Is Mario a Better Link Between Game and Player Than Link?

[Spirit]

Nintendo have always said that Link in Zelda is the player's window into the world of Hyrule (wherever the game decides to be set). Link has no real background and no real personality other than 'brave lad who blindly follows orders of strict good-hearted people', this has always been on purpose ever since the series began and no other character in nintendo's vessel of flagship titles has dared to make the same claim that Link does.

But, are any other flagship characters a better window into their world than Link is to his own?
Take Mario for example. He has very little background and nothing really canonical worth a damn between game to game, he is a blanker canvass than Link. Mario games aren't too story based or very deep, and while Zelda can't tell a coherent narrative without inconstancies, plot holes and paradoxes Zelda games still give exposition and somewhat give/craft a personality for Link by the game's end. This doesn't happen with Mario, all he does is run around after kidnapped women in pink dresses with squeaky voices who promise him cake.

I guess this is an argument of what makes a character a window into the world, and you can tackle that notion if you want.
But as a start, is Mario more of a window than Link? Is it time Nintendo put the window on the world spotlight onto another character and finally flesh Link out and make him unique rather than semi-blank?

 

[Ventus]

I actually would make the argument that both characters fail at being an effective Link between the player and the game. Mario is and always has been a distinct character. Show a picture of the Big M to a random passerby, and everyone will say "hey, that's Mario!", showing that they recognize the character and not the avatar. Link, ever since...well I'd say his inception, but I'll say The Wind Waker, has consistently failed at being a surrogate betweent he player and the game. Everyone ingame recognizes Link as a character, and you could show a picture of Link to a random passerby and they'd say "hey, that's Link!" but not "hey, that's me!" .

What makes Link a link between player and game? I could go into details, but I'll say just a blank slate. Link doesn't have one of those in modern Zelda, though, and Mario never really did.

 

[JuicieJ]

Even when I played Zelda for the first time, I felt a pretty strong connection to the land of Hyrule, although I couldn't figure out why at the time. I later came to realize it was due to Link, and this is before I knew that he was designed to be a "link between the player and the game". I've never felt connected to a Mario game's world. I'll let you decide my answer based on what I've just said.

 

[Burning Beast]

Freak no! I think that Link has a bigger personality than a lot of people give him credit for, Link I would say matches my personality pretty good. So for me he's a better Link.

 

[Zorth]

I find them about the same and I also hope for Nintendo to make Link a complete blank or either unique. I really hate for them to keep him in that semi area where he kind of has a little story & emotion to him and at the same time doesn't have anything, just makes him a bad character and bad blank.

I could probably say the same for Mario however I don't find the story to be as of great importance in the Mario games, it's more about the gameplay so leaving him as a semi-blank doesn't really have that much impact.

 

[A Link In Time]

No. Mario is definitely a more commercially prone character with his chubby Italian plumber appeal and successful platformers leading to a slew of spin offs be it sports or kart racing but Link is without a doubt the deeper, more believable character.

I'm not a fan of recent topics stating that Link is a hollow avatar because I've emotionally connected with his difficulties before and find him to be a very dynamic persona. Yes, Nintendo needs to further iron this out but player choice in Zelda is more influential than at least 70% of other videogames and formidable among the triple AAA crowd. Link is a "tabula rasa" or blank slate who's developed through character actions, the sidequests completed or skipped and the dungeons completed.

What I'd like to see next is a more thoughtful choice system implemented in future installments. Nintendo should take note from Bioware's Mass Effect in crafting a more cohesive experience. Running an errand or neglecting to do so, slaying an enemy or sparing his life, assisting the street side beggar or leaving him to rot should all have consequences later in the adventure.

 

[nsanesk8er16]

i honestly think that in this modern day of gaming that neither character fits the description but mario even less than link. first of all mario has been shown talking, maybe not dialogue per-say but either at the end of a level or the end of the game and is given a voice. second i would say mario is more of a mascot than an avatar. now lets move on to link, yes back in the original nes and snes games i guess he could be considered a link between the game world and real world, however since then there have been other silent protagonists within games such as crono from chrono trigger which would arguably make them the same as link. i would say that in modern gaming the closest thing we have to a connection between the player and game world are games such as skyrim and the other elder scrolls games, world of warcraft, diablo, and so on because those games allow you to create your own character and build them as you see fit as well as allowing you to freely explore their worlds.

 

[MW7]

I guess the way I interpret "link between the player and game" would lead me to say that Mario is a better link than Link, or at least that Link was clearly a better link back in the day than he is now. Back on the NES Link had no characterization at all and you could name him after yourself- he was you. Also with how nonlinear and unstructured the original game was you were really creating your own adventure however you saw fit. Now with the ever increasing emphasis on story and structure Link is no longer a flat character, and the games play out more like movies in that several decisions that were up to you in the original game are now decided for you. There's not as much variation between my playthrough and the playthrough of another player as there was with the original game. 3d Mario games are arguably more nonlinear than Zelda games at this point in terms of the main sequence of the games (although considering the massive emphasis on side content in Zelda games negates this entirely), and Mario's characterization is definitely not nearly as developed as Link's at this point. I guess it's that I'm interpreting "link between the game and player" as being a blank substitute for the player in the game's world rather than another character existing in the world that the player happens to control. I feel that Link has shifted from the former to the latter. Not that it's really a bad thing anyway if you feel like the story of Zelda games is important or you like Link being fleshed out. I personally don't really care either way on this- Link being a blank slate to immerse me in the game was never too important to me, and Link receiving characterization doesn't do much for me either.

 

[Hero of Time]

I don't think Mario and Link are good links between the player and the game. As Zorth said before, the main problem with both is that they seem to hover around the border of being round characters with unique personalities and backstories and being flat characters whose characteristics are fabricated by the player, and they rarely cross into either territory. In my opinion, Nintendo needs to commit; they should either make them diverse characters with fully developed personas or very vague characters with little to them in a way that allows the player to connect.

But to answer the question, I'd say Link is a better connection between the player and the game, but some recent renditions of him like in The Wind Waker and Skyward Sword are too unique for me and probably most others to see him as a "link" to the game.

 

[DarkestLink]

Nah. Link is someone I can easily put myself into their shoes. Mario is like freaking Jesus Christ. Perfect and selfless in every conceivable way.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

No. While Link is not a blank slate like Mario is, what traits he does have allows me to relate to him and connect to the world at large.

Perhaps I enjoy characters that others describe as "semi-blank" best. Blank characters are just that, blank. I can't tell you with any certainty what Mario's characteristics are; I know that he's an Italian plumber who saves princesses and goes on wacky adventures, but that's it. They have no real character to themselves and so I feel disconnected from them. And with fully fleshed-out characters they are totally their own characters, nothing I do has any effect on their characteristic. Nathan Drake will always be a smug d-bag no matter what I do, and I cannot relate to that in any way. When the protagonist in a game is already fully fleshed-out, I can't see myself through their eyes, I'm just a silent observer. (Mind you, I still find Nathan Drake very intriguing as a character and from a purely observer viewpoint it's interesting to see his personality play a part in how he makes his decisions; it's just hard for me to feel connected to him personally)

With Link, I can tell that he's a valiant young lad who thinks of others and puts himself in harm's way to protect those he cares about, but is not above being lazy and shirking off some responsibilities. He can also act rashly at times, letting his emotions overrule his rationale and putting himself in needless danger. He is driven by the goal to ensure the safety of those he cares about or to find those people and rescue them from harm; it's why he does everything that he does. These types of characteristics, while being more vague than that of fully fleshed-out characters, are enough to put me in the mindset of the characters and act out as them in their world, and as such I think more highly of them than I do of blank slates and full characters alike. They do have their own personality, but I can still act through them and not feel disconnected from their actions.

 

[Castle]

Yeah, neither character is the tabula rasa blank slate that players are supposed to project themselves on to... for reasons given.

To me the only video games that have ever done the "put the player in the game" thing right is Cyan World's Myst series of adventure puzzle games. Not counting their URU online spinoff where players had a quite limited character creator to make something that might remotely resemble them, the core Myst series is presented from a first person perspective. Players never saw themselves and the characters never assumed anything about the player. When characters referred to the player it was often as "my friend" or "stranger". There was never any mention made of gender, race, age... never any discernible attribute that would ever suggest the player was anything other than his/herself.

This is why I think Gordon Freeman's purpose as the tabula rasa is failed. Gordon has a name. He has a beard. He is a middle aged white man. I am not middle aged nor do I have much of a beard. And my name is neither Gordon or Freeman. I am not this character.

Obviously the Myst approach does not work for Zelda, being the third person action game that it is. If I am to see my character I prefer it to have a distinct personality.