Are gaming mascots dead?

[Captain Wrong]

OK, as a contiunation of a left turn we took in this thread, let's talk about the state of gaming mascots.

Nintendo has Mario, Sega has Sonic, but then you get to Sony...

Unofficially Sony was associated with such characters as Crash Bandicoot, Laura Croft, and Spyro among others, but those were all third party characters, some of which were corss platform and none of which really seemed to stick as a mascot. As we get far into the PS2's lifespan, it doesn't even really seem like Sony is interested in the concept of a mascot anymore.

Likewise with Microsoft. I know that many people were talking about that girl with the X tatoo in the early tech demo as if she was a mascot, but after the console came out, she dissapeared and nothing has come up to fill the void.

You know, when you think about it, there really weren't company mascots pre-crash. Atari didn't really have one, neither did Coleco. I guess you could say the "running football man" was one for Intellievision, but even then he doesn't have the same character and attitude as post crash mascots. (Hell, running football man has NO personality at all. ) Maybe the whole mascot thing was a fluke of the "bit age."

So, my question is...do you think company mascots still matter? As two of the three consoles rely more on third party games as system sellers, it seems like the idea of a character like Mario or Sonic representing a company is slowly going away. What do you think?

[Oobgarm]

I agree. It's more about name recognition rather than a 'mascot' now.

I'd write some more here, but I just can't word it right. I'll have to come back and expand on my thoughts later.

[Lemmy Kilmister]

I think it's just from the lack of originality from developers. Plus the fact every game must be violent and extreme in some sort of way.

[geelw]

think for a second of the u.s. market... who do game companies target mostly? males 18-35. in the u.s., mascots don't sell games anymore, graphics and specs sell games. sony tried to use "polygon man", sophia from toshiden, sweet tooth, lara croft, crash bandicoot, and a few other assorted characters as "mascots" at one point or another here, but they didn't "take" because of the wider variety of games for the ps, and also because it seems that sony researched this very carefully...

of course, in japan, the muu muus from jumping flash, crash bandicoot, parappa (they were roomates in a series of sony spots in japan!), and toro (a cool lookin' cat) have all become popular mascots there.

edgy sells more than cute these days, no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise. both sony and microsoft know that image is everything, and if there was some polygon barney prancing around at the ps2 or xbox launch with stars and flowers bobbing in the background like a ritalin/lsd cocktail, i'm sorry, but both companies would be sinking faster than michael moore sitting on a marshmallow couch.

granted, i love cute platformers and mascot characters, but the days of one character selling a million systems is done for. mario sells games, but it takes more than one mario game to sell as many as one did years before. families want cute mascots to feel safe in their purchases. stereotypical gamers who want to relive the bouncy shiny past with the new cute girlfriends or boyfriends who "remember pac man" want cute and shiny and bouncy and safe. games will be made for those and those like them, but the market dictates that if characters ain't dressed in black and have a bullet time gimmick, they'll only make the rental charts, then the discount bin.

[Aussie2B]

Video game mascots tend to be at least somewhat cute and universally appealing. Sony and Microsoft are both trying to uphold some sort of "mature" reputation, so they're not about to take on a mascot that is too cute for the angst-ridden teenagers or too "adult" that it might alienate the other users.

[ManekiNeko]

I think the lessened popularity of mascots is a byproduct of the evolution of the video game industry. The age of the average player has jumped from 12 to 29, and as a result cute, younger-skewing characters like Mario just don't have the widespread appeal they once did. Even Sonic demonstrated that gamers were changing... he had a prickly back and an attitude to match, which was more appealing to teenage players than the chubby, nonthreatening plumber they loved when they were children. At this point, I think most players have outgrown mascots entirely... they'll still have their place, but they won't drive the industry the way they had in the late 80's and early 90's.

As gamers continue to mature, we'll see the video game industry evolve along with them. Right now, we're seeing a lot of blood, guts, and sex in video games, because gamers in their twenties (the industry's primary audience) find all of this exciting. Ten years from now, when gamers grow bored of the violence, they may start wanting games with more intelligence and depth. Games like Eternal Darkness that weren't so popular in 2002 may catch on in a big way ten years from now, when gamers start demanding better, more cerebral storylines. We may also see less emphasis on action to accomodate for the slower reflexes of older gamers.

JR

[Ed Oscuro]

Sony has done well with using characters from current games, but I'm not sure that Sony pioneered the idea of putting a bunch of characters from different games together in one image (I'd imagine Nintendo did that sometime for the NES).

There's no doubt that Crash Bandicoot and Spyro aren't as popular as they once were, and that Nintendo's seen declining sales in its console department, but didn't Super Mario Advance 4: SMB 3 sell very well? How about the latest Mario vs. Donkey Kong title? I see no indication that mascots fail to do well for Nintendo.

[geelw]

I see no indication that mascots fail to do well for Nintendo.

that's because a great deal of nintendo's repeat business comes from families who associate nintendo with (as i said earlier), safe and goody-good gameness. not that their's anything wrong withn that, and nintendo isn't going to run from that image because they'd lose even more of their market share. still, they know that they can carefully tightrope between a resident evil 4 and a warioware because they'll target them appropriately.

hell, when i was game slave, we had people come into the store and call psx games "nintendo" games, and once, some guy and his kids wanted a ps beccause they thought nintendo made donkey kong for it (don't ask)... x_x

[RCM]

I think mascots are still alive and kicking. Perhaps peoples vision of what a mascot is is a little too rigid. I believe the Master Chief from Halo is a good example of a mascot that is popular today. Microsoft did just release the Halo edition of Xbox didnt they? Madden is a sort of Mascot for the Madden football series. I know that franchise has been around for a while, but it's still alive and kicking today as well. If you look around and go by the definition of what a mascot is you will certainly see that there are many mascots. They just arent all cute and furry!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Push Upstairs]

hell, when i was game slave, we had people come into the store and call psx games "nintendo" games, and once, some guy and his kids wanted a ps beccause they thought nintendo made donkey kong for it (don't ask)... x_x

You ran into that guy too? When he crossed my path he wanted a Mario game on his PS....then again this was the same ass who constantly told his adorable litttle girl to "shut up" when she asked simple questions

[Half Japanese]

I've always considered Master Chief the Xbox mascot, although he doesn't quite fit the role like more mascots normally do. The Halo edition Xbox further drove this point into my mind.

Personally I sort of miss mascots being at the forefront of the "console wars." It gave you something to root for besides which console can cook breakfast and play dvds. I'm getting more and more jaded with current games and I can almost see myself in the future nearly abandoning it altogether in favor of something simpler and more fulfilling (maybe a small 'games-i'll-play-only' NES collection or something). Crash had some good games, but he never really stood out to me as mascot material, same with Spyro, but the purple dragon was even less qualified in my opinion. It could be said that Nintendo has a whole roster of mascots that they change out every few months. Christmas time it was Mario, past few weeks it's been Donkey Kong, come November it'll be Samus. Nintendo doesn't really give a shit whether or not they're the "coolest" or most macho console out there, hence their unashamed stance on mascots and franchises that are quickly dismissed as "kiddie" or tired. As stated by someone earlier, Sony and MS, as companies that sort of represent the "new wave" of gaming, neither of which have had as long a stay in the gaming market, tend to distance themselves from mascots, regardless of the fact that both have published great mascot games (Sly Cooper, Voodoo Vince). This doesn't necessarily make them any worse for not adopting a mascot, it's just not in their strategy.

[dmhawkmoon]

It's just that the gaming market has expanded so much now. There would be more characters seen as mascots if we only had a quarter of the games. As it stands, it's almost impossible to make a new far-reaching mascot even if you try now because your game is only going to be one out of a hundred. Even a successful character-driven game series won't get broad recognition to the point that it can be plastered to anything. The only exceptions are long standing mascots like Mario.

Some of you seem to have odd misconceptions about Nintendo. First party Nintendo games sell phenomenally. Mario and Link and Samus sell like crazy. They appeal to pretty much anyone since older people like them out of nostalgia and younger people are still drawn in by them the same as they always were. And the games are still solid...

[Kid Ice]

I think Sony's problem is bigger than lacking a mascot...they just don't have any games that you might call "characteristic of Sony". Aside from their mascots, Nintendo and Sega's style (for lack of a better description) is recognizable as well. The games I would most quickly attribute to Sony are Gran Turismo and Syphon Filter...I would really have to think to come up with others. Meanwhile I could name about 50 Nintendo and Sega games in about five minutes.

[spooie]

Sony actually had a mascot... his name was BLASTO! and he was voiced by Phil Hartman. Unfortunately, Phil Hartman was murdered by his wife less than 2 months after it was released and critics hated the game so much, I wouldn't be surprised it they wound up in the same landfill with the unsold ETs and Alf merchandise. After that, Sony quietly swept the character under the rug and never made mention of him again.

Personally, I always thought Robbit from the Jumping Flash! games would make a cool Mascot. But I doubt few remember him either.

[ManekiNeko]

if there was some polygon barney prancing around at the ps2 or xbox launch with stars and flowers bobbing in the background like a ritalin/lsd cocktail, i'm sorry, but both companies would be sinking faster than michael moore sitting on a marshmallow couch.

I don't know about anyone else, but I already want this game.

JR

[geelw]

I think Sony's problem is bigger than lacking a mascot...they just don't have any games that you might call "characteristic of Sony". Aside from their mascots, Nintendo and Sega's style (for lack of a better description) is recognizable as well. The games I would most quickly attribute to Sony are Gran Turismo and Syphon Filter...I would really have to think to come up with others. Meanwhile I could name about 50 Nintendo and Sega games in about five minutes.

actually, it's not a "problem" at all. that sony doesn't NEED a single character to sell systems. rather, the fact that people have bought playstation hardware for specific games they wanted to play speaks volumes. they can introduce first and third party characters and games and expect people to buy them based on the console having a wider variety of software.

from the time they published final fantasy 7, they knew that it wasn't so much of an issue to have a big "name" character to move systems, as it was to have big GAMES to move systems. like the big movie studio empires from the 20's to the 50's, they relied on a stable of interchangeable characters and games to keep gamers of all stripes coming back for more. sure, not all the games were great, but it's hard to look back and not recognize what was going on and what was changing.

if anything, nintendo has a "problem" in rolling out NEW characters, period. sure their classic characters sell plenty of games, but that's because they haven't changed at all (other than the way they look from game to game), and it's what fans come to expect. granted, this "argument" doesn't take into account innovations like metroid prime (which some people still hate, lol), but name the last new nintendo character (not introduced in the 80's or 90's) that's had a successful franchise... i can think of animal crossing, but that game is designed so that all the supporting characters carry the game (a great touch). you probably won't see any animal crossing kart racer or animal corssing party (although i'm prepared to eat these words once someone steals these ideas, lol!)... hell, i'm hoping they do another earthbound game (so people can stop asking "who's that guy with the yo-yo in super smash bros. melee?")...

and sega... sorry to say, but the last few sonic games were running on vapors. but fortunately, there's so much talent there that the company has managed to create a great deal of new characters. the super monkey ball games are great, i can't wait to see altered beast, and we're getting follow ups to gungrave and otogi. but sega has a bit of a problem keeping track of some of its recent hitmakers (pun intended unintentionally). i heard ulala was working at scores a month ago, rent-a-hero is a male escort, the jet set radio crew got arrested and tossed in jail on multiple assault charges in l.a. (they were in a gang war with the fighting vipers), toe jam was shot down in a drive by (earl was suspected, but his alibi was sound) and shinobi was doing one of those popiel knife infomercials last week...

it's important to realize that tastes change over time, and while nostalgia is necessary (and important, as it kicks those in the ass HARD who try to ignore it), it can also keep things from progressing if it becomes too much of a barricade to progress. in both cases, just because something is "popular", it sure as hell doesn't mean it's at all good (cue william hung {aka america's temporary mascot} singing "she bangs")...

[Kid Ice]

I think Sony's problem is bigger than lacking a mascot...they just don't have any games that you might call "characteristic of Sony". Aside from their mascots, Nintendo and Sega's style (for lack of a better description) is recognizable as well. The games I would most quickly attribute to Sony are Gran Turismo and Syphon Filter...I would really have to think to come up with others. Meanwhile I could name about 50 Nintendo and Sega games in about five minutes.

actually, it's not a "problem" at all. that sony doesn't NEED a single character to sell systems. rather, the fact that people have bought playstation hardware for specific games they wanted to play speaks volumes. they can introduce first and third party characters and games and expect people to buy them based on the console having a wider variety of software.

It is a problem and here's why; at some point, Sony is going to be behind the 8-ball like Sega was a couple years ago and Nintendo is now. It probably won't happen next year, it could happen in five years, but it will happen eventually. And when it does, Sony will simply be able to fall back on...what? Nintendo can slap Mario, Pokemon, or Metroid on just about anything. Sonic is still a good name despite a couple Saturn stumbles, and beyond that Sega has a few nice arcade frabchises. Hell, take it down a notch and you have Capcom with Megaman and Street Fighter, Konami with Castlevania and Solid Snake, Namco with Pac Man, etc. For Pete's sake, Taito has better name recognition with Space Invaders and the cast of Bubble Booble than Sony.

For all their "success", the fact remains that Sony not only lacks a recognizable mascot, their greatest franchise is a car racing game...correction, their ONLY franchise is a car racing game since from what I understand they just put Syphon Filter in the toilet. And I won't mention the golden opportunities they blew with Game Day, Wipeout, Colony Wars, and Parrappa the Rapper...but I just did.

The emperor has no clothes. That's why we keep hearing about how "anti-Sony" the board is. What exactly has Sony contributed that we are supposed to be so excited about? There aren't too many "fanboys" rooting for a soulless, money-grubbing machines that has after nearly ten years contributed ONE meaningful product (Gran Turismo) to the gaming culture.

[ubersaurus]

In my view, as the age range for consoles goes higher, the need for a mascot dwindles. I mean, Genesis was targeted at older crowds and still had Sonic, but that was marketed alot different then say, the Playstation line. That's not to say they didnt' still try, because the younger age range can't be ignored and that helps to try and get to them.

MS's mascot is pretty much Master Chief. There's no way you can't tell me it is.

[classicb]

MS's mascot is pretty much Master Chief. There's no way you can't tell me it is.

I would buy that but then who is the Sony mascot?

[geelw]

[quote="Kid Ice"]
It is a problem and here's why; at some point, Sony is going to be behind the 8-ball like Sega was a couple years ago and Nintendo is now. It probably won't happen next year, it could happen in five years, but it will happen eventually. quote]

er... i've been hearing THAT for about five years, and i'm still waiting for that to happen (code blue, code blue!). anyway, what you're missing (again) is that sony is at a point where they don't WANT to rely on a single character to hold up their systems, period. there's absolutely NO way you can suggest that the company shouldn't be successful because they don't follow in the steps of another company that's behind them in sales. no one is stopping more people from buying any other system, and sony isn't brainwashing people as far as i can tell.

the problem with certain franchises is that there's only so much that you can do with them. colony wars and wipeout? please. sony's stupid bungling with psygnosis aside, 3D space combat and futuristic racing aren't historically huge long term sellers. both genres breathe in and out every few years. as for gameday, come on. it's a SPORTS franchise, dude. a genre that sells BIG once a year, and a crowded market at that. yeah, sony dropped the ball in their own end zone, but that's the weirdest anomaly in its own way: a bunch of people who love football that can't make a decent football game. actually, last year's was the best ps2 installment, but was still far behind the rest.

as for most of the other games you've mentioned, er...space invaders isn't going to sell a system any more than bubble bobble will these days as they're niche games at best. so that's a whole bunch of notches down the ladder. the rest of that list suffers from "PITFALL SYNDROME", where the older games are far better than the remade ones. castlevania has only had major success in 2D (including the gba games), and didn't capcom cancel one of its vs. street fighter games? as for mega man, other than the new collectiuon, none of the newer games has been all that good. pokemon has fallen off quite a bit because it's been pasted all over everything but has gone nowhere fast. the life cycle of that franchise has just about run its course because of oversaturation and NO innovation. mario and his pals survive simply because nintendo is smart enough to move the characters forward onto each new system and take advantage of technology while also reissuing the older games to keep fans buying them. hell, imagine if miyamoto decided to NOT do mario 64 or anything new with the character...

anyway, my point is sony haters (and any other system biased fools) have less sense than a bankrupt scrooge mc duck. not only is EVERY game company money grubbing, if you HAVE to hate some huge company for its successes, it should be electronic arts , which would probably pump money into sony if it DID fail only because they've grown oh so much richer because of them.

oh, if you think that gran turismo is the ONLY big franchise they have, i'd say you'd have to look again...

now if you'll excuse me, i need to go finiish kirby air ride...