By that logic it also makes no sense that all Links have blonde hair (since Zelda III?), long sideburns, is a white boy, and wears a green tunic with a little hat (what are those really called anyways and who wears those besides Link?). Are they all of the same line? All related?
It doesn't really make sense as a whole story, what with the BS timeline and numerous renditions of the same characters and same locations. I wouldn't take anything as gospel, the whole series follows videogame logic through and through. So in that case maybe you're right about his ACTUAL name and how Miyamoto initially named him, but the characters name stuck/became Link pretty darn quickly.
So in that case maybe you're right about his ACTUAL name and how Miyamoto initially named him, but the characters name stuck/became Link pretty darn quickly.
I think you got it backwards, to me it seems more clear that in early Zelda games he was Link (and even got games named after him) but in more recent times Nintendo has increasingly gone with the more representative route (without explicitly stating this as canon or anything like that.) I vaguely remember some recent interview with Miyamoto where he describes Link as an avatar for the player? Something like that.
One thing for sure though, you will never see a new Zelda game (in the mainline series anyway) where the story/lore says anything like "and then a hero named Link came and battled the evil". He's always going to be an unnamed hero (or "the hero of time" etc.) in the lore, and I really think that has a lot to do with the idea that he doesn't have a clearly defined name, at least not in the way that Mario, Donkey Kong, Samus Aran, etc. do.
Nintendo perhaps doesn't use his name much because these are more "legends" being told, but trust me, Nintendo still calls him Link. His name is all over the instruction booklet. If they kept saying, Link this, and Link that, in the story then it wouldn't hold as much gravitas as "The Hero of Time" and such. He's Link every single way you slice it, which in Skyward Sword is a lot! (badum-chh)
You realize that the people who make the instruction booklets have little to nothing to do with the people who make the game, right? At least, we can't consider them hardcore canon, especially in a case like this where most of what we hear is from developer interviews.
Zero, why do you insist that this isn't his name? I still don't understand your argument. Or why you give a shit. I don't understand why I give such a shit. Which is why I'm gonna stop the debate on my side. There's no changing your perspective, not that I really should have the power anyway. You believe what you want to believe. Though lastly,
Lets apply Occam's Razor here. Unless you strive to find nit-picky things (of which there is little anyway), for all intents and purposes, he has always been Link. Every incarnation. Every time.
Have to agree here. If you want to split so many technical hairs to the points it's ridiculous then one could say there isn't a 'true' name for the main character in the Zelda games. But really, with two games that have Link in the title that specifically reference him as such, and many other things...really...let's just call it a day and agree that it's 'Link' already. :p
@Zero Pretty sure Miyamoto himself calls him Link every chance he gets. If the instructions aren't good enough for you, what do you want? The game will always give the choice to name your character, that doesn't mean the character isn't named Link. Do you want Miyamoto himself to come to your house to tell you his name is Link? Cuz that seems to be he only way to convince you. Everyone has called him Link for 25 years, I really don't see where there's a debate.
You're the only one on this whole forum (planet?) to think his name isn't Link lol... Unless there are others... who should step up to the plate now! Or do others already agree? Even if so, vast minority :)
ps. Even if that avatar comment from Miyamoto were to be the strongest case against Link being his name, it could still mean that the videogame character Link is an avatar through which the player is connected to the world, which he is. Same with Gordon Freeman, but he's still Gordon Freeman. All videogame characters are avatars through which players connect.
Occam's Razor is the simplest result being likeliest.
Link has been called Link since his inception. > Link was once named Link but now he's not named Link because of generations of characters who don't name their children Link, instruction booklets and boxes to games mean nothing, it's just a coincidence that Link To The Past or Link's Awakening or Adventure of Link have the words Link in them... etc etc.
I'm not just repeating myself. I'm drawing the conclusion that my (and many people's) opinion lies under Occams Razor.
Well yeah he's called Link. I don't think that's what Zero is saying (or maybe it is?).
What I'm saying is that it's not non-cannon to rename Link in the context of your own game. I'm the one doing all the adventuring, I should get the thanks! The way the dialouge is written, the characters are talking to the player, not a character within the game. Link is your avatar for interacting with the world, but you are the actual character.
@DrFinkelstein@carlosrox I think you guys are kind of missing my point, of course the "character" is named Link when being referred to in various contexts because no one is going to say "the unnamed hero who is whatever you named him to be" in an interview, but what I'm saying (and not just pulling from thin air, it is what Miyamoto & co. increasingly seemed to be moving towards) is that in the context of the game there is no one named "Link", there is only YOU and whatever you decide to name youtself.
This is a really bad metaphor, but I feel like Link is the character's name in the same way that Elijah Wood's name is Elijah Wood. But in LOTR he isn't Elijah Wood, he is Frodo. You can still say "but he is still Elijah Wood!" and I'd have to agree, but that is a technicality. In the context of the medium, he isn't, he is Frodo. And in newer Zelda games Link isn't Link, he is... whatever you call him. And that is what everyone else in the game will call him, and never in a future Zelda game will, for instance, the Skyward Sword hero be referred to as Link in the lore, because he wasn't Link. He was whatever you called him, and in future lore he just becomes an unnamed hero so as to not create a contradiction.
Basically I'm just saying that it seems like now Link exists as a representative character, not a concrete character. And I'm basing this off of several interviews I have read, as well as the way the newer games handle "Link" (which is to say, the lore/etc. will never mention "Link" as a concrete character). This isn't an entirely new concept either, you guys are talking like I'm just creating some radical new idea. Osamu Tezuka used representational characters all the time in his works (albeit in a someone different manner.)
Eh, I still disagree. I think the reason we don't hear the name Link much is because well, they keep the tradition of the "name him yourself" thing alive. What sense would it make if I renamed Link to Stephen only to have him still referred to Link in some contexts. I agree that they up the lore around Link all the time in the new games but I still think he's always meant to be Link. Lack of evidence (of his name) doesn't count as new evidence because of what I explained above IMO. But again, I'm not here to change your opinion now that I see your point a bit clearer. I think I wasn't getting it all before. But, eh, to each their own good sir! We're doing so much talking about Zelda, but are you playing it yet Zero?
Barely. I only got to play it once, for like an hour or two? Still in the "tutorial" portion. I could have squeezed some more time in but I keep trying to find time to really sit down with it, and other stuff keeps coming up (IE hanging with the girlfriend or the family.) Ah well... soon.