At this point, I am kind of getting a bit sick of talking about Donkey Kong 64, what with the long-winded retrospective I did and all that, but replaying the game to get some footage made me notice a peculiar issue that is shared between DK64 AND its Country predecessors. It doesn't have much to do with the general gameplay or anything, it's more like a conceptual fault, one that lacks a bit of common sense in the grand scheme of things, and sure, Donkey Kong isn't exactly a series known to adhere to common sense or anything, but I have seen this trope prop up in many games that I've played throughout my lifetime.

One of the myriad of collectable types you encounter in Donkey Kong 64 are coins, colored specific to each playable Kong. These coins are used to purchase upgrades in the form of physical abilities, weaponry, and instruments that allow you to progress through the game. Sounds simple enough, something a lot of kids don't necessarily mind, but when you think about it, who exactly is selling you all of these upgrades?

Donkey Kong's relatives. The characters that are probably just as affected by K. Rool's constant raiding of Donkey Kong's banana hoards and, well, I dunno, the gigantic frickin' laser he has pointed at the island they all live on. Sure, it might be justified in Cranky's case because he's crotchety and rude, but neither Candy nor Funky are on particularly bad terms with any of the Kongs, yet all three unapologetically demand tribute for their services despite being related to the main characters. It was even worse in the Country games with Cranky because he charged you for hints, and the sweet old Wrinkly Kong would make you cough up some coin to access the save feature if you did it enough times. As a gameplay mechanic, these all make sense for balance purposes, but in a logical sense, not so much.

I get it, it's a goofy platformer made by Rare. Gameplay and motive segregation, I understand that. But when I think about it, this is more common of a logical fallacy in gaming than at first glance. Banjo-Kazooie did something similar with Mumbo Jumbo, and while he technically wasn't related to the titular duo, he still cares enough to aid them only if he gets enough tokens out of the deal. Non-platformer examples, look at Paper Mario and some of the Mario and Luigi games. Who's running the shops that sell you items and power-ups and badges? More often than not, it's your allies, like Toads and friendly Koopas and stuff like that. Apparently the threat of time-space anomalies and imminent destruction/domination of the world isn't enough to keep the inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom from nickel and diming you, the hero of the kingdom.

Less cartoon-y RPGs like Skyrim and Xenoblade also have this problem. "You're the only one who can defeat the dragons running rampant across the kingdom and burning down entire settlements? You can wield the ancient, powerful, centuries-old sword that gives you foresight into future events and is your race's - and several other races' - last hope for survival against a ruthless robotic armada? Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever, I could care less, I got a business to run. A business that might not exist if it weren't for your actions, sure, but c'mon, money talks, friend."

It's a minor thing to get up-in-arms about, I guess, but it kind of takes the immersion away sometimes. I don't expect to be handed the best gear at the very start or anything like that just for being the protagonist, but I think this is probably why I appreciate games with a crafting-based or loot-based progression system as opposed to games where you have to go on a shopping spree to save the world.

Can anyone else think of any examples of this that stand out besides the ones I mentioned?