Cool vs Fun - What makes a brand timeless.

[Penis Drager]

My thoughts can mostly be summed up by this video by some insufferable faggot:

If you don't care to watch the video, that's fine. The salient point is that some brands seek to be "cool" while others are just "fun."
The video in question fixates on Sonic vs. Mario. But what got me thinking about this topic again years after first seeing it was Pokemon vs. Digimon.
Pokemon has stood through the years as a favorite among children while no one, except the most exceptional of autists, cares about Digimon anymore. Through personal experience, I liked Digimon a lot more because it was cool. It was the edgier competitor to the fun Pokemon. But cool shit never lasts. What's cool always changes. What's cool today will be lame tomorrow and vice versa. But fun is timeless.
A universe where these fun creatures crash landed on earth via a meteor and all have smiley faces and magic powers won out over the universe where computer viruses and their enemies engage in combat over control of the early 2000's era internet. And it's because the scope of what's cool and trendy is far more limited than what's just fucking fun.

I could elaborate more but this is already a weird, disjointed schizo-ramble that I probably shouldn't post but will anyway...
You get the idea.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Interesting, but cool goes through cycles, what's cool might become lame, but then people can become nostalgic and then it becomes cool again.

Some things are timeless like Mario and some things are cool because they specifically evoke a certain cultural era, like Sonic.

Also, I'm not well versed in Pokemon lore, you're telling me they're supposed to be aliens and not native creatures of the world they live in? Wait, what?

 

[Penis Drager]

you're telling me they're supposed to be aliens and not native creatures of the world they live in? Wait, what?

Yeah. That's gen 1 lore that basically got ignored throughout the rest of the series.
The "moonstones" or whatever are fragments of the meteor the pokemon came on.

It was kinda a dumb idea and I understand why they sorta brushed that bit of lore off in future iterations.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

But the problem is the gay sounding individual in that video is 100% wrong. He's a soy faggot nintendo consoomer trying to validate his consoomerism, I'm guessing.

The sonic/mario comparison itself is already absurd. In fact I'd go so far as to argue this soy faggot has it backwards.

Mario is the one who's popular due to trendiness because he's attached to a trendy company, he's a way safer design, you could replace Mario with anyone or anything and it would be the same. Meanwhile, what the soy faggot fails to mention is how many Sonic imitators there were, and how many failed to succeed, because Sonic was a good character for those games, and they were good games. If he succeeded only due to trendiness, so this was all just superficial bullshit, why didn't every imitator succeed as well?

However those games that he was fit for succeeded in a time when 2D was popular, and you can't just swap him out of the game. That is why Sonic has faltered, along with mishandling of the property by Sega who tried to treat him like Mario because they needed a corporate mascot, for the sake of the sheeple I guess. Even as a kid I didn't get the importance, but my mom also didn't let me habitually eat lead paint, so what the fuck do I know.

As for being cool vs. fun, that doesn't mean much. Yes, people who appreciate things only for their superficial elements are very flighty, so don't be one of those people I guess.

Some things are timeless like Mario

But he's not timeless, he continues on because he is an avatar of Nintendo. If both companies stopped making games right now, Sonic would be the far more memorable and unique character. Mario is nothing, he's designed to be a blank slate, which is a deliberate choice on Nintendo's part.

 

[PipTheAlchemist]

Yeah. That's gen 1 lore that basically got ignored throughout the rest of the series.
The "moonstones" or whatever are fragments of the meteor the pokemon came on.

It was kinda a dumb idea and I understand why they sorta brushed that bit of lore off in future iterations.

Only a few of the original Pokemon (most notably Clefairy/Clefable) had an extraterrestrial origin. Most of the other Pokemon in the original lore always existed on Earth, but weren't scientifically documented/discovered until relatively recently

 

[Penis Drager]

He's a soy faggot nintendo consoomer trying to validate his consoomerism, I'm guessing.

I'd recommend watching some of his other videos. He is, in fact, a soy filled consumer of product. His Gamergate video is a real treat.
But I don't think he's wrong in this case. One main splinter point here:

If both companies stopped making games right now, Sonic would be the far more memorable and unique character.

"Unique," maybe. But "memorable?" You're smoking crack. Mario will be immortalized after our civilization is forgotten and archaeologists dig up the shattered remains of what made our society what it is. Sonic will be but a sidenote.

Only a few of the original Pokemon (most notably Clefairy/Clefable) had an extraterrestrial origin. Most of the other Pokemon in the original lore always existed on Earth, but weren't scientifically documented/discovered until relatively recently

Even Pikachu is supposed to have come from the meteor. It's actually a core plot point as to why Raichu is a thing. I'm not gonna waste too much time arguing that point because it's too much autism for me. But yes: every single pokemon is the descendant of creatures who crash landed on earth via a giant meteor.

 

[Whatevermancer]

Pokemon has stood through the years as a favorite among children

Has it, though? It seems like children nowadays mostly play Fortnite and Roblox, while the people playing Pokemon and Mario are their parents.