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

[yoshiskye1]

hey I find this thread really fascinating and all but it makes me laugh to hear of this ACNL capitalism and elitist community. Whilst I think it is important and relevant as a reflection of the world we live in- it is just that. AC isn't real life, IGB and TBT are worthless. And whilst I am concerned sometimes that the community is a little too focussed on money and worth and a sort of virtual life capitalist reality, at the same time- we ignore the same things IRL. Maybe take this (what has happened with tiers and how an economy has formed in a virtual world) and use it as a projection of human nature and our real life society because at the end of the day, when the wifi breaks, you're left in the world of real loans, real elitism and a real system of tiers and undesirable vs desirable. No point trying to make a change here when the problem lies in the values ingrained into our minds by our society and system. We can't expect liberal and "fair" gaming economies when we don't have those values in real life and that is the end of that.

 

[Diclonius217]

I think having Dreamies is alright, I think it gets a little excessive when people will fork over 25 million bells for someone though. coughredditcough
I also tend to really dislike people who cover every square inch of their town with QR code designs. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I always thought it eliminated all the nature elements from the game, which makes me sad.

 

[Kolechia]

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.

please do this!! most of my dreamies are lower tiers and they are like impossible to find XD

 

[Toffee Pop]

I can relate to this. One of my favorite villagers is Rasher, he was a starter (or at least moved in very soon after starting) and
one of the first villagers I actually befriended, I wouldn't trade him for all the bells in the world. But whenever I see anyone talking about him, and that's very rare, it's just to say how ugly he looks/how much they hate him/why won't he move out. A good few of my dreamies are popular, and I really do like their designs, but it's sad to see people paying so much for one villager and never considering any that are 3rd tier or under.

I also tend to really dislike people who cover every square inch of their town with QR code designs. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I always thought it eliminated all the nature elements from the game, which makes me sad.

This too. Paths are nice, but I've seen people using fake GRASS to cover all the nice default...

 

[Munna]

I agree with most of it. I appreciate you writing the post--I think it's brave & honest. Thank you.

I think it's ridiculous how people have pretty much the same town over & over---

fine like 1-3 popular villagers because you actually like them, but simply going after villagers because they are Tier 1 is ridiculous & I agree elitist & defeats the niceness of the game.

Some of my "dreamies" are however popular villagers. I would really like Marina & Tangy. The reason being is I have Zucker (Zucker & Kid Cat were actually in my original 5!), and I'd love an octopus girl to keep him company. I also think octopus creatures are weird & cute.

I like Tangy because I had her in the original Gamecube game & love citrus fruits & cats. And she is both--so I thought WOW! also she is one of the cutest peppy villagers I have seen.

I like Tier 2 Muffy because she is the only Gothic Lotia character in the game & I also love Uchis.

I like the design of Ankha, and I don't really like the snooty types---so if I have to keep one for the PWPs I hope it would be a cat---but I'm not going to chase people for her.

As for Marshal, I met him in dream towns and don't really like him or the design. Same with most of the others.

I actually LOVE Wart Jr even though he is not cutesy & cranky--he is hilarious once you get to know him & an awesome villager to have as a friend.

So basically I love a mixture of popular & highly unpopular---because I like what I actually like.

I was actually shocked that Marina was universally popular, because to me she seems a bit alternative--A PINK OCTOPUS...but I'm glad people can appreciate her & her sweet nature.

 

[mintellect]

There are many Teir Fives that are cute and I don't understand why they're voided.

 

[Munna]

Wow...I also noticed Ruby is considered Tier 3....

I like her 2nd only to Tangy out of the Peppies... I really don't care that she is "middle of the road" It's a SPACE RABBIT!

 

[Fizzii]

The thing with me is that I really do love my tier one villagers. Me and Beau are super good friends, Erik and I are the same, Zucker is my precious little thing, I've had Fauna before and she was just my favourite, And i've met Lolly and think she's really nice. I do have Melba and Coco and Lily though, and those three are like the goody-goody girl gang of my town and I love them so much. Melba is the sweetest villager i've come across.
I've also had Julian and didn't like him, but then again I've had Vladimir and he annoyed the crap out of me.

 

[Akimari]

There are many Teir Fives that are cute and I don't understand why they're voided.

Many cyclers are running their cycle town for the main purpose of earning a pretty good profit from their villagers. This isn't a bad thing at all, trust me! But things like the commentary over tier 5 saying "Seldom auctioned, giveaways are best" gives cyclers more of a reason to want to autovoid them since it's assumed that trying to keep and sell them will be pretty useless, especially when they could void out a tier 5 and possibly get in a tier 1 or 2. Cuteness just isn't really a factor when it comes to keeping these villagers from being autovoided. Tis all about the tiers and popularity.

 

[The221Believer]

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.

Is it cycling that controls the market? Or the consumers who cause high tier sales to be more profitable by buying out at crazy prices and encourage the high-minimum sales? I'm guilty of that last; I just really wanted Drago and I felt bad for accidentally missing a bit of the rules post so I gave twice his asking price. Or is it both the resource-holding cyclers and the wealthy consumers, and therefore an interaction of forces? I tend to lean towards the interaction theory on this forum (though I don't at all in real-life US land--but this is very different, based on observation and study of both). I've seen sale threads even for high tier villagers crash and fail and have to lower prices in the same time that low tier villagers find great successes. It's legitimately very much affected by the people who are online and available to purchase. I think the buying-out practise is a major part of what pushes prices so high, too, as is the very idea of an auction where you tap into human competition and desire simultaneously. Again, I ask, if suddenly 90% of the population that wants Marshal found him in their campsite while they had an open slot, wouldn't his prices drop like a rock because only 10% still needed to buy him? It'd be so much harder to find purchasers, just like it is for a lot of Tiers 4/5s, that for sheer efficiency's sake he'd probably actually get voided on occasion. Marshal the marshmallow king, voided! Cyclers on this site can't enforce "best of the best" nearly to the degree you seem to suggest, nor can they get away with the same nonsense that RL capitalist kings can. No one buying is a very real possibility here because it's a smaller community--and if it happens, they lose out.

Come to think of it, cyclers don't even actually have complete control over villagers as a resource. They're just faster than campsite resetting. So yes, consumers here are equally culpable.

I also still contest that efficiency is a part of the discussion we're ignoring. I have to quit cycling August 21st because my campus has no 3DS-enabled wifi. What is better ethically: holding one tier 5 for someone for several days, or managing to give away in those same days multiple dreamies a day including ones that usually cost a lot? Now, I am holding a Tier 5, but that's half because I get something nice in return (art) and half because I'm personally very fond of the Tier 5 and don't want to void him. Also because the person I'm holding him for is super nice and adorable.

I think we need to return to the core question that I keep raising: what is the flawed concept? Popular villagers are popular because lots of people like them. Unpopular villagers have fewer fans; that doesn't mean anything but that they're less liked or appeal to a more niche taste. For example, I'm aware of someone who loves the excessively-cosmetic'ed villagers for that particular look, but more people who think it's aesthetically displeasing and don't care for them because of it. It's not a zero sum equation. I love submarine sandwiches, but I like pizza too--but I'd take a good sub over pizza any day. Same thing with dreamies. And everyone has a different "sandwich" and a different "pizza", and for the higher-tiered villagers, that's where the "sandwiches" happen to overlap. No one's peeling pepperoni off the "pizza" villagers just because they prefer their "sandwich", any more than the free samples of my writing available online detract from the eventual value of the things I succeed in getting published.

(whispers: writing that last sentence made me think of 10 Things I Hate About You and "I like my Skechers, but I love my Prada backpack". Sob I love that movie)

I am glad that the virtual currency/villagers have valuable meaning to us on the forum. It gives me a place to toy around with different economic ideas, study the movement of a smaller economy, and gives me evidence fuel for any economically-based debate that I have to argue this upcoming year now that I'm more involved with my school's team.

I'm also very much enjoying this thread, it's an intellectual exercise~

But someone has to show me that a substantial population believes that a villager's tier makes or breaks them--not for sale purposes, but as a permanent villager in their town. Someone has to show me proof that there is real and significant hatred towards villagers who aren't popular just because they're unpopular, with no other reason (I hate Wart Jr not because he's unpopular, but because he killed my flowers). There's another thread asking how people choose their dreamies that was posted last night, and one of only two who'd clicked the "because of popularity" tick mark did so because of a misclick. So only one person, even hours later. And they haven't posted, so who knows what they were thinking about it? That's telling to me. And it tells me that that population that would prove that there is actual villager-based elitism as a powerful trend/element in this forum's culture simply isn't there. The overwhelming majority seems to prefer personal sentiment and personal attraction to aesthetic as reasons to love a villager.

- - - Post Merge - - -

hey I find this thread really fascinating and all but it makes me laugh to hear of this ACNL capitalism and elitist community. Whilst I think it is important and relevant as a reflection of the world we live in- it is just that. AC isn't real life, IGB and TBT are worthless. And whilst I am concerned sometimes that the community is a little too focussed on money and worth and a sort of virtual life capitalist reality, at the same time- we ignore the same things IRL. Maybe take this (what has happened with tiers and how an economy has formed in a virtual world) and use it as a projection of human nature and our real life society because at the end of the day, when the wifi breaks, you're left in the world of real loans, real elitism and a real system of tiers and undesirable vs desirable. No point trying to make a change here when the problem lies in the values ingrained into our minds by our society and system. We can't expect liberal and "fair" gaming economies when we don't have those values in real life and that is the end of that.

Also, what, you don't think anyone here might be anti-capitalism in real life, just because they're challenging this virtual economy? I'm thoroughly anti-capitalism in real life; I have to be, it's a good chunk of what's poisoning my country, which I do love, despite all the things I hate about it. Along with other things, of course; everything happens for multiple reasons.

I just wish as a single college student I could be more active in making changes bigger than just working on changing my campus' culture of general xenophobia. But that's so not the point of this thread, I digress.

 

[Akimari]

This thread is incredible because we've gone from discussing dreamies and tiers to an online Animal Crossing market that resembles the corruption and flaws present in capitalism and how it goes hand-in-hand with how the system works on TBT.

Not even being sarcastic here either. It's pretty sweet that it's gone to this direction AND has managed to stay civil at the same time! I'm proud of you all.

 

[ams]

You know what really confuses me? Why don't people just use villager reseting instead of buying dreamies? I've been doing this over the weekend and now have all my dreamies except one which I will probably end up buying (since I had 2 normal dreamies). I guess it's a problem if many of your dreamies are the same personality, but most people seem to have even personality spreads in their towns.

But honestly it's so much faster and obviously cheaper. I even had the chance to let in 3 tier 1s which I've been giving away, but I could also sell if I needed TBT or IGB. I guess maybe it's more fun for people to get them from other towns?

 

[-Apples-]

In my opinion, I never really cared about villagers, even if I have some favorites like Katt or Amelia. That's why I don't have dreamies. All I care about is money making, house decoration, town decoration, character customization, museum donations, and cataloging. As for the Tier System, I stopped liking it because people have taken it too seriously to the point where they start bullying villagers or people who like the unpopular villagers/hate the popular villagers. Not only that, but I hate how the tier system became a breeding ground for multiple discussions (not like threads like this, but more like favorites threads and opinions on one tier). Why do we have too many discussions like that? They were good like for the first few, but like 40 threads on tiers or more, that's what bothered me. And I kinda blame the tier system for causing multiple threads on it to be discussed.

 

[Red Cat]

You know what really confuses me? Why don't people just use villager reseting instead of buying dreamies? I've been doing this over the weekend and now have all my dreamies except one which I will probably end up buying (since I had 2 normal dreamies). I guess it's a problem if many of your dreamies are the same personality, but most people seem to have even personality spreads in their towns.

But honestly it's so much faster and obviously cheaper. I even had the chance to let in 3 tier 1s which I've been giving away, but I could also sell if I needed TBT or IGB. I guess maybe it's more fun for people to get them from other towns?

If you are villager resetting, then you can't plot reset your dreamies because you have to get lucky just to get your desired villager so you can't be picky about where they decide to plot.

 

[ams]

If you are villager resetting, then you can't plot reset your dreamies because you have to get lucky just to get your desired villager so you can't be picky about where they decide to plot.

Ah I guess that makes sense. I've never really cared too much where they plot as long as it's on the bottom half of my map. They tend to all plot near each other so I haven't had a problem.

It bothers me more when they sing annoying town tunes tbh.

 

[yoshiskye1]

Is it cycling that controls the market? Or the consumers who cause high tier sales to be more profitable by buying out at crazy prices and encourage the high-minimum sales? I'm guilty of that last; I just really wanted Drago and I felt bad for accidentally missing a bit of the rules post so I gave twice his asking price. Or is it both the resource-holding cyclers and the wealthy consumers, and therefore an interaction of forces? I tend to lean towards the interaction theory on this forum (though I don't at all in real-life US land--but this is very different, based on observation and study of both). I've seen sale threads even for high tier villagers crash and fail and have to lower prices in the same time that low tier villagers find great successes. It's legitimately very much affected by the people who are online and available to purchase. I think the buying-out practise is a major part of what pushes prices so high, too, as is the very idea of an auction where you tap into human competition and desire simultaneously. Again, I ask, if suddenly 90% of the population that wants Marshal found him in their campsite while they had an open slot, wouldn't his prices drop like a rock because only 10% still needed to buy him? It'd be so much harder to find purchasers, just like it is for a lot of Tiers 4/5s, that for sheer efficiency's sake he'd probably actually get voided on occasion. Marshal the marshmallow king, voided! Cyclers on this site can't enforce "best of the best" nearly to the degree you seem to suggest, nor can they get away with the same nonsense that RL capitalist kings can. No one buying is a very real possibility here because it's a smaller community--and if it happens, they lose out.

Come to think of it, cyclers don't even actually have complete control over villagers as a resource. They're just faster than campsite resetting. So yes, consumers here are equally culpable.

I also still contest that efficiency is a part of the discussion we're ignoring. I have to quit cycling August 21st because my campus has no 3DS-enabled wifi. What is better ethically: holding one tier 5 for someone for several days, or managing to give away in those same days multiple dreamies a day including ones that usually cost a lot? Now, I am holding a Tier 5, but that's half because I get something nice in return (art) and half because I'm personally very fond of the Tier 5 and don't want to void him. Also because the person I'm holding him for is super nice and adorable.

I think we need to return to the core question that I keep raising: what is the flawed concept? Popular villagers are popular because lots of people like them. Unpopular villagers have fewer fans; that doesn't mean anything but that they're less liked or appeal to a more niche taste. For example, I'm aware of someone who loves the excessively-cosmetic'ed villagers for that particular look, but more people who think it's aesthetically displeasing and don't care for them because of it. It's not a zero sum equation. I love submarine sandwiches, but I like pizza too--but I'd take a good sub over pizza any day. Same thing with dreamies. And everyone has a different "sandwich" and a different "pizza", and for the higher-tiered villagers, that's where the "sandwiches" happen to overlap. No one's peeling pepperoni off the "pizza" villagers just because they prefer their "sandwich", any more than the free samples of my writing available online detract from the eventual value of the things I succeed in getting published.

(whispers: writing that last sentence made me think of 10 Things I Hate About You and "I like my Skechers, but I love my Prada backpack". Sob I love that movie)

I am glad that the virtual currency/villagers have valuable meaning to us on the forum. It gives me a place to toy around with different economic ideas, study the movement of a smaller economy, and gives me evidence fuel for any economically-based debate that I have to argue this upcoming year now that I'm more involved with my school's team.

I'm also very much enjoying this thread, it's an intellectual exercise~

But someone has to show me that a substantial population believes that a villager's tier makes or breaks them--not for sale purposes, but as a permanent villager in their town. Someone has to show me proof that there is real and significant hatred towards villagers who aren't popular just because they're unpopular, with no other reason (I hate Wart Jr not because he's unpopular, but because he killed my flowers). There's another thread asking how people choose their dreamies that was posted last night, and one of only two who'd clicked the "because of popularity" tick mark did so because of a misclick. So only one person, even hours later. And they haven't posted, so who knows what they were thinking about it? That's telling to me. And it tells me that that population that would prove that there is actual villager-based elitism as a powerful trend/element in this forum's culture simply isn't there. The overwhelming majority seems to prefer personal sentiment and personal attraction to aesthetic as reasons to love a villager.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Also, what, you don't think anyone here might be anti-capitalism in real life, just because they're challenging this virtual economy? I'm thoroughly anti-capitalism in real life; I have to be, it's a good chunk of what's poisoning my country, which I do love, despite all the things I hate about it. Along with other things, of course; everything happens for multiple reasons.

I just wish as a single college student I could be more active in making changes bigger than just working on changing my campus' culture of general xenophobia. But that's so not the point of this thread, I digress.

Oh I didn't intend to imply that I thought people here were capitalist or not against capitalism, infact quite the opposite. I find it refreshing that people are speaking out about it- even in a game world and I completely feel you. I am completing sixth form next year (or college or whatever you folks in 'murica call it) and I have been educated my entire life in such a far right school. I've seen the people around me take their privileges for granted and spit on people who haven't been born into money and it always made me sad, especially as whenever I made an effort to express my thoughts I was called "left wing tosser" and "cancer to the establishment" (seriously? smh). I volunteer for political events I support but I feel like I won't be able to DO anything until i'm well into my twenties. Like i'm seventeen in a few weeks. I respect people of other opinions basically, but it crosses a line if I express mine and people don't respect me.

That was slightly off topic but also- confusingly enough, in the UK, Capitalism also means the (predominantly) more liberal movement to abolish the monarchy
But my brain is used to the more duniversal use of the term (but for all it's worth, I am against the monarchy. I have a part time job during term time so I pay income tax. I'm 16 and i'm paying for that lot. Okay, not really but you get where i'm coming from.

But yeah, I believe there are anti-capitalist people on this thread BECAUSE so many people are challenging the ACNL economy seemingly leaning that way. And I am very glad about that- like you

 

[pft7]

I also tend to really dislike people who cover every square inch of their town with QR code designs. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I always thought it eliminated all the nature elements from the game, which makes me sad.

I agree, I don't like the look of paths all over someone's town. I think it all looks much better as natural grass though I can see why they do it since the grass is getting worn away one way or the other and the paths look better than a town full of mud. Though the grass look is undoubtedly the best look. No question about it.

 

[Dunquixote]

I don't have a dreamie list, only villagers that I really like. Fang is a must-have for me, but that is because in my first town ever, Fang randomly moved unto my only perfect peach sapling. Right behind my house. Believe me, I hated him. And he was so grumpy! Arggh!
But once he stayed longer, the friendship built up and we became best friends.
It was only like a halfyear after that that I even discovered the Bell Tree forum.

For two times now, I have Ankha as a original villager. But I don't like her. We don't click. She is quite unique in design and house, but no she just is not meant for me.

I just go with what I like! The tiers don't matter to me.

Same with me! :] I like who I like regardless of tiers (plus, I joined this website late and didn't bother looking at the tier lists until one or two months ago). All my life I have been the type of person who doesn't conform to what other people like ~ even when I'm bullied, made fun of behind my back or was ignored. I actually like being different and thinking for myself; thus, I think it's silly to choose to "like" a villager just because they're popular.

While I have partially invested some of my emotions into the game, I have not yet experienced this "dreamie" sensation, where I'd get all "dreamy," excitable, or giggly about a villager that I really like/want; I do have villagers that I have become attached to and villagers I want. The extent of my emotional investment in the game is that I'd feel happy when Puddles or Punchy tells me something like how they're always looking out for things that they think I might like or that they want to do something nice for me since I'm always doing nice things for them. There are still some villagers that I'd like to have in my town even though I don't have room for them or already have enough of that one particular personality group; but, thinking about them or wanting them doesn't make me feel like I'd do anything to get them in my town.

 

[PaperBag]

I've posted about this before too. I don't have any dreamies, and like almost all the characters. Really, one of my favorite things about the game has been seeing the varying designs of the characters despite the "amazing" variation in their personality...
In all seriousness, the limited number of personalities is a huge flaw in the game, there needs to be at least 20, with secondary characteristics or something. It's depressing when they repeat themselves and each other, it's like they're just computers... *cough*...
Anyways...
Yeah, I like to see all the characters. It's fun to see all the designs. I love getting a character I haven't ever had before. Very few characters are totally negligible to me... But I'm not gonna lie, some are pretty irredeemably hideous, but then they can be your town antagonist

 

[Dunquixote]

While I still love this game, the fact that the personality types all are based on stereotypes, irks me. I hate stereotypes...