3 ms·

basically my thoughts exactly. almost all military shooters don't even try to accurately portray the horrors of war. most driving games don't accurately simulat

basically my thoughts exactly. almost all military shooters don't even try to accurately portray the horrors of war. most driving games don't accurately simulate driving at all. GTA doesn't model just how much it sucks to have your car stolen. Age of Empires and Civilization don't accurately model empire-building. Monopoly isn't anything like real-life property trading. Titanfall doesn't model the economic ramifications of building and deploying dozens of giant robots—which are often destroyed within a couple minutes of landing—per 10-minute conflict. it's like... yeah, duh. games are and have always been simplifications of complex systems, allowing for interesting decisions and fun for the player. presenting the idea that SimCity doesn't holistically simulate everything in a real city down to social justice issues like race/class stratification and tensions between the populace and the police, is far from a novel observation, and every time someone makes such an observation it makes me wonder what the intended audience for such an observation is. that said, yes, the layout and presentation of the ideas expressed here is quite nice.

dragontamer 5y ago
> Monopoly isn't anything like real-life property trading. Yeah, but how many people enjoy playing "Pit" ?? I will say that Acquire is a good "more realistic" take on stock trading. Its got some gamey / non-realistic rules... but those aspects make the game more fun (For example: __always__ 2:1 trades, no matter what the value of the stocks are. A $200 stock can 2:1 trade for a $1000 stock, which provides an obvious point of conflict for the various players) Monopoly is a bad game at its core. You sit around and watch your money disappear due to shear random chance, especially if your table has memorized the probability of each property being landed upon (Orange properties have the highest probability btw, and therefore are the hottest commodity among players who know how to play the game)
- adamrezich 5y ago
  Acquire is awesome! some friends and I stumbled across it while studying game design at school and we played the crap out of it. I've been meaning to pick up a copy for myself, thanks for reminding me! E: do you know if the Hasbro version (newer, with far uglier box) has any rule changes compared to the WotC (/Avalon Hill) original?
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > E: do you know if the Hasbro version (newer, with far uglier box) has any rule changes compared to the WotC original? Yes. There's "Primary", "Secondary" and "Tertiary" bonuses (instead of the previous "Major" and "Minor" bonuses) on Acquires. So while the rules and overall gameplay is different, the subtle strategies have changed. -------------- WotC wasn't the original btw. 3M made the original in the 1960s, back when 3M tried to make board games. The Hasbro 2013 version is probably the best recent version. Its all cardboard instead of 3d plastic, but its printed clearly and feels nice. The newest, ugly printing has very hard to read tiles, and many players suggest spending a few minutes with a silver-permanent marker recoloring the tiles to actually have enough contrast to see.
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      thanks so much for the info! gonna try and get one of the older versions soon now
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        Woops, I got my dates confused. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameversion/23828/avalon-hill-hasbro-edition https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameversion/23828/avalon-hill... Avalon Hill / Hasbro made the 2008 edition. ---------- The most recent 2016 edition by Hasbro isn't all bad (despite rule changes and terrible fonts and terrible designs). The core rules still exist and it still feels like a game of Acquire. Since its like $30 to $50 (depending on retailer), that's just the cheapest way of getting into the game. Finding an old version for $200+ used is for the dedicated fans.
pjc50 5y ago
> Monopoly isn't anything like real-life property trading. Monopoly is derived from the most political of board games: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game , written as an act of political activism by a Georgist in 1904.
otherme123 5y ago
You can pick at everything even if the game is realistic, if you have some kind of views. For example, lets attack a realistic game/simulator, like rFactor: - They fail to simulate the difficult path from a low class kid to end up driving a F1. Much easier is your father is Lawrence Stroll, e.g. - They fail to simulate the pernicious effects of CO2. - Doesn't take into account the resources wasted to the frivolous and improductive activity of car racing. - Doesn't allow you to drive a bike, a solar powered car, etc. It promotes dirty cars. - Add displays on the tracks exploits the players silently. and so on. The main problem here is that "X game doesn't align with MY agenda, so it's inherently wrong designed".

dragontamer 5y ago

> Monopoly isn't anything like real-life property trading. Yeah, but how many people enjoy playing "Pit" ?? I will say that Acquire is a good "more realistic" take on stock trading. Its got some gamey / non-realistic rules... but those aspects make the game more fun (For example: __always__ 2:1 trades, no matter what the value of the stocks are. A $200 stock can 2:1 trade for a $1000 stock, which provides an obvious point of conflict for the various players) Monopoly is a bad game at its core. You sit around and watch your money disappear due to shear random chance, especially if your table has memorized the probability of each property being landed upon (Orange properties have the highest probability btw, and therefore are the hottest commodity among players who know how to play the game)

adamrezich 5y ago
Acquire is awesome! some friends and I stumbled across it while studying game design at school and we played the crap out of it. I've been meaning to pick up a copy for myself, thanks for reminding me! E: do you know if the Hasbro version (newer, with far uglier box) has any rule changes compared to the WotC (/Avalon Hill) original?
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > E: do you know if the Hasbro version (newer, with far uglier box) has any rule changes compared to the WotC original? Yes. There's "Primary", "Secondary" and "Tertiary" bonuses (instead of the previous "Major" and "Minor" bonuses) on Acquires. So while the rules and overall gameplay is different, the subtle strategies have changed. -------------- WotC wasn't the original btw. 3M made the original in the 1960s, back when 3M tried to make board games. The Hasbro 2013 version is probably the best recent version. Its all cardboard instead of 3d plastic, but its printed clearly and feels nice. The newest, ugly printing has very hard to read tiles, and many players suggest spending a few minutes with a silver-permanent marker recoloring the tiles to actually have enough contrast to see.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    thanks so much for the info! gonna try and get one of the older versions soon now
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      Woops, I got my dates confused. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameversion/23828/avalon-hill-hasbro-edition https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameversion/23828/avalon-hill... Avalon Hill / Hasbro made the 2008 edition. ---------- The most recent 2016 edition by Hasbro isn't all bad (despite rule changes and terrible fonts and terrible designs). The core rules still exist and it still feels like a game of Acquire. Since its like $30 to $50 (depending on retailer), that's just the cheapest way of getting into the game. Finding an old version for $200+ used is for the dedicated fans.

pjc50 5y ago

> Monopoly isn't anything like real-life property trading. Monopoly is derived from the most political of board games: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game , written as an act of political activism by a Georgist in 1904.

otherme123 5y ago

You can pick at everything even if the game is realistic, if you have some kind of views. For example, lets attack a realistic game/simulator, like rFactor: - They fail to simulate the difficult path from a low class kid to end up driving a F1. Much easier is your father is Lawrence Stroll, e.g. - They fail to simulate the pernicious effects of CO2. - Doesn't take into account the resources wasted to the frivolous and improductive activity of car racing. - Doesn't allow you to drive a bike, a solar powered car, etc. It promotes dirty cars. - Add displays on the tracks exploits the players silently. and so on. The main problem here is that "X game doesn't align with MY agenda, so it's inherently wrong designed".