Should classic characters ever 'retire'?
Posted 18 July 2012 - 12:28 AM
The way I see it, the author has everything backwards. He seems to think companies like Nintendo that are throwing out the same characters over and over again are worse than companies like Infinity Ward that throw out the same game over and over again. I'd say he's dead wrong, and should be crucified for it.
Posted 18 July 2012 - 02:48 AM
In my opinion, this guy doesn't know the difference between classic characters and characters that have a long lasting face value. Classic characters are the ones that have been "retired", that can be brought up in videogame conversations for nostalgia purposes and characters with a long lasting face value can be used over and over again because no matter how old they are, they are still fun as hell to play. Take Mario for example, dude has been running circles around the videogame world for decades and the reason for this is simple. HIS GAMES ARE FUN AS HELL TO PLAY! Same thing goes for Link. HIS GAMES ARE FUN AS SHIT TO PLAY! Plus, Nintendo doesn't just stick to the same old style of play for all their characters, they adapt to the times.
There are a few videogame characters on my list that really should be retired...and when I say retired I mean put in a coffin, have a nice funeral service, buried and then dump concrete over their grave for good measure. Dynasty Warriors as a whole should be retired (Not exactly sure if they are actually retired right now), I personally never liked their games and they're all exactly the same. Master Chief should be retired BUT not until he's in a few more Halo games because he seems like the kind of character they would suck the life and bone marrow out of to make $10. Sonic just needs to take a dirt nap and stay there, his games were great in the 1990's and early 2000's, but now his games are just plain awful and now he needs to be put down. Duke Nukem...this dude is my #1. Three words are all I need to explain why he is #1...Duke Nukem Forever.
The only thing this guy's article was right about, was that some videogame characters should just lay down, but he just came across as a huge Nintendo hater. Haters gonna hate, Nintendo gonna make stupid money.
Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:27 AM
Although I don't think I can name a character that I honestly think needs to retire permanently, and I'm obviously not counting any characters that weren't significant enough to make a difference, or didn't start as a video game character to begin with. Sure, there are plenty of characters like Bugs Bunny from that NES game or Ingo from a few random Zelda games. These kinds of characters can retire, I wouldn't care in the slightest.
If I was forced to choose a real notable character to retire, Sonic would probably be my number one choice, but even then I think he could make a comeback with an awesome game if the right people were on the job. What if Retro Studio's announced they were working on an all new, totally revamped Sonic game. Would you not be a little excited? I think there's potentially infinite life in any character that was good enough to make an impact our lives.
Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:22 AM
Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:33 AM
I also don't know about the Master Chief comment. Yeah, he had his little triology and is getting some more game ( i.e Halo 4) but you never know. Halo 4 is going in its own direction and if it's done right, he can come back for some games in the future (ha. future..get it?)
I'm not too sure about killing off a character completely. Like Mario! He's been around for years and years and they're STILL coming out with new stuff for him. It all depends on who gets their hands on it and what they can do for it in my opinion. Can't think of other things to rant on about for now.
Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:29 PM