Forget About Mascots
Game consoles have historically had representative mascots: Nintendo has Mario, Sega had Sonic and Sony has uh … Crash Bandicoot? Ok, forget Sony.
Game designers have tried to manufacture mascots, and forgotten mascots are continually brought back to life, such as the recently announced Sonic 4 in a desperate attempt to take advantage of a preexisting fan base. This is foolish; game mascots don’t become or remain popular because of some easily identifiable character design, that’s a thing of the past. All it takes today is a high quality game.
Mascots used to be a stamp of quality
In the past, videogame mascots were a stamp of quality. Everybody was going to buy a Pac-Man game, or a Mario game, or a Mega Man game, because they knew it was going to be good. You understood the style of gameplay that you were going to receive, and didn’t have to take a chance on a new IP.
This was a required element of a popular game because game media wasn’t as well developed as it is today. Most consumers didn’t really know that much about a game before a purchasing decision unless it was running on a machine in the store or was a popular arcade re-make. There was no massive videogame blog community. There was no free monthly Game Informer publication for anybody who buys games at Gamestop. There was just this huge unknown swath of games that were for the most part shovelware.
Mario's over dilated, dead eyes are one sign that he signed a contract with the devil to have such continually impressive sales. In fact, it might just be the devil wearing Mario's skin like a suit
Who are the mascots of today?
Look at the highest selling games in recent years: Call of Duty, Uncharted, Halo and Assassins Creed games. Yes, Master Chief is Microsoft’s de facto mascot now, but he isn’t the reason for which those games are popular.
Most people can’t even name the characters from Modern Warfare; they don’t care. Nathan Drake has only become so popular because the Uncharted games are popular, and from that is born the cult of Nathan Drake and Nolan North. Assassins Creed has the iconic assassin outfit, but other than Desmond (arguably the least well liked character), the protagonists change from game to game.
Soap McTavish: the epic main character of Modern Warfare games. Soon to be in plushie form!
Mascots aren’t required for a game to be popular anymore. Even though a consumer isn’t familiar with the mascot of a game, they don’t need this type of signal to understand what type of game they’re getting. They have likely seen advertisements online. They have probably watched a preview video of a game, or even a 10 minute Quick Look type preview. There is so much coverage that the protagonist doesn’t need to be more than your avatar.
What about Mario?
Advocates of using a mascot will point to the constant success of Mario games. This is not so much because people love Mario, however, a concept reiterated by the success of Bowser’s Inside Story which didn’t even star Mario. People can do without the character as long as the continually innovative and solid gameplay is present.
Mascots are good for one thing: crossover sales. Accessory manufacturers love selling Master Chief action figures to children worldwide. Yoshi plush dolls are a mainstay of Korean industry, and I personally think those ripoff saturday morning cartoons should make a resurgence.
In addition, there is the occasional fan service videogame that can leverage mascot popularity like Smash Brothers. This is only because it’s a way for fans to finally settle arguments about who would win in a fight between Link and Samus (Link by the way; Samus is stupid).
FALCON PUNCH!
Mascots are not a necessary evil for game success in today’s content saturated market. While they can give that extra little push or first day sales boost, the longevity of a game would be better served by spending less time on branding and more on gameplay development.
