In a world of magic, world domination, and rock-spitting octopi, it is expected that a great number of ill happenings befall such a place. A wizard, always yearning to take the free world into his hands (and by what we have seen of it, he would do a pretty crappy job). A floating black eyeball, who is constantly attempting to cause chaos and ruin, disarray and confusion. Assorted minions, terrorizing good folk and lending their hands to greater evil.

It is also expected that, in order for this particular nation to survive and prosper, this nation would implement means of defense against outside threats. You would think that, in order for the citizens of such a country to meet a decent standard of living, they would need fearless soldiers, towering stalls and fortresses, and maybe even catapults. Unfortunately, in the kingdom of Hyrule, all this is expected from a lone warrior; and not only that, but a young BOY warrior. He infiltrates fortresses, treks through dungeons, and pretty much has the fate of said nation on his shoulders. Nevertheless, gamers find this fun and enjoyable, I find that this political structure is terrifying.

The thinking man quickly realizes that this state of Hyrule could never exist. Why? Because their leader, the King of Hyrule, is a puppet ruler. A figurehead. Moreover, an incompetent one. While this man sits on his decorated throne, sipping his 1824 cognac, he lets his country be wasted by the evils of the world. He seems completely content to let a boy from the forest (or from an island, or from the screen right below his castle) save his people. In fact, at the end of Ocarina of Time, there was a ceremonial dance celebrating Link’s triumph and return. Where was the king? Why wasn’t he at the dance? Shouldn’t such a hero be recognized and decorated with assorted medals, badges, or, at the very least, a quick speech in his honor? Did the king have more important places to be?

Although, according to some timelines, Link may have gone back in time and thwarted Ganon again by means of convincing the king he was evil. Maybe he was rewarded then. But it strikes me as ignorant when a king doesn’t recognize the evil in a Gerudo wizard, but a 12-year old girl sure as hell knows it. Why was the king so trusting, so quick to betray his country?

All right, maybe I am going overboard. You may be thinking, “What is this guy talking about? The King of Hyrule was your method of transportation in Wind Waker! The trip could not have been made without him! While in A Link to the Past, he was hypnotized! That could have happened to anyone! And in Ocarina of Time, Ganon was, like, really powerful.” However, let’s take a look at these possible excuses.

You would be incorrect. In Wind Waker, he helped you well enough – after letting his country sink under miles of water 100 years ago, the cause of which was a lack of defense against the return of a monster – a monster who was easy to defeat upon figuring out to hit his tail. Again, players may think, “Oh, but you need the Master Sword!” However, that’s not true, either. I defeated him with the Megaton Hammer and the Biggoron’s Sword. Therefore, that leads me to believe that just about any metal object could defeat the piggy beast. Hey, who do we know that has about a million soldiers, each carrying a sword or spear? The King of Hyrule. Why didn’t he employ his troops? Did he expect a boy would magically kill him again? Or were too many of his soldiers patrolling the garden around his daughter, making sure no one got to see her?

On that note, I went and counted the number of soldiers patrolling the castle garden and exterior. The answer? A shocking seventeen. Nineteen at night. Nineteen? I would expect that the King have an armada of troops if he can spare that many to guard his precious daughter. To make matters worse, he didn’t believe Zelda about her dream/prophecy, one that would later become truth enough. So why couldn’t the king fend off Ganondorf? Maybe you think, “Well, he needed the Light Arrows to defeat his human form, didn’t he?” But let’s think about that. Who used the Light Arrows against Ganon? Link. Who gave the Light Arrows to Link? Zelda. A clear display that the Royal Family had them the whole time. Zelda herself calls it a “treasure of the Royal Family, to be passed on to the hero”.

Furthermore, some of you might now think, “Well, maybe the soldiers aren’t as skilled as Link.” Well, we’ve seen the battle prowess of soldiers in A Link to the Past. Some of them are downright annoying. And the archers? Their accuracy is dead on, every time. And their vision is flawless, because, as you remember from sneaking around the castle in OoT, they can spot you from a mile away and throw Link in jail faster than you can say, “I didn’t kill her!”. So why is it that the king couldn’t take care of the little problem known as Ganon himself? Even if it wasn’t enough, he could draft villagers, use them as part of his army. But was the king reclining in his Laz-I-Boy, thinking of ways to get richer, seeing as how some random forest kid will take care of this, just like last time? And I’m not just talking about ONE king. The entire Royal Family male bloodline seems to be suffering from ignorance. Let’s look at the damage that the King from A Link to the Past inflicted.

Now some of you are surely thinking, “Well, in A Link to the Past, he was hypnotized by a cunning, clever, and ruthless wizard. How can you blame him?” I’ll tell you how. In the real world, high-ranking officials must take extreme care when dealing with foreign diplomats. In A Link to the Past, Agahnim shows up in town, clears a few storms that he himself undoubtedly caused, and the King rewards him with money and prizes. And I quote from the SNES Link to the Past Instruction Manual:

Many centuries have passed since the Imprisoning War. The land of Hyrule healed its wounds and the people lived in peace for a long time. Memories of the vicious Imprisoning War faded over the generations…

So it is no surprise that no one was prepared for the new disasters that have recently struck Hyrule. Pestilence and drought, uncontrollable even by magic, ravaged the land. The king of Hyrule, after counsel with his sages, ordered an investigation of the Imprisoned Dark World (as the Golden Land had come to be known) but the Wise Men’s seal was apparently intact. He offered rewards for anyone who could find the source of these troubles. In answer to these summons a stranger named Agahnim came and quelled the disasters with a previously unseen form of magic. As a reward, the king gave him a new position as chief advisor and heir to the throne.

Another frightening look at the unjust process of political hierarchy in the Zelda continuity. In the United States, it is required that a senator be a member of the country officially for eight years. A representative, at least six years. But to be chief advisor you can walk right into town and produce water and food, and elected you’ll be. A desperate move by the King, maybe? Maybe he was afraid that if he didn’t help Agahnim, the disease and drought would come back. It’s understandable, but not when a bigger problem overtakes the land – the problem of world domination by the same monster that could’ve been killed years ago by a different king. But it’s okay – another kid will come and save the world. And the Zelda series may continue to be like this, now, and forevermore.

I hope that the vote is unanimous; every one of you reading this agrees that this King and all future descendants are not fit to rule. So now we have a new problem: how are we going to elect a new king? Of course, a new blood line must be started from the very beginning, so it’s only fair as of now to elect those who were present in Ocarina of Time. I only consider characters from that particular game to be King, because they are the ones who have seniority. I’ve asked Anakin to put up a poll in the topic concerning this article to hear your responses to the decisions you make.

The obvious answer would be, “Hey, elect Link!” He would probably win, due to his popularity. It is a very real possibility. However, there are some issues. Link is not of a political mindset, nor does he want to spend his days ruling and not enjoying his life. After all, there are SOME dangers that he might want to help out with. I suggest that he join the King’s army and become a major staple in the forces. You know, big promotion and all that.

Well, then who? A solution came to my head almost immediately: Ingo. That’s right, Ingo. Sure, he was a jerk to Link, rather grumpy in general, and he did break the deal to let Epona free, but he wasn’t bad with the upkeep of the ranch at all. I think he’s got the work ethic to bring Hyrule to its peak of its civilization. He definitely was about a billion times better than Talon. Besides, he might not have been so cruel under different circumstances. For example, what kind of man would he be if he didn’t have to work under Talon for years, someone he knew he was better than? I see tons of leadership in him, if he wasn’t so embittered by being a servant for so long.

After some thought, another answer struck me: Rauru. Of course, he’s wise, he’s kind, but most of all, he’s a sage. But that in itself would present problems. Wouldn’t there have to be a replacement sage? Could he even resign as a sage? What if he’s actually dead, and the Rauru that you see in the Sacred Realm is a spirit or something? He could easily be King, but could he be a King and a sage? Maybe it’s better to just leave the guy alone.

After all this talk, the majority of you might be thinking, “Who cares, Mute, it’s only a video game!” You may have a point there. But you fail to realize that this could very well be a reflection of our own world. I now find myself drawing connections between virtual politics and the state of the world. While some of you may not care to read about such trivial matters, I think it was extremely worthwhile to delve into such a new concept. For those of you who don’t like it, there’s the door.


If you liked this article, we will be releasing such articles consistently over the next few months, so if you would like to be kept up-to-date, we will be updating our Facebook and Twitter pages to let our followers know of each new Zelda article. You can also just subscribe directly to our RSS Feed.

This retro article was originally posted August 4th, 2004.
Related Topics
  • trimph forks

    Good article. Although I do sympathize with the King a bit in ALttP, I do agree that the others were foolish. Also, Ingo could be good at keeping up Hyrule, making it wealthy… but I don't know how good he'd be with the people. Good businessman, but more business then anything else.

  • CoffeeLovin

    Yup, Hylian politics are really screwed over. I'm surprised Link hasn't joined a rebellion to fight against Hyrule yet. That would make an interesting game…. One where you are a rebel or outlaw fighting against the 'corrupted' king. Maybe Zelda would join you….

    • cresent soul

      I'd prefer to have no politics in video games. Anything to separate the real world from the zelda world would be nice except the most core basic (primary) elements of reality like humanity, survival, dreaming etc. All that derivative stuff of our world like politics and religion will suck zelda out dry of the sweet sweet originality and creativeness its so famed of in its lush life. Actually, whenever stuff about the royal family is mentioned in a zelda game (even OoT), I tend to find those bits less interesting then stuff about completely new things to me like gorons and the korkori and so on.

  • mario_master

    i think your forgetting something. in OOT the king was killed by Ganondorf so he would have to be brought back to life to celebrate link. also in wind waker he did have his army fight ganondorf’s but he was overwealmed and prayed for the gods to flood hyrule to destroy ganondorf.

  • Rohan

    Honestly, I thought this was a tad pointless. Hyrule is based on medieval Europe, a place where Kings supposedly had reigning power over all, the Church had the real power over the people and influenced practically all of the King's important decisions, and finally where the wealthy class owned land and forced serfs to work on it. As far as military goes, knights, who swore allegiance to the King, and therefore the Church, defended their respective kingdoms. Now, let's compare this setting to Ocarina of Time's Hyrule, a place where different races lived in their own areas, the King was really just a figure head, as you rightly said, all the knights really did was stand guard, and an adolescent when around the land saving it from monstrous beasts. A monarchy doesn't even work in this situation, part of it is the fact that the different areas are so secluded from one another, that the King's hold on them is minimal, even insignificant. Secondly, there are different races of intelligent beings, something that the medieval never had to face (I'm pretty sure everyone was human). The royal family basically has no value, and doesn't need value due to how Hyrule is mapped out. In Wind Waker, the King had made mistakes years ago, but he admits his mistakes to Zelda and Link, and he helps them correct them. Sure his mistakes were cataclysmic, but the fact that he had the tenacity to endure and help the next generation triumph over evil shows that he really cared for his land. I think you can see where I'm going with my argument, since Hyrule is a fantasy world that we, as human beings, have never experienced in real life, I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Sure, you might be able to "draw connections" between Hylian government and those in the real world today, but that is because a team of humans designed this game, and based it off knowledge they had from the real world.

    • cresent soul

      actually, there haven't been that much medieval things in zelda (which I think is a postive for the franchise). The only things that scream medieval is the typical hierachy system they use where they have kings and princess, but the franchise doesn't really go any further than that or focus on that too much. What I remember from zelda usually are its many original ideas and systems like gorons, zoras, triforces, etc. Seriously, if zelda starts going on about mages and paladins I would seriously rip someones head of, I don't care whose. 😛

  • Fishy Fish

    There's a few holes in your analysis:

    First of all, most of your criticism is directed towards the monarchy of OoT. Now if you don't remember, in the OoT backstory, the king manages to unify the country after a long, bloody civil war. He gains the trust of other races with which there must have been great tension, or even outright hatred, before (remember, the Darunia wouldn't talk to you unless you established your link to the royal family, and the Zoras wouldn't even CONSIDER letting you in to their domain unless you did so). For one man to accomplish all this in his lifetime is as great a feat, if not greater, than defeating the king of darkness. Yes, he was tricked by Ganon, but can you fault him for it? After all, Ganon must've been fairly charismatic, and the possibility of allying with the powerful Gerudo race and their sorcerer leader must've seemed a much more tempting alternative than potentially starting another war. Yes, even Zelda saw through his treachery, but that's only because she had some divine intervention (you gotta wonder why Zelda received these visions, instead of the king, but that's not the king's fault). Was the king really supposed to trust the dreams of a young girl over a seemingly sound political alliance? Think about it.

    As far as ALTTP goes, I think the backstory perfectly vindicates the king. I mean, by all appearances, Aganhim saved the ENTIRE kingdom. Sure, trusting him was a poor decision in retrospect, but do you expect the king to have that sort of foresight? Hell, the people were probably even more grateful than the king. Turning him away would have seemed like a dick move, imprisoning him may have caused RIOTS.

    As for the WW king, well, it's pretty difficult to know exactly what happened in the backstory. Your argument hinges on the Master Sword being unnecessary to defeat Ganon it OoT, and while that may be TECHNICALLY true (if that, I'm pretty sure you need the MS to land the final blow regardless of how you faced him before), all the story and dialogue seem to indicate otherwise.

    In conclusion, I would actually argue the opposite point, that Zelda tends to portray the monarchical system at its BEST. Kings are nearly always portrayed as benevolent leaders. Sure, they have a penchant for trusting shady wizards, but it's almost always understandable given the circumstances. Even the prince of the AoL backstory eventually sees the error of his ways and banishes the dark wizard, eventually becoming a great, if repentant, king himself. The TP backstory further shows the ability of the king to acknowledge and fix his mistakes with the execution of Ganon.

    Another thing to keep in mind is the entire premise of Zelda revolves around the Hyrulian government being unable to deal with it's own problems from time to time. After all, if it could, there would be no need for Link to go on a heroic quest, and therefore no Zelda game. So we're always going to see Hyrule at it's most vulnerable, but I think it's safe to say that between the games, Hyrule is a great and prosperous kingdom with wise and competent leaders. After all, in manges to continue existing for THOUSANDS of years. How many nations in the real world can claim that?

    • TrustMe101

      I think you should write the next article. You have some very nice arguments and get straight to the point. ; )

      • cresent soul

        what he wrote "is" the next article. Or should be.

        Either that or just write in big letters "Zelda is just a video game, not (in bold) a historical documenary".

  • Kesha

    It's a game. Fuck politics.

    • cresent soul

      yeah, I'm not a fan of people who tend to mirror our history and reality to the zelda world. Have they not realised that gorons don't quite exist in our world yet?

      Last time I checked fish people (if that even exist) don't go growing wings and beaks after floods. Yep, pretty sure zelda doesn't have to go playing "me too" game with our boring world. Let the dam franchise be its own beast cause it is.

  • TrustMe101

    I was going to point out some stuff, but Fishy Fish explained them much better than I could. It must be very stressful to rule a kingdom and I'm sure as heck that political rulers in the real world have made mistakes like these.

  • I'm sure the king in OoT was just easily swayed by Ganondorf, the strange man from the desert. Either that, or he was put under a spell. Though it was never specified, I bet the kings aren't politically dumb; they probably just had no idea what was going on.

  • Kaepora21

    Actually, you need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon. The final blow can only be struck with the mythical blade. In that regard no mere metal could actually ultimately defeat Ganon. Check your facts next time.

    • OoTfanatic

      That's right. The only time you use the other weapons you have in your arsenal is when the master sword is outside the ring of fire in the Ganon battle. The article is very good and I'm not entirely sure about Ingo's people/social skills but his political and business mind would be quite powerful. The fact that Rauru could well be another candidate, his successor as the sage of light (and in this circumstance, King of Hyrule) is destined to follow in the footsteps of the sage and if his role was placed as the King of Hyrule then perhaps his chosen successor would be quite smart and be able to address people politely and clearly. All in all very good article.

      • cresent soul

        said final hit dude. You can harass ganon all you want before that, just make sure the master sword is in his head when you're done using it.

  • MidnightAsaph

    You should title this post "Non Sequitor." Stop analyzing this video game. Are you trying to say the world is filled with just as stupid people? How does using Zelda accomplish this?

    This post makes no sense. At all.

    • MidnightAsaph

      A reason? What, to enlighten us about the real world?

      It's a non sequitor. Zelda has absolutely no political undertones, and it can't lead to politics unless a certain user takes it way too seriously. It's a freaking game.

      • cresent soul

        it surprises me that some fans don't pick that up. It's like how Sheldon from Big Bang Theory argues the scientific reasoning behind some of the things superman does and yet completely overlooks the fact he's talking about a guy who flies and shoes lasers out of eyes. I cannot have a bigger question mark on my head right now.

  • ChainofTermina

    I don't like politics in the real world and I'm not too fond of them in video games. So I'm not gonna look too far into them when I'm supposed to be exploring on an adventure.

    • cresent soul

      and it just adds unnecessary boring backstory to a game world that's supposedly meant to feel free from all that … boredom. It is a video game afterall, so yeah I agree.

  • Mongolianmoose

    Facile, self-indulgent, and defensive — three qualities that make any piece of writing unreadable. I second Fishy Fish's reply, and for the sake of something new to say I'll add the following.

    What surprises me most is that you take the technical and traditional constraints of video games as a representation of the mythos of the Zelda universe.

    "He seems completely content to let a boy from the forest (or from an island, or from the screen right below his castle) save his people." — Would you play a game if you were ever burdened with the cloying presence of NPCs? How burdensome it would be if every real-world problem had to be resolved on-screen.

    "On that note, I went and counted the number of soldiers patrolling the castle garden and exterior. The answer? A shocking seventeen. Nineteen at night." — Then fill the screen with hundreds of soldiers and see how well your game engine holds up.

    "Hey, who do we know that has about a million soldiers, each carrying a sword or spear? The King of Hyrule. Why didn’t he employ his troops?" — Who would play a Zelda game where the villain was already dead?

    "To make matters worse, he didn’t believe Zelda about her dream/prophecy, one that would later become truth enough" — See above. There would be no game if there were no villain.

    The things that rankle me most are twofold: first, that you take introductory narrative devices as firm gospel to argue an unfalsifiable position; second, that you've misunderstood the import and reason behind Ocarina of Time's narrative. It was never about constructing a water-tight representation of population logistics and the mundane world of royal politics; rather, it's video gaming's answer to the Bildungsroman. Consider: Link is a child among the Kokiri who are eternally children; he starts as an unrecognized outcast because he has no fairy; he soon gains a fairy, recognition from the Great Deku Tree, and an important mission; and he slowly explores the world of Hyrule and gains the recognition of the adults around him (Goron leader, King Zora, etc.) Later he travels repeatedly between the states of childhood and adulthood to resolve an evil that isn't quite in the realm of either one, and by killing Ganon by game's end he affirms his rightful place as a hero and adult. This is what makes the ending of Ocarina of Time so poignant: he's bound to return to his "own" time and be a child again, although he's graduated out of that level already.

    Given this context of psychological growth and recognition, consider how utterly incongruous the presence of the King would be. Child Link's world is based largely *on* children in the first place: Talon is afraid of Malon, only Zelda knows the threat that Ganondorf poses, the Zora world is at a standstill because Ruto is gone, you only get access to the Goron village after giving the guard something for his young son, and so on. Child Link's world is an exercise in exploring what it means to be a child, of exploring the maturity that exists even among the immature, and for that reason all of the adults in the world of Child Link are either evil or helpless.

    I would argue that this is the core of Zelda's mythology: that a young kid grows up and saves the world. It's a classic tale, really, and your ultimately stodgy political analysis misrepresents it.

    PS: Some tips for writing. Get to the point in your introduction. Don't lose track of the argument with something self-indulgent (like your pseudo-fanfiction at the end). Be argumentative and make a case for your subject, but don't be defensive ("While some of you may not care to read about such trivial matters, I think it was extremely worthwhile to delve into such a new concept."). Don't insult your audience ("For those of you who don’t like it, there’s the door.") Avoid relying on real-life analogues when describing a fantastical fictional universe. Recognize that videogame narratives are limited by the power of the console, development resources, and gameplay decisions. And be concise.

  • Mongolianmoose

    [Double post] I'm sorry for coming off so abrasively above; things don't look as mean in Notepad. 🙂

    • cresent soul

      seriously using a notepad? not like you're being assessed here for some exam.

  • GenoKID

    Interesting. I've considered how political lanscapes affect Hyrule, and I was yet to hear of it until today. But this article took the case a little too literally. As in, the story and gameplay are exactly intact with one another.

    But whether the king is really good or not is hard to tell, but I think Ganon is probably capable of outwitting any world leader, even one from today, so you can't judge it like that. And Link and Zelda are the source of the gods outwitting him.

  • I don't think it's so much that the kings/rulers were stupid but that they were a little naive. I mean, the King of Red Lions from WW obviously wasn't stupid but rather a very intelligent man who just wanted to look out for his people. It's kind of a stretch to put so much weight on politics in Zelda anyhow. Ganon is evil and he can do whatever he wants until Link and Zelda come to take him down.

  • Common, Mongolianmoose, dont' be so harsh. : I wouldn’t say the text is unreadable just for showing three aspects that you regard rather negatively.

    First: you criticize the author for being “facile” and “Self-indulgent”, while showing a rather condescending attitude towards him and his ideas. By saying that a “facile, self-indulgent and defensive” post is unreadable, you are not only putting in a position higher than the author, but you are also insulting him. In that sense, you are doing two things that are almost the same as what you say the author does. You may feel that you have more expertise than him about writing, which is valid, yet I think that doesn't give you the right to tell the writer that his post is "unreadable” and give him “suggestions”, almost as if he didn’t know how to write, which, of course, can be interpreted as a way of ridiculing him. Just as you say the writer should not insult his audience, you should be careful not to do so as well. Since you are “replying” the author, you have to be careful not to insult him, because he is your main audience. We (the rest of the readers) are the audience too, but we are not the addressee.

    Second: Being defensive, in my opinion, does not make a writing inherently “bad”. I understand that you may not like it because it is possible to interpret it as if the author was “insecure” from what s/he is saying. However, there are other ways of viewing this “defensiveness”. For example, you can interpret is as a sign of “humility” from the author (sometimes a quality, sometimes not), as it shows s/he is aware of his/her “holes” in his/her argument. This shows that the author is aware his/her version is only one side of the whole story.

    Third: You tell the author to be concise, but how exactly? Based on the fact that you accuse of him of being defensive, I deduce you refer that he should eliminate all digressions related with using expressions such as “now some of you are surely thinking” and “some of you might now think”, is it not? If this is the case, I deduce (I may be mistaken of course) you want him to cut out you see these expressions as they can be considered superfluous and pointless. However, from my perspective, while these expressions do not play a significant role in the development of the main idea , they certainly play a role in the text. With these expressions, all the author tries to be doing is to acknowledge other voices apart from his own in the text. This is a rhetorical resource to show that the writer is not entirely blind towards others opinion and admits some sort of “humility” to show that he doesn’t hold the “absolute truth”. Yes, the author disregards those voices at the end when he says “there’s the door”, thus leaving almost no place for debate. This is lacking in his text, but is that truly a characteristic of “bad writing”? I know it’s a matter of opinion, but “bad writing” for me is the lack of thematic progression, coherence, consistency, etc. etc. For me, the text is coherent enough, it is not difficult to read and it does not use pompous words or anything. What this text lacks, at least that’s what I believe, is that the author does not seem to give an appropriate response to the very same voices it acknowledges throughout the text . All he appears to be saying with his last statement is: “you don’t’ like my point of view? Ok, then. Leave”. This can be certainly considered a flaw I his arguments, but to say that it is “unreadable” (and therefore “bad writing”) is a little exaggerated.

    Greetings and thanks for the brainstorming.

    • Mongolianmoose

      I stand by my argument. But you're right: it was harsh of me to write as I did, and I apologize for that.

  • cresent soul

    bit confused, was this just something that took thing literally for the sake of being a joke cause if so then that's a bit too long and a bit too, well, unfunny (I think that's a word).

    Serioulsy, some of these articles look too closely. Do you honestly think the developers behind zelda even care for any of this? Even I, supposed fan, don't even care or want politics in zelda. I just want what's necessary to make a game fun, not what's necessary to make it believeable or realistic cause it is a fantasy I recall.

  • Derp

    Well I, for one, will only show my appreciation for this article. It's better than facebook reference articles, for sure!

    And being defensive with this audience's known hostile tendencies in their responses seems rather legit, though he should have done so with less aggrivating rhetoric, and focused moreso on making his supportive statements more fortified.

    I can only hope most of the writers here aren't already too afraid to submit any more articles- given the harsh sentiments usually presented towards their work these days..

  • Linktomyass

    What a pointless rant….

    If you think this hard about Zelda I’d hate to see you try to comprehend real world politics. Probably hyperventilate.

    As for you people getting upset at those who write negative reviews in response to these articles must understand. Writing is art. Not all art is appreciated by everyone. If it is appreciated by the masses you have probably catered to the lowest form.

    You write an article here, you get your bruises here.

  • Ari

    A very good point, but I've noticed Zelda appears as the lead monarch in at least Twilight Princess. Maybe the king himself is killed (asassination maybe?) leaving an inexperianced Zelda in place. Aside from that though Ingo could be a great leader, seeing what he did with the ranch. He also struck me as possessed rather than evil (if I remember correctly after you beat him he becomes nicer, unless it's a coverup for his hate towards the old owner whos back in place). You're right though about Link, hes meant to save not lead. He has a duty to serve the people, but not as a monarch. Even if he became king if he married Zelda, Link would still have to fufill his hero duties.

  • Aryan of Time

    Zelda Politics? Try Japanese WWII era Racism! No, seriously- just think about it: The black (Gerudo) race are a gang of thieves and their leader is pure evil, becoming the main villain of the series. Top that off with the Hylians- the race of white men that is made the superior, reigning race over all the other races. Finally, there's Link, a blue-eyed, blonde-haired perfect depiction of an Aryan white man as the Hero of the game! This is just like Dragon ball Z, where only when one has become like the aryan man, a transformation from black haired, brown-eyed person into a blonde-haired, blue-eyed person, can they defeat the evil villains of the show. It's all the same message you find in many Japanese media. Zelda is chock full of Japanese racist ideals! Wake up, people! This is not the joke it appears. You can turn a blind eye, but everywhere you look, you will find more of this in Japanese media culture, and Zelda is far from an exception, I'm afraid..

    • Momo

      The creator of Dragonball worked in a black-and-white medium, and he used "white" hair to make it easy to tell that Goku had transformed without spending much extra time on the creative process. My guess is that of all the human hair colors, only blond hair could reasonably map to the white in his two-tone palette, which would explain Goku's blond hair. Blue eyes were probably chosen for a similar reason.

      I can't say if it's a problem in Japanese media because I'm not familiar with much, but there are plenty of counterexamples, including Tales of Symphonia [final boss is blond and blue-eyed], Dragon Ball GT [Goku's last form has black hair], and Twilight Princess [Link's hair is more of a russet-brown]. And given Japan's historical isolation and pride in institutions like the emperor, I can't imagine they'd give way to feelings of "racial inferiority" so easily.

      If anything, Japanese shows exult in being Japanese and often make foreigners look crude and barbaric. Perhaps it's this, more than anything else, that explains the homogeneity of people in Zelda's landscape.

  • lifesavers2

    Now, since when could you defeat Ganon with the Biggoron sword? The game doesn't let you finish unless you use the Master Sword on Ganon.

  • Salvatore

    Ingo ruling Hyrule? I think you may be on to something there. Perhaps he can get Hyrule out of its Medieval stasis, after all he wears an Elizabethan ruff. Symbolising he is the future, maybe?
    Perhaps he could rule as a snarky advisor to the first Queen of Hyrule, Zelda. Wait…
    Snarky, clever, forced to work as the inferior to a man of far less intelligence and capability?
    Holy Crap! He is Hyrules Blackadder!!!!

  • Salvatore

    Ingo as Hyrules' ruler is an interesting idea. Though perhaps he would be better suited as an advisor as it seems power goes to head.
    Also he does wear an Elizabethan ruff, perhaps a subtle hint he is the one best suited to get Hyrule out of its Medieval stasis with his administration skills.
    Have Ingo as advisor to the first Queen and you could have a snarky, cynical administrator to the ceremonial royal ruler, with good dialogue he would be an excellent character.
    Wait. Snarky, cynical, a moustache and despised working as inferior to someone less intelligent and capable than himself.
    Ingo is Hyrules version of Blackadder!!! Perhaps its best if he is kept away from power then, lol.

    Besides if you think its weird for royalty to trust any old weird magician to appear out of nowhere look no further than Rasputin for a more recent example.

  • Erimgawd

    Ingo? as ruler?! Why not! He already reigned over the ranch.. and knew how to DO it!

    I always loved to go see adult Malon, FIRST thing when I got out of the temple of time..

    "If I… *disobey* Mr. Ingo…. He'll treat the horses so…. badly."

    "… you see, there's *nothing* I won't do to… please him…."

    • *Gasps*

      See? I knew you had a Zelda bug in you someplace!

      *Calls you BFF and hugs*


  • Solid Knight

    To my understanding, the monsters aren't normally around. It's only when the big baddie is up to something. So they might go hundreds of years without incident.

  • marx

    haha, seriously? If Ingo would run Hyrule it would run into a financial crises in one month, thats whats happends when capitalist pigs run things:)

  • GorCoronSumo

    The guards in ALttP may be skilled enough, but the guards in OoT, which the the king would be using when Ganon escapes pre-WW, cannot see six feet in front of their faces.