Slashdot Mirror
The Decline of the Video Game Mascot
Ant writes "Ryan Cullen, of Access Gamer, writes: "This is the beginning of a recent fad that I have noticed the past couple years. Lately it seems that the mascot video game character has declined in popularity. Names like Mario and Sonic, characters who were once able to make the video game world suddenly stop and pay attention, are now either shells of their former glory, or they are just not as huge as they once were. Why is this?""
@
I remember when Mario was a somebody, but now Nintendo is insistent on putting him in every type of game EXCEPT a platformer. Lately they've put out a cart racing game, a golf game, an RPG and a tennis game. Then they announce "here it comes! another Mario game!" and what is it? Baseball!
What happened to "Mario 128"??? Is Mario Sunshine the only thing us Gamecube players are going to get? Say it isn't so!
Speak for yourself, when I see Laura Croft tv commerical, I pay attention. ;)
This is the beginning of a recent fad that I have noticed the past couple years. Lately it seems that the mascot video game character has declined in popularity.
Uh, so isn't this really the end of a fad? Games are being judged on gameplay and word-of-mouth instead of how many photo-ops some guy in a oversized fur suit attends?
GMD
watch this
Since when?
Samus - Metroid
Pikacho - Pokemon
James Bond
Jak+Dexter
Crash Bandicoot
Mario is still going strong
I'd say that mascots are declining because so often you don't see one character anymore. Recently games tend to be FPS, MMO or RTS which don't have the one ubiquitous character.
The mascot's domain lay largely in the side scroller.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I'd say this rule applies to everything, not just people. Of course, some things have longer runs at being famous than others (painting: Mona Lisa), but all end up being neglected by something else, newly famous.
If anything, I would think the lack of platformers, especially with respect to Mario, has to do with the fact that as consoles get more complicated, the expectations for innovation in sequels are raised. We've been hearing about Mario 128 for how long now? If Sunshine had recieved a warmer welcome, maybe we would have gotten a half-assed sequel. But Miyamoto feels the need to re-invent the franchise with each iteration, and thusly we may not get a second Mario platformer in this generation. Besides, why force a platformer, when you can trot Mario out in other situations like sports, parties, or RPG's.
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
They didn't start out as mascots, they started out as characters in a game which became so popular that they became synonymous with the hardware vendor they were created by.
Sony's original IP is tied to their methodology of creating new markets which requires innovation in technology and is not character based.
You could argue that Halo is synonymous with the Microsoft XBOX, but the faceless dude in a space suit wouldn't be recognised by many people outside of gaming circles.
Pokemon is synonymous with the Gameboy for many kids. All their parents would know this too - they buy the shit.
He's pretty much considered to be the mascot for the XBOX and all the XBOX owners seem to really love him.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
Decline in mascot/main characater? What about:
Gordon Freeman - Half Life 1 and 2
Master Chief - Halo 1 and 2
Okay, so maybe it's not quite on the same level as Sonic the Hedgehog (who looked more like a blue fox than a hedgehog), but there is an all-new Hello Kitty MMORPG ready to debut.
The editorial points to a kind of shift from the happy game landscapes of Mario and Sonic, but I didn't see any welcoming treatment of Hello Kitty. How can you get much more happy, fun and vibrant than Hello Kitty?
The assertion in the editorial is that mascots are just too cutesy-kidsey to have much appeal anymore, but I think that the recent slew of game concepts/storylines is probably not easy to align with a mascot image... but this could change.
Consider this game premise: You are part of a band of mutant gun-toting grenade-lobbing prairie dogs who must encircle and destroy a hedgehog settlement as you defend against the attacks on a horde of evil gophers. Find something cute and fuzzy, put a chaingun in its hand and a bandanna on its head and you've got a mascot. In the premise, it could be "Hank the PO'd Prairie Dog"! Pick another name for the gopher-king and the hedgehog sultan and you've got mascots Galore!
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Perhaps we should talk about the niche that games built on character have found.
Yes, the growing-up on the part of the gaming population has driven mascots away from the mainstream. However, due to the Internet, sizable followings have arisen. Fans who seek story just as much as, if not more than, gameplay can gather in online communities. It doesn't hurt that games started leaving the realm of pure gameplay and started becoming more complex forms of entertainment, driven probably by the advances in technology.
I realize that the above paragraph doesn't make much sense. Just take my word on this: the mascots are not going away. It's up to the gamer population to seek them again, but we fan(boy)s will make sure that they'll be around.
Might the slight decline in prominence of mascots be due to the relatively recent possibility of semi-immersion? Many a game places the player in the shoes of an everyman of sorts. It's kind of hard for "the GTA guy" to become a mascot. To borrow a phrase from Gag Halfrunt, "He's just this guy, you know?"
Mascots are still around, and definitely provide brand identification. Nintendo still uses its stable of characters, especially Mario. Jak 3 just came out, starring the closest the PS2 might have to a mascot (worth noting that Naughty Dog is the studio behind both Crash Bandicoot and Jak & Daxter). Master Chief, while definitely the faceless everyman, is now quite iconic, and you can't see him without the XBox immediately coming to mind.
Anyway, while mascots don't seem to be as important for sales as they once were, many game characters still can become instantly recognizable and elicit mental associations with their respective platform or developer. Who doesn't think of Valve and headcrabs when they see Gordon Freeman?
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
I love your signature. Where's it from?
Dante? (Probably the most famous new character this generation)
Ratchet and Clank?
Jak and Daxter?
Spyro the Dragon?
Solid Snake?
The Prince?
Samus?
Mascots are still going strong, they're just a bit less furry (with some exceptions)...
John Romero - Daikatana
watch this
I just saw Sonic on a cardboard cutout at MdD's. I have no idea what it was promoting because it only kind-of caught my eye.
Is an example of the juxtaposition of the cute, "kiddy", mascot with the trend towards realism and, especially, violence in video games. By mixing these two game-design paradigms, the game's creators are able to use exaggerated elements of each to parody the other. It's really a brilliant idea.
My daughter is in love with Mario. When she plays pretend the people at her tea party are Mario, Peach, and Luigi. She's in the age group that browses Nintendo's web pages and plays the little flash games they provide.
Mario isn't any less popular. Polls exist which show that Mario is more recognized among kids than Mickey Mouse. What's changed is that you grew up and are no longer in the Mario demographic.
Gamers don't want rehashes for the most part. A mascot is used over and over... and over... and over.
Everyone has been waiting for games like Half Life 2 and Halo 2 to come out; why? Because they hadn't really seen anything like them before and wanted more. Now when we get on down to Half Life 23 and Halo 42, gamers won't be excited. Why? Well, just look at the Tony Hawk games. The first was pretty sweet so we waited for the second. Now that the 6th or 7th is out (depending how you count) it's no longer such a big deal.
Mascots are very closely equated with "sequel" these days. "Sequel" means "more of the same that you love, plus some." It doesn't detract from the game, unless you HATED the previous game.
So you're dealing with diminishing returns on character mascots. Each sequel game is purchased by those who loved the former. Some new customers come on board, but they're probably less than those who hated the former (unless it was a sleeper hit) and just dropped the franchise altogether.
Judging from the "soft electronic sound" that accompanies the PS2 logo, the whispered "Game Cube," or the "SEGA!" shout, it's more about platform recognition.
The only way to maintain a mascot these days is to feature it sparingly on drastically different games, like "Go Kart," "Tennis," and "Golf," for example.
IANAMBA (I am not a Master of Business Administration).
Back in the day Mario used to represent the innovation and 2d platforming goodness. He even made the jump to 3D. Sonic represented speed and "Blast-Processing." Once we hit PS One, we're looking at the machine and going: What the hell does this Bandicoot thing represent. What about is it about this game that makes it stand out from every other on the current system or any other system. Nothing. Fast-Forward to today. None of the company mascots represent anything special about the systems. They're all relatively equal in power, the games are all the same. You don't need representation for what essentially is a custom, yet standardized PC in a box. The companies today can't let go of those mascots though because they're really the image attached to the company, so what do they do? Churn out sequel after sequel or spin-off after spin-off.
This AccessGamer site has really harsh game reviews. Some of the scores they give out are shockingly low. As examples, check out the scores for Fire Emblem, Ninja Gaiden, and Paper Mario. IMO, those are each outstanding games on their respective platforms.
Personally, I think it is because we have all grown up. The generation that grew to love and admire Mario and Sonic are all in their 20's and 30's now, and the younger generations aren't really into what Mom and Dad played when they were kids, even if they are new versions. This question is kinda like: "How come nobody likes wearing bell-bottoms, peace symbols, and huge 'fros anymore? We just grew out of them, and our kids don't have any reason to grow into them.
"No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
If you're like me, you probably see the mascot for one of the best PC games of the year: Gordon "da Man" Freeman.
If Gordon were to show up and endorse some other game, I'd likely buy it.
Gordon's never done me wrong yet.
--AC
Gordon Freeman - HalfLife2
Duke Nukem - Duke Nukem For(n)ever
Ratchet & Clank - R&C Series
Spyro
Prince dude from Prince of Persia
That Everquest hobag
Both Nvidia and ATI have chick mascots
That Devil May Cry dude with the pretty hair and womanly buttocks
Rayne, from Blood Rayne
All game licenses based on characters (xmen, spongebob, Bond, Kingdom Hearts, Tony Hawk, Spiderman, Mary Kate and Ashley.. well basically half the games out there are based on properties like this..)
kcroy
In the beginning of the film era there was the studio system that had one or too big players that were instantly recognisable. This declined into a more open and free market.
This is the same idea with video games. The original big players are starting to fade and beome on par with some of the newer studios and there is a free market.
This reminds me of a flash movie I seen earlier this year. It's pretty accurate.
I think the problem is they're trying to hide the same old games with a few central innovations, whether it be with a water pack (for Mario) or wind control (for Zelda). I also believe that games in general are starting to feel stale because there are no major revolutions to speak of, like there was when they moved from 2D to 3D. When this happened, they were more or less forced to create new genres, and the concept as a whole was new at the time. We need something like that again.
Didn't that character fuel a lot of sales for Playstation (original)consoles with the 1st 3D version of Metal Gear?
>>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
A mascot is not for staring in his own platformer. A mascot is for promotion.
For Nintendo their mascots were once only Donkey Kong and "The Plumber." Now Mario and DK share the duty with a small army of characters. Nintendo is a company of mascots. Saying Mario is Nintendo's mascot is like saying Kermit the Frog is Jim Henson's. You have to factor in the Pikachus and Elmos into the mix too.
Not only that the mascots purpose is to carry the banner for the company. If the game says Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Luigi, Pikmin, Link, Pikachu, or any other Nintendo mascot on the box, you know who made it and you have formed an opinion based on that.
It is true that while Nintendo use of mascots have grown, there doesn't seem to be a rival mascot anymore.
Back in the day, Sega and Nintendo were two of a kind. Both were powerhouse game developers that happened to make hardware. They both made great creations, and these characters would automatically be exclusive to their hardware.
Now you have companies like Sony and Microsoft who make hardware and hire developers to make games for them. For these companies, the hardware itself becomes the trademark. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, it is just a difference in philosophy.
There are still many many mascots, but most of the ones that don't belong to Nintendo can show up on any platform. So there isn't as much jawing and emphasis placed on Sonic vs Mario. Now you have the PS2 vs. GC vs. XBOX in the wars, and Rayman, Sonic, Mega Man, Pac-Man, and Mario can all play nice.
video games (and many other forms of popular entertainment) currently are concerned with gangster rap and violence. many players seem to be embarrassed if their games are not badass shit where you get to kill motherfuckers. "many gamers" includes children. mario and sonic are cartoons and do not fit the image of pimped-ass motherfuckers. that fucking gay fucking old-ass shit.
I have a feeling that the mascot is changing - before about 2000, the mascot game, such as Mario, everyone had. Other posts have mentioned Jax & Daxter as a big time mascot, which is not so because not everyone has that game. I think mascots are changing to that like Master Chief. If you look at the game libraries of all XboX owners, I'm guessing more than 75% have that game. For PC gamers, that is Hl1, PS2 is probably J&D, but I dunno, and for Gamecube owners it seems animal crossing or pikmen are really popular.
This relates to a recent article in WIRED regarding the declining power of name brands in general. Consumer research seems to indicate that more and more people are starting to realize that quality requires more than just a popular name.
** A Sketch a Week **
http://www.sketchplease.com
Thats all it is. new mascots are coming out, it just takes time thats all. And besides, there are still names that automatically command a certain amount of respect. Sonic and Mario among them. Nowadays dropping Masterchief or Freeman automatically brings a certain amount of awe and hero worship into the mix, and mentioning the golden oldies like Sonic and Mario do still invoke a reaction. the problem is that now gaming isnt such a niche market anymore, there isn't any 1 mascot that fits an entire culture of gaming. Back when the genesis was the latest and greatest, and the snes still wasnt able to hold a candle to it, Sonic represented gaming on the whole. Everyone who was anyone had a genesis and the plethora of sonic games. Now there are so many different little niches in the gaming world that there just isn't a single mascot to cover them all. The closest we've come to that is Gordan Freeman, and even then its still not complete. i guess if you really wan't a 1 size fits all mascot that represents all of gaming, it would have to be a AOL cd jacket. after all, we ALL agree on how useless those things are.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You know what the biggest selling game on gamecube is?
Super Smash Bros. Melee.
Do you know what that game is? IT'S A BUNCH OF MASCOTS FIGHTING EACHOTHER! The mascots aren't dead, they are still a huge deal for Nintendo, that's why they use them so much, they sell hardware and games. How much do you think "Mario Tennis" would have sold without Mario? 10 copies?
... they're all busy being worked to death by e.a., et al. ;-)
I hear ya, I originally bought the GBA just for the port... Damn, I miss the old days.
I believe it's a side-effect of the FPS phenomenon.
It's less of a case of the person "playing" the character, as it is the person playing as his/her self in the character's world.
That's not to say that game companies can't create characters good FPS characters. They still could, but would have to introduce mechanisms that would identify the character as unique from the player (ala Duke Nukem's one-liners and whatnot). However, this could also have the negative effect of pulling the player out of the virtual world.
I would just like to add that we do it discretely as well.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Simplistic but fun games dominated the 80's and early 90's. In pong, people were fascinated by two paddles moving and a ball and would pay over $1000 for a system that only did that. Super Mario Bros was a watershed game that introduced a new level of complexity into gaming. Suddenly, there were secret warps, character power-ups, tight controls, and great graphics (for the time). Mario and then Zelda became a symbol of this innovation. As the video game generation aged, we became savvier and realized that the designers, not "mario" was responsible for innovative game design. Nowadays, Mario has transformed into a symbol of a child-safe game and lost some of his glorious former mystique.
The new mascots are all trying to be neo-mario instead of original mario. That is, capitalize on marketing potential quickly after the first hit is realized (by making bad movies or sequels). Square even finally sold out by releasing a true sequel (and a game where a certain N*Sync singer voices voices a particularly memorable villain from a previous game.)
We now tend to trust studios rather than properties to be good (e.g. Blizzard or Sid Meier or Hideo Kojima or Maxis etc).
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
They're more or less icons at this point, rather than just mascots.
Gordon Freeman of course - You can't go anywhere on the net without looking at his face, and lets face it the world stopped to look the other week (or at least steam did) ;)
Who/what is the Slashdot mascot? Cowboy Neal?
> when I see Laura Croft tv commerical, I pay attention. ;)
If you paid attention, you would have known that her name is Lara Croft.
I have not seen a good video game commerical in a really long time, which boosted game character's images.
I remember Nintendo and Sega's glory days when they had funny commericals to promote their games. Nintendo used to have great commericals with some dorky kid rapping to Zelda, or Mike Tyson doing a sinister laugh at the end of his Mike Tyson's Punchout commerical, or the witch doctor commerical for Dr. Mario. Then at the end some booming voice would say "Nintendo, now your playing with power!". Sega had weird commericals where the character in the commercial would shout "SEGA!" really fast and loud at the end. The last good commerical I remember was for Final Fantasy 7, which showed various intense movie scenes from the game and said something like if you cannot save the world, there is always the reset button.
Since then, nothing. No more TV shows, no movies, no merchandice, and no commericals. I think the companies need to do more then just the game itself in order to make their characters more recognized and popular.
Of course, they had a "We're Sorry this Game Sucks Ass, but No, You Still Cannot Return It" policy
It assumes that back then you didn't know about the rinse and repeat tactic. Keep on returning games as defective (and getting an exchange for the same title) until the store finally runs out of stock and caves, giving you Geoffrey Money (or whatever Toys Ya Us calls its gift card nowadays). Corporate will see the title's defect rate shoot up.
In the beginning of the film era there was the studio system that had one or too big players that were instantly recognisable. This declined into a more open and free market.
I don't even know enough cinema history to be effective on Google, so I'd appreciate a helpful answer: In the early days of motion pictures, when there were two or three movie studios, did each have its own proprietary projector that got replaced every five years?
Masterchief?
Snake?
Hot chick from Bloodrayne?
The cast of DoA?
what about Super Mario RPG? That was a huge smashing success... ...right?
That makes sense. I've seen dancing sushi characters on Japanese TV a few times.
My favorite Japanese mascot is still the Qoo character.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One of the reasons Mascots are less common is the aging gamers. I loved sonic but I got older and games companies were (and are) still marketing at me (and that generation).
A mascot the author seems to ignore was Lara Croft. I would go so far as to say she was bigger than sonic and Mario (2 films and a lucazade contract!).
Lastly, games have become so vast that more than one character is often used to complete the game.
All said, I do miss the anticipation we used to feel on the eve of a new Sonic game release.