Memorable Icons

[Solid Shadow]

So whatever happened to games with memorable icons or masots, anyway? One of the things that made the games of yore so great were the wonderful stars or co-stars.

Mario, Pit, Link, Sonic, Kirby... it's almost as if game companies have forgotten that their games need memorable characters, not something punched from a cookie-cutter mold. I think the most recent, great video game character would have to be Crash Bandicoot, and that was damn near ten years ago! Sure, we've had Maximo, Ratchet and Clank, Jak & Daxter, but deep down they're really based on their predecessors.

Any thoughts?

[Staizer]

playstation was using pyro for a while, but yeah, that was like 5 years ago. . . I don't know of any good mascots lately, kinda sad . . . mainly the companies just use their logos now :(

[Specterbane]

It's true, but you can't look to Sony for that. The closest I can think of recently is Dante from DMC. But Sony's still more for teens than kids, and mascots have diffrent appeal to diffrent ages I think. Though then again X-Box would have Master Chief. But I guess it could just be that mascots have changed since the days of yore. Nintendo's still using Mario like a nickle and dime whore, so there you have it.

[Mirai Gen]

Nintendo's still using Mario like a nickle and dime whore, so there you have it.

I don't think that's really fair. He's about as recognizeable as Mickey Mouse at this point, and the opening 7 notes from Super Mario Bros. for the NES is one of the most recognizeable tunes in video games today. They're using what they're known for, and as far as I can see, Zelda, Mario, Link, Bowser, Gannon, and all of the crew (even Fox McCloud, too) are what kept the Gamecube from sinking.

But on topic.

Mascots? They really can't exist anymore, except for Nintendo. Nintendo makes their own consoles, followed by their own games, and that's what keeps them so popular (that and the die-hard Nintendo maniacs). Microsoft and Sony don't do that.

If anything, Master Cheif is the mascot for the Xbox and Kratos is the mascot for the PS2.

[ElfLad]

and Kratos is the mascot for the PS2.


Silly Mirai. Everybody knows that Tales of Symphonia is on the GameCube.[/sarcasm]


Still, I don't think God of War is the best example of an iconic PS2-exclusive. Maybe Tidus?

[Fuzzydoom]

If it's anybody from FFX its Auron. Maybe Sora from Kingdom Hearts?

[Squall Leonhart]

Sora made his way to the Game Boy Advance, so I wouldn't really consider him a mascot.

I personally don't think Sony or Microsoft can claim to have mascots like Nintendo do. Hell, look at the Super Smash Bros. saga. I find it difficult to impossible for the latter companies to pull a game like that (as in themes, nostalgia, and all those signature ass-kicking moves).

[Mirai Gen]

Silly Mirai. Everybody knows that Tales of Symphonia is on the GameCube.[/sarcasm]


Still, I don't think God of War is the best example of an iconic PS2-exclusive. Maybe Tidus?
Only reason I said it is because Sony of America made it. Keep in mind that most of the Nintendo icons were made by nintendo, or subsections. Which is also why MAster cheif would be the icon; he actually belongs to Bungie, who got eaten up by Microsoft.

[ElfLad]

Super Square Bros. might work pretty good, though. They're the only other company I can think of that has enough characters. (except for the fighting series with characters created specifically for fighting games, of course)

Edit: Ah, my mistake, then. I didn't know that Sony made God of War

[Raiden]

It would be interesting if the PS2 made a game like Super Smash Bros. Melee.

It would likely have Dante, Jak, Ratchet, and Kratos in it. Who else would they stick in?

[Squall Leonhart]

[...]Who else would they stick in?that's exactly my point. They don't have enough characters to make it intresting.

Unless they made all third parties to make a big clash, I find it extremly hard for either company to make a similar game.

Edit: Now this (http://ds.ign.com/objects/706/706897.html) is what I'm talking about!

[Lockeownzj00]

I honestly...think it's good that we don't have as many mascots anymore. Besides nostalgia, right now, what do mascots really do? What purpose do they serve? Don't we recognise that they're a paper-thin marketing ploy to attract more customers? That they're the most 1-dimensional, predictable, over-used, over-sold, over-whored "characters," if you can call them that, in the business? That they have no depth, and there are millions of them being created a second for the sole purposes of being mascots, not characters? That their whole existence is a paradox, engineered to implant themselves in your mind at youth so you can be nostalgic about them later? And what are we reminiscing about? The fact that in our youth, we were bombarded with their image, mercilessly, through countless, horrible products, ranging from the pointless to the obsolete to the offensively irrelevant?

I personally am glad we're starting to shed our lesser-versions of Mao personality cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality). They just represent the corporate, faceless side of video-games for me. Sure, I love Mario. Sure, all the other mascots kind of suck. And sure, even though Super Smash Brothers was a lucky leak over to the US of what the Japanese have been making for years; cheap, badly made for-profit-only group fighting games based around several well-known mascots, it was fun. But I could do without them. And I don't think I'd be missin' too hard.

Edit: oh my god, I hadn't even clicked the link in the previous post, and I hit it dead-on. Money-making group fighting game. Hoo-boy, Japan never ceases to fill their "Superficial" quota for the day. In fact, I think they've gone beyond the capacities of conventional measuring methods.

[Jagos]

Heh, let's look at Dante that's been in more fill-ins than actual games. Three made but he was in an RPG, Action (Viewtiful, wasn't it?) and basically had more action than a hooker at a 99 cent store. Do I need to see him everywhere or does he really need to be in more games for the "cool" factor?

Super Smash Bros was good. Jump Superstars looks like it can go all the way. But so long as the respective companies don't go the Lara Croft Route (more merchandising, horrible gameplay for all) I think we'll all be more happy.

That, and making unique characters. One day I WILL play Beyond Good and Evil and see what the fuss is about. But that's on my time not the corporate!

[Raiden]

What RPG was he in?

[Jagos]

Shin Megami Tensei (http://www.atlus.com/smt/main.html)

[Astral Harmony]

Well, there is Onimusha Blade Warriors that sort of tried to be like Super Smash Brothers but that didn't quite work out.

Mascots are all right, but I don't think we really need 'em anymore. They don't really serve any purpose these days, it seems. Besides, I'm sure your average gamer knows which console to turn to if they want certain characters or their games. If they want Mario, Samus, Link, and all the people a lot of us gamers grew up with, they'll stick with Nintendo. If people like Halo, Dead or Alive, or Splinter Cell, then they'll choose XBox. If they want Devil May Cry, Tomb Raider, or more RPGs then they know what to do with (Nintendo and XBox have some good ones, but PS2 dominates that genre), then they can pick up a Playstation 2.

[Djstriker]

The lack of mascots comes down to the same thing that is making new RPG's suck its all Graphics Driven and the NEWEST technology that runs the market. So why make games with characters everyone loves when we can use the new Graphics standard to create more blood more shiny weapons *though as any 8bit theater fan knows SHINY is good* and the like instead of good storyline, better playability and over all fun factor. Which why stepping away from consoles for a sec I love World of Warcraft its not all about the graphics the story is fun and I actually enjoy questing thank god Blizzard has stuck to there original thesis on game design. Just my opinion but *shrug* ya'll can decide heh.

[Lockeownzj00]

I disagree. Wouldn't more graphics, a la Killer 7, allow for even *more* memorable icons? Isn't it when video-games approach the likeness of other aesthetically-appealing genres of mediums like comics and paintings and movies that it becomes even more impressive? Don't graphics fucknig rock the hizouse?

No...graphics, if anything, fuel potential character cults.

The decline is a positive thing but due to a negative catalyst, I believe--the industry floundering like a fish out of water.

[MFD]

But, if I LIKE a character, such as Luigi, or Link, then why is that a bad thing, just beause they're in one of Nintendo's flagship series? I want to play the games for the character, whether it's the one I made up, or the one the game develops.

I would say that, while mascots are not inherently evil, it is a good thing that the game companies are expanding their horizons. Perhaps they'll stumble on a new character or universe that people will enjoy.

Hell, Nintendo plans to add a new franchise in their Revo generation.

[Fifthfiend]

The PS2 Mascot is Tommy Vercetti, it is so.

[Djstriker]

I disagree. Wouldn't more graphics, a la Killer 7, allow for even *more* memorable icons? Isn't it when video-games approach the likeness of other aesthetically-appealing genres of mediums like comics and paintings and movies that it becomes even more impressive? Don't graphics fucknig rock the hizouse?

No...graphics, if anything, fuel potential character cults.

The decline is a positive thing but due to a negative catalyst, I believe--the industry floundering like a fish out of water.


Ok I will give ya that but really Final Fantasy wise everything Past 7 has sucked story wise I couldn't play 8 it was so horribly thought out and not to mention 9's almost kiddy storyline and lets not even go the direction of Crystal Chronicles *it was teh sux0r* I can't believe it earned the name Final Fantasy its almost and I mean ALMOST as bad as Mystic Quest which other than crappy gameplay had a DECENT story.

[Lockeownzj00]

Uh. What was this Final Fantasy rant about? Hm. First:


But, if I LIKE a character, such as Luigi, or Link, then why is that a bad thing, just beause they're in one of Nintendo's flagship series? I want to play the games for the character, whether it's the one I made up, or the one the game develops.

I would say that, while mascots are not inherently evil, it is a good thing that the game companies are expanding their horizons. Perhaps they'll stumble on a new character or universe that people will enjoy.

Well, there's nothing inherently wrong with 'liking' a character. It's just when they create the characters for the purpose of attracting customers and you like the character for the character, that's fine, but it doesn't change what they're, I'd say unscrupulously (psychologically speaking), using the characters for.

And I think one should be careful to call mascots 'expanding horizons.' I've advocated progression in games-design and games in general, but I don't think mascots=expanding horizons. I don't even think they're in the same proverbial state or continent or planet. In fact, what I was saying was mascots are regressive. Something we need to grow out of.

Now for the FF rant:

Ok I will give ya that but really Final Fantasy wise everything Past 7 has sucked story wise I couldn't play 8 it was so horribly thought out and not to mention 9's almost kiddy storyline and lets not even go the direction of Crystal Chronicles *it was teh sux0r* I can't believe it earned the name Final Fantasy its almost and I mean ALMOST as bad as Mystic Quest which other than crappy gameplay had a DECENT story.

Just on a personal level, I disagree about the stories: I found all the stories to be quite engaging, and 9's lighthearted approach perfectly acceptable, and much less campy than something like 4. Crystal Chronicles was a very well-made game, too, I believe, and so aesthetically appealing. The Japanese version of the game, with watercolor kanji...you just want to, like, eat it.
Anyway--no idea where this came from.

[MFD]

What I meant to say was that, Mascots are not evil. However, it is a good thing that companies are expanding their horizons, by making games that do not feature a mascot.

[Jagos]

Someone like Nintendo isn't exactly expanding their horizons. Wario is still the "lovable" grinch that he's always been. Luigi is still the misunderstood taller, but younger brother who gets shafted when it's time for adventure.

For the most part, the character of Nintendo stay in the roles and a game is based around their personality. Sure the game is recognized, but is it really necessary to have Yoshi, Mario, Wario, along with the other members of the Nintendo world put into game after game without a real expansion of the characters?

[Djstriker]

My reply was mostly about your graphics comment and one of the most in decline games due to the Graphic Obsession by game companies anymore in my opinion was Final Fantasy and so I used it as a Example *shrug* sorry for confusing ya locke heh

[Astral Harmony]

My reply was mostly about your graphics comment and one of the most in decline games due to the Graphic Obsession by game companies anymore in my opinion was Final Fantasy and so I used it as a Example *shrug* sorry for confusing ya locke heh

Please, man. Could it hurt you to use some punctuation? I'm not even sure I'm really understanding what's being said with that jumble.

Are you accusing Square of being graphically obsessed and that's the reason the games past VII have sucked?

I don't think this is so in the slightest. And besides, the way you're talking about it, it's more like you're saying the games suck just because you don't like them, not because of any supposed obsession with better graphics. I'll admit that I don't like IX, but it's not because I think Square was obsessed with graphics too much to make the game great. IX just isn't my taste.
-----
I myself was thinking about how Nintendo's icons were being used to make these other games like Tennis and Smash Brothers and Double Dash and Party, and while I do really enjoy Double Dash and Smash Brothers Melee, I believe that yes, they are going overboard a bit.

EDIT: Ah...I suppose I should supply a reason I think this is so. Mostly, I believe because it can detract from games where the icons do not starr. In fact, that's the way it is with all of the consoles. It's not just Gamecube. These icons can sell games, whether we like it or not, and this may distract people's attention from great titles with lesser known icons. This is true for popular titles as well. It's silly, but it's true.

[Djstriker]

Sorry I have the habit of typing how I speak. Which usually is without any pauses in sentence and just complete rambling its a Tennessee thing. Now I am saying that most of the company's out there right now are Graphically obsessed they would rather produce a awesome looking game instead of one with gameplay. Now that being said yes it's just my opinion and I am just stating it as a confused reply to another post that I mis interpreted *sp* my bad I apologize for having a opinion and the ability to think. =P

I'll try in the future to use correct sentence structure and punctuation. Also will try not to ramble on in a confused state about something completely unrelated to the topic though I did like Lockes viewpoint on what I said I love that kind of stuff. It leads to better review of beliefs and foundations of viewpoints.

[Lockeownzj00]

Fuck sentence structure and punctuation. Culture jamming, man, and that applies to language too. Just so long as it can be comprehended.

Word.