Dreamies, Tiers, and the Flawed concepts that have arisen in AC:NL

[The221Believer]

I think we need to establish for the purpose of a discussion like this that qualifiers like "cute" and "lovable" (not to call you out in particular, Puppetchild, I'm just using those as examples) are as subjective for Tier 5 villagers as they are for Tier 1s. Meaning, absolutely subjective. I loathe a good portion of villagers, not because of their tiers but for their appearance or their personality (e.g. I hate literally all jocks. I don't find them enjoyable or fun or worth having in my town)--but that's my opinion. When you tell me that a villager is cute and lovable, that's also your opinion. You can't absolutely dictate that villager X will be cute and lovable to everyone. I actually loathe Egbert due to WW. Neither of us has a more valid view of him than the other, though, just as my love of Julian vs feminist's apathy towards him is neither more or less valid based on the tiering. Some people think Coco's terrifying, others adore her; personally I think Freya should be right up there fighting it out with Whitney.

Tiers are only a method to determine what the most common view is, not the validity of a view. It's really important to keep that in mind when thinking about them.

 

[Serif]

I actually like keeping the same 10 villagers in my town, just because they feel like family to me~ I was sad to let Kitty go (we weren't clicking anymore ><), but I can't wait to get to know Flurry and get her into a nice plot all her own, and I hope I never need to say goodbye to her~

I'd rather buy a second cart to switch it up. My own enjoyment comes from assembling villagers who mean a lot to me and will be my friends for a long time~ I guess I could move on and let someone else in if one of them were to uproot, but it just wouldn't feel the same. I've become close to my dreamies, have even written stories about them and their funny antics (Lobo comes to mind, eheh) and even some of my past villagers (both loved and...hard to get along with) have had time and love dedicated to them~

I'm happy where I am now, and I'm gonna keep the 10 of them for as long as I can. Not due to not wanting to expand or get to know others, but simply because that is how I enjoy the game~

But I will never argue the fact that every animal has something unique to bring, and there is no shame in loving whoever you choose.

Also, I don't see this attitude much of "bragging" about having tier 1's or people being insulted for tier 5's. I've seen it brought up a few times throughout the thread and like..Idk maybe I'm just not looking in the right place, and I'm sure some people do care about sellback. I've cared about it before when I hadn't figured my town out yet, but not to the extent some people seem to be mentioning. I don't think the majority of players are like that x: I've never seen anyone dumped on for having lower tiers nor worshipped for higher tiers. Heck I got hella excited seeing Ed in someone's town. I forget his tier but I was just happy to see my old horse friend being so loved in someone's town~

But the people who DO act like that...Idk, try not to take them seriously. Your town's good no matter who you have and what matters is if you enjoy it. If someone's judging people like that, they kinda..well, don't belong here o3o

 

[wacoma]

I don't really have issues with tiers, or people that like the more popular villagers? The only thing that bothers me is that I noticed that cycling threads are auto voiding the t4-t5 villagers? But I've found that I like a lot of the lower tier villagers, so I might be one of the few this practice rubs the wrong way?

I've found that when I'm on tumblr, if I see art of villagers, (ones that I initially wasn't fond of), if I like the art, my perception of that villager changes? Like, I used to not like Agnes, for whatever reason, then I saw some really great art of her, and now I just love her and it feels weird not having her in my town right now? Same with Amelia.

Honestly, I guess you would call them both dreamies because I can't imagine a town without them? idk

 

[Yuki Nagato]

I totally agree with this post, and can sympathize with the OP incredibly. Having unique villagers is wonderful, and whilst I do have the odd higher-tier villager like Blanche, I also appreciate the enjoyment about getting to know the villagers for their individual personalities. Whilst the personality types all share the same code, each of the animals appear to have distinct little quirks which, at least to us, makes them their own character. Personally, I like the glamorous snooty-beaked Broffina, Queenie and Maelle (all of whom have lived on my town in New Leaf). I used to picture Broffina and Maelle as being the *****y pair of my community until Broffina moved; needless to say, Maelle went soon after (and in came Queenie!). I would rather have Maelle over Marshall any day of the week!

Oh and then there is Hans, who is like a gay best friend to my second character Euanna. He is simply fabulous! Just down the path from his house, by the cliff, is Celia's eco-home, which is powered by the wind turbine. I'd hate to see any of my villagers go - only Cranston, the newest resident, I'd consider allowing to leave.

 

[Sdj4148]

In some ways, this post is right. I played ACNL with no outside influences for almost a year. When I joined TBT, I fell in love with Merengue and Pietro (I watched someone do a LP on ACNL on YouTube and I fell in love with him then). They were popular but I didn't get them because they were. I also find Carmen a cutie but she's tier 4. And I kinda want Beau or Stitches because they are cute. Now did this site introduce me to them? Yes, but even if I found out about Beau and Stitches on another site, I still would have wanted them. So yeah I like villagers based on their looks because I don't know anything else about them and the fact I generally don't like the villagers that randomly move to my town.

 

[feminist]

I want to add something else:
I don't think that liking popular villagers is bad (I LOVE Ankha), but what I'm saying is that I don't think you should declare a villager a favorite of yours because they're tier 1, but you haven't even met them before. Even if you choose a few tier 1/2 dreamies, I encourage people to leave open space and find a wide variety of villagers that they come to love.
That's much more my point (not "liking tier 1s is bad")

 

[mintellect]

I agree with some of your post. The Teir system can be annoying, but if you love all the Teir 1 villagers, you can have them. My dreamies are made up of about 50% top Teir and it's because I think they are cute, and they have nice personalities. I don't really see why anyone would want a villager just because their Teir 1.

 

[TheEchoTimes]

Having dreamies is OK- the term just means "villagers you dream of having." My dreamies are scattered throughout the tiers- Nana and Deli are Tier 5, Lobo is Tier 3 or 4, Ankha and Lucky are Tier 1... People like who they like; some are more beloved than others, but that's just because of their looks. In the end, Tier 1 dreamies (and dreamies themselves) are just a way of saying, "I love this villager and want them."
Tier system just is there for people who need to sell villagers for Bells so that they can be efficient. People run cycling threads and need a way to rank pricing. It's part of the AC economy, like salaries and stocks are for us. It just says, say, "Julian is Tier 1 so sell him for this, but Deli is Tier 5 so he's free." People don't like to get ripped off, so we have tiers.

 

[hemming1996]

Why does it matter? Everyone can have what villagers they want. Villagers are low tier because few people actually want them. It is not flawed. I don't really understand how its your business how much people pay for villagers. It is their choice.

 

[Enny156]

It's just a shame that people choose to void villagers because of their low value. I can of course see why but it's still a shame.

 

[Voluptua Sneezelips]

It's just a shame that people choose to void villagers because of their low value. I can of course see why but it's still a shame.

I've been thinking for a while of starting a cycling town specialising in lower-tier villagers, to give folks more of a chance at obtaining them (i.e., no autovoid, lurking only permitted for tiers 4 & 5, etc.). I may just cave and wander over to my local game shop for a 2ndhand AC:NL before the day's over.

 

[Enny156]

Good initiative!

 

[HHoney]

I have been quietly building a cycling town --- After reading this thread I know I am starting one specializing in helping mayors find their truly rare Tier 5 villagers.

Tier 3-4-5 should not be considered undesirable. I see them as rare gems deeply appreciated by a select few.

I will never give an animal away completely for free. I want to create an understanding that ALL villagers have value. All of them.

Even if it is one single pear.

 

[The221Believer]

Have started a cycling town myself based on no autovoiding. Though I'm giving all villagers away for free, all of them. Even Tier 1s.

Again, I still have to ask, though--does anyone really see Tier 3/4/5 as undesirable? Or is it just that more people find the higher tiers desirable, instead, or just more desirable than the others? Popularity/likability is not a zero sum equation, and I still haven't seen evidence that there's a significant population (read: more than a couple of exceptionally rude people) that actually outright scorns and disdains lower-tier villagers.

 

[AmenFashion]

I don't believe lower tiers are "undesirable", just more popular by the mass' standards.
Like music. Some of the best artists aren't loved by the mass public, but they're just as amazing, if not better, than what the general public listens to.

My only issue is that from another perspective, Tier 1 are frowned upon, because they aren't as "original".
For me, some of my favorite villagers are Tier 1 (Such as Marina, who I fell in love with when she was introduced in Wild World). I'm not going to not have her because she's "unoriginal". I'm going to enjoy the villagers I love, regardless of the tier system.
In my eyes, all of the villagers are on the same level. If I like them, it's because I like them. If I don't, I don't. There shouldn't be a class system in AC.

 

[Akimari]

Have started a cycling town myself based on no autovoiding. Though I'm giving all villagers away for free, all of them. Even Tier 1s.

Again, I still have to ask, though--does anyone really see Tier 3/4/5 as undesirable? Or is it just that more people find the higher tiers desirable, instead, or just more desirable than the others? Popularity/likability is not a zero sum equation, and I still haven't seen evidence that there's a significant population (read: more than a couple of exceptionally rude people) that actually outright scorns and disdains lower-tier villagers.

I don't think there's an abundance of people out there who outright disdain lower-tier villagers, but in terms of appearance and sometimes personality as well, they are usually considered undesirable by both community members and the owners of cycling towns. I can't blame them, really. A lot of lower-tier villagers are pretty ugly, some even infamously so (Charlisle, Jambette, Canberra) and I'm sure their off-putting appearance + the low rank in general can cause some disdain and dislike for lower-tiers.

 

[ams]

Before I even joined the site I had a dreamie list (although I didn't know that other people called it that). I got 7 of the villagers on my list by TTing like crazy and getting them from random move-ins and from the campsite. I just restarted a couple days ago and am currently villager reseting to get all of the villagers I want.

It's just how my brain works. It's like when I'd play pokemon as a kid. Before even starting the game I'd sit down with a pen and paper and decide which 6 would be on my team. I now do this same thing with AC villagers. The game wouldn't be fun for me if I wasn't collecting the villagers I like.

Tiers, however, don't really bother me. I have dreamies in every tier, and I think about 5 from tier 5. It doesn't bother me that the low tier villagers are hard to get because I prefer to villager reset rather than buy villagers from other towns.

Edit: I also wanted to mention that since I've restarted I've let a couple tier 1s move into my town for the purpose of giving them away. They seem to mainly be wanted by the little kids on the site and I love giving them away for free and making someone's day, even though in my mind they don't actually have any more inherent value.

 

[jPottie]

Yea, I think it's pretty stupid. I don't really care who thinks what is popular, I have my own favorites.

And I've gotten pretty sick of the more popular villagers... simply because I've seen them everywhere/every dream town.

That being said... I have quite a few tiers ones myself. >.> But it's not my fault! Beau and Marshal were random move ins, and Marina was in my campsite so I decided to invite her. I wouldn't really be sad if any left, although, Marshal is sort of cute..

 

[The221Believer]

I don't think there's an abundance of people out there who outright disdain lower-tier villagers, but in terms of appearance and sometimes personality as well, they are usually considered undesirable by both community members and the owners of cycling towns. I can't blame them, really. A lot of lower-tier villagers are pretty ugly, some even infamously so (Charlisle, Jambette, Canberra) and I'm sure their off-putting appearance + the low rank in general can cause some disdain and dislike for lower-tiers.

In that case it's more about the appearance than the tier, then? I was referring to a population that disdained lower-tierers simply for being part of lower tiers at all, not because of the awful appearance that put them in the lower tiers.

Also, I don't think I need to point this out, but I will because information redundancy is always good: Cycling towns' 'desirable' villagers are those wanted by the community or the owner themselves. Using them as another element to determine popularity, rather than a lens through which to better see the general community attitudes, doesn't really work. That's why Aretaicist Cycling is my lab, so to speak. I want to see what tiers get most consistently ignored or snapped up, and see if all villagers being treated as absolutely equal will wind up justifying the idea of autovoid in some cases purely for efficiency's sake.

(And I want to give people dreamies like Marina for free but you know that's just a bit of fun on the side)

I also concur with AmenFashion--there definitely also seems to be a reverse elitism going on, where the tier ones can be perceived as less original and therefore lesser (despite the fact that they are subject to the same lack of information as tier fives are: you don't know the owner's personal history with them) in some fashion. All the tiers are victim to this, but I wonder if there aren't any "villager hipsters" about at the same time as the hypothetical "popularity chasers"?

Again, popularity and desirability are a) subjective and b) not a zero sum equation. One villager being wonderful to someone doesn't cancel out their unlikability to another, and the tiers are not intended to preach a universal ranking. They are measurements of what views are more prevalent, so that villager traders can know what view will likely guide the pricing of a particular villager. I still have a fundamental problem with calling that bourgeoisie and elitist, simply because...it's not. The list is ordered and edited by the value of trades that happen in a given week--the market shapes it, it does not dictate. Its pricing recommendations are observations and guidelines at most. The very first post says "make trades you feel suit you". No one's hunting me down for saying I'll be offering Marina for free soon enough.

>takes debate hat off
I keep meaning to stop coming back to this thread, but I can't D:

 

[feminist]

Again, popularity and desirability are a) subjective and b) not a zero sum equation. One villager being wonderful to someone doesn't cancel out their unlikability to another, and the tiers are not intended to preach a universal ranking. They are measurements of what views are more prevalent, so that villager traders can know what view will likely guide the pricing of a particular villager. I still have a fundamental problem with calling that bourgeoisie and elitist, simply because...it's not. The list is ordered and edited by the value of trades that happen in a given week--the market shapes it, it does not dictate. Its pricing recommendations are observations and guidelines at most. The very first post says "make trades you feel suit you". No one's hunting me down for saying I'll be offering Marina for free soon enough.

>takes debate hat off
I keep meaning to stop coming back to this thread, but I can't D:

not to argue, but I wanna say: is that not the definition of bourgeoisie? Tiers have, more than anything, created a model capitalist market in which high demand villagers cost leaps and bounds more than the "untouchable" fifth tiers. The fifth tier of villagers is the lowest the game has to offer in this market.
Cycling definitely has made the villager trading market so very bourgeoisie because is it not them that are essentially controlling the market? I mean, sure there are people who have wayward auctions and giveaways, but they're still the same villagers that cyclers have enforced as "the best of the best."
When I joined TBT a little over a year and a half ago, cyclers rarely charged for their villagers, which made cycling threads so very, very useful to someone like me who prefers to never pay IGB for villagers. Now, there's MINIMUM prices for villagers on cycling threads. Notice how it'll cost you 5 million bells or 300BTB for a tier one, but the tier 4's and 5's are being autovoided? It is SOO bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie, as the wealth controlling middle class, is the cyclers in a way! (not calling out cyclers; just pointing out things about the way that cycling effects the market)
It's just funny to me, because it's all so trivial! This is, after all, digital currency in a video game. Yet, at the same time, is it meaningful to us as players.