The Peril of the Protagonist: Why IP Strategy Demands Character Continuity

In the high-stakes landscape of the North European games industry, few figures possess the strategic foresight of Christian Fonnesbech. Formerly the head of IP development at Nordisk Film Games, Fonnesbech launched his Copenhagen-based consultancy, Leverage, in 2019 to bridge the gap between creative vision and market viability. Having consulted on industry titans—ranging from the atmospheric depths of Metro to the survival intensity of Dead Island and the franchise-heavy Dark Pictures Anthology—Fonnesbech has witnessed the internal machinations of gaming’s biggest brands.

His central thesis is as controversial as it is compelling: the modern trend of cycling through main characters in sequels is a strategic gamble that frequently undermines the very foundation of intellectual property (IP) value.

The Foundation of Intellectual Property

To understand Fonnesbech’s stance, one must first recognize his definition of an IP’s "precious facets." While developers often fixate on core gameplay loops and environmental design, Fonnesbech argues that the main character is the most tangible, legally defensible, and emotionally resonant asset a studio possesses.

"Gameplay and world-building are essential, but the character is the easiest thing to own in a court of law," Fonnesbech tells GamesIndustry.biz. "It is where people connect emotionally. It is the primary anchor for the expectations we carry when returning to a franchise. If you mess with that, you do so at your mortal peril."

The "Hit-or-Miss" Reality

Fonnesbech challenges the "survivorship bias" prevalent in industry press. Media coverage often focuses on the rare, runaway successes—studios that seem to launch one blockbuster after another. However, Fonnesbech warns that the reality for 99% of developers is vastly different.

"Creative people often suffer from the delusion that they can engineer hit after hit," he notes. "Connecting emotionally with millions of people is nearly impossible. If you are lucky enough to strike gold once, that isn’t just a success—it is evidence of a working formula. To throw away the central character—the very vessel of that emotional connection—is to ignore the accumulated time and loyalty the audience has invested."

A Chronology of the Character Swap

The industry is currently in the midst of a wave of high-profile "protagonist pivots." To understand the scale of this trend, we must look at how legacy titles are evolving:

• 2018: God of War reboots, successfully keeping Kratos while evolving his emotional journey through fatherhood.
• 2020: Cyberpunk 2077 launches, establishing a "world-first" approach where the city, rather than a single hero, is the constant.
• 2024: Hades 2 launches with Melinoë, shifting the emotional focus from the original’s themes of rebellion to new themes of home.
• Upcoming: Control Resonant shifts focus to Dylan Faden; God of War: Laufey pivots to Kratos’s wife; and The Witcher 4 prepares to move beyond the Geralt of Rivia era.

The Hades 2 Dilemma

The case of Hades 2 serves as a perfect microcosm for Fonnesbech’s argument. Supergiant Games’ sequel is an undeniable critical and commercial success, yet it highlights the tension between artistic freedom and business consistency.

"The first Hades was about a young man rebelling against his father and discovering his lineage," Fonnesbech explains. "It was a crystal-clear emotional journey about leaving home. Hades 2 is about finding home. While the gameplay remains brilliant, the emotional hook has shifted. Artistically, it was a bold choice. From a business and brand-continuity perspective, I am not so sure it’s the right long-term play."

The "Tomb Raider" Standard

Fonnesbech uses a hypothetical scenario to ground his argument: "Think back to the original Tomb Raider. What would that franchise look like today if the second game had been about Lara Croft’s brother?"

The comparison to Hollywood is intentional. He points to the James Bond franchise as the gold standard of character-as-brand. While different actors have portrayed 007, the character remains the constant. When a franchise replaces its lead, it risks alienating the audience that came for the specific emotional resonance of the previous protagonist.

The "Control" and "God of War" Pivot

Regarding Remedy Entertainment’s Control Resonant, Fonnesbech is skeptical of moving the spotlight to Jesse Faden’s brother, Dylan. Millions of players spent dozens of hours forming a bond with Jesse; discarding her, he suggests, is a waste of a high-value asset.

Similarly, he discusses the God of War series. While he praised the 2018 reboot for successfully maintaining Kratos while introducing his son, he worries that God of War: Laufey breaks the continuity that fans are currently emotionally invested in. "The problem is that we are coming for Kratos," he says. "You can’t simply swap the tentpole and expect the emotional infrastructure to hold."

Supporting Data: The Risk of Market Thinning

Fonnesbech argues that developers who swap characters are often guilty of "audience thinning." By trying to cater to new demographics or artistic impulses, they risk losing the core user base that solidified the IP’s success in the first place.

He cites the "Star Wars" model as a common justification for world-first storytelling, but warns that developers are misapplying the strategy.

• The Scale Misconception: Star Wars can support a turn-based tactics game or a spinoff series because it has a century-long, global audience of hundreds of millions.
• The Genre Trap: When a smaller studio with a five-million-fan base tries to pivot genres—such as shifting a beloved FPS series into an RTS—they aren’t expanding the franchise; they are alienating the only people who care about it. "Do we really go to Halo to play an RTS?" Fonnesbech asks. "The sales numbers for such experiments usually tell the answer."

Official Perspectives and Implications

The industry is currently divided. One camp, championed by developers like Supergiant Games and Remedy, views the "world-as-IP" approach as a way to prevent creative stagnation. They argue that characters have a natural "narrative lifespan" and that forcing a lead to return can lead to "creative fatigue."

However, Fonnesbech’s perspective represents the cold, hard business reality of the current economic climate in gaming. With development budgets ballooning into the hundreds of millions, the "purchase risk" for consumers is higher than ever.

The Implications for Future IP

The implications of Fonnesbech’s warnings are significant for stakeholders:

1. Retention vs. Innovation: Studios must decide if they are building a "brand" (like Call of Duty or FIFA) or a "narrative experience" (like The Last of Us). The strategies for each are fundamentally different.
2. The "Tentpole" Necessity: For mid-sized IPs, the need for a recognizable, consistent protagonist is becoming a survival trait. Without a recognizable face, an IP risks being forgotten in an overcrowded digital storefront.
3. The Consistency Mandate: Fonnesbech’s mantra—consistent world, consistent characters, consistent themes—is a call for discipline. In an era where "reimagining" is the default, sticking to a established, successful character may, ironically, be the most radical form of innovation.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Christian Fonnesbech does not suggest that games should never change or that new characters should not be introduced. Rather, he advocates for a more surgical approach to franchise management.

"We recognize humans, and we relate to characters," he concludes. "If you found something that connects, you have proof that it works. You should be really, really careful about throwing that away in favor of a new, unproven experiment. You aren’t just changing a character; you are asking your audience to start their emotional journey all over again. And in today’s market, that is a risk most studios cannot afford to take."