Of all the changes we've seen in mainstream Zelda games (read: not many -- Triforce Heroes, Hyrule Warriors, etc. are not included here), a gender change is the least appropriate fit for the tale. The foundational aspects of the franchise have always been good versus evil, boy saves girl. As inclusionary as society's current mentality happens to be, there is nothing wrong with this approach to a franchise -- and it still, whether or not people wish to accept it, appeals to the largest constituency among the options available.
Neither of these two properties, if altered, would likely be widely embraced by the Zelda fanbase at large. Accepted? Quite possibly, but the goal of a game publisher spending untold millions on a major installment of a hallmark franchise is not mere acceptance.
I hate to frame it as such, but this constitutes little more than a pipe dream by this subset of gamers who so fervently wish this change to be embraced. Let's move on. The market is expanding, and companies are slowly moving to exploit this to their advantage -- which is their purpose in the game. But the risk involved and the likelihood of alienating, whether passively or actively, directly or indirectly, fans of the existing template of Zelda is too high to justify versus the alternative of developing or altering another, less financially risky franchise.
There's nothing wrong with "boy saves girl." But, to be so bold as to make a definitive statement: There is absolutely something wrong with "it can't be girl saves boy." 100 percent wrong. No one believes "boy saves girl," is bad, and that trope isn't seeing danger of extinction, "boy saves girl," stories aren't being replaced by "girl saves boy/world/etc." stories, and nothing is being stolen from or corrupted for those who enjoy those stories.
Nothing is gained by rejecting the possibility, which is what's being done here. It's not just a rejection of a reincarnation of Link being a girl Miyamoto has said Zelda won't be the lead in the series either. Nintendo as a whole has other series with diverse casts and openness toward inclusion, but that doesn't meet an arbitrary quota which, if met, would absolve Nintendo of any criticism overall because that quota doesn't exist.
In regard to this discussion, the preciousness that kind of story holds for some people fascinates me, because in its two forms one that seeks to defend creative vision on a principle level, and the other that simply holds that convention dear.
For the former, there exists an assumption that what makes the story of "boy saves girl/world/etc.," special or worthy of holding dear is the gender of the lead, even if those stories do not deal with gender-specific elements, even though "coming of age," tales work for any gender, and even though the Zelda series has, at most, only merely made mention of (fictional) cultural mores involving gender, none of which are constant throughout the series, or must meet certain criteria from title to title. Even if there were something of value lost by having the story feature a boy Link rather than a girl Link or Zelda and there simply wouldn't be anything lost that would be too precious to lose for a single entry in this 15+ entry series it would not negate what is gained: more options for players, more inclusiveness and diversity (of which there is inherent value can't recall if you and I have discussed that in particular before, but we can if needed), reinforcing the notion that girls can save the boy, the world, and can go on these adventures.
For those who cherish stories of boys going on adventures/saving the world, who find that those stories speak to them in a way a story about a girl couldn't (either through being able to better relate to certain trials and experiences one gender experiences more than others), and who reject the possibility of having a girl star in a mainline Zelda game: they are advocating for other people to miss out on what they already have gotten time and time again. A mix of "screw you, I got mine," and "they're taking out
jobs Zelda stories." It's just irrational fear of losing something that they won't lose, and fear of
potentially having to assume the role of someone different, despite there already being different characters assumed throughout the Zelda series, let alone the gaming landscape as a whole. It's miserly.
You acknowledge the "expanding market to be exploited," and if you are already looking at the situation in its most corporate, sterile, unproductive way, then you know there'll always be people to receive a new Zelda title poorly, no matter how redundant, safe and reiterative it is overall. Fans of Zelda are going to buy Zelda titles, particularly the mainline ones, and particularly along with well-selling hardware.
To the rest of the "corporate line" stuff: saying that girls cannot be the stars of these adventures indirectly, passively, subtly or otherwise is already alienating people. Those responses given from Aonuma and Miyamoto are alienating people. Saying that, theoretically, people would be alienated by a girl in their Zelda game is to speak and think so little of those fans' capacity of relating and empathizing with a character who may not look or resemble them (and trust me, plenty of those fans already do just that). It's a shameful assumption to make for myriad reasons, and if it serves as an excuse to protect a framing of the situation that is admittedly theoretical, and that you say you hate, then it's not worthwhile at best, actively harmful at worst.
What's the saddest part is the evidence in every facet of media (and beyond, including tech industries, government, so forth) of the quantifiable benefits of diversity seems to never be enough to quash people's fears, prejudices and straight-up unfounded preconceptions. I can't disagree with, and can't adamantly tear down and admonish that line of thinking enough. Phew.
