• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why do people think that only Nintendo can handle mascots?

T

Toad.T

Banned
We Gaffers are a dedicated bunch, aren't we? We follow series we love to unknown places, put up with shite re-imaginings and generally care about our chosen series. Sure, they may be Vediya Gams, but we've put time and effort into playing and discussing these worlds. However, some of these worlds have seen better days. Sure, most have spread their wings and matured into great modern-day contenders,(Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, Street Fighter) but a few were cut down during their prime. As such, during our bi-weekly "What franchise would you like to see again" threads, these series get championed.

Tom said:
I wish Megaman was sold to Nintendo, they'd take care of him right. Just look at Smash 4!
Click to expand...
Dick said:
It would be so very great if the Banjo-Kazooie series came back home. I mean, Microsoft's not doing anything with the series, right?
Click to expand...
Harry said:
Bomberman-kun! Those bakas over at Konami don't deserve your kawaiiness! ;~; Nintendo-sempai should come rescue you! =^_^=
Click to expand...

Are you noticing a pattern yet? Hell, it's not even comatose franchises that get this train of thought. I've seen people say this line for Sonic, Crash, Spyro and even Pac-Man!

So my question is, why just Nintendo? Do we have so little faith in the industry that people think any other developer would turn these series into F2P Microtransaction-laden, Facebook enabled, browser based card games? I think that if ANY studio were to receive ANY of these franchises, they'd treat them with a bit more respect than there parent company. It's like if your movie studio got the rights to the Halloween series. You wouldn't make the next movie a CGI-Animated family comedy loaded with pop-culture references and fart jokes. You'd take the privilege seriously and make it a horror film.

Plus there's the fact that Nintendo's got their own stable of series to look after. You think that Metroid and F-Zero get neglected NOW? Imagine Nintendo having four of the highest grossing series in the industry (Zeurda, SuMazza, PocketMon and Stubborn Gorilla) PLUS any one of these loaded worlds. You'd never see under Samus's helmet again.

Trust me, I'd like these series to be revived too. But Nintendo isn't the only place where a mascot would feel welcome. I'm sure there are fans of each of these series scattered in a good chunk of development/publishing houses, so why not give them a chance?
 
Because the rest of the industry have all but killed them. Look at the most popular non-Nintendo mascot. (It's Sonic)

Now look at his games.
 
They're almost the only major publisher willing to keep working with the more "retro" gameplay styles that comes with a lot of these mascot characters. Indies would as well, I'm sure, but they're probably not going to get their hands on any major mascot character. No other company has really acted on the classic mascot IPs that they're sitting on outside of Sega with Sonic.
 
Otakumegane said:
Because the rest of the industry have all but killed them. Look at the most popular non-Nintendo mascot. (It's Sonic)

Now look at his games.
Click to expand...

Recent Sonic games have been quite good, but yes - Nintendo had the most success with the more cartoony styled mascot characters.
 
I don't know about only. But they are exemplary at still having cartoon characters as their strongest sellers even when many others abandoned those a decade or so ago.
 
oh yeah, so kawaii mang
256px-BombActZerobox.jpg
 
Look at how they've handled their lead characters. How many Mario games have their been? A billion. Yet people haven't gotten tired of the character and will still buy the games. It's because they take care of the character and ensure their mascot doesn't die . . . by making good games for it

Most other characters die within the same gen or next. Nintendo's have lasted what 4 generations?
 
Nintendo's got it down pretty well. Sony and Microsoft's attempts at mascots... while not bad characters, just don't have longevity for one reason or another.

Like, where is Ape Escape?
 
I would like to see more cross genre play with Nintendo's mascots. Like Disney characters did with KHs. At first, I scoffed at the idea until I played it. I see there doing a dynasty warriors Zelda game. That could be interesting. Maybe an another RPG style game with nendo characters.
 
Much like Disney, Nintendo has always been such a recognizable icon that they can pull this shit off.

It gives me solace that Nintendo will not be going anywhere anytime soon. Too many beloved characters and franchises with dedicated fan bases every generation. Not to mention a lot of the games turn out to be good, so that's a good sign.

It hasn't hit America yet but Sony's mascots are pretty recognizable. Same with Capcom's Airou and Meirou characters in Monster Hunter.

12920-550x-AirouHeader.jpg

street-fighter-tekken-toro-and-kuro.jpg
 
shunxsato said:
Much like Disney, Nintendo has always been such a recognizable icon that they can pull this shit off.

It gives me solace that Nintendo will not be going anywhere anytime soon. Too many beloved characters and franchises with dedicated fan bases every generation. Not to mention a lot of the games turn out to be good, so that's a good sign.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Star Fox, F-Zero and Metroid fans.
 
HK-47 said:
Tell that to Star Fox, F-Zero and Metroid fans.
Click to expand...

Other M came out like 3 years ago.

Star Fox hasn't been in development cycle and all you really need are people like Kamiya to pick him up.

You got me at F-Zero, it's really been 10 years since a game and I honestly don't know of any developer interested in picking them up.
 
Most of them were killed either by milking, neglect or poor makeovers/re-imaginings. Nintendo does these too but they always do it well. Mario is very saturated but all the games are good, in fact they are almost improving over time. Link gets a new makeover almost every game and they all have a particular charm to them. When Nintendo revived Kid Icarus it wasn't just some relic in the closet they tried to pawn, they reinvigorated it and made it a nostalgic celebration.

The rest of the industry, specifically the west has gone ahead an turned everything into Hollywood-style generic white men. I mean the best and most recognizable outside of Nintendo now is probably Master Chief. That says it all really.

Otakumegane said:
Because the rest of the industry have all but killed them. Look at the most popular non-Nintendo mascot. (It's Sonic)

Now look at his games.
Click to expand...

At this point, Sonic is still around because Nintendo allows him to. They treat him better than Sega does.
 
Uh what's going on with Harry? Strange.

Anyway, I mean it's not like any of them are doing anything with those franchises. They sit, derelict, wasting away. I mean at least Nintendo could probably make them relevant again. I mean in the end it's just wishful thinking, it's not like it really means anything outside of hopes and dreams.

But it's not like Nintendo is perfect either. Look what they did to Star Fox, which used to be a pretty big franchise. Where is it now? And I'd say Metroid and F-Zero and different. They've always been niche titles. And they've at least been treated relatively well quality-wise, Other M notwithstanding.
 
Nintendo isn't interested in a quick cash grab games. They might have a rare miss but they do believe in using characters and mascots to their best.
 
Look at what Nintendo has done to their brand mascots, and look what every other company has done. Nintendo takes care of their brands.
 
I think it's actually pretty simple.

1. Of the three games referred to by Tom, Dick, & Harry, two of them are platformers, a genre that Nintendo has traditionally excelled at and that few devs really bother with anymore.

2. The third, Bomberman, is a frantic multiplayer/party game best enjoyed locally, with a group of friends, on the couch. It's a weaker case that they'd necessarily be the best choice, but they would certainly be competent to handle the series and Nintendo fans are certainly not allergic to cartoony aesthetics, so...

3. These series are as dead as the proverbial door nail. Nobody's doing anything with them, and there's no indication that anyone ever will at this rate.

4. Nintendo's had great success at translating classic 2d gameplay into 3d. It's exciting to think what they could come up with for Mega Man, Castlevania, Contra, etc. Games that never got the benefit of that treatment, but instead were either turned into an entirely different type of game (MML, modern Castlevania) or never got a 3d version to begin with. (Something like Gunstar Heroes.)

tl;dr: I think many people see them as the natural choice to revive these dead (mostly Japanese) classics, and with good reason.
 
Because Nintendo does it well. They keep a big stable of IPs (many long standing) and revisit them periodically. They rarely make terrible games. They have a nice cross over game to show case, promote, and utilize their mascots.

The reason no one thinks of other companies, is because no other publishers have shown they want to do it. I imagine many developers would treat all those franchise with care, but the handling of the IP seems more up to the publishers. Most out there will hammer in DLC, try mobile/free to play experiments, make sequels too quickly, make sequels too slowly, or lose the spirit of the games. Though to be honest, you're right in saying that Nintendo does tread the line of under using a lot of their IP, in favor of more Mario, Pokemon, Kirby.

Danthrax said:
Because the idea of selling a video game on the back of a mascot is a relic of the 90s.
Click to expand...
So is Nintendo as a game company (Well, I guess 80's, but the relic bit fits). I mean that in the best possible way though. To me that's far preferred to any modernization that could possibly happen.
 
Initially read this as saying that Nintendo can only handle mascot games and I was going to agree with it. But to answer your question it's probably because that's about all that Nintendo does these days. So they have a lot of experience with them.
 
Master chief is a mascot.

wait what specifically are we talking? like, a mascot for a console?

The term mascot – defined as a term for any person, animal, or object thought to bring luck. Mascots are also used as fictional, representative spokespeople for consumer products.

So Damn near any franchise with a main character has a mascot. It just depends on how big the franchise is and nintendo has the biggest franchises outside of COD, GTA and games that dont rely on a main character. Even killzone has a mascot.
 
Because Nintendo's Seal of Excellence lives on. It's really just Nintendo's game-design philosophy. Of course as a company they have to worry about sales numbers and profit margins, but when they invest into a project, that's when magic almost always occurs. Nintendo has no problem in delaying projects (no matter how big) until both the developers feel a game is ready and Nintendo thinks it's polished and fun enough. A great example is Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon. That game was in development not long after the original came out, and development of the game switched across multiple hardware systems yet Nintendo still funded the project until it was done.

On top of that, Nintendo really seems to understand what it is about their mascot series that people love. I can't recall Nintendo ever overhauling a series and taking away what made the series so special in the first place. Zelda strayed into more-linear territory, but with ALBW that may be fixed. Star Fox Adventures did happened, and I did enjoy that game, but that was no Star Fox game until maybe the ending so I guess that is a rare exception. Does someone have a Nintendo series in mind that this happened to?
 
I think Sony does mascots well, they just don't have the franchise focus of Nintendo. They pump out a crazy number of franchises with cool, recognizable characters and then move on from them. Nintendo sticks with a much smaller number of franchises for the long haul.
 
I don't even think Nintendo makes particularly good mascots. There isn't a single character they made that I like too much.
They are just clever enough to tie these characters to very good games.
Sometimes outstandingly good ones.
 
I can't speak for the other two, but Mega Man...well, Nintendo has already done more right by and shown more love for Mega Man than Capcom has in years--with just a Smash Bros. trailer.
 
HK-47 said:
Tell that to Star Fox, F-Zero and Metroid fans.
Click to expand...

I like that other M was so shit that it not only wiped itself from existence, but the fact that we were riding off an incredible trilogy in the prime games.

Metroid is doing fine. We'll probably hear from it soon.

The genres of star fox and f-zero are more suited to download titles or niche moneysinks w101 style.
 
- Master Chief
- Commander Sheppard
- Lara Croft
- Assassin's Creed Guy (I say guy because, even though it's technically different characters, his singular image perseveres in the same way as a mascot would)
- Jim Raynor
- Faith
- Nathan Drake
- Pretty much half the original cast of Street Fighter
- Kratos

These are ALL mascots, people - and many of them preside over long-standing franchises and extended universes. Nintendo is not the only developer capable of nurturing mascots, far from it.

Unless, of course, you only think of mascots as being cartoon characters composed of primary colors and exaggerated proportions, but that would be an extremely narrow view of what a mascot is. And really, even if you look at it that way, there's really no point in praising Nintendo for doing something that the majority of the industry has intentionally moved away from. That would be like asking "Why do you people think that only Polaroid can handle instant film cameras?"
 
royalan said:
- Master Chief
- Commander Sheppard
- Lara Croft
- Assassin's Creed Guy (I say guy because, even though it's technically different characters, his singular image perseveres in the same way as a mascot would)
- Jim Raynor
- Faith
- Nathan Drake
- Pretty much half the original cast of Street Fighter
- Kratos

These are ALL mascots, people - and many of them preside over long-standing franchises and extended universes. Nintendo is not the only developer capable of naturing mascots, far from it.

Unless, of course, you only think of mascots as being cartoon characters composed of exaggerated proportions, but that would be an extremely narrow view of the term mascot. And really, even if you look at it that way, there's really no point in praising Nintendo for doing something that the majority of the industry has intentionally moved away from. That would be like asking "Why do you people think that only Polaroid can handle instant film cameras?"
Click to expand...

Nintendo has the edge because their roster can be in different kinds of games without it looking too out of place.
 
Mario can represent Nintendo's brand without necessarily being a Mickey Mouse stamp of approval across the entire company. It gives them a sense of identity while still having a sense of freedom to create beyond Mario's immediate child-friendly image. Games like Metroid and Zelda represent Nintendo in completely different ways without contradicting the overall image of the company.
 
Seeing how Nintendo's treatment with Megaman in Smash and how they revived Punchout and Kid Ikarus proves that they know their business well when it comes to mascots.
 
royalan said:
- Master Chief
- Commander Sheppard
- Lara Croft
- Assassin's Creed Guy (I say guy because, even though it's technically different characters, his singular image perseveres in the same way as a mascot would)
- Jim Raynor
- Faith
- Nathan Drake
- Pretty much half the original cast of Street Fighter
- Kratos

These are ALL mascots, people - and many of them preside over long-standing franchises and extended universes. Nintendo is not the only developer capable of nurturing mascots, far from it.

Unless, of course, you only think of mascots as being cartoon characters composed of primary colors and exaggerated proportions, but that would be an extremely narrow view of what a mascot is. And really, even if you look at it that way, there's really no point in praising Nintendo for doing something that the majority of the industry has intentionally moved away from. That would be like asking "Why do you people think that only Polaroid can handle instant film cameras?"
Click to expand...

Nintendo's Mascots alone outnumber this list, and tbh most of these aren't even that memorable. Master Chief, Lara Croft, Kratos fine. Ask your average consumer who Commander Shepard, Jim Raynor, and Faith is and a majority of them wont have a clue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Why do you think Nintendo is so successful?
3 4 5 6 7
333
6K
TheGrat1 replied
Do you think the Nintendo Switch 2 will surpass the PS5 in sales?
2 3 4
191
2K
FoxMcChief replied
  • Poll
Do you think Nintendo is reducing the price of digital games or increasing the price of physical ones?
2
56
686
VGA-Games replied
What should Nintendo do next?
2
68
356
Windle Poons replied
Why are people so obsessed with Bloodborne?
2 3 4 5
219
2K
schaft0620 replied
Top Bottom