Manga Poll
Manga is the Japanese equivalent of comics
with a unique style and following. Join the revolution! Read some manga today!
Join #baka-updates @irc.irchighway.net
RSS Feed
News
News Article
New Poll - Mascot Characters
This week's poll about mascot characters comes from the mind of our member BlackOrion. Specifically, we're talking about mascot characters that happen to be small animals. Or I guess you could mean Haro from the Gundam series. Or like how some witches or sorcerers have familiars. Mahou Sensei Negima!'s Chamo? Kero from Card Captor Sakura? Could even simply be a pet cat or dog like in Pastel. Like them? Hate them? Your vote!
You can submit poll ideas here (and try to keep them manga/anime-related)
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903
Previous Poll Results:
Question: You are creating a manga with a female character, so her bust size is...
Choices:
Impossibly large - votes: 503 (3.3%)
Big - votes: 1130 (7.4%)
Above average - votes: 3518 (23%)
Average - votes: 6359 (41.6%)
Below average - votes: 1624 (10.6%)
Tiny - votes: 603 (3.9%)
Flat-chested - votes: 666 (4.4%)
He'll be a male with manboobs - votes: 869 (5.7%)
There were 15272 total votes.
The poll ended: November 9th 2013
Average is...average... This definitely was one of our most polarizing polls in a while.
You can submit poll ideas here (and try to keep them manga/anime-related)
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903
Previous Poll Results:
Question: You are creating a manga with a female character, so her bust size is...
Choices:
Impossibly large - votes: 503 (3.3%)
Big - votes: 1130 (7.4%)
Above average - votes: 3518 (23%)
Average - votes: 6359 (41.6%)
Below average - votes: 1624 (10.6%)
Tiny - votes: 603 (3.9%)
Flat-chested - votes: 666 (4.4%)
He'll be a male with manboobs - votes: 869 (5.7%)
There were 15272 total votes.
The poll ended: November 9th 2013
Average is...average... This definitely was one of our most polarizing polls in a while.
Comments (limited to first 100 replies)
» strixflash on November 9th, 2013, 2:28am
Could care less...
» FormX on November 9th, 2013, 2:45am
Quote from lambchopsil
pet car
Not in Pastel, at least.
» lambchopsil on November 9th, 2013, 12:10pm
Whoops, nice catch =P
» deadphoenix on November 9th, 2013, 2:50am
Add the option:
"Nice for humor"
They give jokes but does not have a major influence for the story.
"Nice for humor"
They give jokes but does not have a major influence for the story.
» GhostWriter on November 9th, 2013, 2:55am
Hmmh, for me it depends on if/how they behave...
» narfertje on November 9th, 2013, 3:01am
Shouldn't it be couldn't care less?
» RoxFlowz on November 9th, 2013, 3:03am
Yep, it depends on how they behave. But I don't like them, when their sole purpose is being cute.
» forgottenone666 on November 9th, 2013, 4:11am
I find most of the time animals end up being annoying and take away from the experience. So I would be happier without them in manga.
» Damnedman on November 9th, 2013, 5:02am
I usually end up liking the mascots more than the actual protagonists... There's a few annoying ones, but I generally like the stupid antics that they get into or when they troll the protagonists.
» zarlan on November 9th, 2013, 5:53am
Quote from Damnedman
I usually end up liking the mascots more than the actual protagonists... There's a few annoying ones, but I generally like the stupid antics that they get into or when they troll the protagonists.
It'd be interesting to see a series, where the mascot becomes the main character.
» whitespade on November 9th, 2013, 6:31am
Quote from zarlan
It'd be interesting to see a series, where the mascot becomes the main character.
read noramimi for mascot main character.
» zarlan on November 9th, 2013, 10:05am
Quote from whitespade
read noramimi for mascot main character.
Thanks for the suggestion, but that's not really the same kind of mascot, at all.
Everyone has one, they belong normal families, rather than a hero (or somehow special person) or hero (or special) team, the main character is a not so cute one...
» Damnedman on November 9th, 2013, 12:18pm
A mascot character doesn't have to be unique in existence. It can be a common pet with a quirky personality like the cats from Nyan Koi! or Sumomo from Chobits.
» zarlan on November 10th, 2013, 10:35am
Quote from Damnedman
It can be a common pet with a quirky personality like the cats from Nyan Koi! or Sumomo from Chobits.
Well I can see what you mean, with Sumomo. She's not, technically, a mascot, but... Yeah. She's, more or less, a mascot in all but name.
Nyan Koi, however... No. There are no mascots in Nyan Koi, nor any being who is similar.
» Damnedman on November 11th, 2013, 5:30am
Depends on what you consider to be mascots. Nyamsus and Tama recur enough that I consider them as such.
» zarlan on November 11th, 2013, 7:17am
Quote from Damnedman
Depends on what you consider to be mascots. Nyamsus and Tama recur enough that I consider them as such.
...
Recur enough? By that logic you might as well say that Misty and Brock, in Pokemon, are mascots.
» Damnedman on November 11th, 2013, 1:43pm
But they aren't animals-like creatures or something similar.
» zarlan on November 11th, 2013, 4:22pm
Quote from Damnedman
But they aren't animals-like creatures or something similar.
I never said that frequency of appearance is enough to make you a mascot. On the contrary, I was saying that being a mascot isn't about that.
There are certain things that make mascots, be mascots. How frequently the character appears, is not one of them. It'd be weird and bizarre to have an infrequent mascot, but they'd still be mascots. Frequency of appearance is not a defining characteristic ...and I don't see how Nyamsas or Tama possess any characteristic, which is typical of a mascot.
Also: Nyamsas and Tama aren't animal-like creatures. They are cats. They are about as far from being animal-like creatures, as you could possibly get.
» Damnedman on November 12th, 2013, 2:53am
Cats aren't creatures that are like animals? Er, okay. I really don't see the point of arguing with people who don't substantiate their arguments with something other than "you are wrong because I am right". It's obvious that you and I disagree on what makes a mascot a mascot, and neither of us are likely to accept the other person's point of view. Therefore, let's just agree to disagree. I don't want to inundate this thread with these petty squabbles.
» zarlan on November 12th, 2013, 1:00pm
Quote from Damnedman
Cats aren't creatures that are like animals?
An animal cannot be animal-like, it IS an animal!
A factoid (-oid means "like") is a false statement that looks like a fact.
An android (andro=man) is a man-like robot. A man is not an android.
Sure Luna in Sailor Moon is a cat, but she's not just some normal cat. She's magical, unnaturally wise/intelligent and able to talk.
Nyamusas and Tama are perfectly ordinary cats.
Quote
Er, okay. I really don't see the point of arguing with people who don't substantiate their arguments with something other than "you are wrong because I am right".
I have nothing to substantiate my arguments, other than saying that I am right and you are wrong?
That is utterly baseless slander!
I have pointed out that frequency of appearance, doesn't work and that cats aren't animal-like ...thus I've shown all of your arguments, for why they could be mascots, to be wrong.
Could you please state what you consider to be the defining characteristics of a mascot? ...and how those characteristics, makes them differ from side-characters?
» Damnedman on November 12th, 2013, 2:13pm
To be like something means having the traits of something or resembling something. An animal has animal traits and resemble animals. Ergo, being animal-like is not mutually exclusive to being an animal. I hate arguing semantics though, so I'm not going to pursue this further.
I stated my opinion (frequency of appearance is a trait of mascots). You say my opinion is wrong (frequency doesn't matter). Then you reiterate that I'm wrong based on the fact that you're right (mascots can appear infrequently). That's your entire argument. So no, you didn't substantiate anything other than saying I'm wrong. If you don't think regular animals can be mascots, then fine. That's your prerogative. I don't have to agree with you.
I stated my opinion (frequency of appearance is a trait of mascots). You say my opinion is wrong (frequency doesn't matter). Then you reiterate that I'm wrong based on the fact that you're right (mascots can appear infrequently). That's your entire argument. So no, you didn't substantiate anything other than saying I'm wrong. If you don't think regular animals can be mascots, then fine. That's your prerogative. I don't have to agree with you.
» zarlan on November 12th, 2013, 4:44pm
Quote from Damnedman
To be like something means having the traits of something or resembling something. An animal has animal traits and resemble animals.
Animals do not resemble animals. They are animals.
You cannot be said to resemble something that you are. That is simply nonsensical and goes against any definition of the word.
Quote
I hate arguing semantics though, so I'm not going to pursue this further.
Arguments that are purely about semantics, and stray from the issue, is one thing. Semantics that are central to the issue, however...
To avoid that, is to make any argument meaningless.
What use is there in trying to talk, if one does so with mutually incomprehensible words? You would have a better understanding of the conversation, speaking to someone who speaks a different language.
Without semantics, there is no language. Without language, there is no possibility for communication.
Communication without semantics, is pure nonsense.
Quote
I stated my opinion (frequency of appearance is a trait of mascots).
In which case Misty and Brock are mascots. Thus, frequency of appearance is not really a defining trait of a mascot. Even if it is a trait of a mascot, it is not nearly enough.
Quote
You say my opinion is wrong (frequency doesn't matter). Then you reiterate that I'm wrong based on the fact that you're right (mascots can appear infrequently). That's your entire argument.
I said your opinion was wrong, and then presented clear evidence that it was wrong.
That is all there is to my argument, because that alone is enough.
If you think that you aren't wrong, just because such pitiful things as mere reason and evidence isn't enough...
Well, you may reject such things, if you wish to do so.
Clearly trying to argue about anything with you, is a waste of time. I obviously overestimated you.
Quote
I don't have to agree with you.
Indeed.
» Damnedman on November 12th, 2013, 6:17pm
Fine, animal-like was a poor choice of words on my part. I agree that the intended meaning and the stated words were in conflict, though I've made the intended meaning abundantly clear (i.e. the inclusion of cats in my example). The fact that you are arguing based on semantics and have not addressed my actual claim makes your arguments quite pointless. That said though, I never once stated frequency was the sole defining trait. The fact you missed this point makes your "clear evidence" inconsequential due to it being based on a false premise. If you really want to continue this farce, PM me, because I don't see the point of continuing this in public.
» zarlan on November 14th, 2013, 5:33am
Quote from Damnedman
Fine, animal-like was a poor choice of words on my part. I agree that the intended meaning and the stated words were in conflict
Good.
Quote
though I've made the intended meaning abundantly clear (i.e. the inclusion of cats in my example).
So... You mean "animal-like or cat"? Or rather "animal or animal-like"?
Problem is, I don't know of any case of a character, which is clearly and unambiguously stated to be a mascot, that is just a normal animal.
As far as I am concerned, a mascot cannot be just a normal animal.
Quote
The fact that you are arguing based on semantics and have not addressed my actual claim makes your arguments quite pointless.
I refuted what you stated.
If that isn't your actual claim, then that is a failure on your part, in expressing yourself. Now express yourself properly, so that I don't have to waste my time.
Quote
That said though, I never once stated frequency was the sole defining trait.
I never said you did.
You said that Nyamusas and Tama could count as mascots, because of their frequency.
I pointed out that, that isn't enough to make them mascots, and pointed out that you need more than that to be a mascot. Thus making it clear that you'd need to demonstrate more than just frequency, to support the claim of them being mascots, for that claim to have any basis.
Surely you would agree?
Yet you have failed to provide any further characteristics of Nyamusas and/or Tama, which would make them mascots.
Even the point of "animal or animal-like", if I were to accept it, would still not be close to enough, by any means.
Neither of these are characteristics which truly make a mascot, be a mascot.
BTW: Merle in Escaflowne is a cat-girl (e.i. animal-like) that appears frequently. I cannot see how any sane person would call her a mascot.
Quote
If you really want to continue this farce, PM me, because I don't see the point of continuing this in public.
What, so that you may hide your views from others?
Why should I go from expressing my views to many, to just one? I see no benefits to me, whatsoever.
We could split of into a separate thread, but... it's not like this thread has any other use, from what I can see. (please do correct me, if I'm wrong)
If you want to end discussing the matter in the forum, that's your choice, but I have no intention of continuing it in PMs, either way.
» Damnedman on November 14th, 2013, 10:30am
I don't see the point of continuing this here because this entire exchange is just you arguing against what was supposed to be an offhand comment. Have you noticed the only ones replying are you and me? That's because no one cares about your opinion or mine (except you since you're making such a big deal out of it). Further comments in this thread will be ignored. If you want to say you won this argument, be my guest. If you actually want to complete this discussion, you know where to find me.
Edit: Ahhh, I see. We've been arguing against different statements. I clarified the argument in my PM.
Edit: Ahhh, I see. We've been arguing against different statements. I clarified the argument in my PM.
» zarlan on November 15th, 2013, 10:14pm
Quote from Damnedman
That's because no one cares about your opinion or mine (except you since you're making such a big deal out of it).
It takes two to tango.
» zarlan on November 9th, 2013, 5:52am
The option "Could care less" is utterly pointless and nonsensical.
For an good explanation, please see this video.
It should be "couldn't care less".
For an good explanation, please see this video.
It should be "couldn't care less".
» whitespade on November 9th, 2013, 6:20am
i friggin hate mascot characters. just merch bait, so friggin transparent.
» SinsI on November 9th, 2013, 6:26am
>They're alright as long as they serve a functional purpose
Example: Menchi from Excel Saga
Example: Menchi from Excel Saga
» Dionaea on November 9th, 2013, 7:02am
I love them, most aren't annoying at all. Sometimes they can be used to lighten the mood and as long as they aren't continually getting pointless screen time I don't see a problem with it.
Timcampy <3
Timcampy <3
» lynira on November 9th, 2013, 12:12pm
Since the mascot creature generally accompanies one of the main characters, it shows up a lot, and they can almost always speak, too (sentient). For those reasons, I feel like the mascot is basically getting as much attention as a main character would, and should essentially be a main character, as in, it needs to have a developed personality and serve as much of a purpose as any other main character does (at least for the sentient mascots). When done like this, I quite like them.
But, I feel like using using such characters as nothing more than cute pets (as in, they don't do anything else but look cute) is cheap--if that's all it's going to do, don't make it sentient, and don't give it so much attention.
But, I feel like using using such characters as nothing more than cute pets (as in, they don't do anything else but look cute) is cheap--if that's all it's going to do, don't make it sentient, and don't give it so much attention.
» nakie08 on November 9th, 2013, 1:29pm
^ Punch from Adachi mangas. So adorable xD
» tactics on November 9th, 2013, 3:11pm
I usually tend to like the mascots. Most of the time they're pretty cute. Well, from the ones I know anyway.
» Sapphire07 on November 9th, 2013, 8:48pm
I think their alright. I love..love..Kero from Cardcaptor Sakura, but then theirs Happy from Fairy Tail who I just don't care for that much.
» yarn on November 10th, 2013, 8:14pm
I usually find them REALLY annoying, especially if they're supposed to be cute. Don't get me wrong, I love real-life cute animals. But these guys grate on my nerves.
I vote for #4, since they're tolerable if they actually do something. But if they have to be there for a functional role, I'd prefer they not be cutesy.
I vote for #4, since they're tolerable if they actually do something. But if they have to be there for a functional role, I'd prefer they not be cutesy.
» yuri999 on November 11th, 2013, 5:45am
Ugh, it just pisses me off and I feel like slapping the author on his/her face when an animal is added with the thinly veiled purpose of cute. 
» TundraDweller on November 11th, 2013, 10:59am
OO ... flat-chests are loved by the Devil himself.
I'm generally okay with mascot characters that don't affect plot, because then they become more than what they are supposed to be, IMO. It should remain the pet, and if in a comedy should provide much, if not most, of the hilarity that the MC is involved in. If not a comedy it should be a character that the reader feels attached to and interested in, so it could be cool, smart, mysterious, outspoken, etc.; some unique character trait to make it a part of the reading experience different from a regular extra or minor character. I couldn't care less for cuteness, and their mere presence doesn't elate me either. I don't think they are wholly unnecessary because it all depends on how the author deals with it. I don't prefer the mascot to "serve a functional purpose" because that's expecting too much of a mascot, again IMO. So, I'm okay with them, and will reserve judgment for when I actually see how it is presented in a story.
I'm generally okay with mascot characters that don't affect plot, because then they become more than what they are supposed to be, IMO. It should remain the pet, and if in a comedy should provide much, if not most, of the hilarity that the MC is involved in. If not a comedy it should be a character that the reader feels attached to and interested in, so it could be cool, smart, mysterious, outspoken, etc.; some unique character trait to make it a part of the reading experience different from a regular extra or minor character. I couldn't care less for cuteness, and their mere presence doesn't elate me either. I don't think they are wholly unnecessary because it all depends on how the author deals with it. I don't prefer the mascot to "serve a functional purpose" because that's expecting too much of a mascot, again IMO. So, I'm okay with them, and will reserve judgment for when I actually see how it is presented in a story.
» Bedouin on November 12th, 2013, 6:47pm
I think I'm the third person to point out that it should be "couldN'T care less".
» Nirhtuc on November 14th, 2013, 11:02pm
I wish there was a 'couldN'T (grammar, people!) care less' option in last week's poll... 
Funny dat!
Funny dat!