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!
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
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.
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.
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?