People carry on saying that Sony Computer Entertainment has no defining characters, but that's not entirely true.
The difference between Sony and Nintendo which is even stressed by Iwata from Nintendo is that Nintendo makes consoles for their games while SCE makes games for their consoles, and that alone is a big difference. Nintendo likes to confine themselves in a first-party void - they established and promoted franchises and now release consoles that will facilitate creating the games they envision while allowing other developers to tag along, even if this attitude leads to creating hardware-wise inferior products. They were at the top of the game at one point but now they abandoned this approach knowing that their fanbase will follow Mario, Link, Samus or Marth through fire. Sony on the otherhand always chose the other approach - creating consoles and then thinking of what games they should make for them. This allowed for a more open-ended attitude towards developers and resulted in a much higher number of third-party titles... However!
People are forgetting that they still are releasing genre-defining games. Kratos single-handedly revised the way people perceive beat-em-up games and revived the dying genre. The Everquest world was the motor behind what we know now as MMO in times when people would crucify you for saying that what Warcraft really needs is an MMO installment in the series. The PlayStation was the birthplace of Crash, one of the most beloved platformer characters. Twisted Metal was one of the first games of its kind and is also quite memorable. LittleBigPlanet became synonymous with the make-your-own platformers. Armored Core was and always will be one of the most recognizable mech duel games. Medievil's protagonist is iconic when you think back to the PlayStation. Patapons are memorable aswell.
Nintendo appeals to the general public - they have a reputation of a games developer first and foremost. Sony has always been a hardware developer - that's the brand recognition they built. This doesn't mean that they do not have memorable franchises or characters, it's just that those characters are greatly overshadowed by what's Sony's primary focus - consoles.
They never had the need for a mascot - their flagship is the PlayStation - the big PS which time after time overwhelmed all opposing consoles with thier well-thought through design, performance and capabilities. Many people think that Sony's main goal has always been creating powerhouses - that's not true though. The PS1 was inferior to the N64, the PS2 was the weakest of its generation. Only the PSP and the PS3 were powerhouses, why are people are so easily tempted to point out that Sony's all about specs then if their primary goal is performance and capabilities?
But I digress. My point is that Nintendo's franchises are so recognizable because they are continued for years and because they are the primary focus. Sony as a hardware developer keeps the spotlight not on the games that are exclusive to their platforms or strongly connected with them despite not being exclusive like Tekken, they focus on their consoles and on what those consoles can do.
They release numerous new IPs each generation hence they are not so easily recognizable for the general public. Nintendo treats their characters in a more traditional manner and puts them in new environments.
When Nintendo wants to make a racing game, they make Mario Kart. When they want to make a shooter, they make Metroid Prime. When they want to make a puzzle game, they make Mini Mario. Would those games be so successful if the recognized characters weren't slapped on them? Probably not. Do they justify the use of those characters? Not necessarily.
Mario Kart would be the same game if it had a different cast of characters. When Sony creates a new IP, they don't take someone from their cast and put that character in a completely unfamiliar setting - they just make new characters.
Nintendo's practices instill the love for their characters, Sony's builds upon the already tall monolith of PlayStation.
The difference between Sony and Nintendo which is even stressed by Iwata from Nintendo is that Nintendo makes consoles for their games while SCE makes games for their consoles, and that alone is a big difference. Nintendo likes to confine themselves in a first-party void - they established and promoted franchises and now release consoles that will facilitate creating the games they envision while allowing other developers to tag along, even if this attitude leads to creating hardware-wise inferior products. They were at the top of the game at one point but now they abandoned this approach knowing that their fanbase will follow Mario, Link, Samus or Marth through fire. Sony on the otherhand always chose the other approach - creating consoles and then thinking of what games they should make for them. This allowed for a more open-ended attitude towards developers and resulted in a much higher number of third-party titles... However!
People are forgetting that they still are releasing genre-defining games. Kratos single-handedly revised the way people perceive beat-em-up games and revived the dying genre. The Everquest world was the motor behind what we know now as MMO in times when people would crucify you for saying that what Warcraft really needs is an MMO installment in the series. The PlayStation was the birthplace of Crash, one of the most beloved platformer characters. Twisted Metal was one of the first games of its kind and is also quite memorable. LittleBigPlanet became synonymous with the make-your-own platformers. Armored Core was and always will be one of the most recognizable mech duel games. Medievil's protagonist is iconic when you think back to the PlayStation. Patapons are memorable aswell.
Nintendo appeals to the general public - they have a reputation of a games developer first and foremost. Sony has always been a hardware developer - that's the brand recognition they built. This doesn't mean that they do not have memorable franchises or characters, it's just that those characters are greatly overshadowed by what's Sony's primary focus - consoles.
They never had the need for a mascot - their flagship is the PlayStation - the big PS which time after time overwhelmed all opposing consoles with thier well-thought through design, performance and capabilities. Many people think that Sony's main goal has always been creating powerhouses - that's not true though. The PS1 was inferior to the N64, the PS2 was the weakest of its generation. Only the PSP and the PS3 were powerhouses, why are people are so easily tempted to point out that Sony's all about specs then if their primary goal is performance and capabilities?
But I digress. My point is that Nintendo's franchises are so recognizable because they are continued for years and because they are the primary focus. Sony as a hardware developer keeps the spotlight not on the games that are exclusive to their platforms or strongly connected with them despite not being exclusive like Tekken, they focus on their consoles and on what those consoles can do.
They release numerous new IPs each generation hence they are not so easily recognizable for the general public. Nintendo treats their characters in a more traditional manner and puts them in new environments.
When Nintendo wants to make a racing game, they make Mario Kart. When they want to make a shooter, they make Metroid Prime. When they want to make a puzzle game, they make Mini Mario. Would those games be so successful if the recognized characters weren't slapped on them? Probably not. Do they justify the use of those characters? Not necessarily.
Mario Kart would be the same game if it had a different cast of characters. When Sony creates a new IP, they don't take someone from their cast and put that character in a completely unfamiliar setting - they just make new characters.
Nintendo's practices instill the love for their characters, Sony's builds upon the already tall monolith of PlayStation.
