Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should classic characters ever 'retire'?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Greg Morton

Greg Morton

    Staff

  • Moderators
  • 77 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 12:28 AM

I'd like to get other people's opinions on this article.

http://www.gamesta.c...need-to-retire/

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. :P
You can catch me on my Personal website, twitter @Master00Sniper, or YouTube channel. XBL Gamertag: Master00Sniper

#2 Jimmy Khanway

Jimmy Khanway

    Staff

  • Moderators
  • 48 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 02:48 AM

This guy is right in some aspects of his article, but for the most part I have to disagree with it entirely. Characters like Mario, Samus, Laura Croft, Link, Donkey Kong and so on have no need to be retired. They can be rerun a million times and never lose their flavor.

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.

#3 Greg Morton

Greg Morton

    Staff

  • Moderators
  • 77 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:27 AM

Now that right there, that's just common sense.

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.
You can catch me on my Personal website, twitter @Master00Sniper, or YouTube channel. XBL Gamertag: Master00Sniper

#4 Jimmy Khanway

Jimmy Khanway

    Staff

  • Moderators
  • 48 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:22 AM

That Sonic comment is very true. He could be brought back, he could be revamped, he could be the next new thing in town, but the people who are making the Sonic games are failing left and right. I put him in my "Obituaries" because there is not a chance in hell that Sonic will get a title in this day and age that is proud to talk about. It's hard for me to say that because I'm a huge Sonic fan and I hope to see him one day make a "comeback". After Sonic Adventures 1&2 came out I thought "Man! If these games are that good, then maybe the next ones will be even better!", but I was shot down by the crap that came out after. Sonic is a character with a long lasting face value but the people behind his works have just plowed him into the ground and haven't stopped. They would have to wait about 2-4 years and come out with a Sonic game that would make people's eye's bleed when they say the debut trailer. Sometimes people need to take a step back, look at what the fuck they are doing and say to themselves "Do we even care anymore?". Sonic needs a break, but he will probably never get one.

#5 Profexxion

Profexxion

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:14 PM

Hey now the retro style episodic Sonic games are good. Though...they're kinda cheating with those games...

#6 Cristina

Cristina

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:33 AM

Hm. Well, I don't think so. Well, some of them at least. Like...Tomb Raider! They're rebooting that franchise and from what I've seen so far, Square Enix seems to be doing a preetty good job of making that game look amazing.

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. -_-

#7 Profexxion

Profexxion

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:04 PM

Mario should retire. Himself. They could either continue with Luigi at the forefront or their children or something. Just change it up enough to give the illusion of progress (COD).

#8 Greg Morton

Greg Morton

    Staff

  • Moderators
  • 77 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:25 PM

Idk man haha, retiring Mario? That's big.

I vote Mario doesn't retire until Miyamoto dies, or retires himself.
You can catch me on my Personal website, twitter @Master00Sniper, or YouTube channel. XBL Gamertag: Master00Sniper

#9 Profexxion

Profexxion

    Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:29 PM

If they don't get anymore creative with it, I think they should. Mario Sunshine was the last time they were inovative with him. The most recent titles have seemed like remakes of the old stuff. Than again, I say this knowing that the recent Sonic games were the same lol. I'm biased toward Sega over Nintendo.