So you say more successful business/advertising models = mainstream to a point?
Also I'm wondering if you abide by the rule of not partaking in that which is mainstream. Do you consistently avoid it for the fact that there is a stigma of it being liked blindly/mindlessly that stops you from enjoying it?
I try to make every decision about every business/material object/activity based on my own observations and I don't rely on what the societal view of it is to shape my own. I like some things which happen to be mainstream, some things which happen to be "hipster", so what? As long as I'm rationally deciding on my own it doesn't really matter. If I'm mindlessly indulging in something that I know is hipster just because I want to be niche then that's dumb. If I want to indulge in something just because I know it's popular/other people like it, that's also dumb.
Don't blindly fight the flow of the mainstream, or float down it aimlessly, but paddle your own boat the way you see fit.
It's funny cause a majority of hipsters don't adapt to the characteristics that make up a hipster on their own. They do it when and because they see their friends doing it
But really, mainstream is just a word people throw out when they feel something has gotten too popular because of the mass amounts of people liking one particular thing. I guess you can say mainstream sucks because the very word and meaning of it is ridiculed by thousands.
Lets use video games as an example of mainstream. Halo, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect. All names I'm sure many know very well because of the mass popularity of them thanks to marketing and advertisements everywhere. Every single one of those names is classified by many as "mainstream". What does this mean? Could mean a lot of things according to how people view mainstream products.
Yet here's the kicker. Each one of those names have an audience that hate the other names. These are the people I guess is what you would described as "sub-culture". They don't like what those other names have to offer, even if they have no given it a chance.
...
Why am I rambling about this? Dohoho...
Originally posted by JohnRedWolf87
Charu the red-nosed Snivy
Had a very shiny nose
And if you ever saw it
You could even say it glows
All of the other Snivies
Used to laugh and call him names
They never let poor Charu
Join in any Snivy games
(Click the arrow to see the rest)
Originally posted by Vendetta21
All in all I would say that Charu not only won this game, his play made me reconsider how I play it.
Every single one of those names is classified by many as "mainstream". What does this mean?
It means they appeal to the lowest common denominator gamer to reel in the number of sales they need to make the massive production and marketing cost economical. They're not necessarily bad, but they're generic, and most people consider things "better" that are more tailor made for them.
The names of the games have been built up and branded to a point where, they are not going to try anything too drastic anymore. They want to build revenue now, but also deliver what people know as the "halo experience" with improvements/additions that don't risk hurting their demographic and sales numbers. They have to be more careful and deliver pretty well the same thing over and over again to satisfy their market. I suppose I wouldn't blame them entirely, if it's making them lots of money. That's why most studios will start smaller projects on the side to test out what they really would want in a game that isn't really risking them losing a lot.
Valve on the other hand has done the opposite and built up a fanbase and subsequent revenue based on the intense changes in direction and improvements that are not all of the same flavour. Dey good.
I usually love indie games not because they're niche and less mainstream but because they try interesting things that most people wouldn't want to commit to if they were in a bigger studio. It's nice to see some new concepts brewed that aren't generic shooters.
I don't really understand the point of this thread in all honesty, but with the points that you have mentioned about mainstream, I agree that one should like something for their own personal reasons (and similarly hate something for the same reasons), regardless if that something is considered mainstream or not.
However, you can't force this viewpoint on others. There will always be someone who likes "mainstream" mainly because of the pressure exhibited in many forms (media, social, peer, etc.) It is their choice to identify what they like for whatever reason. If someone likes Lady Gaga or PSY, just because they are mainstream, then so be it.
There's nothing wrong with mainstream, and I dare say that there's nothing wrong with liking something merely because it's popular. Similarly, on the other hand, I also think there's merit in disliking something simply because everyone and their mother is jumping on some bandwagon -- but if you're going the route of the arrogant hipster, you may want to recalibrate your priorities and assess how honest your methods actually are.
The only thing I might dislike about mainstream is if it takes away profit incentive to develop niche realms otherwise (video games being a hugely obvious example).
Comment