The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is certainly a contentious topic among the more hardcore Zelda fans. While most casual Zelda gamers and video game fans have embraced the stylistic changes that Breath of the Wild ushered in, you’re always going to have the fans opposed to a change in the well oiled machine that was the Zelda series post-Ocarina of Time. It seems that it’s been some of the more dedicated Zelda faithful that were less impressed by Breath of the Wild, and for a variety of reasons.

What I’ve seemed to notice is that for the many topics that have fans divided on Breath of the Wild, the games story has been the most divisive.

Yeah, I know. We’ve talked about the games story to death. We’ve covered it here, and here, and here, and even last week I talked about it again, speculating what gaps the upcoming Champions Ballad might be able to fill for us in Breath of the Wild’s Tanagar Canyon sized plot holes. But it was reading some of the comments from that particular article shared by users that I came across simple question someone asked that intrigued me:

Why didn’t Breath of the Wild just take place 100 years ago?

It seems kind of silly when you first say it, but the more I thought about it, the more it makes sense from a narrative perspective? Why didn’t this game just take place in the past? What would you really be losing by making this change?

Almost exclusively, the story from Breath of the Wild takes place in flashbacks, but would it not have made more sense for the game just to have been set in that time and not have to use the flashbacks altogether? You could still use the memory system, but instead you could look back 10,000 years prior; maybe gain some insight into the first attack by Calamity Ganon, the origins of the Yiga Clan, or watch the Sheikah assemble their Guardians and Divine Beasts.

By having the game take place in the past, you might lose some of the Champions descendant characters as there would be no need for them (yes, that means no Prince Sidon — sorry ladies), but the trade off would be getting to explore the woefully under-developed Champions a little more. A fair trade off in my eyes — I’ll take a roster of a couple fully developed characters over a cast of multiple bit players any day.

Another advantage to having the game take place in the past is getting to see Princess Zelda’s plight up close and personal, rather than fragments of it. I’ve always been of the opinion that it would have been more meaningful if the Calamity’s return was directly linked to Zelda’s inability to manifest her powers, and if the game were taking place in real time, her struggles and Ganon’s return might have hit home even more.

One of the most powerful scenes in Breath of the Wild is Zelda’s despair, as she collapses into Links arms and is forced to confront that all of her training has been for naught, that Ganon is back anyways and has destroyed Castle Town. Now imagine spending some time in Castle Town, looking at the buildings, meeting it’s denizens, getting to know all of its quirks. Then imagine you see it getting destroyed by Calamity Ganon, as Zelda is powerless to prevent Castle Town from facing obliteration. We would have attachment to Castle Town, and going forwards, it’s ruins; we would empathize with Zelda even more; and most importantly, we’d wanna kick Ganon’s ass that much harder.

Of course, there are some scenes that would have to be reworked in order for the game taking place 100 years prior to work. Principally, Link fighting an army of Guardians until he collapsed and Zelda finally unlocking her powers to save Links life, but I think that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

“Why didn’t Breath of the Wild just take place 100 years ago?” is a question that really does make you think. What did the game get by having you wait so long?

 

There’s still towns and cities left in Hyrule with relatively happy looking inhabitants. There’s no catastrophic damage to the land (Castle Town not withstanding) like there was when Ganondorf reigned over Hyrule for seven years. There’s no frozen Zora’s Domain or dried lakes or out of control volcanoes. Zelda is still there, un-aged, in some sort of weird, not-really-explained suspended animation. You still go and fight Calamity Ganon, who you would think if he were going to be defeated, it would be as soon as he came back to life and was still getting his bearings rather than 100 years later when he’s got the ruling Hyrule thing down pat. Links injuries from 100 years prior don’t play any kind of role in the gameplay or the story, so why bother having it?

You could still retake control of the Divine Beasts in the past. You could still do every sidequest in the past. You could still use the memory system in the past. When you think about it, there really wasn’t any need to have the break in time as anything plot-wise that was accomplished by having the game take place ‘in the future’ could have easily been done in the past.

Or could it have been? Maybe all this hypothetical questioning and speculation is way off center. But it’s an interesting scenario to imagine none the less.

What do you guys think? How would you see the game working out if it had played out in real time in the past? Would you rather just have the structure of Breath of the Wild remain the way it is? Let us know in the comments below!

Andy Spiteri is a Senior Editor at Zelda Informer. If you like video games, hockey, and terrible jokes, be sure to follow him on Twitter and check out his blog here.

Tagged With: No tags were found for this entry.
  • Great question, and I think you’re absolutely right. The story would have worked much better if it had treated 100 years ago as the present.

  • Christian Beach

    Here’s how I wish the game’s story had played out, as well as what I hope will happen in the Champions’ Ballad:

    – Main Game, Part I:
    It starts in the past with Link training to be a knight in honor of his father. After the discovery of the Divine Beasts, Link volunteers to go and clear them out (The four dungeons, but instead of accessing terminals, you’re setting down bombs to clear rubble and free them from their underground traps, then you fight a special Guardian to gain access to the main control unit).

    After this, he accompanies the Princess and her guards across Hyrule to gather the four Champions to pilot the Divine Beasts. Each tribe requires a certain dungeon-related task to be done before they decide to accept the offer, so Link goes and completes these tasks. After the Champions are gathered, Link is driven to the Lost Woods by a voice (Fi), where he takes up the Master Sword. He is then immediately made Zelda’s appointed Knight. They travel across Hyrule to check on the four Champions, and investigate a return of monsters in each region.

    Afterwards, Zelda is to begin her training at the three Goddess Shrines, so she, Link, and the Champions take care of that. After she prays at Mt. Lanayru, Ganon returns and devastates the kingdom. The Champions prepare to attack Ganon, but are quickly overcome. Link and Zelda, meanwhile, are fighting Ganon when it becomes too powerful for the both of them, and they are forced to leave. They run as far as possible, with Link eventually dying and being taken to the Shrine of Resurrection.

    – Main Game, Part II:
    Link wakes up in the Shrine of Resurrection and begins his quest to defeat Ganon. He gathers memories of his travels with Zelda, his family, and more memories of the Champions (such as how he and Mipha met). He then travels across Hyrule and frees the Divine Beasts from the Blight Ganons, freeing the Champions’ souls. After taking up the Master Sword once more, he learns about what happened to Zelda after he died, and then charges the Castle and defeats Ganon, freeing Zelda in the process. Zelda, knowing Ganon will inevitably return soon (She states at the end that “Ganon is gone for now”, implying that she probably didn’t fully seal him), can only drive him away, and he retreats to a secret lair.

    – DLC Champions Ballad:
    Link and Zelda travel across Hyrule, searching for new Champions to replace the old ones. As they recruit new Champions (And apparently “fix” one or more of the Divine Beasts), it is discovered that a secret dungeon has been found in the Desert. Link and Zelda enter the dungeon (which is the lair Ganon supposedly retreated to), and at the end they fight Ganon in a weakened state (probably as Ganondorf), and ultimately seal him away. Cue end credits.

    • Pikastroff

      I like your idea.

      Jut imagine if that dungeon in the desert turned out to be Arbiter’s Grounds? We do know its ruins are in Gerudo Desert, but it’s not really recognizable to be honest. Perhaps, since it is sort of a tower in Twilight Princess, maybe it is in reality hidden underground and could rise from the ground, just like the Sheikah Towers?

      • Christian Beach

        Now that would be pretty cool.

    • Ikewise

      What the.. why would Ganondorf be there all the sudden? 😀

      • Christian Beach

        Well for starters it’s more or less wishful thinking. Haven’t seen a proper incarnation of Ganondorf since Twilight Princess in 2006 (Hyrule Warriors doesn’t really count since it’s not canon).

        But to be more specific, Calamity Ganon was trying to rebuild his body, and in his twisted form you could see parts of him that looked like Ganondorf (The head, one of the arms). I figured he was trying to rebuild his humanoid form to some degree, so my guess (and hope) is that in the DLC, he’s had more time to complete the process.

    • randompissedoffchick

      I love the way you envision how the story could have been. This way it could have made the main storyline a lot longer and made it better, but the only problem I see with this is that the game would have been strictly linear at first and then come into its open world concept after Link wakes up.(Link would not be running around adventuring since in this time period he is strictly under the royal family as a knight, so no room to explore Hyrule yet.) And honestly that would have ruined the impression I clearly see Nintendo wanted to make on the players. They wanted to make the game give the player freedom from the get go, and adding the first half of the way you see it would have made it very similar to skyward sword ( which it got much hate for this), I personally wouldnt have minded, but others would have. And also I honestly think the game ended up the way it did (a bit lacking) because they just ran out of time. The game has so much content in it but it all seems underdeveloped and barely touched on. It would be great if this second dlc isnt all they will do with this game, I would love more content to be expanded on next year as well. It would be cool if they made a 3rd dlc about more story again and this time make it in the past similar to what you envision.

      • Christian Beach

        Now that would certainly be a welcome alternative.

  • Petros L. Ioannou

    See now I like this idea, but I’m of the personal opinion that the “ruined landscape” doesn’t work if you’re still in training. There’s a certain aspect of the hero’s failure in the game that makes seeing these ruins imbue a sense of guilt in the player and I think it adds an interesting development that Link was this great hero and still failed, which is completely against the grain of every Zelda game before it which has always shown Link as an upstart-hero who saves the day, I think if anything the most interesting aspect of BotW’s story is setting it after past failures as a hero who didn’t win, who didn’t save the day and now must regain his memories, his skills and become stronger than ever before to win the day.

  • Really, it didn’t need to be 100 years after the second CG attack and it didn’t need to be 10,000 years after the first cg attack. The game’s story just feels so…unfortunately not as developed as it could have been.

    • Jebradiah Drake

      Did the story feel a little empty to you, compared to other games like Twilight Princess or Ocarina of Time?

      • Sorta, but more so like it had the same amount of the content, but it didn’t bother to use it as productively as other games.

  • Jebradiah Drake

    Totally random (sorry) but one thing I didn’t like about the game was that, after freeing each one, each Divine Beast shot a giant red beam at Hyrule Castle ALL THE TIME.

    It was pretty cool to look at for awhile, but after a little while longer it ruins the atmosphere because you can seem the beams from almost everywhere so it’s a little harder to get emersed into a particular environment.

    The divine beasts themselves are cool structures to look at (albeit even cooler while they’re moving around like real animals). But the giant laser beams just look cheesy. What if the Death Star had pointed a giant beam at Alderon for six weeks before blowing it up huh?

    • Andy Spiteri

      110% Agree.

      • Jebradiah Drake

        I wish they would have at least turned off after we activated all four and entered the Castle or something….

  • Phil

    The only reason I could think of is that by having it take place 100 years later, Link now needs to re learn and re acquire everything like you would want to do in any Zelda game.

  • Sentinel

    Honestly, I felt like the Memory fragments were wasted potential.

    All of them were focused entirely on Zelda and her perspective, and I found that to be rather limiting and part of why large parts of the story feel underdeveloped.

    • Ikewise

      Thought you were gonna say they could’ve been playable segments set in the past, which would’ve been cool.
      Instead you went on about story shenanigans, lol.

  • RiverDevil

    “the well oiled machine that was the Zelda series post-Ocarina of Time.”

    • The one that, apart from MM, could never get a home console game out without increasingly longer delays?

    • The one that had lackluster sales performances compared to OOT and TLOZ, other than for TP?

    • The one that drifted from gimmick to gimmick with no real idea what it should be, other than what worked in OOT?

    • The one that somehow tried to re-invent the wheel when it came less material facets such to graphics or game engine for every home console release (causing longer development time), yet relied on stale, predictable gameplay?

    Valid criticism of BOTW notwithstanding, let’s not pretend the series was on a sustainable trajectory

    Unconfirmed data already has BOTW beating SS’s _lifetime_ sales, and BOTW will probably surpass WW within BOTW’s first 12 months (if not by year-end). I would not be surprised to see BOTW surpass LTTP and PH by year-end or March 2018 as well, leaving it behind only _three_ Zelda games sales-wise in just its first year (TLOZ, OOT, TP), and this for a console with retail stock issues! (note, sales for remakes/re-releases excluded from individual game sales #’s as used here, but sales from dual-console simultaneous releases is included)

    Not that I am saying sales determine the quality of the game, but maybe that post-OOT machine wasn’t so well oiled, but rather tired, old, and prone to break-downs, and was holding us back. It was time for something new

    • Who’s really saying any of this? I mean I thought the article was about BOTWs story, not it’s sales.

      • Lady Wildling

        He is just commenting about one line that was written, in fact, in the article itself… There’s no reason to get angry, its part of it. 🙁

        • Don’t you tell me what not to angry over!!!!

          😛

          Lol, I must have missed the line, fair enough then.

    • Andy Spiteri

      “Well oiled machine” refers more to the gameplay structure than sales, although none of those Zelda games bombed by any means.

      • K2L

        They bombed for the expectations Nintendo had on them. The sales for MM, TWW and SS were utterly deplorable when compared to how well OOT and TP sold. Also, the gameplay structure WAS already getting old, as the only thing that was really pretending to differentiate the games were the one-time gimmicks each of them had.

        BOTW tried to harken back to the roots of the very first game. But according to you and the longtime fans you’re citing, the game was still a failure. Soooo, I guess it’s a lose-lose scenario anyway.

        • Andy Spiteri

          Breath of the Wild is anything but a failure – it has some shortcomings narratively, but it’s an amazing game. I would even be tempted to say a masterpiece.

    • Jebradiah Drake

      I liked Twilight Princess best because it just took the great mechanics from Ocarina of Time had updated them, only taking away a few outdated mechanics, and THEN put in some of its own new mechanics.

      And also because it’s awesome.

  • The Working Dead

    The game could have taken place 1 year instead of 100 years and it all would have still made just as much sense.

    • ChallengerUPC

      Not quite. The 100 year gap allowed new generations of a people to appear and for townspeople to get used to having Ganon there.

      • take place 1 year instead of 100 and apply all other changes from the article and it would work

        • ChallengerUPC

          You would still then be stuck with a completely different game.

  • ChallengerUPC

    The memory system would not have still worked. These were Link’s memories that he forgot. Plus if you took that away the game would’ve been a lot worse. The fun was piecing everything together, not what was actually told. The story isn’t great when it’s all coherent. If things happened in the past, the story would’ve had to be told linearly and only linearly. The entire concept of the game was doing it in the order you wanted. Also, it was necessary for it to take place a long while afterwards in order for new generations to appear. People who don’t know Link, and therefor just treat him as a normal traveler.

    In short, if the game took place in the past it would’ve had to be a very different game.

  • K2L

    “It seems that it’s been some of the more dedicated Zelda faithful that were less impressed by Breath of the Wild, and for a variety of reasons.”

    Thank God I skipped it altogether, then. Waiting for 5+ years for an underwhelming game feels like an utter waste.

  • Patrick Dent

    I really don’t think setting it in the 100 years ago scene would be a good idea from a gameplay perspective. The story would be far too linear because you’d have to go places to make things happen, or the game wouldn’t let you go where you wanted BECAUSE things were happening. Also, it’s unlikely that they could maintain such a story with it remaining open world because with such a detailed story, it would have to restrict where you could go lest you trigger events out of sequence.

  • Nick

    idk, while i agree that having you view memories of the past takes away a certain cinematic quality, having it not take place a hundred years later would very much ruin the ancientness and the post-apocalyptic feel of everything.
    i think what would have made the story better would be a few things:
    1. less towns, or, at least not ones that are thriving so much. the post-apocalyptic feel was completely absent in this game once you left the great plateau, because there were an abundance of people living fairly happily. show us what about ganons ‘reign’ makes them miserable.
    2. the memories should have been less about emotional fulfillment and more about a revelation about a sequence of events. 90% of the memories could have been missing, and we would still have the same story.
    3. hold off on the revelations. the games entire story was revealed in a mandatory way right at the beginning–the old man didnt have to show he was the king until some other requirement was fulfilled. to understand the full scope of the story, there should have been a longer way of figuring out how to do so, with next to no hints as to where to find it.
    4. they were angling for a tragic story, but forgot that a tragic story isnt about a character’s incapabilities–zelda’s inability to summon her powers are not only something that’s foreign to us as an audience, but it is also a very passive device right. to garner the best sympathy, and the best kind of tragedies, you have to make it clear that a vital mistake was made that led to the destruction. something like a single person’s impatience, or cockiness, that would lead to such an outcome.
    5. the champions are interesting enough characters, but they have almost no personal impact on the story beyond their roles. many of those relationships were implied, but none were explored beyond their most basic interpretation, i.e. the romantic affections of mipha, the jealousy of revali, etc. they themselves had no actions that directly impacted the story, and in fact their own special moment at the climax of the game is optional.
    6. one strength of the zelda series is being able to make the gods have distant, but uncertain roles in the world, that dont always have good outcomes. look at the disastrous consequences of the flood before ww, or the sage’s boldness in trying to execute ganondorf in tp, or the idea of the unknown nature of the triforce that is open to interpretation. one fatal flaw of this game was a complete ignorance to the larger mythology of the series.
    7. sheikah stuff was important, but not nearly as important as implied by the trailers and the themes of the game. it was merely a coat of paint to slap on some robots, rather than a tribe that has had a complicated history that has largely been hidden from us. it would’ve been nice to see the full significance of the tribe, its beliefs, its history, how it came to the technological advances it did, etc. but we were left nothing except that they’re the good guys.
    8. the yiga clan was funny, but perhaps delving into a little more worldbuilding and a little less comic relief would have lived up to their mystery.
    9. a proper explanation as to how calamity ganon came to be. this was the largest, and most important mystery of the entire game, and it was treated with no answers whatsoever besides a throwaway line about reincarnation.
    10. i would’ve preferred to see the scene with the fortune teller, rather than just said out loud. it would have given the memories some of their importance to the story and maybe some of that ominousness that the game was shooting for with its backstory. otherwise, just casually mentioning it made it feel like a really lazy excuse for the characters knowing about ganon returning–if there are signs that its returning, what are the signs??? etc.

    still a fantastic game and a really beautiful and stunning piece of art. just a very disappointing story compared to predecessors like skyward sword, wind waker, and twilight princess, which all pulled off pretty cinematic stories and excellent worldbuilding to boot.

  • Personally, I´m a zelda fan and also I’m a game developer (zelda was my inspiration to work on this industry) but i need to say this:

    Breath of the Wild have the worst narrative of every zelda I played, really? find memories?, there´s no epicness, Hyrule is really, really big, but the main history is not an important reason to explore Hyrule.

    In previous games every place has a justified reason to exist and that was linked to the main history progress, the “freedom” of breath of the wild is too much, me as fan of the zelda series wanted a great an epic story, a lot of big and wonderful dungeons, not a Hyrule playground with generic content.

    Too much liberty is the oposite of be a game. In game design, “play” and “game” are two different things and that things are opposites. A game requiered rules, limitations, objectives, play is just liberty with no restrictions, that means the preview zeldas are games and minecraft is a garden for play, Zelda Breath of the wild is like a “minecraft” of zelda, and that´just show that breath of the wild didn´t have a good game designer and level designer, was just like “ok, we did this big world that is connect in terms of “chemestry”, so now just put things to justify this” ( if you don´t understand this, go and watch the GDC conference about Breath of the Wild).

    why I said that? breath of the wild? the game of 10/10? I’m sure that any player prefers to change 10 of the shrines for a full big dungeon that use that ideas instead of have little trials, when Aonuma creates Majoras mask said “is better created a compact world with a lot of content than create a big world with nothing to do”, well you just do that big world with nothing important to do 17 years later, after you said that it will be a bad idea.

    You maybe will say “but there are a lot of monsters, chests, shrines, kologs to find” yes, that´s truth, but that is not required to complete the game, that´s simple a lot of content without a real reason to exist, is just used to create an “artificial” sensation of content and extend the hours of play, If I want some like that, better I go and play world of warcraft, i wanna a Zelda not an Skyrim or similar.

    PD: I’m not a native english speaker, sorry for any error

  • Reemiix

    I think next Zelda game on switch will take place in the past. That would make a great prequel using same map, core mechanics, etc. Since people are eager to know everything about what happened 100 years ago, it would sell like hot cakes

    • Lord Sterben72

      I see 10,000 years ago being more likely. Actually, 100 years prior to BotW as a full game would be a waste

  • Daniel Shaw

    I totally love this game and have played it for a very long time and it is by far the best open world game I have ever played. This was exactly what Nintendo was going for and they absolutely nailed it! I still though have not quite scratched my Zelda itch, the narrative was simply bad and was more of an after thought. I love the art style of the game and characters minus the voices but I don’t feel they were given much character. Zelda being the main character most people feel disappointed with as she is not present in the game.

    Nintendo likes to experiment with their ip’s and in most cases really pays off. It does pay of with BOTW but as I said earlier it doesn’t scratch the Zelda itch. I honestly don’t understand why nintendo hasn’t created other versions of the Wind Waker formula? I am sure most of us would love a Wind Waker set game on consoles that was set on land. Also I am very disappointed with the DLC for BOTW, I was so excited to get Majora’s mask and Midna’s but I only run around wearing the Korok mask as it’s really the only useful one there. Nintendo should of given these more reasons to be in the game, like side missions which actually delve into these worlds. Like majora’s mask could of been a rogue korok who found it and was messing about with it, tricking people an specific times and you have to catch them. Also they should of had uses like Majora’s mask could of changed the time and Midna’s mask could of created a circle where you can attack all the enemies like in Twilight Princess.

    It’s still awesome, I just feel Nintendo missed a trick and usually they are on the ball with giving us soooo much for sooo little.

  • rsanchez1

    They wanted a wide, open, empty world, simple as that.

    • Lord Sterben72

      Exactly. Thabk you.

  • JoJo

    I’m a very story driven person. Which is why SS is still my favorite Zelda game. However, seeing as how Nintendo wanted this BotW to focus on Exploration, the way the story unfolds actually bodes well with the game itself.

    BotW takes my number 2 spot, only because I would have liked a more detailed story. But it didn’t take away from the overall experience of this game. (The framed drops did, but not too excessively.) One has to understand what Nintendo wanted to portray with this game, and that was recreating the sense of exploration that the first Zelda game created.

    Using BotW as a skeleton, I’m excited to see them expand on the next entry, working out the bugs and taking in feedback.

  • Marandahir

    BW works better by being player-driven, rather than plot-railroaded.

    Character development and plot and story are in the game, but they’re entirely optional to the enjoyment of the title. Have it take place 100 years in the past, and Link suddenly has to take Zelda on escort missions, defend towns from attack by Guardians, and all and all is much more reactive. 100 years later, Link can be PROACTIVE – doing what the player wants, not what the Game Master wants the player to do.

  • “We’ve covered it here, and here, and here, and even last week I talked about it again”

    All those articles were written by you Andy. Seems to be a particular Zelda Informer staff member hung up on the story telling choice. Much the same I don’t think BotW’s that divisive. Seems like it’s the same small sector of fans that have rejected BotW’s story telling format.

    And for every “why didn’t it take place in the past…” and “well it could’ve been done in the past too (in reference to divine beasts, memories, meeting the champions”… there’s a really simple response.

    Why does it matter that it took place 100 years later? If it would be such a simple change and wouldn’t make that big of a difference on the game play or story, then why is it such a big deal that they chose to make it 100 years later in the first place.

    What difference would it make if instead you actually lived through the events of the past. Where you just did the Divine Beasts shortly after Ganon took control of them. Or where you saw the events of Zelda saving your life unfold, and after a short recovery you must head off to Hyrule Castle to fight Ganon who Zelda is trying to seal. What difference would it make to see Castle Towns destruction first hand as opposed to through a cutsscene. Or traveled to all the same locations, but this time as part of the Champions entourage.

    The most obvious change would be the game play format. Where all mystery and discovery would be removed from the game play. The self direction and player choice thrown out the window. Instead substituted for what would essentially be an elaborate escort mission game. With Zelda as a companion telling you what you can and cannot do on your journey. Forced to go where she goes (and the story dictates).

    And I just think it’s silly to say something like ;

    “Links injuries from 100 years prior don’t play ANY kind of role in the gameplay or the story,”

    Doesn’t play a role in the story? I guess the fact that Link has amnesia as a result of his collapse and recovery from his injuries isn’t an aspect that is brought up time and time again in the game and had an impact on how the story was told, and the fact that he had to recover his memories, and was a key aspect of the ending as well. Or the fact that a lot of the oldest characters in the game choose to interact with Link because of their history with him. Instead teetering on telling him everything but also realizing that he needs to learn it for himself.

  • François

    There is a reason for the game to take place 100 years after the defeat of Link. Link was gravely wounded, so he was sent to the Shrine of Resurrection. He woke up without any memory of anything. If the game took place in the past, Link would be a complete standalone character with a personnality, which would take away what Link is supposed to be : a link to the player. Without his memories, Link is (partially) blank, so as a player, this allows you to take his place and explore Hyrule as yourself. Having a Link that has an elaborate backstory and a (complete) personnality would go in the opposite direction of what Link is.