By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 30 November 2015
Edit Thread
Kagerow said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kagerow said:


Again, Nintendo aren't afraid to create a new 'banner carrier'. They just don't do it because they know it is almost impossible to just create a main stream mascot out of thin air. Period. Establishing a main stream mascot is very different from establishing a game brand. Especially one that stays relevant.

Why does people just claims others are worse for aiming a different goal?

That sounds like fear to me. If you believe its impossible to create a banner carrier one cannot fathom Sony's intentions for the rise of Nathan Drake in an era where they already had Kratos.

Nathan Drake rose as a mascot where?

Rise of Uncharted series is not same as rise of Nathan Drake  the character. Just as rise of Splatoon doesn't mean Inkling suddenly became a relevant character in the main stream. I don't have to fathom anything because there is nothing behind it.

Banner carrier game and 'Banner Carrier' character - Mascots are not the same. Nathan Drake never rose. Uncharted is the one that claimed to the top. They didn't had Kratos. No sane marketing strategist would put Kratos as a face of entire Playstation brand. Especially not in US.

Maybe I don't have enough knowledge on these issues. Can you tell me an example of a mascot that became a main stream as soon as it hit the market and stayed relevant without strong, continued support? Maybe Darth Vader?

Look back on last gen. You'll see what I mean when I say Nathan Drake was the premiere character for Sony, because Uncharted was. His character was relatable and funny and got into lots of trouble that you helped him get out of as a thief and historian. The two exclusive characters that came out for any brand in last gen were Nathan Drake for Sony and Marcus Fenix for Gears of War. Of course Microsoft didnt make that game but they bought it, so there you have it.