That's not what I meant. Of course I couldn't make a movie or a book or whatever as good as my favorites. I've played Monopoly with and without a Free Parking bonus, and I know better than anyone else which version of the game I find more fun, regardless of which is "better."
No, see, that's the thing. It's really counterintuitive, but you actually don't necessarily know better what you find the most fun/satisfying in the long term. Imagine we're halfway through a movie. Maybe The Godfather, maybe Empire Strikes Back, whatever. You've never seen this movie before. We stop the film and say "how should this end?" Do you know what ending you'll find the most enjoyable? Is your choice necessarily going to be better than what the actual ending turns out to be?
No. Because even though you think you know yourself so well, you actually don't know the field in question, and can't foresee the direction that things will take. With games, it's similar. I didn't understand Monopoly for many years, but I finally got it when we started studying the industrial revolution and the rise of labor unions and vertical monopolies in history class. Then I finally saw what made the game so good and why it was set up the way it was. Sometimes things take years and years to understand, and changing them, especially when you admit that you couldn't create something as good from scratch, often is a warning sign that you're missing something.
You know what's another great life example? Being punished as a kid. Little kids think they don't want to be punished. Then as adults they look back and go "goddamn it's a good thing my dad didn't just let me get away with that bullshit all the time." As a kid, though, you're dead sure that you do not want to get smacked on the ass and sent to stand in the corner.
Sometimes, people actually don't know what they want, especially with things that play out over the long term.
Defender on
0
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
It feels much better today!
Because now it's made of glass and is prosthetic and looks like an eight ball.
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
I also have a yellow one with a red biohazard symbol, one with the misfits skull on it, a regular ol' eyeball one (formal occasions) and this one that has I'm with Stupid on it pointing at my other eyeball.
That's not what I meant. Of course I couldn't make a movie or a book or whatever as good as my favorites. I've played Monopoly with and without a Free Parking bonus, and I know better than anyone else which version of the game I find more fun, regardless of which is "better."
No, see, that's the thing. It's really counterintuitive, but you actually don't necessarily know better what you find the most fun/satisfying in the long term. Imagine we're halfway through a movie. Maybe The Godfather, maybe Empire Strikes Back, whatever. You've never seen this movie before. We stop the film and say "how should this end?" Do you know what ending you'll find the most enjoyable? Is your choice necessarily going to be better than what the actual ending turns out to be?
No. Because even though you think you know yourself so well, you actually don't know the field in question, and can't foresee the direction that things will take. With games, it's similar. I didn't understand Monopoly for many years, but I finally got it when we started studying the industrial revolution and the rise of labor unions and vertical monopolies in history class. Then I finally saw what made the game so good and why it was set up the way it was. Sometimes things take years and years to understand, and changing them, especially when you admit that you couldn't create something as good from scratch, often is a warning sign that you're missing something.
You know what's another great life example? Being punished as a kid. Little kids think they don't want to be punished. Then as adults they look back and go "goddamn it's a good thing my dad didn't just let me get away with that bullshit all the time." As a kid, though, you're dead sure that you do not want to get smacked on the ass and sent to stand in the corner.
Sometimes, people actually don't know what they want, especially with things that play out over the long term.
Ahahahaha
We all know how monopoly ends: tears and broken homes
Free parking just makes the ride more fun
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Tea? I don't know. Was I at least right about the hands?
edit/ AHAHA Yes! Metz that would be hands down the best eyepatch ever. Wait no. A regular eyepatch, and then you flip i up and you have a glass eye with that on it.
you should respond to my post on page 17, defender. these other guys are arguing with you and apparently hating themselves for doing it, but I actually enjoy this kind of debate.
What he said initially was that he's better at designing games than Parker Brothers because he thinks that his house rule makes Monopoly more fun for him personally.
No it isn't, though you seemed to interpret it that way.
If you have actually read the rules you might notice that it encourages you to do your own thing and make up house rules!
Maybe they do that because they acknowledge the game isn't perfect and can be adjusted.
I am sure that the game isn't perfect. I have even speculated that maybe the extremely low initial resources in Monopoly and Starcraft are both potential flaws. I even threw out a guess as to what the low resource amount at the beginning of Monopoly is supposed to represent, but I don't actually know. I could also be wrong about Starcraft, since I'm nowhere near professional and it's been played for over a decade by millions of players and is still being played competitively at the professional level today, which is absurdly long for a video game.
However, their acknowledgment (and my own, whether you choose to understand it or not) that their game is potentially not 100% perfect does not mean that any house rule is automatically "right" or an improvement on the game in any way, especially when it's made by someone with zero training in the field.
That's not what I meant. Of course I couldn't make a movie or a book or whatever as good as my favorites. I've played Monopoly with and without a Free Parking bonus, and I know better than anyone else which version of the game I find more fun, regardless of which is "better."
No, see, that's the thing. It's really counterintuitive, but you actually don't necessarily know better what you find the most fun/satisfying in the long term. Imagine we're halfway through a movie. Maybe The Godfather, maybe Empire Strikes Back, whatever. You've never seen this movie before. We stop the film and say "how should this end?" Do you know what ending you'll find the most enjoyable? Is your choice necessarily going to be better than what the actual ending turns out to be?
That's a bad analogy because it assumes I haven't experienced the work to completion, when I've played more than a few full games of no-Free-Parking Monopoly.
No. Because even though you think you know yourself so well, you actually don't know the field in question, and can't foresee the direction that things will take. With games, it's similar. I didn't understand Monopoly for many years, but I finally got it when we started studying the industrial revolution and the rise of labor unions and vertical monopolies in history class. Then I finally saw what made the game so good and why it was set up the way it was. Sometimes things take years and years to understand, and changing them, especially when you admit that you couldn't create something as good from scratch, often is a warning sign that you're missing something.
There are times when I want something meaningful out of the games that I play. Saturday afterrnoon when I'm rifling through our stack of board games is not one of those times. You sort of addressed this already with your "oh well then watch an action movie" analogy, but the thing is, if I have a copy of Monopoly, and I know that we can have a fun and enjoyable experience by playing it with a house rule or two, I'm not really seeing why I shouldn't, especially if that's what me and my friends want to do.
You know what's another great life example? Being punished as a kid. Little kids think they don't want to be punished. Then as adults they look back and go "goddamn it's a good thing my dad didn't just let me get away with that bullshit all the time." As a kid, though, you're dead sure that you do not want to get smacked on the ass and sent to stand in the corner.
Sometimes, people actually don't know what they want, especially with things that play out over the long term.
Unlike the kid getting punished though, I've seen and understand the full consequences of what happens depending on which choice I make. The kid only says he'd rather not be punished because he doesn't know the full scope of the situation. He doesn't know and is too young to care about how his long-term life experience will be different depending on whether or not he gets punished. On the other hand, I understand how my game experience will change depending on whether or not I use house rules. Maybe I'm missing some subtleties or something, but I have a good idea about which ruleset will provide a more enjoyable experience, whereas the kid doesn't know which amount of discipline will provide a better life.
I'm also snipping most of this because otherwise it will quickly become way too huge. The only thing I'd like to say about the part I cut out is that the free parking money isn't necessarily redundant just because the mechanic already exists in the game without it, any more than the free community chest money is redundant because you already get money from passing Go. The fact that there's a way or two to get free money doesn't mean there's enough of a way.
That it isn't necessarily exactly the right amount of random income is agreed, but community chest and passing go are not the same. One is fixed and guaranteed for every lap you make around the board. The other happens more often as you travel more (like passing go) but only happens randomly and can only happen on turns when you don't land on a property space. So they are different forms of income. I suppose that you could argue that this one is a HUGE amount of income and it grows over time, but I think what really separates it from the chest is that it's big, not that it's a different type of income.
But more importantly, it looks like your main defense of Monopoly is that what it sacrifices in fun it makes up for as a social statement. I'm not critiquing Monopoly as a social statement, so when I say it's a crappy game I mean it's a crappy game--that it's not designed to maximize fun.
Games do not exist solely to be fun. That's not the ultimate and greatest purpose of the medium. Similarly, films do not exist purely to make you laugh and/or feel good. Some films make you feel sad. Some films make you feel angry. Some films are there to make a political statement. A film like that might not be as much fun to watch, but it certainly isn't a bad film just because it sacrifices some of the fun in order to achieve a different goal.
Does portraying the crushing power of companies like Standardized Oil increase the enjoyment of the players? Maybe back when it first came out this was relevant enough to make that true. It's not exactly subtly done, and you can get the idea without even playing one full round of the game, so I don't even know about that. But today? Absolutely not. The very farthest you could get with that is that while Monopoly is still a bad game, it was once a relevant social statement. But even if it were the greatest social statement in the world, that wouldn't make it a good game. Looking at it purely in terms of whether the mechanics are put in place to maximize fun: no, it's not good.
OK, so a few things. First, monopolies and the dangers of capitalism are absolutely relevant today. Turn on Fox News (or don't!) and look at how many times we're told of the tyrant socialist overlord ruling America, threatening our capitalism. These social systems matter to people, and understanding how unregulated capitalism can fuck us up is really vitally important.
The movie thing doesn't work because a sad ending isn't equivalent to an un-fun game. People go to the movies for a high-quality aesthetic experience, whether that involves a sad ending or a happy one. A sad ending can be a part of a very beautiful movie and isn't a sacrifice at all. When it is a sacrifice--when it seems like the movie ended the way it did because the director wanted to "make a point" rather than because that ending is a natural consequence of the story thus far--we don't think "oh, okay, that's cool." That's actually really annoying, and the movie gets dinged for shoehorning its point in at the expense of story or believability. By this point we're a little far from Monopoly, but I felt the need to point out that that wasn't a very good analogy.
I don't see the problem with that analogy. Monopoly doesn't "shoehorn" its point in at all. The game plays out purely with its own mechanics. They could make it much less subtle. For example, when you hit Go, you don't collect $200. You collect X% of the total "rent" value of all of your holdings combined. Now holding property not only lets you be a vampire against other players, but it also increases your strength from the game itself.
Defender on
0
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
That's not what I meant. Of course I couldn't make a movie or a book or whatever as good as my favorites. I've played Monopoly with and without a Free Parking bonus, and I know better than anyone else which version of the game I find more fun, regardless of which is "better."
No, see, that's the thing. It's really counterintuitive, but you actually don't necessarily know better what you find the most fun/satisfying in the long term. Imagine we're halfway through a movie. Maybe The Godfather, maybe Empire Strikes Back, whatever. You've never seen this movie before. We stop the film and say "how should this end?" Do you know what ending you'll find the most enjoyable? Is your choice necessarily going to be better than what the actual ending turns out to be?
That's a bad analogy because it assumes I haven't experienced the work to completion, when I've played more than a few full games of no-Free-Parking Monopoly.
I understand the thought process, but playing a few full games isn't always sufficient. It took me years to understand this stuff, and I'm much more interested in games than most people. Also, let's be honest, most people here have played Monopoly a bunch of times and probably could play it without needing to check the rules, and probably a lot of them didn't know that it was designed as a social criticism. People don't always get messages like that, even after years of seeing the same thing.
You know what's another great life example? Being punished as a kid. Little kids think they don't want to be punished. Then as adults they look back and go "goddamn it's a good thing my dad didn't just let me get away with that bullshit all the time." As a kid, though, you're dead sure that you do not want to get smacked on the ass and sent to stand in the corner.
Sometimes, people actually don't know what they want, especially with things that play out over the long term.
Unlike the kid getting punished though, I've seen and understand the full consequences of what happens depending on which choice I make. The kid only says he'd rather not be punished because he doesn't know the full scope of the situation. He doesn't know and is too young to care about how his long-term life experience will be different depending on whether or not he gets punished. On the other hand, I understand how my game experience will change depending on whether or not I use house rules. Maybe I'm missing some subtleties or something, but I have a good idea about which ruleset will provide a more enjoyable experience, whereas the kid doesn't know which amount of discipline will provide a better life.
That's the same thing. You're saying that it won't affect your life in a more satisfying way (to use the economic term) to play the default way. You never know, man. You never know. Sometimes something just clicks with you one day and it's like "damn, that has enriched my life in a way I didn't think was possible." For me, Warcraft 3 did it. It taught me something about the nature of competition that has helped me in my life, it made a lot of principles click in my head. These ideas that I academically understood but didn't really get on a deep level suddenly just became a part of me and many areas of my life were improved by this process. I would never have expected that to come out of it, and had I not been playing ladder matches against opponents who were really trying to win, I wouldn't have gotten this benefit. It was a bigger benefit than I ever expected to come from a silly game about cartoony orcs and elves and shit.
People who create any form of art for a living generally have deep feelings about it. In video games, I honestly believe that you don't belong (and will likely burn out in five years) if you don't have a deep passion for the medium.
Aggressive. Monopoly was one of the first games that showed me that my usual defensive, gentle, risk-averse tendencies can cause me to be destroyed. Initially, I really didn't like the game at all because, like most people with things they don't like, I was bad at it. Of course, I would blame the game instead of myself because that's also what everyone does. Eventually I realized that Monopoly wasn't the problem, I was. The game was just showing me a way that I was weak. I came to understand that and was grateful for the chance to better myself through the teachings of the game. This was all before I understood the capitalism thing, so that's why it's so focused on gameplay mechanics.
I am willing to sacrifice the potential enrichment of life that the default rules of Monopoly could provide me in order to gain a more fun time with friends.
Besides I'm more of a Scrabble and Risk guy anyway.
You keep doing that film thing, but like I said, it doesn't work. No one would argue that the only good films are ones with happy endings or ones that make you laugh, so pointing out that some films also make you sad or angry isn't really saying anything. I might say that the point of a film is to create some kind of aesthetic bliss in the viewer, though, and that would be equivalent to saying that the point of a game is to create fun. But saying "the point of a movie is to make you happy" would be closer to saying "the purpose of a game is to give the player lots of points." Both of those are dumb, yes, but I'm not saying anything like that so pointing out that it's stupid doesn't really get you anywhere.
It's fine if Monopoly has a social point to make, and I can even agree that's it's perfectly relevant and that it qualifies as a type of game mechanic for the sake of argument. But unless that social criticism makes the game more enjoyable, it doesn't improve its worth as a game. And I really, really don't think it does. Certainly not enough to offset the "enjoyment-cost" of just how tedious both the beginning and the end of Monopoly games tend to be. I've never seen anyone say "Well, for the first hour, almost nothing happened and for the last hour and a half, we all knew who would win and were just dragging it out--but the fact that what we just played is to some extent a simulation of capitalistic reality makes that enjoyable for me!" I really don't expect that that ever happens, either.
I think a better analogy than a story with a sad ending would be a really long book, or a book with a lot of complicated language or dry tone. Crime and Punishment was not fun to read at all, but by the time I was done with it I was happy I had read it.
Of course then I ripped out a few chapters and replaced them with my own.
Anyways, I'd like to point out there have been and are several versions of Monopoly. So I think it stands to reason that the Parker Brothers sanctified version is necessarily the be all end all of Monopoly.
I always thought that the guys that made the Clue movie should've made a Monopoly movie that was basically just rich old men with silly mustaches dicking each other over for two hours.
I'm sober right now, I just have invested all of my life after the age of 6 into board games.
I started playing board games when I was maybe 8. I got serious about board games in middle school, I got more serious about it in high school, and then I moved to Pawtucket, RI. Since then I've let goad games take a more of a back track to my life than card games, but I have been rolling and shuffling and coin tossing in this shit since I can remember. I believe board games in general, card expansions as an aspect of multimedia presentations, and quality miniatures as barely a part of certain presentations can do wonders. My life is completely defined by board games in every way, and I will fight tooth and nail to help board games along its track. This is the one subject I know I'm right in, and this is the one subject that I will not give ground to anyone who thinks that motherfucking Monopoly was the high point of board gaming, or who thinks that since board games involves dice rollsand gets house-ruled for the retards who can't grasp an uneven playing field that's its defining characteristic or any goddamn stupid shit that will do nothing but limit the field
Posts
Man this thread has failed me.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
but... but I love you...
except tdot. he's the cat's pajamas.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
No, see, that's the thing. It's really counterintuitive, but you actually don't necessarily know better what you find the most fun/satisfying in the long term. Imagine we're halfway through a movie. Maybe The Godfather, maybe Empire Strikes Back, whatever. You've never seen this movie before. We stop the film and say "how should this end?" Do you know what ending you'll find the most enjoyable? Is your choice necessarily going to be better than what the actual ending turns out to be?
No. Because even though you think you know yourself so well, you actually don't know the field in question, and can't foresee the direction that things will take. With games, it's similar. I didn't understand Monopoly for many years, but I finally got it when we started studying the industrial revolution and the rise of labor unions and vertical monopolies in history class. Then I finally saw what made the game so good and why it was set up the way it was. Sometimes things take years and years to understand, and changing them, especially when you admit that you couldn't create something as good from scratch, often is a warning sign that you're missing something.
You know what's another great life example? Being punished as a kid. Little kids think they don't want to be punished. Then as adults they look back and go "goddamn it's a good thing my dad didn't just let me get away with that bullshit all the time." As a kid, though, you're dead sure that you do not want to get smacked on the ass and sent to stand in the corner.
Sometimes, people actually don't know what they want, especially with things that play out over the long term.
Because now it's made of glass and is prosthetic and looks like an eight ball.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Ahahahaha
We all know how monopoly ends: tears and broken homes
Free parking just makes the ride more fun
I would actually get all of those if I did have one eye. And some days?
Eyepatch only. Fancily embroidered, pirate-style.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
I don't drink coffee.
Oh man, I like you. That was a quality post right there.
Put it in the middle of my forehead
or this guy
Tea? I don't know. Was I at least right about the hands?
edit/ AHAHA Yes! Metz that would be hands down the best eyepatch ever. Wait no. A regular eyepatch, and then you flip i up and you have a glass eye with that on it.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
No, really:
"How the game is meant to be played" is explicitly the job of the game designer.
I am sure that the game isn't perfect. I have even speculated that maybe the extremely low initial resources in Monopoly and Starcraft are both potential flaws. I even threw out a guess as to what the low resource amount at the beginning of Monopoly is supposed to represent, but I don't actually know. I could also be wrong about Starcraft, since I'm nowhere near professional and it's been played for over a decade by millions of players and is still being played competitively at the professional level today, which is absurdly long for a video game.
However, their acknowledgment (and my own, whether you choose to understand it or not) that their game is potentially not 100% perfect does not mean that any house rule is automatically "right" or an improvement on the game in any way, especially when it's made by someone with zero training in the field.
That's a bad analogy because it assumes I haven't experienced the work to completion, when I've played more than a few full games of no-Free-Parking Monopoly.
There are times when I want something meaningful out of the games that I play. Saturday afterrnoon when I'm rifling through our stack of board games is not one of those times. You sort of addressed this already with your "oh well then watch an action movie" analogy, but the thing is, if I have a copy of Monopoly, and I know that we can have a fun and enjoyable experience by playing it with a house rule or two, I'm not really seeing why I shouldn't, especially if that's what me and my friends want to do.
Unlike the kid getting punished though, I've seen and understand the full consequences of what happens depending on which choice I make. The kid only says he'd rather not be punished because he doesn't know the full scope of the situation. He doesn't know and is too young to care about how his long-term life experience will be different depending on whether or not he gets punished. On the other hand, I understand how my game experience will change depending on whether or not I use house rules. Maybe I'm missing some subtleties or something, but I have a good idea about which ruleset will provide a more enjoyable experience, whereas the kid doesn't know which amount of discipline will provide a better life.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
it blows my mind
That it isn't necessarily exactly the right amount of random income is agreed, but community chest and passing go are not the same. One is fixed and guaranteed for every lap you make around the board. The other happens more often as you travel more (like passing go) but only happens randomly and can only happen on turns when you don't land on a property space. So they are different forms of income. I suppose that you could argue that this one is a HUGE amount of income and it grows over time, but I think what really separates it from the chest is that it's big, not that it's a different type of income.
Games do not exist solely to be fun. That's not the ultimate and greatest purpose of the medium. Similarly, films do not exist purely to make you laugh and/or feel good. Some films make you feel sad. Some films make you feel angry. Some films are there to make a political statement. A film like that might not be as much fun to watch, but it certainly isn't a bad film just because it sacrifices some of the fun in order to achieve a different goal.
OK, so a few things. First, monopolies and the dangers of capitalism are absolutely relevant today. Turn on Fox News (or don't!) and look at how many times we're told of the tyrant socialist overlord ruling America, threatening our capitalism. These social systems matter to people, and understanding how unregulated capitalism can fuck us up is really vitally important.
I don't see the problem with that analogy. Monopoly doesn't "shoehorn" its point in at all. The game plays out purely with its own mechanics. They could make it much less subtle. For example, when you hit Go, you don't collect $200. You collect X% of the total "rent" value of all of your holdings combined. Now holding property not only lets you be a vampire against other players, but it also increases your strength from the game itself.
I really want an answer to this one.
How does Monopoly make you feel Defender?
Satans..... hints.....
I understand the thought process, but playing a few full games isn't always sufficient. It took me years to understand this stuff, and I'm much more interested in games than most people. Also, let's be honest, most people here have played Monopoly a bunch of times and probably could play it without needing to check the rules, and probably a lot of them didn't know that it was designed as a social criticism. People don't always get messages like that, even after years of seeing the same thing.
That's the same thing. You're saying that it won't affect your life in a more satisfying way (to use the economic term) to play the default way. You never know, man. You never know. Sometimes something just clicks with you one day and it's like "damn, that has enriched my life in a way I didn't think was possible." For me, Warcraft 3 did it. It taught me something about the nature of competition that has helped me in my life, it made a lot of principles click in my head. These ideas that I academically understood but didn't really get on a deep level suddenly just became a part of me and many areas of my life were improved by this process. I would never have expected that to come out of it, and had I not been playing ladder matches against opponents who were really trying to win, I wouldn't have gotten this benefit. It was a bigger benefit than I ever expected to come from a silly game about cartoony orcs and elves and shit.
People who create any form of art for a living generally have deep feelings about it. In video games, I honestly believe that you don't belong (and will likely burn out in five years) if you don't have a deep passion for the medium.
Aggressive. Monopoly was one of the first games that showed me that my usual defensive, gentle, risk-averse tendencies can cause me to be destroyed. Initially, I really didn't like the game at all because, like most people with things they don't like, I was bad at it. Of course, I would blame the game instead of myself because that's also what everyone does. Eventually I realized that Monopoly wasn't the problem, I was. The game was just showing me a way that I was weak. I came to understand that and was grateful for the chance to better myself through the teachings of the game. This was all before I understood the capitalism thing, so that's why it's so focused on gameplay mechanics.
Besides I'm more of a Scrabble and Risk guy anyway.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
It's fine if Monopoly has a social point to make, and I can even agree that's it's perfectly relevant and that it qualifies as a type of game mechanic for the sake of argument. But unless that social criticism makes the game more enjoyable, it doesn't improve its worth as a game. And I really, really don't think it does. Certainly not enough to offset the "enjoyment-cost" of just how tedious both the beginning and the end of Monopoly games tend to be. I've never seen anyone say "Well, for the first hour, almost nothing happened and for the last hour and a half, we all knew who would win and were just dragging it out--but the fact that what we just played is to some extent a simulation of capitalistic reality makes that enjoyable for me!" I really don't expect that that ever happens, either.
Of course then I ripped out a few chapters and replaced them with my own.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
(Then they have sex.)
Best part of the book.
I am amazed that I managed to spell that name right on my first try.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
If that's not an argument for modifying the rules, I don't know what is.
Anyways, I'd like to point out there have been and are several versions of Monopoly. So I think it stands to reason that the Parker Brothers sanctified version is necessarily the be all end all of Monopoly.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I'm sober right now, I just have invested all of my life after the age of 6 into board games.
I started playing board games when I was maybe 8. I got serious about board games in middle school, I got more serious about it in high school, and then I moved to Pawtucket, RI. Since then I've let goad games take a more of a back track to my life than card games, but I have been rolling and shuffling and coin tossing in this shit since I can remember. I believe board games in general, card expansions as an aspect of multimedia presentations, and quality miniatures as barely a part of certain presentations can do wonders. My life is completely defined by board games in every way, and I will fight tooth and nail to help board games along its track. This is the one subject I know I'm right in, and this is the one subject that I will not give ground to anyone who thinks that motherfucking Monopoly was the high point of board gaming, or who thinks that since board games involves dice rollsand gets house-ruled for the retards who can't grasp an uneven playing field that's its defining characteristic or any goddamn stupid shit that will do nothing but limit the field
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Science religion and philosophy have already agreed that Free Parking is just an empty space.
Religion, however has not taken a firm stance.