Shitty board games and Cards Against Humanities Bickering

[Jeff Kelly]

Then why did you start the argument? Nobody told you that you couldn't like the game all they said it that it is a bad game. Which is what people say when they mean "I think it is bad". It#s also something you should expect when you click on a thread labelled " Shitty board games".

Even though you apparently don't like the thought, one could even realistically argue that it's a cathegorically bad game and find reasons why. That doesn't preclude you or indeed anybody from liking or loving it though and nobody said you couldn't or mustn't.

It's the IT'S BAD IN ALL UNIVERSES AND YOU MUST ADMIT THIS!

You've made it about that and nobody else so don't blame the whole argument on us just because we've accidentally hit a nerve.

[Jeff Kelly]

At least pick your battles and save your energy for something more worthwile to defend than monopoly.

[jgsugden]

...IT'S BAD IN ALL UNIVERSES...!...

Agreed.

[schild]

What's complicated about this?

The design is objectively bad.

You are allowed to enjoy objectively bad things.

In doing so, you have bad taste. Just like, be ok with having shitty taste and move on. Nobody actually cares.

[Goreschach]

[Paelos]

Always one step too far. That's the internet critique in a nutshell.

It can't just be bad, it has to be objectively bad. And don't pretend that you don't mean it as exactly the shaming you intend. You want people to understand that they like shit, and that your method of fun is superior. Which is frankly stupid.

It's different from just saying you don't like something because you think it's poorly designed. It's taking that and then making it about everyone else.

[schild]

The people saying the design is bad are nearly all game designers.

The people saying the design isn't bad is an accountant and an engineer.

This is why you don't see "Unreal Tournanament from the engineering and accounting team that brought you uhhhh, Bank Simulator 2006."

[Yegolev]

Is Samwise the only other person that understands what objective means?  IainC also.  Maybe one more.

The interesting thing is that Paelos made a lot of sense to me when we sidetracked into finance.  So, do what you are comfortable doing with your assets in either case: money or games.  We didn't explore if there are objectively-bad checking schemes.

The analogies (I love, love, love analogies) didn't line up exactly, in my mind.

"Keep my money in a checking account" is, I think, equivalent to "I play one or more board games with acquaintances";

while "I have my money in a checking account that charges me a monthly fee" is equivalent to "I play poorly-designed board games with acquaintances";

and "I keep bouncing checks" equates to "I know it sucks but I don't want to do anything else because who gives a shit about money".

[jakonovski]

You guys are objectively Hitler.

[lamaros]

The people saying the design is bad are nearly all game designers.

The people saying the design isn't bad is an accountant and an engineer.

This is why you don't see "Unreal Tournanament from the engineering and accounting team that brought you uhhhh, Bank Simulator 2006."

CAH is objectively bad. It is objectively stealing from Apples to Apples. The people who enjoy it are objectively simple.

Also on a more serious note, appeals to authority are the worst.

Yeg: design isn't objective in a vacuum. Also let's not go in to philosophy and semantics. Paelos enjoys Monopoly, we all this its crap. Some of you enjoy CAH, Ingmar and I think it is crap.

[Yegolev]

I like philosophy a lot.  It's what people did before science.

I don't care if anyone likes Monopoly or not.  I do care if people try to argue that it doesn't have any mechanical flaws, considering basically any goal you might want to assign it, since I think anyone here could come up with ways to improve it.  I'm actively irritated when these two ideas are not separated, but that's just my bias I think since it's really human nature to say "this sucks and so do you".

I don't like to get picky on semantics, not in the least, but I need to have some way to concretely express my ideas.  Pictures seem overkill.

[lamaros]

I just think the goals of people are not being properly understood and expressed in regard to how Monopoly meets them, because there's no denying its historical and continued success.

Why do so many play Monopoly without the auction rule and with the incorrect free parking one, for example? Not an accident.

Not a game we want to play, but to say that it is a bad design and doesn't satisfy the goals of those who do play it (continuity and repeatedly) is just being silly.

The same conversations are had about Catan, where people find its popularity inexplicable given what else they think is out there. And while ignorance of other opportunities is certainly a valid reason as to why popular games get played even though some of the players might prefer something else, the popularity begins and grows from from the fact that those games give most of those who play it something that other games don't, which they enjoy.

Why did we used to play Risk when we were younger and had the odd break from a poker game? Not because we didn't know about other 'better' (less long, less player elimination, more interesting decisions, less luck) games, but because Risk suited our desires (bullshit, beer, trash talk, etc).

[Bzalthek]

I don't understand the hostility I get from people when I try to save them by introducing them to Jesus Christ.  Don't they know they're going to go to hell and burn eternally?

That's pretty much how most of this thread reads.

[eldaec]

I've always felt the game (and other bad games) succeeded in brand building because there really hadn't been much serious thought going into the mechanics of gaming prior to the rise of computer games. I'm not convinced Monopoly's success demonstrates that it meets needs so much as it demonstrates a demand for an indoor activity that families can share, combined with a collective failure of imagination in setting expectations of board games.

I know when I was a kid board games (especially monopoly)  were a chore for most female or older members of the family who are now generally the most interested in whatever modern game gets opened up at Christmas.

[Yegolev]

I just think the goals of people are not being properly understood and expressed in regard to how Monopoly meets them, because there's no denying its historical and continued success.

This is a super-awesome point, actually.

I think Monopoly is popular because of marketing (tips to eldaec) or because it is familiar and nostalgic (like EQ or UO).  People love that stupid Monopoly-McDonald's "game" too.

I don't want to stop talking about bad games, though, so maybe we can try to not get our feelings hurt over any of this.  I figured if we could objectify our discussion then no one would get their anus in a wad, but that wasn't the case.  People got upset over the objectification instead!

I played Axis and Allies once and I beat the red-headed shit out of the rest of those neckbeards because I played the US and aced my tech rolls.  Bad game?

[IainC]

I think the continued success of Monopoly stems from its ubiquity and the fact that it's familiar. There's also been a fairly hefty campaign in the last twenty years or so to diversify it into various specific interest groups (without actually changing the game at all) - so you get Star Wars or other fandom themed Monopoly as well as versions for pretty much any location you care to mention. When I lived in a tiny town in the middle of the Black Forest, the local department store had a shelf full of local Monopoly sets which were sold as a local novelty. For a lot of people who don't really care about boardgames (which is most people), it might be the only game that they own - or at least the only one that's playable by everyone from kids on up. Not because it's a good game but because it's the game they recognise on the shelf at the store and they aren't likely to either browse BGG for alternatives or pick up a random game they've never heard of on a whim.

I don't understand the hostility I get from people when I try to save them by introducing them to Jesus Christ.  Don't they know they're going to go to hell and burn eternally?

That's pretty much how most of this thread reads.

I don't think that's a fair read. No-one is saying you can't like Monopoly and no-one is telling you what you should like either. Just pointing out that there are a lot of other games out there that are better than Monopoly for the niche that Monopoly tries to inhabit - low learning curve, multi-player games based on player-to-player transactions with varying amounts of luck added to the mix. No-one is insisting that you must only enjoy art games that simulate competitive beard-growing during the Age of Reason, just that trying to pretend that Monopoly isn't awful at the job it tries to do is provably wrong.

[lamaros]

I still don't agree. List this games that you think do what Monopoly does but better, I'm sure there are many non insignificant differences.

Yes, familiarity is a big thing, but just like WoW found a lot of customers because it was everywhere and everyone's families and friends were playing it, it got that big from somewhere, not just chance.

I cannot think of a single game that is 'like Monopoly but better' and I think holding that view ignores an understanding of the popular elements of its design and is elitist and incorrect.

[ezrast]

Of course it came from somewhere; Monopoly was decades ahead of its time as far as board game mechanics go. How many games less abstract than chess even existed in the '30s?

But if Monopoly as a contemporary American family tradition were instantly overturned and replaced with Ticket to Ride or whatever, utility/pleasure across the general public would be increased. In that sense, Ticket to Ride is objectively a better Monopoly than Monopoly is (I'm not a utilitarian but the terminology works well enough here).

[lamaros]

Of course it came from somewhere; Monopoly was decades ahead of its time as far as board game mechanics go. How many games less abstract than chess even existed in the '30s?

Lets agree on this.

But if Monopoly as a contemporary American family tradition were instantly overturned and replaced with Ticket to Ride or whatever, utility/pleasure across the general public would be increased. In that sense, Ticket to Ride is objectively a better Monopoly than Monopoly is (I'm not a utilitarian but the terminology works well enough here).

Not sure I can agree on this. They're far too dissimilar to make this statement anything other than speculation. I might tend towards agreement, but it's still speculation; there's nothing - word of the day - objective about it.

[jgsugden]

Objective fact: Reading this thread is more entertaining than any game of Monopoly.

[rk47]

I bet you guys haven't played bloodbowl. 
Rendakor pussied out when he heard his player can permanently die. 

[ezrast]

Of course it's objective. The thing I said may not be true, but it's not a matter of opinion. What other interpretation of "objective" is there that doesn't render all criticism of anything absurd?

[lamaros]

Of course its an opinion... Are you just trolling me now?

2+2=4 is objective, and not an opinion. If I said no no its 17 you're all wrong! Then you could criticise me without it being absurd or an opinion.

But saying that if Monopoly got replaced with Ticket to Ride everyone would receive more pleasure, what?

Do you mean to say that I can disagree with you and say that if that happened then all it would do is mean people play fewer games, and say that is objective?

Because insofar as we are being objective then I'm going to side with me, and my objective points aren't critical of something I clearly dislike, so I'm far more likely to be removed from any biases in this conversation.

Or can we just say whatever we want and say its objective? Because that makes the word meaningless and pointless.

But I guess it passes the time...

[rk47]

Can't stop grinning during coffee break.
This thread delivers. *furiously updating txts*

[ezrast]

Happy to be of service, rk.

If you're going to have a discussion about what constitutes a good game, I think you have to start with the assumption that human enjoyment is knowable, measurable, and, to an extent, predictable. So it is possible to make factual statements about whether or not somebody enjoys something. "Monopoly is boring because it doesn't have enough explosions" is subjective, because it is either true or false depending on the subject. "Most players would enjoy Monopoly more if it had more explosions" is - as I use the term - objective because its truthiness does not change based on the speaker. That's a meaningful distinction. And yes, you can contradict my objective statement with a different objective statement because "objective" is not a synonym for "true".

This bit:

Or can we just say whatever we want and say its objective? Because that makes the word meaningless and pointless.

goes both ways, but in my experience calling something "subjective" is used to stimy discussion more than the converse. Person A makes a claim, person B says "that's subjective" and now they're at an impasse. And in my experience, person B frequently then goes on to hold an interpretation of "subjective" that applies to everything ever, making their own statement tautological and meaningless.

[lamaros]

Well, that would be a reasonable philosophical position to hold, and not an uncommon one.

I'm not sure what is gained by us declaring that we are all objective or all subjective though, either way the point becomes meaningless.

I'm using the worse in the sense that to be objective is to be without bias, which is to say that I think a lot of the monopoly bashing about how bad it is as a game isn't supported beyond personal likes and dislikes, especially the dog piling on those who have said they do enjoy it.

Its a popular game that people enjoy for what it is, not in spite of itself.

So is CAH, but while I might claim to be objective in saying its a direct ripoff of Apples to Apples I'm not claiming it what I say that it is shit, that's just my view and experience of it. I can readily accept that for (too) many people it is a fun game.

Likewise Monopoly, people (some even on this forum of gamers) like playing it. Its very odd to me but its true, and thus you have to check 'bad' as a catchall criticism of it.

[eldaec]

I still don't agree. List this games that you think do what Monopoly does better......

I cannot think of a single game that is 'like Monopoly but better' and I think holding that view ignores an understanding of the popular elements of its design and is elitist and incorrect.

So what do we think makes monopoly identifiably monopoly?

Set collection
Auctions
Trading
Eliminate other players to win
At a stretch a form of engine building
Low luck factor (people disagree with me on this, but my experience is that auctions and trading reliably allow the 'best'  player to win, the luck factor is purely how many hours others can delay the inevitable.)

I struggle to see any mechanic for which we haven't already discussed a list of better examples as long as your arm,  so struggle to see the above as likely answers.  I do agree that much of that list of better games didn't exist (probably) until relatively recently, so Monopoly had an awful long time to build market share.

Theme? I think localisation is a big plus helping to sell monopoly but the landlord theme certainly isn't unique.

[Evildrider]

[lamaros]

I still don't agree. List this games that you think do what Monopoly does better......

I cannot think of a single game that is 'like Monopoly but better' and I think holding that view ignores an understanding of the popular elements of its design and is elitist and incorrect.

So what do we think makes monopoly identifiably monopoly?

Set collection
Auctions
Trading
Eliminate other players to win
At a stretch a form of engine building
Low luck factor (people disagree with me on this, but my experience is that auctions and trading reliably allow the 'best'  player to win, the luck factor is purely how many hours others can delay the inevitable.)

I struggle to see any mechanic for which we haven't already discussed a list of better examples as long as your arm,  so struggle to see the above as likely answers.  I do agree that much of that list of better games didn't exist (probably) until relatively recently, so Monopoly had an awful long time to build market share.

Theme? I think localisation is a big plus helping to sell monopoly but the landlord theme certainly isn't unique.

Lots of people don't play with the auctions. Regardless a game is not ousted if another game doesa single mechanic better, its a combination of them all. I'm still wondering what game out there does everything monopoly does better than monopoly does it, rather than just parts of it.

Maybe if Catan/TTR were first they would be the giant of the industry, but that still doesn't mean those who enjoy Monopoly still don't enjoy it because of what it is and not in spite of it.

[eldaec]

But what is the combination we're thinking of.

I'm not convinced my list above is the right one, because they are also the things monopoly does badly and which people often house rule away.

If the answer was in the game rules themselves, surely the shelves would be full of clones.

[lamaros]

You can't compete with the market leader and their econmy of scale and lawyers by making the exact same thing.

[eldaec]

You can't compete with the market leader and their econmy of scale and lawyers by making the exact same thing.

Board gaming is one of the few areas of IP not crawling with lawyers, because practically everything except the original artwork was ruled unprotectable before the courts were bought and paid for.

I mean you don't see mass market variations on monopoly the way you do see variations on trivial pursuit or Snakes and Ladders.

Perhaps it is about art and the elements you can protect. Monopoly is a reasonably good looking game after all.

[ezrast]

You could just ask somebody who actually enjoys the game. If we haven't chased them all off yet.

[Jeff Kelly]

It's different from just saying you don't like something because you think it's poorly designed. It's taking that and then making it about everyone else.

"Bad" and "Good" are cathegories, as is "Poor". So if you want to get into the nitty gritty semantics of philosophical reasoning then there are objective criteria to assess what makes something "Bad" or "Good". That's most of what Kant or indeed what most of 18th century philosophy is about, actually. (Kant called it the cathegorical imperative because the imperative is cathegorically true as in objectively and always). Granted you'd then need to first come up with a definition of "Bad" or "Good" and criteria for reasoning whether something is "Bad" or "Good" in the context of the discussion. Doesn't mean that you can't "objectively" assess if something is "Bad" or "Good". You can dismiss it as philosophical wankery - and I'd tend to agree - but the criterium of "Objectivism" stems from the whole context of reasoning about moral/cathegorical topics and finding ways to make them cathegorically true/false - or "objectivizing" them.

Saying that "objectively bad" doesn't exist is false because a lot of work in philosophy and logics has gone into "objectivizing" discussions about cathegorical topics. So argue with Kant and Schopenhauer if you disagree.

That we now have a philosophical debate about objectivity in the context of Monopoly though is mad.

[Jeff Kelly]

Interestingly enough they came up with the whole "objectivism" schtick as a reaction to the moral relativism and subjectivism of the time. They basically wanted to find a set of arguments and a process for logical reasoning that could assess whether or not something could be "cathegorically" true, as in "provably true in all frames of reference".

They were basically fed up with all of the "that's just, like, your opinion, man!" type arguments of the 18th and 19th century.

[fake edit:] before people simply dismiss it as philosophical masturbation, the work done by those philosophers has greatly influenced every kind of system that needs to assess something 'objectively' (to make it to be objectively true or false in the context of the rules and systems governing it). So it has be of great importance to law or governance for example.