The Quiet Revolution of Animal Crossing(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Quiet Revolution of Animal Crossing
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/04/animal-crossing-isnt-escapist-its-political/610012/
172 comments
Mark Rosewater, a designer of Magic: the Gathering, wrote a very interesting piece on what a "game" is: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/w...
He says a useful model is that if the game has no goal, it's better termed a "toy" (like Lego); if it doesn't give you "agency", it's an "event" (like watching a film); if it doesn't have mechanics that restrict what's possible, it's an "activity" (like jogging); and if it has real-world relevance, it's "life".
I haven't played Animal Crossing and don't know where it falls on those spectra.
He says a useful model is that if the game has no goal, it's better termed a "toy" (like Lego); if it doesn't give you "agency", it's an "event" (like watching a film); if it doesn't have mechanics that restrict what's possible, it's an "activity" (like jogging); and if it has real-world relevance, it's "life".
I haven't played Animal Crossing and don't know where it falls on those spectra.
AC has both external ("pay off your loan to expand your house", "expand the village population", "fill the museum") and internal ("I want a house full of XYZ furniture that coordinates with my outfits", "I want a garden of fruit trees", etc) goals.
You have agency - there's no penalty for not expanding your house or visiting other islands, etc.
The mechanics do restrict what's possible but then I can't think of a game (except perhaps Dwarf Fortress or real-life RPGs) where they don't.
And there's very little real-world relevance beyond, I suppose, "don't be a dick and life is easier for everyone."
You have agency - there's no penalty for not expanding your house or visiting other islands, etc.
The mechanics do restrict what's possible but then I can't think of a game (except perhaps Dwarf Fortress or real-life RPGs) where they don't.
And there's very little real-world relevance beyond, I suppose, "don't be a dick and life is easier for everyone."
This debate has happened in the video game world many years ago (and I'm sure is still ongoing in some circles), but most people arrived at a very simple but counterintuitive solution:
A "video game" is not the same as a game.
You can have definitions of games, toys, events, etc, but "video game" encompasses all of them.
Once it's digital and has some kind of interactivity, the only thing that matters is whether the author has defined it as a "video game". That's it.
A "video game" is not the same as a game.
You can have definitions of games, toys, events, etc, but "video game" encompasses all of them.
Once it's digital and has some kind of interactivity, the only thing that matters is whether the author has defined it as a "video game". That's it.
Is Excel a video game? If I have fun with a program, is it a game even if the author didn't intend it?
Somebody made XCom in excel. So I guess excel is a video game engine?
I think all the different stories one hears from creative people about their success is at a psychological/sociological awareness level equivalent to pre-Maxwells Equation understanding of Magnetism and Electricity.
Thanks to Zuckerberg & Co collecting more data in a day about behavior, than Psychologists and Sociologists have done through their lifetimes what is becoming obvious is there is a very WIDE distribution of all kinds of Psychological Traits, Needs and dozen other factors in any population. And they aren't static but dynamic like electric and magnetic fields. Not just 2 fields interacting but 20 or something.
Creative people are able to connect with some subset and produce group behavior that are not always reproducible because the Maxwells Equations of Psychology and Sociology haven't yet been discovered.
Thanks to Zuckerberg & Co collecting more data in a day about behavior, than Psychologists and Sociologists have done through their lifetimes what is becoming obvious is there is a very WIDE distribution of all kinds of Psychological Traits, Needs and dozen other factors in any population. And they aren't static but dynamic like electric and magnetic fields. Not just 2 fields interacting but 20 or something.
Creative people are able to connect with some subset and produce group behavior that are not always reproducible because the Maxwells Equations of Psychology and Sociology haven't yet been discovered.
I'm not sure you replied to the right thread?
I like the structure of Mark's definitions, but I think it wouldn't define products like Neko Atsume, The Beginner's Guide, or Minecraft as video games. I think we generally consider the aforementioned to be video games, so it doesn't make much sense to 100% claim that a video game needs structure or goals. We can start calling them "interactive experiences" or something, sure, but if not I think we should accept that video games are a wide variety of things in our world, and appreciate the variety.
Or maybe to be more short, I think it might be good to be a bit less prescriptive of what qualifies as a video game, as we otherwise will blind ourselves to why people enjoy them as entertainment, competition, or self-expression.
Or maybe to be more short, I think it might be good to be a bit less prescriptive of what qualifies as a video game, as we otherwise will blind ourselves to why people enjoy them as entertainment, competition, or self-expression.
A game usually is defined as a set of rules and actions so that when you are playing the game no matter how many players play that game that you can get into some kind of win condition.
Looking at what other people have posted "paying off your house" or "filling the museum" in Animal Crossing are more like achievements that you can perform but they aren't necessarily a win condition.
A similar game that is more of a toy than really a game is the Stanley Parable. Sure you can get the Achievements in it but there is no real win condition at all. It doesn't even penalize you for not doing a task and instead figuring out the endings is what makes it fun.
Looking at what other people have posted "paying off your house" or "filling the museum" in Animal Crossing are more like achievements that you can perform but they aren't necessarily a win condition.
A similar game that is more of a toy than really a game is the Stanley Parable. Sure you can get the Achievements in it but there is no real win condition at all. It doesn't even penalize you for not doing a task and instead figuring out the endings is what makes it fun.
Your points are all correct but I think most folks are missing it’s a genre of Japanese game https://screentherapyblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/13/iyashikei... - basically healing games that are just supposed to give your mind and soul a break.
Laying on the grass and seeing shapes in clouds is also “pointless” but it’s not invaluable.
Laying on the grass and seeing shapes in clouds is also “pointless” but it’s not invaluable.
> it’s not invaluable
invaluable (adjective): extremely useful
invaluable (adjective): extremely useful
I guess it was used as to mean "without value", which is not exactly what it means.
The prefix "in" of "invaluable" does mean negation but it means negation in the way that the value of the object is such that it doesn't exist. It's so valuable that you cannot even quantify it, it transcends the notion of value.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invaluable#note-1
The prefix "in" of "invaluable" does mean negation but it means negation in the way that the value of the object is such that it doesn't exist. It's so valuable that you cannot even quantify it, it transcends the notion of value.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invaluable#note-1
"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"
In this case the context makes the meaning clear, but this quirk of English has confused people for years.
In this case the context makes the meaning clear, but this quirk of English has confused people for years.
In French it’s inflammable for flammable too, but the weird one for me is inhabitants (it’s just habitants here).
interestingly, you can track this issue back to latin, which has a preposition "in" (meaning in, on, to), which is often attached to verbs, and a prefix "in-" which negates the word it's attached to.
[deleted]
Perhaps, valueless?
Seeing shapes in clouds is not "extremely" useful, but it's nice. Neither useful nor useless I suppose.
Try asking a meteorologist.
Whoops - good catch.
Not without value. :)
Not without value. :)
[deleted]
Thanks for linking this article! This explains these games very well.
Great point about the Iyashikei theme! Its very prominent in anime as well.
> I'm going to posit that a video game is the three following things
In other words: Action from the player delivers result from the game, giving the player a sense of satisfaction.
And that's the point. There is a direct correlation between action and satisfaction. The more challenging and complex your action is, the higher can be the satisfaction when you finally get a good result.
And that's why people see Animal Crossing as kinda pointless, because everything is so simple, there is no complexity in action, thus no high satisfaction as direct response. Instead there is the very long game, where you do many many small actions over a rather long time to gain some rather small or middle sized result, while you have many many more mechanisms where the result is simple just random.
For people who are fixed on shortterm direct satisfaction, this is bad, because it's a slow longterm process with little outcome. It's basically like an extrem-sportler who needs to find the joy in just walking through the park.
In other words: Action from the player delivers result from the game, giving the player a sense of satisfaction.
And that's the point. There is a direct correlation between action and satisfaction. The more challenging and complex your action is, the higher can be the satisfaction when you finally get a good result.
And that's why people see Animal Crossing as kinda pointless, because everything is so simple, there is no complexity in action, thus no high satisfaction as direct response. Instead there is the very long game, where you do many many small actions over a rather long time to gain some rather small or middle sized result, while you have many many more mechanisms where the result is simple just random.
For people who are fixed on shortterm direct satisfaction, this is bad, because it's a slow longterm process with little outcome. It's basically like an extrem-sportler who needs to find the joy in just walking through the park.
Haven't played AC yet, but it reminds me of Stardew Valley. Another game many would call pointless - besides the dungeon sidegame, you essentially run around the map, planting crops, picking crops, selling crops and gifting mayonnaise to people in exchange for story progression. There's little challenge here, and little complexity.
But at the same time, the game is extremely relaxing. The music, the ambiance, the story, all make you rest. And that's the goal of the game.
--
Anyway, I question the connection between complexity of action and satisfaction. Take rhythm games. Yes, many people play them for mastery, but a common (perhaps more common) way of playing is just to enjoy your rhythmic jumping/button pressing/hand waving to the beat with some fancy audiovisuals also synced to the rhythm. There's near zero complexity here. But what matters is the state of flow you achieve, it becomes an emotion pump.
But at the same time, the game is extremely relaxing. The music, the ambiance, the story, all make you rest. And that's the goal of the game.
--
Anyway, I question the connection between complexity of action and satisfaction. Take rhythm games. Yes, many people play them for mastery, but a common (perhaps more common) way of playing is just to enjoy your rhythmic jumping/button pressing/hand waving to the beat with some fancy audiovisuals also synced to the rhythm. There's near zero complexity here. But what matters is the state of flow you achieve, it becomes an emotion pump.
> Another game many would call pointless
As far as I know it can become quite complex and deep. More complex than Animal Crossing.
> But at the same time, the game is extremely relaxing. The music, the ambiance, the story, all make you rest. And that's the goal of the game.
I thought the goal is building up your farm and collecting all the bundles and achivments? I guess at the end the goal depends on the player. Which is the point, whether it's pointless depends on the satisfaction the player gains from playing.
> There's near zero complexity here.
I find them quite challenging. Yes, from the mechanical point they are simple, but execution-level is still rather high depending on your personal skill.
Animal Crossing is similar. For a kid it might be challenging enough to do all those stuff and things, for a teenager or adult, it's just braindead dialog-clicking with no challenge in excecution at all. The satisfaction comes over time.
As far as I know it can become quite complex and deep. More complex than Animal Crossing.
> But at the same time, the game is extremely relaxing. The music, the ambiance, the story, all make you rest. And that's the goal of the game.
I thought the goal is building up your farm and collecting all the bundles and achivments? I guess at the end the goal depends on the player. Which is the point, whether it's pointless depends on the satisfaction the player gains from playing.
> There's near zero complexity here.
I find them quite challenging. Yes, from the mechanical point they are simple, but execution-level is still rather high depending on your personal skill.
Animal Crossing is similar. For a kid it might be challenging enough to do all those stuff and things, for a teenager or adult, it's just braindead dialog-clicking with no challenge in excecution at all. The satisfaction comes over time.
> The more challenging and complex your action is, the higher can be the satisfaction when you finally get a good result
But this assertion is just not true. Simple actions can be very rewarding and give a lot of satisfaction. And that's exactly what you can get in Animal Crossing.
But this assertion is just not true. Simple actions can be very rewarding and give a lot of satisfaction. And that's exactly what you can get in Animal Crossing.
I don't think action that delivers satisfying results is defining a video game. I think it's a relationship formed from inputs and audiovisual responses, like I mentioned. Paratropic isn't really a game about satisfaction and results, as the designers want you to be frustrated and anxious.
I think some people see Animal Crossing as pointless because they don't find much value in expressing themselves through the game. I think Minecraft is a similar example of this, as some people mostly focus on fighting monsters or getting gear, as compared to building a house they like the look of.
I think some people see Animal Crossing as pointless because they don't find much value in expressing themselves through the game. I think Minecraft is a similar example of this, as some people mostly focus on fighting monsters or getting gear, as compared to building a house they like the look of.
Definitions of games are quite prolific.
In academia many end up going back to Huizinga's "magic circle" [0] which he was writing about in the 1930's, before any video games were around(although many immediate mechanical precessors were in evidence like pinball and slot machines).
From the perspective of a game creator or player, what tends to be of primary importance is the information conveyed through the game, which can be primarily aesthetic(a pretty picture) or deal with specific themes and principles. In this light, introducing the magic circle is of some importance because of its clarifying property: the information is exploring these concepts, and not some others that you might be interested in.
And so it goes with many opinions about games, too: if it doesn't cover the topics they want in they way they like, players reject the game. Some players need to see violence and power struggle, others need cozy reassurance.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_circle_(virtual_worlds...
In academia many end up going back to Huizinga's "magic circle" [0] which he was writing about in the 1930's, before any video games were around(although many immediate mechanical precessors were in evidence like pinball and slot machines).
From the perspective of a game creator or player, what tends to be of primary importance is the information conveyed through the game, which can be primarily aesthetic(a pretty picture) or deal with specific themes and principles. In this light, introducing the magic circle is of some importance because of its clarifying property: the information is exploring these concepts, and not some others that you might be interested in.
And so it goes with many opinions about games, too: if it doesn't cover the topics they want in they way they like, players reject the game. Some players need to see violence and power struggle, others need cozy reassurance.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_circle_(virtual_worlds...
I like this definition, because it lets me think of pressing a button to get a walk signal to cross the street as a video game. Makes the walk home more satisfying.
I'm not even being 100% facile—I used to think about this on the way home from Bart before I stopped taking Bart thanks to the quarantine.
I'm not even being 100% facile—I used to think about this on the way home from Bart before I stopped taking Bart thanks to the quarantine.
1) a player performs some sort of input into a game
2) the game responds with some sort of audiovisual phenomena in regards to that input
3) 1 and 2 are repeated, creating a relationship between the player and the game
I think you've hit on something with this, for AC. Right now, the world is seemingly more out of control and random than normal, for many people. Nothing they can do, literally nothing they could possibly do (outside suicide) can change the trajectory of their own lives due to something outside of their control.
But in games like AC, you control everything. So it's sort of like a child of abuse developing OCD or some other neurological disorder. It's a coping mechanism. Maybe there's something to that?
But in games like AC, you control everything. So it's sort of like a child of abuse developing OCD or some other neurological disorder. It's a coping mechanism. Maybe there's something to that?
urr... that sounds like a very simple reduction from someone who does not play video games.
There are MANY types of games and they provide different types of pleasure.
For example multiplayer games usually bring pleasure through cooperation, socializing, and becoming better.
sandbox games like minecraft can provide pleasure through creation.
other video games like the last of us are just deeply emotional and touching through story telling
etc.
There are MANY types of games and they provide different types of pleasure.
For example multiplayer games usually bring pleasure through cooperation, socializing, and becoming better.
sandbox games like minecraft can provide pleasure through creation.
other video games like the last of us are just deeply emotional and touching through story telling
etc.
Exactly. There's a pretty wide spead of phenomena we like about video games. I think that's why I suggest a relationship via interaction as a cover-all.
> "a series of interesting decisions" as Will Wright puts it
I think that was Sid Meier.
I think that was Sid Meier.
yes, Sid Meyer
Here is Sid talking about that quote in 2012 (apparently he first said it in 1989) https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1015756/Interesting
Here is Sid talking about that quote in 2012 (apparently he first said it in 1989) https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1015756/Interesting
Actually your simple reduction doesn't hold, which is the very reason I stopped playing Animal Crossing: If you perform NO input, the game STILL responds. i.e. If you don't play, the game still simulates its world. Weeds grow, town inhabitants move out, etc.
It's basically an addiction-based dark pattern. The game punishes you for not playing. I play games on MY TIME, and I won't make myself slave to one.
It's basically an addiction-based dark pattern. The game punishes you for not playing. I play games on MY TIME, and I won't make myself slave to one.
OK I skimmed through the article and I can't say I much care for it.
To me Animal Crossing is a game that you play over many months to sometimes relax doing something mindless or over the longer term to have an island and house that you slowly build up in your own way.
With that in mind there are a lot of great things in animal crossing. A lot of the furniture has interesting interactions and the museum is just a beautiful thing to walk through.
But I also feel that some aspects of the game needs tweaking as they detract from the gameplay. There's no reason I should have to craft fishbait one by one, mindlessly spamming A for minutes at a time. Nor does shopping have to be as tedious as it is. There is no reason I should have to buy flowers in batches of 5 taking 5+ seconds per batch. I want to plant a massive flower patch not navigate overly deep menus. The lest said about the online play the better.
I think the author is trying to find meaning where there really isn't any. At its core Animal Crossing is shallow, but in some sense that lack of depth is the appeal. What it has is a shocking breadth though giving each player lots of options to express themselves or simply to while away a few peaceful hours.
It's not for everyone and it doesn't have to be.
To me Animal Crossing is a game that you play over many months to sometimes relax doing something mindless or over the longer term to have an island and house that you slowly build up in your own way.
With that in mind there are a lot of great things in animal crossing. A lot of the furniture has interesting interactions and the museum is just a beautiful thing to walk through.
But I also feel that some aspects of the game needs tweaking as they detract from the gameplay. There's no reason I should have to craft fishbait one by one, mindlessly spamming A for minutes at a time. Nor does shopping have to be as tedious as it is. There is no reason I should have to buy flowers in batches of 5 taking 5+ seconds per batch. I want to plant a massive flower patch not navigate overly deep menus. The lest said about the online play the better.
I think the author is trying to find meaning where there really isn't any. At its core Animal Crossing is shallow, but in some sense that lack of depth is the appeal. What it has is a shocking breadth though giving each player lots of options to express themselves or simply to while away a few peaceful hours.
It's not for everyone and it doesn't have to be.
My five year old daughter has a villager and decorates her house. I think the enhancements that would make the game easier for adults would make it harder for young children to grasp. She doesn’t accidentally buy 500 stacks of flowers then cry because her bells are gone.
In that respect I think Stardew Valley has included much more complex and compelling mechanics, as it seems designed foremost to appeal to adults. I thant is where it really shines over Animal Crossing.
Stardew Valley is also a different kind of game. It's a Farming Simulator, while Animal Crossing is usually called a Life Simulator. They both do kinda similar thing, but with very different focus.
In AC you collect stuff and arange/design stuff. And you also build stuff, for collecting and arranging stuff.
In SV you Farm, literally, and you plan how you farm the most efficiently way. You even have a energy-system and limited time, and have permanent pressure to do things now and not later. You can do build things, but AFAIK only for farming.
Both also have other mechanisms, often the same as in the respectively other game, but in some significant lesser complexity.
In AC you collect stuff and arange/design stuff. And you also build stuff, for collecting and arranging stuff.
In SV you Farm, literally, and you plan how you farm the most efficiently way. You even have a energy-system and limited time, and have permanent pressure to do things now and not later. You can do build things, but AFAIK only for farming.
Both also have other mechanisms, often the same as in the respectively other game, but in some significant lesser complexity.
>have permanent pressure to do things now and not later.
I have not played SV, but I have been a farmer. I find it fascinating that the game makers managed to get that mechanic into the game, because that is 100% farming. "When it's time to make hay, make hay" is a saying you hear almost every day as a full time farmer. If you don't get it done today, it may rain tomorrow and then everything will be ruined, is the sentiment there.
I don't know that there's anything else to this, or that it's really that interesting. But I find it interesting that game creators, who I assume were never farmers, would work that into a game that seems to focus on farming. The stereotype of a farmer, from what I can tell post-farm life, is to be laid back and sort of let life happen around them.
I have not played SV, but I have been a farmer. I find it fascinating that the game makers managed to get that mechanic into the game, because that is 100% farming. "When it's time to make hay, make hay" is a saying you hear almost every day as a full time farmer. If you don't get it done today, it may rain tomorrow and then everything will be ruined, is the sentiment there.
I don't know that there's anything else to this, or that it's really that interesting. But I find it interesting that game creators, who I assume were never farmers, would work that into a game that seems to focus on farming. The stereotype of a farmer, from what I can tell post-farm life, is to be laid back and sort of let life happen around them.
Good point, still makes no difference with regards to bait crafting, but at least it's a good reason for the shop not having free-form shopping.
> the museum is just a beautiful thing to walk through.
I find it really difficulty to explain just how much I am impressed with the Museum. It's so meticulously designed, and so calming. The level of detail that went into it so so impressive - each bug, fish, or fossil has their place and path. Little cute nooks and places to take pics in. It's really cool.
I find it really difficulty to explain just how much I am impressed with the Museum. It's so meticulously designed, and so calming. The level of detail that went into it so so impressive - each bug, fish, or fossil has their place and path. Little cute nooks and places to take pics in. It's really cool.
I actually turned the game on and parked my avatar in front of the anchovy tank for most of the morning every day this week while I worked from the couch. It's incredibly soothing.
> The lest said about the online play the better.
Heh, Nintendo is simply incapable or unwilling to produce a quality online experience. I don't know why.
They created a masterpiece with Smash Ultimate but then did a huge disservice to themselves and the game by slapping on a really shitty online mode. Obviously it doesn't impact sales and that's likely what drives their decisions, but it's still so disappointing.
Heh, Nintendo is simply incapable or unwilling to produce a quality online experience. I don't know why.
They created a masterpiece with Smash Ultimate but then did a huge disservice to themselves and the game by slapping on a really shitty online mode. Obviously it doesn't impact sales and that's likely what drives their decisions, but it's still so disappointing.
I wonder why they always put so little effort in. I know at least part of the reason is that nintendo wants to make an entirely child friendly experience which usually involves leaving as little player to player interaction as possible.
The things that suck about Animal Crossing's online experience isnt about limiting communication or making it more child friendly, but just the mechanicisms of it. Whenever someone enters or leaves an island you're on you're forced to sit through a series of cutscenes.
My guess is that nintendo wanted to dramatically restrict the netcode they had to write, so not having to send world deltas or spin up multiple threads sharing a socket was the way.
I think with nintendo is far more complicated. They rare quite conservative and very very strong focused on security in all kind of ways, meaning not harming their image, or their products, the game-experience or their profit. For those things there are always tradeoffs, so they choose the ones with the least impact.
On the other side, Nintendo is also a very old company, with a long history and sight on longterm-goals. But it seems to be also full of now older people with not so much experience in modern things. Addtionally, it's japan, which has a very bad history with stuff like Personal Computers and online-services. So people at nintendo are simply lacking experience and knowledge there even more than anywhere else.
This environment seems to be resulting in this very slow growing gain of understanding the world of online-gaming-features, as also mobile devices. It's step by step, with each step taking years, where others already had started a decade earlier.
On the other side, Nintendo is also a very old company, with a long history and sight on longterm-goals. But it seems to be also full of now older people with not so much experience in modern things. Addtionally, it's japan, which has a very bad history with stuff like Personal Computers and online-services. So people at nintendo are simply lacking experience and knowledge there even more than anywhere else.
This environment seems to be resulting in this very slow growing gain of understanding the world of online-gaming-features, as also mobile devices. It's step by step, with each step taking years, where others already had started a decade earlier.
AC's online experience sucks in large part because Nintendo is paranoid about item duping. This leads to things like everyone needing to pause their gameplay so the save states can be in sync when someone visits and worse rolling back the state of the world if someone disconnects due to bad internet or their console going sleep due to inactivity.
Given the nature of the game I don't understand why they didn't prioritize fun over protecting against duping.
That's nevermind the fact that two friends can't do stuff like terraform or furnish an island together.
Given the nature of the game I don't understand why they didn't prioritize fun over protecting against duping.
That's nevermind the fact that two friends can't do stuff like terraform or furnish an island together.
> I don't understand why they didn't prioritize fun over protecting against duping
I suspect they may be aiming for long-term fun over instant gratification. Hard to get items will inevitably have a story attached of how they were a acquired. That means asking about some new thing you see when visiting a friend will get them telling that story. If Nintendo can keep these stories interesting, it’s a compelling reason for people to keep visiting friends in-game.
On the other hand, if item duplication is possible, that destroys rarity, and most items will have no meaningful history to speak of.
I suspect they may be aiming for long-term fun over instant gratification. Hard to get items will inevitably have a story attached of how they were a acquired. That means asking about some new thing you see when visiting a friend will get them telling that story. If Nintendo can keep these stories interesting, it’s a compelling reason for people to keep visiting friends in-game.
On the other hand, if item duplication is possible, that destroys rarity, and most items will have no meaningful history to speak of.
A good point about why you care about not allowing dupes, but you can lose hours of gameplay with a rollback[1]. There isn't a periodic save.
This can happen for something as benign as a player taking a lunch break and not babying their switch.
Which harms the long term experience as if it happens to you once, it makes you paranoid about taking a longer term trip to a friend's island and doing something other than a short tour.
[1] https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/social/question...
This can happen for something as benign as a player taking a lunch break and not babying their switch.
Which harms the long term experience as if it happens to you once, it makes you paranoid about taking a longer term trip to a friend's island and doing something other than a short tour.
[1] https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/social/question...
While I tend to agree that some mechanics like you describe them are tedious, at the same time I can't help but feel like you play it to min/max it, to get as much done as fast as possible. But there's space for games that are all about just taking your time.
I mean I spent a lot of time in Runescape, hours upon hours spent clicking on the water to fish, or running between the same five rocks together with some other players to mine and slowly watch that mining level number go up.
Then there's MMO's that if you look at it for a minute it can be really intense and visually interesting, but when you zoom out it turns I've run this same dungeon dozens of times already just to get a hundred or so tokens, of which I need 800-or-so to buy a piece of equipment that raises my stats by a few points.
I mean I spent a lot of time in Runescape, hours upon hours spent clicking on the water to fish, or running between the same five rocks together with some other players to mine and slowly watch that mining level number go up.
Then there's MMO's that if you look at it for a minute it can be really intense and visually interesting, but when you zoom out it turns I've run this same dungeon dozens of times already just to get a hundred or so tokens, of which I need 800-or-so to buy a piece of equipment that raises my stats by a few points.
I don't quite agree with this. In the example of crafting fishbait, there are two sides to it one is collecting the Manilla clams and the other is crafting them into fishbait. Both are done one-by-one.
Arguably collecting the clams is much much more time consuming, and it's always been something I'm fine with. It's engaging running around digging the claims up.
Crafting them literally is just me spamming A for minutes at the time. It makes me watch a YouTube video instead of engaging with the game.
When you need multiples to even have fishbait have a point, then I feel it detracts from the game. I literally can't think of an experience (min max or no) that is enhanced by the crafting tedium. It would be different if crafting involved some care and attention like say Fantasy Life.
My problem isn't the time wasting it's the fact that the way the time is wasted is not engaging at all. When I think about that minutes of crafting, I don't even want to spend the hour collecting clams and the hour fishing a certain spot for that rare fish I'm missing.
Arguably collecting the clams is much much more time consuming, and it's always been something I'm fine with. It's engaging running around digging the claims up.
Crafting them literally is just me spamming A for minutes at the time. It makes me watch a YouTube video instead of engaging with the game.
When you need multiples to even have fishbait have a point, then I feel it detracts from the game. I literally can't think of an experience (min max or no) that is enhanced by the crafting tedium. It would be different if crafting involved some care and attention like say Fantasy Life.
My problem isn't the time wasting it's the fact that the way the time is wasted is not engaging at all. When I think about that minutes of crafting, I don't even want to spend the hour collecting clams and the hour fishing a certain spot for that rare fish I'm missing.
It's kind of funny that they titled the article this way considering the fact that Animal Crossing is currently banned in China because people have been using it as a platform to stage the Hong Kong protests online [1]. I suppose it gives 'quiet revolution' a doubly apt connotation.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52269671
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52269671
That resulted in a ban that will affect every game released in China. Games will have to start blocking any interaction between mainland Chinese and any ‘foreigner’: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22885892
This is part of the reversal of the great ‘Opening of China’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
This is part of the reversal of the great ‘Opening of China’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
Must make it tempting to have limited communication systems, like Magic the Gathering: Arena, where players can only choose from a handful of benign emotes.
There seems to a weird trend of attaching political references to video game characters / other in game things which makes it even harder to block all forms of protest.
I feel that there is no reliable sources reporting on this, only a few vague statements laden with hyperbole.
Also till recently gaming consoles themselves weren't available in China as well.
Also till recently gaming consoles themselves weren't available in China as well.
Checking it again it looks like you might be right. This isn’t 100% confirmed yet. Last I’ve read is that it was a bill that has been tabled. I’d also prefer an additional source to confirm this is happening... not that it would surprise me, or that if it was true proper sources may still be hard to come by until some western companies get forced to do it.
Maybe it is more open than it was? Maybe is was even more closed before?
It’s not banned. It’s just removed from the big online stores in China. You can still buy it, just not as easily.
I got the game because a friend invited me to a virtual wedding party because she had to cancel the one in real life due to SIP. My goal was to get a nice virtual gift for my friend so I grinded hard to make Bells and learn DIYs but wound up enjoying the whole process not because I was living a fantasy life like in the article but because it gave me a bit of purpose beyond checking mortality stats every five minutes and feeling guilty for not developing a new skill during this "privileged downtime". Everyone plays for different reasons. I feel lucky this game came out during this uncertain time.
I know it sound silly, but I find that it goes really well with an audio book. It's a nice way to chill out at the end of the day if I don't have the energy to hack away on anything. Having something to do with my hands while listening helps my thoughts not to wander as much, even if I'm just going around fishing and harvesting fruit so my son can sell them and build/buy whatever he wants the next day.
I wouldn't have bought it on my own, but having just one child and the quarantine I'm thankful that it exists.
I wouldn't have bought it on my own, but having just one child and the quarantine I'm thankful that it exists.
I was having a rough time of it in the first few weeks of distancing, and on one of my first nights in Animal Crossing I just walked out onto the beach on a stormy night and listened to the sound of rain and surf as I drifted off to sleep. It's been an immense comfort to have a peaceful mini-routine that I can spend half an hour on at lunchtime each day.
the only thing I'd change of it is the multiplayer to be less clunky, both couch-coop and visiting/being visited by over network. If it was easy to drop into a friends island, water their plants, leave a gift I think it'd brighten up a lot of folks days right now.
Stay strong my friend.
Stay strong my friend.
I do feel, the article and discussion isn't doing Stardew Valley justice. I do think SdV for example portray's an adult world compared to the infantilized creations of Nintendo. Also the complex interlocking systems, for example how big the mine areas are etc, is very deep and satisfying to figure out. Even the people of SdV aren't just plastic figures, they have a semblance to real people, as much as could be achieved in a game.
I would go as far as to argue that Factorio is my Animal Crossing. For your average, casual player, Animal Crossing provides rote tasks that engages you with the game world without the added complexity. Factorio, SdV, and AC all ultimately provide 'relaxation.'
I love AC, but I have other itches that need scratches.
I love AC, but I have other itches that need scratches.
Factorio made me super stressed out when I was playing it. One of the reasons I quit.
There is value in it being cute and all, it's escapism. At the point where your escapism looks closer to your reality says a lot about how terrible your reality is, and perhaps becomes something of a replacement of that reality.
I've played more than a 100 hours of Stardew and I feel you're being overly generous. None of the systems are particularly complex (Civ has more complex interlocking systems), the mines and combat is relatively barebones (compared to something like Terraria) and the dialogue is above average, not the maximum that could be achieved (you could look at Divinity 2 to see dialogue done right).
What it does do well is an incredible level of polish in the production side of the game and giving the player a real and fulfilling sense of progression.
What it does do well is an incredible level of polish in the production side of the game and giving the player a real and fulfilling sense of progression.
It's interesting how New Horizons adds many quality-of-life features to streamline gameplay...but still deliberately keeps some of the monotony present in the game design two decades ago on the GameCube.
Adding a "weight" to repetitive actions has been a controversial game design principle. It implicitly makes good/efficient actions more rewarding, but there has to be a balance.
Adding a "weight" to repetitive actions has been a controversial game design principle. It implicitly makes good/efficient actions more rewarding, but there has to be a balance.
Most every game is on some level about wasting time. Good games make wasting time enjoyable.
Edit: Oh boy, I didn't even realise TFA was written by the same guy. I hadn't read it yet, no wonder it's bringing up the same discussions. /endEdit
I stumbled upon this article a while ago which attempts to argue that former idea to absurdity, it's very well written. I disagree with almost the whole thing, but it was fun to see someone disconnect themselves so far from the simple, real time engagement of a playing a video game. It's an entirely valid way to look at games, but it's just a very shallow view on games as a medium. He even accidentally discovers the real reasons why we play games as he works hard to make his case on the gameplay-as-work idea. Full respect to the author, and I'm sure they knew exactly how contrarian they were being.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/10/dont-...
Some of my favourite quotes:
>"That’s the big problem with video games: To enjoy them, you have to play them."
> "Game-play—the work of working a game—is fundamentally irritating"
> "And like all labor, the best way to get it done is to farm it out to others. Let the memers honk their geese so you don’t have to."
I stumbled upon this article a while ago which attempts to argue that former idea to absurdity, it's very well written. I disagree with almost the whole thing, but it was fun to see someone disconnect themselves so far from the simple, real time engagement of a playing a video game. It's an entirely valid way to look at games, but it's just a very shallow view on games as a medium. He even accidentally discovers the real reasons why we play games as he works hard to make his case on the gameplay-as-work idea. Full respect to the author, and I'm sure they knew exactly how contrarian they were being.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/10/dont-...
Some of my favourite quotes:
>"That’s the big problem with video games: To enjoy them, you have to play them."
> "Game-play—the work of working a game—is fundamentally irritating"
> "And like all labor, the best way to get it done is to farm it out to others. Let the memers honk their geese so you don’t have to."
games are a grind
everyone thats ever played an mmo knows flipping specific builds/leveled accounts using botting software is some of the most common middle schoolers first money making enterprise
at some level almost all games could be reduced to a version of cookie clicker
good games keep players actively looking for a new meta by tweaking and adding content, similar to the everchanging running of a business
at some level almost all games could be reduced to a version of cookie clicker
good games keep players actively looking for a new meta by tweaking and adding content, similar to the everchanging running of a business
>at some level almost all games could be reduced to a version of cookie clicker
I can think of some interesting counterexamples: in games like Minecraft and Factorio, you create something and are left with an interesting artifact you've designed. In MMOs, you're often left with new friendships.
But I'd be lying if I said I played those games primarily for those outcomes. It feels like each of those games still have some core meat that's shared with cookie clicker, and those other things that come out of it are somehow secondary in my short-term choice to play the game.
I can think of some interesting counterexamples: in games like Minecraft and Factorio, you create something and are left with an interesting artifact you've designed. In MMOs, you're often left with new friendships.
But I'd be lying if I said I played those games primarily for those outcomes. It feels like each of those games still have some core meat that's shared with cookie clicker, and those other things that come out of it are somehow secondary in my short-term choice to play the game.
ive yet to delve into factorio (afraid itll have the same effect as civ tbh) but minecraft is very mind numbing early to mid game with all the farms esp with mob spawner/villager procurement to create their farms and resource grind. building and exploration in mc alongside amount of mods and great servers do make you forget about how insanely grindy it is for a bit
I got into cookie clicker and such incremental games only last year or so, but it's made me incredibly cynical about a lot of games now, lol.
While I agree in principle, the rewards in a lot of games isn't only the satisfaction in watching numbers go up (= progress, I guess?), but also an enjoyable game loop (I experienced that with Diablo 3 in which you play through the same content over and over again, but the speed of which you eventually blow through thousands of enemies is gratifying) and an unfolding storyline. I had that best with the old Final Fantasy games, where progress was frequently rewarded with cutscenes and the whole game is mostly a storyline you can follow.
On that note the FFVII Remake is a great game to get into.
While I agree in principle, the rewards in a lot of games isn't only the satisfaction in watching numbers go up (= progress, I guess?), but also an enjoyable game loop (I experienced that with Diablo 3 in which you play through the same content over and over again, but the speed of which you eventually blow through thousands of enemies is gratifying) and an unfolding storyline. I had that best with the old Final Fantasy games, where progress was frequently rewarded with cutscenes and the whole game is mostly a storyline you can follow.
On that note the FFVII Remake is a great game to get into.
I disagree with this strongly — good games are not a grind and not all games have leveling mechanics.
> games are a grind everyone thats ever played an mmo knows
You seriously need to expand your pool of games.
You seriously need to expand your pool of games.
GTAV is actually a really interesting game in this regard. It's trying to balance full, immersive gameplay and story, with grind and grow mechanics like a traditional MMO has.
The grind is the least fun part of the game, but also why you keep coming back.
The grind is the least fun part of the game, but also why you keep coming back.
> Full respect to the author, and I'm sure they knew exactly how contrarian they were being.
Yes, Ian Bogost is a respected game designer and developer.
Yes, Ian Bogost is a respected game designer and developer.
Has he released anything that ever had any success? I just looked on his Wikipedia page, and it looks like he primarily does contract game development as a way to advertise for different political groups. Here's an excerpt from his his studio's website about the themes for some of his games.
airport security, consumer debt disaffected workers, pandemic flu tort reform, suburban errands data compression, the petroleum industry, the politics of nutrition food inspection, factory farming fast food franchise economics, chemical bonding, grass-roots outreach
airport security, consumer debt disaffected workers, pandemic flu tort reform, suburban errands data compression, the petroleum industry, the politics of nutrition food inspection, factory farming fast food franchise economics, chemical bonding, grass-roots outreach
Cow Clicker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Clicker
> The game serves as a deconstructive satire of social games
> The goal of the game is to earn "clicks" by clicking on a sprite of a cow every six hours. [...] A premium currency known as "Mooney" allows the user to purchase different cow designs and skip the six-hour interval between clicks.
This doesn't really sound "successful" in the traditional sense.
> The goal of the game is to earn "clicks" by clicking on a sprite of a cow every six hours. [...] A premium currency known as "Mooney" allows the user to purchase different cow designs and skip the six-hour interval between clicks.
This doesn't really sound "successful" in the traditional sense.
> This doesn't really sound "successful" in the traditional sense.
I'm not sure the "traditional sense" of successful was what he was going for. However, it was successful, nevertheless.
I'm not sure the "traditional sense" of successful was what he was going for. However, it was successful, nevertheless.
Except that there's a direct line from Cow Clicker to Cookie Clicker and the entire idle games genre. Sure, this wasn't Bogost's intention, but it's hard to deny his influence here.
Good games make you feel like the bottleneck. Being slow at something because you haven't worked it out or because your process is inefficient feels like rewarding gameplay because as you improve, your speed improves. Having to hammer the A button for 10 minutes to craft 10 of the same item doesn't make for rewarding gameplay.
That's a great way of putting it. I have enjoyed many Sims and builders up to the point where I know exactly what I need to do but the scale and limitations of the interface and actions available to me just make it feel like an enormous hassle. Up to that point every action was a thrill. That's when a sense of disgust and waste sets in and I quit the game. Often for good.
Incidentally multicrafting in AC:NH was one of the cases I was alluding to. Making Fish Bait is painful.
Tbh, this is one thing I miss about games before the internet. The pauses and timing is part of the game, it's something you have to contend with. If anything, it makes it more challenging, for example, getting enough of a hot item in before 10pm requires organization. Now with the internet gamers cry all day like children on twitter for QOL improvements instead of just, you know, dealing with it. Before the internet, games had to be a) tested very well but b) were delivered as a final product, few updates if any, so gamers actually had to contend with the game as it was.
[deleted]
Instead of additional content, play time is added through annoyances?
Just Nintendo Fanboy Things
Just Nintendo Fanboy Things
Every game is an annoyance. The trick is to let the people enjoy the annoyance.
I loved the original Animal Crossing, but honestly I think the less well known indie game Stardew Valley is far better.
> less well known
I don't know if I would call Stardew Valley "less well known", as it's sold over 10 million copies. It's incredibly popular, one of the biggest indie game success stories ever.
I would also say Animal Crossing and Stardew Valley (and Harvest Moon, for that matter) and very different types of games (despite surface level similarities), so it's pretty hard to compare them directly like that.
I don't know if I would call Stardew Valley "less well known", as it's sold over 10 million copies. It's incredibly popular, one of the biggest indie game success stories ever.
I would also say Animal Crossing and Stardew Valley (and Harvest Moon, for that matter) and very different types of games (despite surface level similarities), so it's pretty hard to compare them directly like that.
> the Animal Crossing franchise has sold over 30 million units. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crossing
The inequality is legitimate.
The inequality is legitimate.
That's 30 million units over like 20 years and many titles vs one indie game tho
New Horizons is already close to more than Stardew in one month though.
Popularity over a longer period increases well-knownness.
It may be legitimate, but is it relevant enough to call one indie but not the other? I don't think so, since 30m and 10m are the same order of magnitude. Halo has roughly a similar ratio with COD, and both series are famous.
Stardew Valley is indie, because it was made by a single developer who was responsible for everything from coding, composing the music, writing the story and the bitmap art. Animal Crossing is not indie, because it was made by a large studio.
I see, I guess we had different definitions of "indie", but I think what you said sounds reasonable and there is value to understanding the humble origins of someone regardless of their current standing.
Without wanting to police the word, because you do you, "indie" comes from "independent", as in "independent of a publisher" (or, in music, where the word comes from, independent of a record label).
It doesn't have to be from a single developer, or even a small dev team, but rather from a team that is in some meaningful sense "independent".
This means, as an interesting example, that Minecraft was at one point about as indie as it is possible to be, and now is about as not-indie as it is possible to be.
It doesn't have to be from a single developer, or even a small dev team, but rather from a team that is in some meaningful sense "independent".
This means, as an interesting example, that Minecraft was at one point about as indie as it is possible to be, and now is about as not-indie as it is possible to be.
We've been enjoying this on and off. It takes a while to understand and the controls aren't intuitive... And i think we've thrown away a sword or fishing rod but accident... Unclear
Stardew Valley is basically westernized Story of Seasons (ex Harvest Moon) and both of them are more grindy than AC
I find stardew valley significantly more stressful.
Hard disagree. Stardew valley is a simple cellphone quality game. It's like saying Farmville is great because it is addictive.
Animal Crossing seemed like a game that my kids might really enjoy relaxing with and I was prepared to pop for it on the launch day. Reading about the one-island-per-Switch and primary vs. secondary users thing kind of killed our interest in it, however. None of them wants to (or should have to) settle for second fiddle. Seems like a really odd oversight for a company that tries so hard to be family-oriented.
Whilst I intensely dislike the one-island-per-Switch restriction, I can understand - thinking about how to handle someone visiting an island on the same Switch makes my head hurt. Couldn't have the player character there, you'd need cross-account communication of things like turnip prices, etc.
(And if you disallowed people visiting another island on the same Switch, people would be up in arms about that too.)
(And if you disallowed people visiting another island on the same Switch, people would be up in arms about that too.)
There's many different kinds of players with an equally rich spectrum of player motivations. Animal Crossing is a phenomenon for some players because games like it are released pretty rarely. For others, it's "not even a game".
Reviews of Animal Crossing are more a reflection of the author than Animal Crossing itself. The game, like any topic viral enough to drive the engagement economy, is just some bobbet to anchor an opinion around.
For example, in the article I can tell that Bogost uses games to live out his fantasy as a humanities professor. And Lantz enjoys playing the contrarian.
Nothing wrong with that, they are playing the game in their own way, perhaps without even needing to _play_ it.
Reviews of Animal Crossing are more a reflection of the author than Animal Crossing itself. The game, like any topic viral enough to drive the engagement economy, is just some bobbet to anchor an opinion around.
For example, in the article I can tell that Bogost uses games to live out his fantasy as a humanities professor. And Lantz enjoys playing the contrarian.
Nothing wrong with that, they are playing the game in their own way, perhaps without even needing to _play_ it.
Why does he go on and on about whether the game accurately represents modern life? It seems like this misses the point of games in general, and a game for pre-teens about talking animals specifically.
The thesis of the article """I had imagined Animal Crossing to be a game about the world, one that offered ingenious, if abstract, life lessons. But the players enjoying it in quarantine celebrate it for escapism, which any form of entertainment might provide. Neither interpretation seems quite right. .... Instead, Animal Crossing is a political hypothesis about how a different kind of world might work—one with no losers."""
This strikes me as "blood from a stone".
Generally, games aren't taken as serious art with high brow messages. I don't think Animal Crossing is really trying to 'say' anything. (Albeit, the original one was made when the developer was feeling lonely when he moved to a new town). I think the author is the kind who wants to write lofty things about games.
I think that explains the frustration in the question "Do people find comfort in [this bullshit]?". If you make serious games with serious messages to be taken seriously by serious people, I think something relaxed like Animal Crossing somewhat undermines "games are a serious artform".
This strikes me as "blood from a stone".
Generally, games aren't taken as serious art with high brow messages. I don't think Animal Crossing is really trying to 'say' anything. (Albeit, the original one was made when the developer was feeling lonely when he moved to a new town). I think the author is the kind who wants to write lofty things about games.
I think that explains the frustration in the question "Do people find comfort in [this bullshit]?". If you make serious games with serious messages to be taken seriously by serious people, I think something relaxed like Animal Crossing somewhat undermines "games are a serious artform".
> ...I think something relaxed like Animal Crossing somewhat undermines "games are a serious artform"
It seems ludicrous to judge an artform entirely based on what you consider to be its least-worthy example. It's like seeing an episode of Friends and saying that television shows can't be serious art because they're just strings of cheap jokes or reading some smut and saying that a novel can't be about anything important.
For the record, I'm not entirely clear if the bit I quoted is your opinion or if it's meant to be the opinion of a hypothetical game developer who "make[s] serious games with serious messages to be taken seriously by serious people," but either way it rubs me the wrong way to a) discredit the medium based on a cherry-picked example and b) to claim that AC can't be a serious game or that it can't have a meaningful message because it isn't 'serious' enough.
> I don't think Animal Crossing is really trying to 'say' anything.
Maybe not anything as serious as the article tries to claim, but I think art with a simple, comforting message is just as important as art with a deeper message of social and political criticism. Playing the game makes me happy, which is something that seems to get ignored by the people who don't like it. The 'message' is that I can stop thinking about whatever problems I have for a few hours and do something simple and enjoyable.
It seems ludicrous to judge an artform entirely based on what you consider to be its least-worthy example. It's like seeing an episode of Friends and saying that television shows can't be serious art because they're just strings of cheap jokes or reading some smut and saying that a novel can't be about anything important.
For the record, I'm not entirely clear if the bit I quoted is your opinion or if it's meant to be the opinion of a hypothetical game developer who "make[s] serious games with serious messages to be taken seriously by serious people," but either way it rubs me the wrong way to a) discredit the medium based on a cherry-picked example and b) to claim that AC can't be a serious game or that it can't have a meaningful message because it isn't 'serious' enough.
> I don't think Animal Crossing is really trying to 'say' anything.
Maybe not anything as serious as the article tries to claim, but I think art with a simple, comforting message is just as important as art with a deeper message of social and political criticism. Playing the game makes me happy, which is something that seems to get ignored by the people who don't like it. The 'message' is that I can stop thinking about whatever problems I have for a few hours and do something simple and enjoyable.
Right, the existence of Friends doesn't make films like Schindler's List any less serious or meaningful.
But you'd be a bit frustrated about being taken seriously as a film critic if the only movies people in the mainstream had heard about were Adam Sandler comedies from 20 years ago, and you had to write about them.
Or at least, that's how I get to understanding how someone who writes about games doesn't "get" why people find Animal Crossing fun, finds it boring, and writes something like "it's actually political".
But you'd be a bit frustrated about being taken seriously as a film critic if the only movies people in the mainstream had heard about were Adam Sandler comedies from 20 years ago, and you had to write about them.
Or at least, that's how I get to understanding how someone who writes about games doesn't "get" why people find Animal Crossing fun, finds it boring, and writes something like "it's actually political".
[deleted]
Eh, me and my friends (all adults in our 30s) have been loving this game. It’s relaxing and fun to decorate a house and island and slowly build up from nothing. It’s a lot like Minecraft or The Sims in that way, although there aren’t any bad guys to fight (a feature I tended to turn off while playing).
It’s the same with me and my friends. Trading fruit, visiting each others’ islands to see Flick, etc. Then there’s the whole terraforming aspect that just feels nice and methodical.
Animal Crossing is called a Life Simulation and it's mechanics and setting lean quite strong into real life. Seems like a fair reason to take it as focus of his article. I think it's an interessting analyses and gives a nice new view, which is kinda the point of a good article.
My wife has never played a video game in her life, but I showed her this one and she absolutely adores it. Although at times she still struggles with the joystick (hitting rocks, catching bugs, etc) her house already looks better than mine and she's tending a giant flower field, breeding hybrids, etc. We also have visited her cousins' islands a few times and they get to socialize virtually. I'm glad this game came out now; it's so relaxing and comforting.
[deleted]
> I had imagined Animal Crossing to be a game about the world, one that offered ingenious, if abstract, life lessons. Instead, Animal Crossing is a political hypothesis about how a different kind of world might work—one with no losers.
Does this not strike anyone else as just... incredibly pretentious? I have played every animal crossing except Animal Forest E+ which iirc never released outside of Japan. Is it not possible to want to make a more relaxing game?
While it's true that making a game that i.e. touches on real estate inherently makes a statement... I doubt that was the express goal of the developers.
> a “stalk market” for turnip commodities is mostly a loser’s game best avoided
You can consistently make money, in the long run. There are calculators available [0], not to mention there are online communities where people post their daily prices.
[0]: https://turnipprophet.io/
> And yet, isn’t this exactly the trade-off that real smartphones demand, a constant lifeline to new options, all more or less the same in nature, judged valuable by how many likes or hearts they accrue?
The developers obviously needed a UX solution to the various new features added to the game. It fits in with the game's opening theme of being a island getaway for a [presumably] millenialish crowd. I don't see why this is so complicated.
---
Sometimes games are just games, and sometimes they -are- political commentary on society. This whole article just reeks of the bullshit I often heard while I was getting my film major.
I could sit here and spin articles full of flowery language about practically any game, distorting the mechanics to fit whatever political or sociological lens I wanted. Throw in current events for good measure.
> : “Do people find comfort in tedious, bureaucratic, pandering authoritarianism?”
I couldn't take this article seriously any further after this point.
Does this not strike anyone else as just... incredibly pretentious? I have played every animal crossing except Animal Forest E+ which iirc never released outside of Japan. Is it not possible to want to make a more relaxing game?
While it's true that making a game that i.e. touches on real estate inherently makes a statement... I doubt that was the express goal of the developers.
> a “stalk market” for turnip commodities is mostly a loser’s game best avoided
You can consistently make money, in the long run. There are calculators available [0], not to mention there are online communities where people post their daily prices.
[0]: https://turnipprophet.io/
> And yet, isn’t this exactly the trade-off that real smartphones demand, a constant lifeline to new options, all more or less the same in nature, judged valuable by how many likes or hearts they accrue?
The developers obviously needed a UX solution to the various new features added to the game. It fits in with the game's opening theme of being a island getaway for a [presumably] millenialish crowd. I don't see why this is so complicated.
---
Sometimes games are just games, and sometimes they -are- political commentary on society. This whole article just reeks of the bullshit I often heard while I was getting my film major.
I could sit here and spin articles full of flowery language about practically any game, distorting the mechanics to fit whatever political or sociological lens I wanted. Throw in current events for good measure.
> : “Do people find comfort in tedious, bureaucratic, pandering authoritarianism?”
I couldn't take this article seriously any further after this point.
Question for people with gameplay experience of both/all - how does Animal Crossing compare to the Harvest Moon games? Or Stardew Valley?
I have a massive soft spot for Harvest Moon because I wrote my first code ever (in Python) to figure out what was the best crop to plant in summer - the answer was turnips, and 17 years later, I still remember that.
I have a massive soft spot for Harvest Moon because I wrote my first code ever (in Python) to figure out what was the best crop to plant in summer - the answer was turnips, and 17 years later, I still remember that.
I think it scratches an itch similar to Harvest Moon and, to a degree, Stardew Valley.
The crucial difference for me between AC and SV is that the former all but forces you to take a relaxed approach. SV felt more like a typical game where I tried to do everything the 'best' way, and optimize and 'level up' things. Which is a ton of fun, but also a bit stressful.
In AC, on the other hand, everything is real-time. Lots of activities can only be done once a day, if you build something it will take at least until the next day for it to show up. The shop refreshes items once a day. 'Collectibles' either randomly show up, at particular times of day, in particular months, or during particular events (easter, etc.).
Furthermore, this 'do nothing and relax' philosophy extends to pretty much everything, so for example buying stuff forces you to go through dialogs every time, and both buying and crafting can't be done in bulk (for the most part). Quite frustrating at times, but I do think it helps me at least not find clever ways to stress myself out and 'optimize' again. I have other games for that :).
The crucial difference for me between AC and SV is that the former all but forces you to take a relaxed approach. SV felt more like a typical game where I tried to do everything the 'best' way, and optimize and 'level up' things. Which is a ton of fun, but also a bit stressful.
In AC, on the other hand, everything is real-time. Lots of activities can only be done once a day, if you build something it will take at least until the next day for it to show up. The shop refreshes items once a day. 'Collectibles' either randomly show up, at particular times of day, in particular months, or during particular events (easter, etc.).
Furthermore, this 'do nothing and relax' philosophy extends to pretty much everything, so for example buying stuff forces you to go through dialogs every time, and both buying and crafting can't be done in bulk (for the most part). Quite frustrating at times, but I do think it helps me at least not find clever ways to stress myself out and 'optimize' again. I have other games for that :).
I haven’t played Harvest Moon, but I agree with what you’re saying about SV and AC. I’ve spent far more hours in SV, but haven’t picked it back up since I started AC. One of the things I’ve found particularly fun is planning out and starting terraforming of my island in AC.
They are very different. On surface they have similar mechanics and features, but focus and execution is quite different. In AC there is no energy-system like in SV. Time in AC is also way longer as it plays in real time. There is no need to sleep (as far as I known) and thus no penalty when missing bedtime. There is no real farming in AC, just collecting stuff, and a bit of arranging things.
Overall, AC is very free from sources of stress, while SV has them everywhere, though it depends on yourself on much they impact you. Also, you can also get stress in AC, but only by setting yourself goals, not through the game itself.
Overall, AC is very free from sources of stress, while SV has them everywhere, though it depends on yourself on much they impact you. Also, you can also get stress in AC, but only by setting yourself goals, not through the game itself.
They're very different. Harvest moon is a farming simulator. Animal Crossing is a "hanging out in a small village" simulator. You don't have a job. You just log in each day and see what's happening. There's only so much to do per day and the time is based on the real world clock. So if you want to plant flowers, you have to wait three real days for them to grow. It's a game you play for a few minutes per day over the course of years, rather than one where you play for 40 hours in the first few weeks until you beat it.
The point about how AC implements a particular model of village life as a tableau of georgic calm sealed inside the bottle of a company town is well made.
We have plenty of games that implement the logic of capitalist or resource-driven economies; some grand strategy games (notably those from Paradox Entertainment, like Hearts of Iron and Stellaris allow players to pursue other development trees, from fascism to communism, though I don't know how robust the underlying economic simulations are and the simple-play mechanics of the game necessarily means all options are quasi-autocracies.
Is anyone aware of a game dedicated to exploring competing economic models,perhaps through agent-based simulation or some of the methods explored in the emerging concept of econophysics and statistical mechanics applied to money relationships - I think Dragalescu is the pathbreaking author in this area. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjst/e2016-60213-...
We have plenty of games that implement the logic of capitalist or resource-driven economies; some grand strategy games (notably those from Paradox Entertainment, like Hearts of Iron and Stellaris allow players to pursue other development trees, from fascism to communism, though I don't know how robust the underlying economic simulations are and the simple-play mechanics of the game necessarily means all options are quasi-autocracies.
Is anyone aware of a game dedicated to exploring competing economic models,perhaps through agent-based simulation or some of the methods explored in the emerging concept of econophysics and statistical mechanics applied to money relationships - I think Dragalescu is the pathbreaking author in this area. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjst/e2016-60213-...
It's pretty mediocre honestly. It's fun for a bit but the limitations on just about every mechanic hits pretty fast. Fishing, tools, picking up things, putting them down, getting recipes, everything.
How does it compare to stardew valley (probably the other way around)
If I’ve build my farm and talked to the villages enough to not bother farming anymore is there anything for me in animal crossing?
If I’ve build my farm and talked to the villages enough to not bother farming anymore is there anything for me in animal crossing?
It is a rather poor game all things considered. Stardew valley is far better. On the whole, the one thing they needed to nail is co-op, and that is probably the thing they did the worst on.
The game features are limited, villager interaction is inane, the items are repetitive, the goals non-existent. I understand the simple joy of a no-pressure game, but without a meaningful reward loop of any kind, the whole thing starts boring and gets only more so.
The game features are limited, villager interaction is inane, the items are repetitive, the goals non-existent. I understand the simple joy of a no-pressure game, but without a meaningful reward loop of any kind, the whole thing starts boring and gets only more so.
It's not really a "game" at all. There's no failure state. It's an interactive experience that brings joy to millions of people, and that's enough.
Game does not need to have fail state. Children's games often don't have fail states and were called games long before.
I don't think any video game has a meaningful reward loop, and I say this as a game developer. What makes a game's loop good or not to me is if it provides a fulfilling relationship with its audience.
Today I caught up with my cousin who moved to Washington state and I hadn’t talked to in probably five years. Her and I commiserated about our grandfather who passed away, talked about our lives while we toured a virtual museum in my virtual village, and chatted about our kids. We talked about how lonely and crazy the lockdown is making everyone.
That conversation would have never happened without Animal Crossing. I’d consider that a pretty meaningful “reward loop” for me.
That conversation would have never happened without Animal Crossing. I’d consider that a pretty meaningful “reward loop” for me.
> but without a meaningful reward loop of any kind
Maybe the reward loops aren’t what you think they are.
Maybe the reward loops aren’t what you think they are.
> The game features are limited, villager interaction is inane, the items are repetitive, the goals non-existent.
You could say this for every game.
Animal Crossing is simple, not poor, though some technical aspects are poor by modern standards.
> but without a meaningful reward loop of any kind
Meaning is in the eye of the players.
You could say this for every game.
Animal Crossing is simple, not poor, though some technical aspects are poor by modern standards.
> but without a meaningful reward loop of any kind
Meaning is in the eye of the players.
stardew valley is one guy's attempt to make the best possible harvest moon, which is a game, i would say, of the same genre as animal crossing, broadly speaking, in the same way as -- i don't know -- mechwarrior and virtual on.
the way i think of animal crossing is: take a few microgames from warioware, set it in a jrpg town, and give the player their own doll house. it isn't deep, but that's an observation, not necessarily a criticism.
the way i think of animal crossing is: take a few microgames from warioware, set it in a jrpg town, and give the player their own doll house. it isn't deep, but that's an observation, not necessarily a criticism.
Virtual On! I forgot I remembered that until you reminded me, which then brought to mind Zone of the Enders and Front Mission. There was one other one which eludes me. Oh yeah, Armored Core. I know there are many others but these were most memorable to me. I think of all of those I love Front Mission series best. It’s kind of an oddball since the others are action games but FM is tactical RPG closer to X-COM series.
Thanks for the memories. Time to find some mecha games!
Thanks for the memories. Time to find some mecha games!
Mechwarrior 5 just came out a few months ago.
Is it still more of a simulation like past MechWarrior games, or is it more of an action game like MechAssault? The simulator MechWarrior games were amazing for immersion, but I found the controls confusing. I think for the concept of the game, those are not problems with the game so much as my own individual problems with comfort of the game's user-input. I feel like if a MechWarrior game could be playable with a controller, it would still be fun, but something essential to the gameplay experience would be lost.
The article is great until
Instead, Animal Crossing is a political hypothesis about how a different kind of world might work—one with no losers. Millions of people already have spent hours in the game stewing on that idea since the coronavirus crisis began.
A world with no losers is impossible when the world and its inhabitants requires maintenance just to keep existing.
The characters in Animal Crossing do not tire. They do not go hungry and they do not feel pain. The buildings in the village to not erode, and the in-game items appear out of thin air, without a complex manufacturing process.
In the real world, just maintaining your current condition is a constant grind. Real life is a treadmill that never stops. If you're lucky, it just moving a bit slower.
The characters in Animal Crossing do not tire. They do not go hungry and they do not feel pain. The buildings in the village to not erode, and the in-game items appear out of thin air, without a complex manufacturing process.
In the real world, just maintaining your current condition is a constant grind. Real life is a treadmill that never stops. If you're lucky, it just moving a bit slower.
You are perfectly describing entropy or the fight against entropy more specifically.
This was a hard article to read. Why does it try so hard to draw parallels between our world and Animal Crossing? It's just a Nintendo game. Tom Nook's not some "capitalist oligarch", he charges exorbitant prices so that the player can enjoy the process and slowly make their way towards a larger goal. "Conspicuous consumption still haunts the animal village". I'd bet this was far from the mind of the creator when he designed this game.
This is like those literature memes where the teacher conjures up a fantastic narrative trying to guess what the author meant when he really just meant that "the door is red".
This is like those literature memes where the teacher conjures up a fantastic narrative trying to guess what the author meant when he really just meant that "the door is red".
Although I do see your point, and I agree when it comes to Animal Crossing, I disagree with the broader concept that only an author's explicit intent matters when trying to understand a message. The two questions "what does that statement mean?" and "what did the author of that statement actually wish to convey?" sometimes coincide, but just as often do not.
“It is the most boring, long-winded, repetitive, condescending, infantile bullshit we’ve ever seen.” After a few more invectives, he posed a question: “Do people find comfort in tedious, bureaucratic, pandering authoritarianism?”
Apparently so!
Apparently so!
That quote was from Frank Lantz, who is the guy who designed Universal Paperclips. There's a bit of irony about the criticism of repetition, coming from someone who designed a game about clicking buttons over and over to make numbers go up.
Disclaimer: I actually think Universal Paperclips is brilliant, and agree that Animal Crossing has a lot of overly tedious and unnecessary mechanics. But I don't think it's fair to say that people who take comfort from it are just enjoying "tedious, bureaucratic, pandering authoritarianism".
Disclaimer: I actually think Universal Paperclips is brilliant, and agree that Animal Crossing has a lot of overly tedious and unnecessary mechanics. But I don't think it's fair to say that people who take comfort from it are just enjoying "tedious, bureaucratic, pandering authoritarianism".
Was Universal Paperclips supposed to be fun? I kind of got the impression it was meant to scare you into donating to MIRI or whatever.
I enjoyed it a lot, but I also have a weird affinity for clickers. I was very unproductive at work for about a week when I first discovered it.
I got completely sucked into it (the philosophy and "story" being a big part of that). It was fun to try and optimize, fun to follow events, and cathartic to reach the end. Sometimes I would take breaks at points while income built up in the background, but I also spent plenty of time optimizing. And I don't normally enjoy grinding.
I thought the story was poignant as well.
"Idle games" are one of the recent booms in gaming over the last five or so years. They now even have their own section on Kongregate and are a large mobile gaming category.
Is it a clickfest like Diablo?
I can't read this...there are no pictures!
>Animal Crossing serves up unexpected consolation by offering surrogate habits—a structured, if fictional, alternative to normal life
I think this speaks to the sorry state of our society when the majority of Americans are apparently unable to give meaningful structure to their lives. We don't seem to prioritize non-physical self improvement in this country.
I think this speaks to the sorry state of our society when the majority of Americans are apparently unable to give meaningful structure to their lives. We don't seem to prioritize non-physical self improvement in this country.
Kind of surprised they did not mention Stardew Valley, in the discussion.
I kind of feel that Nintendo fanboyism pervades a large proportion of writing on games, but it would be better to be more objective.
I kind of feel that Nintendo fanboyism pervades a large proportion of writing on games, but it would be better to be more objective.
I've played both, and I don't think we should be too quick to lump both games in together. The fundamental game loop of Stardew Valley is about deciding how best to expend your finite stamina and time with every in-game day (which are quite short in real time), with the soft goal of having "beaten" the game by the first day of the third in-game year. Meanwhile in Animal Crossing, its real-time nature mandates patience and the lack of stamina permits leisurely play, and there's no pressure to ever achieve anything by any date.
Honestly, I don't like calling Animal Crossing a "game", because that's kind of inaccurate. Just like some "video games" are more like movies, and some are more like books, and some are more like roller coasters, Animal Crossing is more like a little garden to which you can tend.
If anything, I might compare Animal Crossing to a game of Minecraft on Peaceful Survival mode before I'd compare it to Stardew Valley.
Honestly, I don't like calling Animal Crossing a "game", because that's kind of inaccurate. Just like some "video games" are more like movies, and some are more like books, and some are more like roller coasters, Animal Crossing is more like a little garden to which you can tend.
If anything, I might compare Animal Crossing to a game of Minecraft on Peaceful Survival mode before I'd compare it to Stardew Valley.
[deleted]
Same here. From what I saw from videos about the new AC and my experience with the mobile game, the game doesn’t seem as fun or interesting as SdV. Just pure grind, without interesting variations (and I don’t care about collectibles). The Gamecube version is looking more appealing because the town is already established, so you have to discover and interact with the world instead of starting from a generic empty island.
There is also a big difference in tag price. For the price of AC I could SdV on three platforms, or buy copies for friends to play with me (I did that once).
There is also a big difference in tag price. For the price of AC I could SdV on three platforms, or buy copies for friends to play with me (I did that once).
> The Gamecube version is looking more appealing because the town is already established, so you have to discover and interact with the world instead of starting from a generic empty island.
What makes you think there’s nothing to discover and interact with just because the island starts off empty?
What makes you think there’s nothing to discover and interact with just because the island starts off empty?
Well the mobile game was crap. It was just the standard mobile game template with an Animal Crossing skin, rather than a real Animal Crossing game.
I have a lot of friends playing the game and it just looks like all the worst features of grinding through an MMORPG with the only paid being "look at this village I put together". I've generally quit playing any games that involve grinding. Which means I've mostly quit playing games, especially in Mobile, as they pretty much all involved grinding of some kind, even the action games. It's depressing how samey the game market has become.
My wife has been playing it quite a bit, and it seems like it's only grindy if you want it to be. My wife spends most of her time making gardens, decorating rooms, and exploring new islands. Some of her friends have ugly islands full of weeds, cluttered houses, etc, but they have tons of money, even though they don't need it. I think it's a game that is whatever you make of it.
1) a player performs some sort of input into a game
2) the game responds with some sort of audiovisual phenomena in regards to that input
3) 1 and 2 are repeated, creating a relationship between the player and the game
I know a lot of people define video games as a series of choices or "states", but I think it's too strict as I don't think the appeal of video games is necessarily reduced to "a series of interesting decisions" as Will Wright puts it. I do think decision-making is a big part of a lot of games, but it doesn't explain the entertainment of situations like Revolver Ocelot torturing Snake in Metal Gear Solid, or groups of teenagers playing an easy Starcraft map against a computer player together. Animal Crossing is the same way too; the relationship the player has with the product is fulfilling, and that's what drives its appeal.