3 ms·
The London-based is widespread in the commonwealth (other than Canada), less now than twenty years ago when they begun to emphasise regional versions. When I go
by cturner 16y ago
The London-based is widespread in the commonwealth (other than Canada), less now than twenty years ago when they begun to emphasise regional versions. When I got to London, I knew correct pronunciation for several of those places where with odd spelling-to-pronounciation. If I designed a new version now, I'd do it just with those places. Leicester Square. Holborn. Beauchamp Street ("Perhaps you were hoping to go to beach'em street, sir"), Pall Mall, Maryleborne Station, Marlborough Street. Those names stick in your mind as navigation points in the early days when you don't know much else.
That quirk aside, it's a stupid game. It communicates that wealth is a zero-sum game, and encourages a mindset whereby ideas about wealth are oriented around ownership of real-estate. These are both brain viruses in the anglosphere, although causation is unclear. And it's laborious.
A better wealth game is Pit/Billionaire. It's zero-sum, but that reflects the reality of the setting (commodity trading) and has interesting social dynamics. Consider this valid tactic: make a deal with someone not to pass taxman across, and you both aim to stick with that principle over several rounds.
Settlers is great because when played between nice people or with children, it can be played as a non-zero sum game that everyone gets something out of.
Scotland Yard has a better take on central London geography, and has team dynamics, lateral thinking and requires risk judgements. Flexible on the number of people you have to play.
The likes of Monopoly give board games a bad name. There's other awful mainstream board games though - I thought of Ludo.
- robryan 16y agoIt's a bit like bestseller books in that the big stores only run with a small and mainstream collection to choose from. Only with board games that collection seems to stay fairly static from year to year.
- retube 16y ago> It communicates that wealth is a zero-sum game, and encourages a mindset whereby ideas about wealth are oriented around ownership of real-estate. I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. > A better wealth game is Pit/Billionaire. It's zero-sum, but that reflects the reality of the setting (commodity trading) How is commodities zero-sum and property not? > The likes of Monopoly give board games a bad name. That's like saying Star Wars gives movies a bad name. It might not have the best script, it might not have the best acting, but it's a movie that has and continues to appeal to young and old alike, that is still watched like a gazillion times a year. Edit: the original star wars trilogy obviously, not the recent triple travesty of video game-esque inanity.
- zipdog 16y ago> I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. The original game was purposefully designed to be anti-capitalist and in particular an attack on landlords who exploited tenants. I think it was called The Landlord's Game and the game mechanic was deliberate. Monopoly changed a few elements but it's game mechanic is essentially the same.
- brudgers 16y ago>"purposefully designed to be anti-capitalist" I believe it is technically incorrect to classify Monopoly as "anti-capitalist" in the sense implied. Because of the nature of real-property, landlord tenant relationships are not inherently capitalist. They can exist even in communist economic systems in which people are tenants on government property. Lest we forget, the origin of much of our current landlord tenant system is in feudalism.
- zipdog 16y agoYou're right, its more about landlord-tenant power imbalance, although the mechanic allows players to be in both roles at once
- chopsueyar 16y agoI always thought buying hotels on purple properties were a much better investment than buying any blue properties. In real life, it would be easier for me to own several duplexes in a 'shady' part of town versus several luxury rentals (tenants demand alot more).
- doty 16y ago> I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. Strangely enough, cturner isn't just reading something into it, the original iterations of the game were designed "with the object of showing that rents enriched property owners and impoverished tenants". The Wikipedia article on the history of Monopoly is fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monop...