I've been thinkin, but I can't explain why I find monopoly so boring.
Is it the mind-numbing simple trading? The painstakingly long matches? Weird house Rules?
Do you guys like monopoly?
House rules are always making things worse.
But the real problem of Monopoly is that the game is extremely railroaded, there's plenty of mechanical actions and very little decision making, and even then most of that decision making are nobrainers with obvious optimal choice.
I honestly think it might take me less time to write simple engine for the game and run it as a simulation than actually play the game. (Assuming no GUI)
>>47635569
The reasons as to why monopoly is a bad game could literally take hours to explain in robust detail.
Suffice to day, it is simplest to explain that the game was not designed to be fun, but as a critique.
>>47635678
Please, I'd love to read a more in-depth explanation.
I'ts sucha classic game, but differently from other games like war and chess, where you ahve to make decisions and combat all the time, monopoly is much more railroaded, as the second anon said.
I didn't play much monopoly due to that, but I'd like to know why eaxctly, is it shit.
This reminds me of a story. There was a short period of time a while back where my sister was obsessed with playing Monopoly with people online. IDK what site she used but she was on it like every night. Anyway one day I was bored and decided to challenge her to a game one on one. She thought she was a shoo-in so she accepted. However this was about the time I was working on my business major so she ended up losing when I started doing things business people would do, like mortgaging properties to buy other properties or trading assets just to prevent monopolies.
>>47635569
Play to a (shortish) total time limit with money as the victory determination. Sandbagging not allowed.
>>47635749
So, using house rules.
>>47635706
>classic
Old and popular does not mean good. Tic Tac Toe is old and popular, but is not even a game by many definitions.
The game exists to describe the horrors of capitalism and long-term inequality. People have just told themselves its good because they played it as a kid, when nobody has good memories of it.
>>47635769
It is how tournaments are done. The fewest houserules needed for the task.
>>47635569
There's no real decision making, it goes on forever, and it features player elimination, these latter two going hand in hand to make the game particularly awful whereas the former merely makes it fairly bad.
>>47635784
>nobody has good memories of it.
I remember playing it when Oj simpson was running from the police.
I have good memories of this game. I had a to use a lot of strategy to defeat my dad and my two sisters.
Its the first game that taught me about interactions between the players outside of the board (trading).
Because it was invented by /leftypol/ to illistrate problems with lassie-faire capitalism.
A political agenda as a starting point doesn't lead to good game design.
>>47635784
Lets be honest, more or less all the "classic" board games are pretty shit.
I'll let things like Candyland slide since they're targeted at 6 year olds but pretty much all the old school Parker Bros et al board games suck
>>47636332
Since it was designed to be awful I'd say it suceeded
>>47636387
....You know I can't actually argue with that point at all.
Checkers? Garbage.
Risk? Double garbage (Shut it. Every variant has added a time limit)
Candyland? RNG only
Monopoly? Political RNG mess.
Worst part is that a victor can be very obvious, but you just keep playing on because maybe the dice can fuck them, and this can go for ages.
Also no-one ever wants to trade because fuck giving your opponents a set, so it just becomes such a slog.
>>47636518
Do you think there's any hope of things like Catan becoming a standard boardgame even normies know or are we stuck with Parker Brothers/Milton Bradley's catalog?
>>47636782
Could be. Hasbro's been probing around in the board game market for new stuff and are letting anyone who has an idea give it a go in their contests.
I've heard that the terms they're giving are good too. No forfeit of ownership or rights and winners get money for development. It seems likely that they'll work out publishing deals for some of the games, since that's a no brainer on their part.
>>47635784
bernie go home you are drunk
>>47636782
I thought Catan was a standard board game.
Maybe it's only a standard board game in Germany.
>>47635784
>The game exists to describe the horrors of capitalism and long-term inequality.
Do you have even a single fact to back that up?
>>47635569
No real strategy or choice; winning is a matter of sheer luck - if you're lucky enough to land on a good chunk of properties, if your opponents are unlucky enough to run out, if you're lucky enough to hold on to your cash while everyone else goes bankrupt. There's no real decisions to be made. This was the entire argument the game was trying to illustrate about laissez-faire capitalism.
In terms of games that simulate capitalist enterprise you can't beat Acquire; the theme is fairly entry level, easily graspable by anyone, and is actually rather fun to play. There's still a large luck component (in terms of the tiles that get drawn and played), but you actually do feel like a capitalist taking advantage of swings in the market and the game actually ends in a reasonable time-frame since eventually no moves will be left.
>>47640733
10 seconds on google, anon.
>>47640733
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29#Early_history
He's wrong, it's more about the horrors of unrestricted capitalism leading to (contain your surprise): Monopoly.
>>47636332
Georgism is not leftist, dipshit.
>>47640720
Its still $40 in most places. When you can pick up Risk or Monopoly for $10 thanks to the flooded market, its a different market altogether
>>47642299
RIght. I forgot about the hundreds of Dogopolies floating around in the US.
Remember, Hotels are a sucker's game.
Buy as many houses as possible, deplete the stock, and screw everyone else over.
>>47643487
>can't even spell Progress right
>>47643487
Monopoly/Landlord's Game was never actually meant to be played more than once with its normal rules. It was a tool the game designer used to push Georgism's Land Value Tax.
Playing Monopoly without the LVT results in somebody making it big and everyone else going bankrupt. Traditionally another game would be played with the LVT in place and almost everyone eventually reaches an equal amount of wealth that stays there, with the player that made the poorest decisions being the one that goes bankrupt, which is the Georgist ideal.
>>47636782
>implying Catan is actually fun
If you make it around the board first, buying up every property you hit along the way, then never trading deeds, you're almost guaranteed to win.
>>47635784
>No good memories.
>Le ebil capitalist guys.
Nigga git gud at monopoly like holy shit. I have good memories of beating my brothers asses at monopoly and raking in that SWEET money. Taught little me the important things in life and showed me jail Is for LOSERS.
>>47646790
Actually, jail is a pretty good place to be after a certain point.
After all, if everywhere's bought already, you're just missing out on the 200 bucks for going around, and the possibility of chance cards. And in exchange, every turn you're not rolling doubles is a turn you don't pay rent.
>>47635569
>Why is monopoly so boring?
Because accumulating fake money with no imaginative purpose is a pointless endeavor. If the game had some way to spend your money on something cool, maybe it would be interesting, but the only thing to do with all your money is buy new sources of income. It's made even worse by the fact that it is a strategy game which is almost entirely dependent on blind luck, removing any complexity from it.
alright /tg/, explain this POS
>what went wrong
>what went right
>what should you play instead
>>47635569
I like Monopoly. It just takes a long time and most people don't want to waste so much time doing something so simple.
