Cave Story is far more recognizable. Why it's re-released every generation and remade and always high demand for it no matter how many times it's ported. Braid is Mario Bros with Blinx.

Do people generally consider Crash and Mario as good mascots when they take away their advertising? Like if Mario didn't do what he did for gaming, and if Crash didn't have the best marketing of the 90's, would they both be lovable simply from their designs?

I'm not trying to make a point or say I don't think they have good designs, I'm genuinely curious.

Whether or not a mascot catches on depends heavily on the success of the game they're in (fairly obvious). The whole point of a mascot is to be immediately likable, approachable, and to provide a marketable face for a company.

With that in mind, it's clear that timing plays a huge role in that success as well. For instance, the design for Mario was very cute and, combined with his powers and such, made for a very memorable character in the era of 8bit graphics. Still, he was also featured in, you know, the Super Mario Bros games, so I do wonder if he could have looked like a lazily scribbled turd and still caught on to some degree lol... Either way, his design looked great in the pixelated era that he took off in, and by the time hardware improved he was about as recognized worldwide as Mickey Mouse. If his first appearance was, say, Mario 64, it's unlikely he'd ever reach the same heights he has now, but he really does just seem like the perfect avatar for you to just take control of and start jumping. Too much personality might get in the way of that simple, straightforward approach to his games, which might be why they've generally provided his supporting cast with most of the personality.

Likewise, there are many eras that the Sonic design wouldn't work, but it so perfectly captured the attitude and mindset of the time that he was immediately loved. Yet again, timing plays a huge role, and once a mascot goes mainstream it seems like they're just permanently "cool" from that day forward (unless they receive hideous transformations like Sonic Boom).

Still, the biggest role in the staying power of mascots is largely who they belong to. Mario is inescapable as he has become the corporate mascot and face of Nintendo, just as Sonic has with Sega. Chances are Crash Bandicoot would be their equal had Sony fully adopted him in the same manner that Mario and Sonic were, much like how the first image/character that comes to mind when thinking of the Xbox brand and even to some extent Microsoft itself is usually Master Chief. In this way indie mascots will never be able to compete, as even when designed brilliantly it is extremely unlikely that they'll receive anywhere near the same levels of exposure unless they're exclusive to one platform or another.

I'd love to see a poll among casual gamers to see which is more recognized... I wouldn't be surprised if it's regional, with Japan being more familiar with Cave Story and NA being familiar with Braid.

Either way, your post reminded me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc26EKhZNyM

Why do big studios suck at maing mascots?

Except for nintendo there hasn't been any new memorable mascots in a while. The only one that I can think of that sticks is Master Chief and that's 15 years ago. To be honest hes kind of dying being so mismanaged.

A (for the time of release) indie mascot that has truly stuck tho is Angry Birds.

So with this indesputable proof I conclude that indies are better at mascots than big studios.

Bolded are the ones I played & finished.

I will give you that they all have well-executed stories - but there is no reason at all to say that for example CT has a good story while Xenogears doesn't. CT has a much more coherent and understandable execution, while Xenogears running out of budget screwed it up somewhat. CT isn't original or groundbreaking, just extremely well executed. Same goes to FF IV.

Persona 5 as well has some ad-hoc measures in execution, as well as plot holes, but the story is IMO certainly not worse than anything I bolded there. Deus Ex beats in originality of course.

Mario is because the games are great and he has an easy memorable design like Mickey Mouse. Sonic is an easy design and instantly recognizable. Crash..no just a mediocre product of the 90s cashing in on Sonic tude, he just happened to be at the right place at the right time on a popular system. I honestly feel NiGHTS would have had the Crash fame if on PS1 and Crash could be among Gex and Croc as forgotten 90s tude mascots. (btw I don't like NiGHTS before anyone accuses of bias)   Crash is horribly designed freak with his arms coming out of his head. Crash got a nostalgic revival but honestly, new paint doesn't hide how dated those games are.Crash games felt mediocre even back then to me.

Persona 5's stry is directionless. It doesn't even feel it has one until about half way through. Again I loved the game but it's story is shit. Xenogears is just convuluted and messy. It's not executed well either.And once again I love Xenogears. My copy is sitting 3 feet away from me.

It's a buildup. it's not different from Persona 4 for example in that sense, just replace murders for change of heart targets. Starts simple, reveals itself as more. It's very coherent in its theme of rebellion against a larger power.

Xenogears is indeed convoluted and messy, which is what I should've said as well. Still, it is one of the better parts of it - I hate the gameplays' guts.

A buildup still has to feel like it's progressing instead of nonexistent.