Despite being incredibly popular, Monopoly is a fundamentally misunderstood board game

[BScCollateral]

I think the battleship should be allowed to destroy houses whenever it lands somewhere.
You want rent? Fuck off; I have 16 inch guns.

 

[ZMOT]

That’s probably true. It seems like most of the new games coming out are Euro games or heavily Euro-inspired. American board gaming may be on life support. Families probably don’t even bother with board games nowadays with screens everywhere.

boardgamegeek lists over 1300 games released in 2024 (some are reimplementations or standalone expansion tho), there's plenty of "ameritrash" or family games out there.
monopoly/risk are still played because they're household names, cheap and available almost anywhere (and almost everyone has a copy somewhere), but in the bigger stores you got plenty of alternatives now. lot of casuals rather play 2-3 shorter games than another rage-inducing 3 hour game of monopoly.

"Eurogames" have some RNG too, but their resources are once something happens, it's locked in. This is to prevent victory and assets from being snatched away from you, but it is the opportunity that gets lost. It makes "Eurogames" unfun, and it would be the equivalent of getting screwed so hard in Risk you become a vassal state permanently, only deciding which side you want to win (someone who is not you).

that's why games switched to victory points, global domination always sucked ass in risk, or any area control game really.
die macher is as euro as it gets (and looks like it), while you'll be able to get a lot more people to play terraforming mars or ark nova, and depending who you ask anything that isn't a beer&bretzels dice-chugger is considered "euro" these days.

pandemic season 1 is from 2015 and still on second place on BGG (not that it means much since most casuals won't vote), there are so many games these days to hit the sweet spot, even if it's not jerked off on bgg's geeklist.

 

[George Lucas]

boardgamegeek lists over 1300 games released in 2024 (some are reimplementations or standalone expansion tho), there's plenty of "ameritrash" or family games out there.
monopoly/risk are still played because they're household names, cheap and available almost anywhere (and almost everyone has a copy somewhere), but in the bigger stores you got plenty of alternatives now. lot of casuals rather play 2-3 shorter games than another rage-inducing 3 hour game of monopoly.


that's why games switched to victory points, global domination always sucked ass in risk, or any area control game really.
die macher is as euro as it gets (and looks like it), while you'll be able to get a lot more people to play terraforming mars or ark nova, and depending who you ask anything that isn't a beer&bretzels dice-chugger is considered "euro" these days.

pandemic season 1 is from 2015 and still on second place on BGG (not that it means much since most casuals won't vote), there are so many games these days to hit the sweet spot, even if it's not jerked off on bgg's geeklist.

Those numbers don’t mean anything. Anyone can publish a board game. It doesn’t mean it’s popular or has any impact.

The last time I was in a board game store it was all TTR and Catan expansions, a bunch of IP shit, D&D and Warhammer-based games, and then a little section for indie games. It wasn’t particularly diverse to me.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

boardgamegeek lists over 1300 games released in 2024 (some are reimplementations or standalone expansion tho), there's plenty of "ameritrash" or family games out there.
monopoly/risk are still played because they're household names, cheap and available almost anywhere (and almost everyone has a copy somewhere), but in the bigger stores you got plenty of alternatives now. lot of casuals rather play 2-3 shorter games than another rage-inducing 3 hour game of monopoly.

Monopoly can be shortened if you have people who know how to play and auction properties when landed on. People who think Monopoly and Risk take too long are often tainted by the fact that those are often played by children, who don't know how to play games and turns take an eternity.

that's why games switched to victory points, global domination always sucked ass in risk, or any area control game really.

die macher is as euro as it gets (and looks like it), while you'll be able to get a lot more people to play terraforming mars or ark nova, and depending who you ask anything that isn't a beer&bretzels dice-chugger is considered "euro" these days.

I don't think permanent victory points are a bad game concept, especially in something like Risk. (On a long enough scales, all empires vanish anyway). My main problem with European-style games is that gets to a point where if you find you're losing, there's no real path to victory and the last half of the game just becomes miserable and a miserable experience. People complain that Risk/Monopoly/etc. also have that miserable experience when losing but you don't have to sit through to the end to watch people win (unless your family hates you, which isn't the game's fault).

pandemic season 1 is from 2015 and still on second place on BGG (not that it means much since most casuals won't vote), there are so many games these days to hit the sweet spot, even if it's not jerked off on bgg's geeklist.

BGG is overall a terrible site, and they had/have a sister site like it focused on video games. It's popular because it's the only site like it.

Pandemic Legacy sounds like one of those games where it only works if you have a close-knit games group and the "permanent change" concept defeats the point of board games altogether. They are by nature, casual, and when played normally (as opposed to something artificially stretched out, like correspondence chess), take no more than a few hours. So having an expensive board game that you can't replay the same way is counter-intuitive.

If you want a more immersive, hardcore experience that's similar to board games, play pen-and-paper RPGs.

 

[ZMOT]

board game store

no way a retail store has a specific selection of shit that sells stock...

BGG is overall a terrible site, and they had/have a sister site like it focused on video games. It's popular because it's the only site like it.

it is, but it's still a good indicator. the retarded posters have no effect on the numbers and basic info.

pandemic legacy is a legacy game which comes with it's own pro/cons, the point was not everything is a eurogame, nor that euro is the only popular genre.
as I said there will always be people who buy monopoly/risk, just like there will always be people how buy fifa or cod, yet no one would claim fifa and cod are the only games made.

 

[George Lucas]

no way a retail store has a specific selection of shit that sells stock...


it is, but it's still a good indicator. the retarded posters have no effect on the numbers and basic info.

pandemic legacy is a legacy game which comes with it's own pro/cons, the point was not everything is a eurogame, nor that euro is the only popular genre.
as I said there will always be people who buy monopoly/risk, just like there will always be people how buy fifa or cod, yet no one would claim fifa and cod are the only games made.

I think the point we’re making is there’s little novelty because there are now so many unspoken rules in board game design now: you can’t eliminate players, you can’t have ‘world domination’ win conditions, luck is bad (but cards are great for some reason?), games assume you have a dedicated players group (i.e. little to no built-in handicapping). Couple that with the level of IP and sequelitis and I think you can see how different the hobby is from what it was like thirty years ago (not that it’s necessarily better or worse, it’s just a lot different, and the older games are unfairly criticized). I also think influence from RPGs have been a net negative. Reasons I play a board game vs. and RPG are fundamentally different. I don’t like having the two mixed together.

 

[Two Dollars]

The best version of Monopoly is Monopoly Party on Gamecube/PS2/Xbox. It has a party mode with one core change: everyone moves at the same time. If multiple people land on the same unowned property, it starts an auction between just those people. I don’t think this mode has been brought back for later video game adaptations, but it’s great.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

I think the point we’re making is there’s little novelty because there are now so many unspoken rules in board game design now: you can’t eliminate players, you can’t have ‘world domination’ win conditions, luck is bad (but cards are great for some reason?), games assume you have a dedicated players group (i.e. little to no built-in handicapping). Couple that with the level of IP and sequelitis and I think you can see how different the hobby is from what it was like thirty years ago (not that it’s necessarily better or worse, it’s just a lot different, and the older games are unfairly criticized). I also think influence from RPGs have been a net negative. Reasons I play a board game vs. and RPG are fundamentally different. I don’t like having the two mixed together.

Player elimination still exists in some games but only short, casual games like Exploding Kittens.

There are some games with RPG elements. The original The Legend of Zelda board game (which I have played; albeit long ago) is basically stripped-down D&D. Problem is that still tends to be overly complicated to those unfamiliar with the concept, and a lot of Milton Bradley's output was "roll dice/move/follow card" variety.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Player elimination can be fine and can give a nice break to get some food, setup the next game, socialize, or whatever.

Player elimination of done right is the way to go. If you’ve lost by turn 12, let you out of the game by turn 14. If you’ve have to play to the end, there should be something to play for. Problem is most games throw in a blue shell to do this which sucks for its own reasons.

Protip: if a game isn’t fun to lose then it’s not much of a game.

Pandemic Legacy sounds like one of those games where it only works if you have a close-knit games group and the "permanent change" concept defeats the point of board games altogether.

Pandemic is a masterbatory puzzle simulation that quickly gets driven by one player, and he might as well play it single player.

Catan is Euro-monopoly but them niggers don’t wanna admit it.

 

[Iron Jaguar]

Monopoly sucks. Poleconomy is the superior Capitalism RPG.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Pandemic is a masterbatory puzzle simulation that quickly gets driven by one player, and he might as well play it single player.

The first time I played Pandemic we gave the diseases names like Islam or homosexuality. Not only would that not fly with most people who play Pandemic these days, it's the whole "CDC as world savior" concept that it pushes. After COVID that concept has become completely disgusting to me.

Player elimination of done right is the way to go. If you’ve lost by turn 12, let you out of the game by turn 14. If you’ve have to play to the end, there should be something to play for. Problem is most games throw in a blue shell to do this which sucks for its own reasons.

Protip: if a game isn’t fun to lose then it’s not much of a game.

I've heard the counter-argument is that it's still fun to play even if you aren't winning. Problem is, all games are mostly fun on the chance of winning. In the classic "games of chance" (and if you told anyone you were a "gamer" prior to the late 20th century that would take to mean gambling) there's that dopamine hit because of the mere thought of winning.

Even if winning has no real stakes, winning is its own reward, and so you have fun on the premise that you might win, that you too will create Longest Road or develop hotels on half the board or what have you. But none of those mean a damn thing if you were stuck in a permanently losing position.

As for the "blue shell" analogy, in Mario Kart, you can sometimes salvage your position through item placement, but in most games you've already lost, it becomes "who do you want to win" with no recourse or alliance.