Link, User-Centred Designer:
Game Characters as Transcendent Models
Katie Seaborn

seaborn.k.aa@m.titech.ac.jp
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japan

Figure 1: Link embodies the transcendent model of user-centered designer.

ABSTRACTKEYWORDSGames allow us to construct and explore identities and offer usrole models, good and bad. Game characters are a reflection of
us–players and creators alike–or could be. But do games also encode identities, values, and orientations that transcend diegetic
categories and player self-insertion? I explore the notion of gamecharacters as conduits of transcendent models through the casestudy of Link from the Legend of Zelda series. I propose that designers embed tacit, nondiegetic patterns of praxis and complex value
models, such as user-centred design, when crafting the embodimentof characters in gameplay, even unawares.

video game characters, identity, values, role models, transcendent
models, user-centered design

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI); • Applied computing → Computer games.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI PLAY Companion ’23, October 10–13, 2023, Stratford, ON, Canada© 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0029-3/23/10.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3573382.3616052

238

ACM Reference Format:
Katie Seaborn. 2023. Link, User-Centred Designer: Game Characters as
Transcendent Models. In Companion Proceedings of the Annual Symposiumon Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY Companion ’23), October
10–13, 2023, Stratford, ON, Canada. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3573382.3616052

1

INTRODUCTION

When you think of Link, hero of The Legend of Zelda series, whatcomes to mind? Perhaps his bravery as holder of that piece of the
Triforce. Or the Hylian sword and shield, liberally employed on
game packages and merchandise. Some may simply think "thatlittle green guy in a toque" (or beanie, for Americans). A legion ofplayers, young and old, casual and hardcore, have played as the
speechless (but not voiceless1 ) Link over several offerings.2 Many
1 Link showcases the difference between speech and voice. Link never speaks out loud,yet frequently lets out vocal bursts [3]: grunts, exclamations, cries. Link verbalizes
replies to conversational prompts in text, but are these words Link’s, the player’s, orsomething else?
2 I exclude the cartoon series and Japanese comic, which lean on rather non-canonicalrepresentations of Link.

CHI PLAY Companion ’23, October 10–13, 2023, Stratford, ON, Canada

Seabornhave experienced the wonder and joy of venturing through theworlds of Hyrule as Link. The "as" here is critical: we control Link
and take on his identity within the game space and as long as themagic circle holds. Link is a part of us, even briefly, an experience
we can return to time and again, with or without an ocarina.
The relationship between the player and the played is welltrodden ground. Konijin and Bivjank [13] describe how we construct identities with and through game characters. Turkle [23]considered how simulations and interactive media, notably virtualworlds and games, beget identity fragmentation, or, more positively,
identity fluidity. In games, this is constrained by the gameplay andnarrative trappings, unlike in open worlds and sandboxes. Singleplayer games—most of the The Legend of Zelda series–are further
limited. The social element is lost; identity construction is boundby what is offered within the game space. This may seem a harrowed blow, as identity construction is a social process [10, 21, 22].
Still, people can experience one-sided parasocial relationships [11]:a psychological merging of player and character [15, 16], where
the player conforms to the identity of the character, i.e., the Proteus effect [24], or projects themself onto the character, forming a
blended [8] or projected identity [7]. There can be divergence, where
the player invests in the character and feels a part of their socialworld [1, 9]. Game characters may also act as role models [17]:representations of ideal selves that we aspire to be. Link has been
iconic in this regard. Even as a masculine character partaking inviolent acts, Link also frequently engages in feminine-coded acts ofkindness and helpfulness, and is heralded for his bravery, perhaps
a gender-neutral value. Coupled with his ambiguous appearance,
this liminal characterization has provided room for gender-diverse
folks to see themselves in Link and experience gender euphoria[4]. These orientations point to a boundary, albeit a porous one,
between "being" the character and "being with" the character.
Far less explored is how creators—character design is usually ateam effort, despite our propensity to single out a celebrity designer—embed themselves within the characters that they create. By this, I
do not suggest creator self-insertion, nor awareness on their part,even while I frame this as an act of non-diegesis. What I refer to is
the creators "being in" the character. I argue that this is (i) a featureof the creation process, perhaps unintentional and unavoidable, and(ii) reflected in the embodiment of the character within the gameplay. By embodiment, I mean how the character through their bodyinteracts with objects and others in the environment [18]. The useof the game medium is also key. This is not merely bias or "slant,"
nor is it necessarily negative [6]. Like Flanagan and Nissenbaum[5], I recognize that people embed values of all kinds in the games
that they create, knowingly or otherwise. I wish to add anotherbranch to the tree: that creators embed complex value models thatare intersectional and pluralistic, such that they cannot be reducible
to a single value. I call this a transcendent model, as such patterns
transcend simple categories and the diegeis of the game world.

2

known for its player-centred creation process3 and playtesting
regimen. I argue that Link embodies a transcendent model pertinent
to the CHI PLAY community: user-centred designer 4 [12]. I justify
the concept by outlining5 four swords three key examples of how
Link embodies this transcendent model, drawn from typical andtime-worn player experiences across the The Legend of Zelda games.
2.0.1 User Needs and Requirements Gathering. Link is inclined tooffer help to non-playable characters (NPCs). These side quests
are often based on seeking out the "user" needs of the NPC. Link
"interviews" other NPCs and "observes" the "context of use" or "userprobes" for clues that could relate to these "user needs," such as
snooping in Kafei’s diary at his mother’s blessing (Majora’s Mask).
Link can be given an initial "list of user requirements," anythingfrom recipes and shopping lists to ill-defined "desires" and "problems" that require Link to flesh out by more deeply "centring" theNPCs as individuals who may or may not differ in various ways
from Link himself. In a classic example, Link realizes that he must
learn the favoured song of horse Epona’s original owner to calm
the beast’s nerves (Ocarina of Time).
2.0.2 Prototyping and User Testing. Link is a prototyper and iterative designer. This is best represented in the mechanics of Tears of
the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild. Vehicles, mecha, contraptions,cages, cooking recipes ... Link can craft, test, and re-craft "prototypes" for himself and others. Earlier games provided a simpler
process of Link scrounging around and offering solutions to problems posed by NPCs, "iterating" until the NPC was satisfied. Neverself-serving, this orientation towards others represents a link between worlds, the NPC or "user" and the solution or "technology."6
2.0.3 Designer Humility. Link is humble and inclusive. He does
not foist solutions and worldviews on others. Even though he is a
Hylian (most of the time), he does not lean on that worldview or
restrict his efforts to those of his race. In Majora’s Mask, masks are
empathy suits [14], allowing Link to take on the embodiment–not
just the appearance, but also the interactive capacities and social
situatedness–of other Hyrulian races, from the Goron to the Deku,
and even specific individuals or "personas," such as Mikau, a Zorarock band guitarist. Still, he literally wears his positionality on his
sleeve, or head, in his iconic hat. And, as always, he is all but silent,
listening rather than speaking.

2.1

Counterpoint and Foil: Ganon

Ganon is Link’s nemesis, but also presents a foil for the transcendent
model of user-centred designer. Ganon is all about domination andachieving self-serving desires, the antithesis to user-centredness,
unless we consider him the sole "user." In Ocarina of Time, Ganon
persuades the Gerudos, by trick or force, into doing things his way
over a participatory approach: deceptive design [2] at its finest.
Ganon is compelling as a character, but do we designers also finda little bit of ourselves in him? He may model immanence thatdeserves dismantling through brave reflexivity [19].
3 https://shmuplations.com/mario64/

CASE STUDY OF LINK: FROM HERO TO
HUMAN-CENTRED DESIGNER

4 I use the terms user-centred and human-centred interchangeably and for stylistic

purposes.
5 I use zero subheadings to bring home the meta, transcendent nature of this idea.
6 By "technology," I do not necessarily mean the thing created, but rather the applicationof knowledge in a repeatable solution to a problem [20].

Link is an ideal candidate: a positive force embraced by generationsof players across a suite of games created by Nintendo, a company

239

Link, User-Centred Designer

3

CHI PLAY Companion ’23, October 10–13, 2023, Stratford, ON, Canada

CONCLUSION

Link is a venerated character and a case study of how transcendent
models representing complex nondiegetic values can be found ingame creations. Whether creators have done this on purpose or
faithfully embody these models themselves is up to debate. Discovering what other transcendent models exist is another adventure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to Giulia Barbareschi and Brandon Sichling for prereviewing this paper. I also thank the chairs and the external peer
reviewers for specially handling and reviewing this paper.

REFERENCES[1] Jaime Banks. 2015. Object, me, symbiote, other: A social typology of player-avatar
relationships. First Monday (2015). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i2.5433[2] Harry Brignull. 2023. Deceptive Patterns: Exposing the Tricks Tech Companies Use
to Control You. Testimonium Ltd.
[3] Jeffrey A. Brooks, Panagiotis Tzirakis, Alice Baird, Lauren Kim, Michael Opara,
Xia Fang, Dacher Keltner, Maria Monroy, Rebecca Corona, Jacob Metrick, andAlan S. Cowen. 2023. Deep learning reveals what vocal bursts express in different
cultures. Nature Human Behaviour 7, 2 (Feb. 2023), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41562-022-01489-2 Number: 2 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
[4] Linda Codega. 2023. A Link Between Genders: Trans Joy and the Legend of
Zelda. Gizmodo (May 2023). https://gizmodo.com/legend-of-zelda-tears-of-thekingdom-link-trans-1850430832[5] Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum. 2014. Values at Play in Digital Games.
MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: iIYRBAAAQBAJ.
[6] Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Bias in computer systems. ACM
Transactions on Information Systems 14, 3 (July 1996), 330–347. https://doi.org/
10.1145/230538.230561[7] James Paul Gee. 2003. What video games have to teach us about learning andliteracy. Computers in Entertainment 1, 1 (2003), 20–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/
950566.950595[8] D Fox Harrell. 2013. Phantasmal Media: An Approach to Imagination, Computation,
and Expression. MIT Press.
[9] Tilo Hartmann. 2008. Parasocial interactions and paracommunication with new
media characters. In Mediated Interpersonal Communication, Elly Konijin, S. Utz,
and M. Tanis (Eds.). Routledge. Num Pages: 23.
[10] Michael A. Hogg. 2016. Social Identity Theory. In Understanding Peace andConflict Through Social Identity Theory: Contemporary Global Perspectives, Shelley McKeown, Reeshma Haji, and Neil Ferguson (Eds.). Springer International

240

Publishing, Cham, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6_1[11] Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl. 1956. Mass communication andpara-social interaction. Psychiatry 19, 3 (Aug. 1956), 215–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
Publisher: Routledge _eprint:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049.
[12] International Standards Organization. 2016. Ergonomics principles in the designof work systems. https://www.iso.org/standard/63785.html[13] Elly A. Kojinin and Marije Nije Bijvank. 2009. Doors to Another Me: Identity
Construction Through Digital Game Play. In Serious Games. Routledge. Num
Pages: 25.
[14] Martin Lavallière, Lisa D’Ambrosio, Angelina Gennis, Arielle Burstein, Kathryn M.
Godfrey, Hilde Waerstad, Rozanne M. Puleo, Andreas Lauenroth, and Joseph F.
Coughlin. 2017. Walking a mile in another’s shoes: The impact of wearingan Age Suit. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education 38, 2 (April 2017), 171–187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2015.1079706 Publisher: Routledge _eprint:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2015.1079706.
[15] Melissa L Lewis, René Weber, and Nicholas David Bowman. 2008. “They may
be pixels, but they’re MY pixels:” Developing a metric of character attachment
in role-playing video games. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11, 4 (2008), 515–518.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0137[16] Gregory Little. 1999. A manifesto for avatars. Intertexts 3, 2 (1999), 192–211.
https://doi.org/10.1353/itx.1999.0008[17] Robert K. Merton. 1936. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social
action. American Sociological Review 1, 6 (1936), 894–904. https://doi.org/10.
2307/2084615 Publisher: [American Sociological Association, Sage Publications,Inc.].
[18] Blanca Miller and David Feil-Seifer. 2016. Embodiment, situatedness, and morphology for humanoid robots interacting with people. In Humanoid Robotics: A
Reference, Ambarish Goswami and Prahlad Vadakkepat (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7194-9_130-1[19] Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. Reflexivity in Digital Anthropology. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC,
Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
123–132. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978961[20] Eugene B. Skolnikoff. 1993. The Elusive Transformation: Science, Technology,
and the Evolution of International Politics. Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rpm1[21] Henri Tajfel. 1978. Social categorization, social identity and social comparison.
Differentiation Between Social Group (1978), 61–76. Publisher: Academic Press.
[22] Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner. 2004. The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In Political Psychology. Psychology Press, 276–293.
[23] Sherry Turkle. 1995.
Ghosts in the machine.
The Sciences 35, 6(1995), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1995.tb03214.x _eprint:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1995.tb03214.x.
[24] Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed
self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research 33, 3 (2007),
271–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x