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
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.
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
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
John Romero - Daikatana
watch this
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.
Thanks for asking.
.. 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
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
Wait til you're playing: Half-Life: Tennis Starring Gordon Freeman
You still see that to some extent though - earlier this year, Mario was used not to promote a mario game, but for the general-nintendo "Who Are You?" ads.
I think it's just because there are more games out there. Parents recognized pac-man because they played that game.
... I think its just that there are more mascots.
I know what spyro looks like, and I know the prince of persia when I see him.. even if I dont know his name. I think this are bonified mascots.
Now for Mario being used as a company mascot, thats a different issue. I don't think that anyone besides Nintendo really did that.
I don't think you can say "Atari" had a mascot, or Colecovision.
I don't think you can say Laura Croft _isnt_ a mascot.. but she was never used to promote outside of the Laura Croft brand.
So while their might be a decline
I dont think you can judge them by their universal recognition - that just means they are mascot for poorly recognized games.
kcroy
You know, I'm not even supposed to BE here today. Dante.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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.
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
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?
(I am going to assume that your expletive-laden speech against these "cartoons" is simply an extension of the character conveyed within your post and therefore not declare you a troll.)
I agree that these symbols of traditional gaming are not thug and therefore unappealing to the modern mainstream gamer. Nor should any attempt be made to connect the two, as they are flat-out incompatable.
Hey, the people have spoken, and they want (virtual) blood to be spilt.
> when I see Laura Croft tv commerical, I pay attention. ;)
If you paid attention, you would have known that her name is Lara Croft.
It's a kind of a slash with a, you know, dot-type thing next to it.