still relate to him/her and feel their emotions represented in him/her, as the script is written in such a way that both the player and the Avatar elicit the same responses, despite the Avatar's speaking role.
Anyway, just some food for thought. Once again, I'm not necessarily advocating this, but I'd like to see what others think of these points.
Last edited: