My friends and I like to be assholes to each otherduring games
Not true. We only get legit mean during competitions, and even then, only competitions where smack talk is implicitly agreed upon. We've all been friends since third grade, so we're definitely tight. Just...intense.
What's the name of the board game instance when people take too long on their turn minimaxing their decisions? I swear it started with a tra- or something similar to that.
What's the name of the board game instance when people take too long on their turn minimaxing their decisions? I swear it started with a tra- or something similar to that.
The gamers I play with usually call it "analysis paralysis".
I may sound mainstream here, but I still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever. It can be a great and competitive game. Especially with 4 players (sometimes I don't like more than four because everything takes too long and its harder to get a monopoly). I have great memories of Monopoly games that last all afternoon. They get so fun.
I also like stratego. Its a basic game but it really is fun and it combines simplicity and strategy very well. German board games are fun, but I still think the mainstream ones are pretty fun.
still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever.
The outcome of Monopoly is entirely random, unless you are playing with extremely sub-optimal players. It's trivial to play perfectly based on the odds, and the primary factor in winning has nothing to do with skill but simply with the random luck of the dice. Even if you make good or poor decisions, the dice are so much of a factor that little else matters. Trading properties and bidding only matter if one player is being taken advantage of due to their lack of understanding of the basic mechanics of the game.
Most people, furthermore, make the game even more random with silly house rules, and few I have ever seen actually followed the rules as written in the book.
Monopoly is a terrible, almost entirely luck-driven game. It's a good exercise for young children in learning math, simple accounting, probability, and bidding, but is pointless among even moderately skilled players.
I see your point. However, the game is not solely based on luck. Yes, luck is a huge factor. Especially since the game involves dice. But it does have its strategic sides. Luck may decide where you land, but what properties you decide to buy or not to buy really affects the game.
I am aware that its a mainstream and simple game. I just voiced my opinion on how I still enjoy it. Sometimes the simple games are the most fun. And its all about he fun in the end...
No, you specifically said you believe it is one of the best board games ever. It's an objectively bad game, and that is not affected by whether it's mainstream or simple.
yes, I BELIEVE, as in my opinion, that it is one of the best board games ever. And by the way, no one is 100% objective, so how can you say that it is objectively bad? When that is your opinion. The problem with this is that there is no factual way of knowing whether it is bad or not. it is completely based on opinions, as are many things. So saying that it is objectively bad is an invalid argument. You can probably find people who agree with you I am sure of that. But the fact that Monopoly is mainstream means a large number of people like the game. So it is affected by that factor. Now, I will leave it at that before it turns into a debate over Philosophy and theory of knowledge.
Whether you had typed believe or not doesn't matter. My argument still stands, since you said in your opinion it is objectively good, and, even further, that it is objectively better than most games. You are allowed to like it, but that is in a whole different territory.
I may sound mainstream here, but I still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever. It can be a great and competitive game. Especially with 4 players (sometimes I don't like more than four because everything takes too long and its harder to get a monopoly). I have great memories of Monopoly games that last all afternoon. They get so fun.
I also like stratego. Its a basic game but it really is fun and it combines simplicity and strategy very well. German board games are fun, but I still think the mainstream ones are pretty fun.
My top picks:
1:Monopoly 2: Risk 3: Stratego
Anastius,
I want you to point out in this quote where I said it was objectively good. And the fact that I highlighted believe was because it emphasized that fact that I was voicing MY opinion. Your argument does not make sense.
yes, I BELIEVE, as in my opinion, that it is one of the best board games ever. And by the way, no one is 100% objective, so how can you say that it is objectively bad? When that is your opinion. The problem with this is that there is no factual way of knowing whether it is bad or not. it is completely based on opinions, as are many things. So saying that it is objectively bad is an invalid argument. You can probably find people who agree with you I am sure of that. But the fact that Monopoly is mainstream means a large number of people like the game. So it is affected by that factor. Now, I will leave it at that before it turns into a debate over Philosophy and theory of knowledge.
You, like most people on the Internets, have to learn the difference between favorite and best.
You can like Monopoly. It can be your favorite game. Nobody can argue with that. Your personal preference is your personal preference. Once you make a statement saying Monopoly is "the best" game, now you are no longer talking about your personal preference. You are talking about an objective measure of quality, or at least a semi-objective measure of subjective criteria.
I may not like looking at the Mona Lisa. In fact, it's not really all that exciting. It is not my favorite painting by far. Yet, it is the best painting, comparable only perhaps to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The same goes for Citizen Kane being the greatest movie, even if you think it's boring. It is subjective? Sure, but it's subjective according to well accepted criteria, some of which are quantifiable.
This is how art teachers give grades to their students. What if an art teacher really liked stick figures? Would it be OK to give the stick figure drawers As and Fs to the students who actually had skills? No, of course not. You have to learn to evaluate a work of art academically, and ignore your personal preference. I know Initial D is a shitty anime, even though I like it a lot. That's because I can critique the work according to criteria while ignoring my personal feelings about it.
What's worse for you, in this argument, is that board games are highly quantifiable. Every board game boils down to math. That gives us a very large amount of objective criteria upon which we can judge the quality of a game. Whether you believe it or not, Monopoly is mathematically an entirely random game, unless some of the players frequently make very poor decisions, like never buying any properties at all. It's a mathemtical fact, and your beliefs won't change it.
You can like Monopoly all you want. You can say things like "I like Monopoly" or "I love playing Monopoly" and nobody will argue with you. But when you say "Monopoly is the best game" or "Monopoly is a great game", we're going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. Choose your words very carefully. If you screw up your semantics when you make a controversial statement on teh Internets, you will regret it.
I think this highly depends on what you want out of a game. I like fluffy, silly, social games. I prefer solitary games for more "hardcore" logic and strategy based gaming because they seem fundamentally anti-social because of time and number restraints and limited communication.
For now, it will suffice to say that there is a great difference between good games and games that one likes. I am, however, too tired at the moment to continue this argument.
Firstly, I apologize for the copy paste, I could not get the quote thing to work.
You, like most people on the Internets, have to learn the difference between favorite and best.
You can like Monopoly. It can be your favorite game. Nobody can argue with that. Your personal preference is your personal preference. Once you make a statement saying Monopoly is "the best" game, now you are no longer talking about your personal preference. You are talking about an objective measure of quality, or at least a semi-objective measure of subjective criteria.
I may not like looking at the Mona Lisa. In fact, it's not really all that exciting. It is not my favorite painting by far. Yet, it is the best painting, comparable only perhaps to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The same goes for Citizen Kane being the greatest movie, even if you think it's boring. It is subjective? Sure, but it's subjective according to well accepted criteria, some of which are quantifiable.
This is how art teachers give grades to their students. What if an art teacher really liked stick figures? Would it be OK to give the stick figure drawers As and Fs to the students who actually had skills? No, of course not. You have to learn to evaluate a work of art academically, and ignore your personal preference. I know Initial D is a shitty anime, even though I like it a lot. That's because I can critique the work according to criteria while ignoring my personal feelings about it.
What's worse for you, in this argument, is that board games are highly quantifiable. Every board game boils down to math. That gives us a very large amount of objective criteria upon which we can judge the quality of a game. Whether you believe it or not, Monopoly is mathematically an entirely random game, unless some of the players frequently make very poor decisions, like never buying any properties at all. It's a mathematical fact, and your beliefs won't change it.
You can like Monopoly all you want. You can say things like "I like Monopoly" or "I love playing Monopoly" and nobody will argue with you. But when you say "Monopoly is the best game" or "Monopoly is a great game", we're going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. Choose your words very carefully. If you screw up your semantics when you make a controversial statement on the Internets, you will regret it.
I underlined Apreche's argument
First of all, what I stated in my previous posts is simple and undeniable. This is the exact quote
"I still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
Now read it again 5 times, since I think some people just aren't thinking. My opinion is that it is one of the best board games ever. Apreche, according to your argument, I am not permitted to use the word best, since it implies that everything else is horrible. Where in my posts did I ever claim that my opinion is fact or completely objective. The point of this forum is to voice and share opinions. And now I am being criticized for the way in which I presented mine. There is nothing wrong with me thinking that Monopoly is one of the best games. That is my opinion. My opinion is that it is one of the best games. I am not saying that the 100% factual and objective truth is that monopoly is the best game ever. I do not know if you are misinterpreting my argument or you just don't get it.
Now this has become a discussion about objectivity, instead of Monopoly. So your argument about the game being quantifiable is something else. I stated that I know the game is based on chance. However, I also stated that the game has a strategic aspect, however small it may be.
Again, I strenuously emphasize the fact that I stated that I BELIEVE that Monopoly is one of the best games ever. I never implied nor directly declared complete objectivity in my posts.
I do not know why I am being blatantly misquoted here, especially since my posts are very recent. So I ask you.
Don't misquote me on arguments that have not even been on this forum for even an hour. It insults my intelligence. This is true not just on the Internet, but in everyday life.
OK, to simplify things, let's all argue with flowcharts now. Languages suck at transferring information which is why humans need to gain psychic powers.
How about you guys argue less about objectivity and the nuances of the english language and more about why Monopoly sucks/rocks/pees on ants? Whatever Gordotheman wrote, what he intended to say is that he personally believes that it gives him much more entertainment and value than other board games, and I think we can all agree on that.
First of all, what I stated in my previous posts is simple and undeniable. This is the exact quote
"I still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
Now read it again 5 times, since I think some people just aren't thinking. My opinion is that it is one of the best board games ever. Apreche, according to your argument, I am not permitted to use the word best, since it implies that everything else is horrible. Where in my posts did I ever claim that my opinion is fact or completely objective. The point of this forum is to voice and share opinions. And now I am being criticized for the way in which I presented mine. There is nothing wrong with me thinking that Monopoly is one of the best games. That is my opinion. My opinion is that it is one of the best games. I am not saying that the 100% factual and objective truth is that monopoly is the best game ever. I do not know if you are misinterpreting my argument or you just don't get it.
Now this has become a discussion about objectivity, instead of Monopoly. So your argument about the game being quantifiable is something else. I stated that I know the game is based on chance. However, I also stated that the game has a strategic aspect, however small it may be.
Again, I strenuously emphasize the fact that I stated that I BELIEVE that Monopoly is one of the best games ever. I never implied nor directly declared complete objectivity in my posts.
Okay. So define what you mean by "best". Then we can all have an objective discussion.
If you would rather that people don't dispute or discuss your opinions, don't offer your opinions.
First of all, what I stated in my previous posts is simple and undeniable. This is the exact quote
"I still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
Now read it again 5 times, since I think some people just aren't thinking. My opinion is that it is one of the best board games ever. Apreche, according to your argument, I am not permitted to use the word best, since it implies that everything else is horrible. Where in my posts did I ever claim that my opinion is fact or completely objective. The point of this forum is to voice and share opinions. And now I am being criticized for the way in which I presented mine. There is nothing wrong with me thinking that Monopoly is one of the best games. That is my opinion. My opinion is that it is one of the best games. I am not saying that the 100% factual and objective truth is that monopoly is the best game ever. I do not know if you are misinterpreting my argument or you just don't get it.
Now this has become a discussion about objectivity, instead of Monopoly. So your argument about the game being quantifiable is something else. I stated that I know the game is based on chance. However, I also stated that the game has a strategic aspect, however small it may be.
Again, I strenuously emphasize the fact that I stated that I BELIEVE that Monopoly is one of the best games ever. I never implied nor directly declared complete objectivity in my posts.
Okay. So define what you mean by "best". Then we can all have an objective discussion.
If you would rather that people don't dispute or discuss your opinions, don't offer your opinions.
Its not what I mean by best, its the fact that people seem to think that "I believe" means an objective opinion. Best is simply the adjective I place. I think monopoly is one of the best. Translated: In my opinion, Monopoly is one of the best board games out there. By Best I mean That I believe it is one of the more enjoyable games. I dont know how else to put it. It has nothing to do with how I define best. That is completely beside the point.
If you would rather that people don't dispute or discuss your opinions, don't offer your opinions.
I don't think he minds other people discussing his opinions. But he'd rather not have other people discuss how he presents the opinions.
Exactly, I don't mind people discussing my opinions. But the problem here is that people are accusing me of stating that "Monopoly is the best game" as if it were a fact. This is a misquote and an insult.
For now, it will suffice to say that there is a great difference between good games and games that one likes. I am, however, too tired at the moment to continue this argument.
Comments
I also like stratego. Its a basic game but it really is fun and it combines simplicity and strategy very well. German board games are fun, but I still think the mainstream ones are pretty fun.
My top picks:
1:Monopoly
2: Risk
3: Stratego
They have talked about Monopoly on the show at least twice.
Most people, furthermore, make the game even more random with silly house rules, and few I have ever seen actually followed the rules as written in the book.
Monopoly is a terrible, almost entirely luck-driven game. It's a good exercise for young children in learning math, simple accounting, probability, and bidding, but is pointless among even moderately skilled players.
I see your point. However, the game is not solely based on luck. Yes, luck is a huge factor. Especially since the game involves dice. But it does have its strategic sides. Luck may decide where you land, but what properties you decide to buy or not to buy really affects the game.
I am aware that its a mainstream and simple game. I just voiced my opinion on how I still enjoy it. Sometimes the simple games are the most fun. And its all about he fun in the end...
yes, I BELIEVE, as in my opinion, that it is one of the best board games ever. And by the way, no one is 100% objective, so how can you say that it is objectively bad? When that is your opinion. The problem with this is that there is no factual way of knowing whether it is bad or not. it is completely based on opinions, as are many things. So saying that it is objectively bad is an invalid argument. You can probably find people who agree with you I am sure of that. But the fact that Monopoly is mainstream means a large number of people like the game. So it is affected by that factor. Now, I will leave it at that before it turns into a debate over Philosophy and theory of knowledge.
Anastius,
I want you to point out in this quote where I said it was objectively good. And the fact that I highlighted believe was because it emphasized that fact that I was voicing MY opinion. Your argument does not make sense.
You can like Monopoly. It can be your favorite game. Nobody can argue with that. Your personal preference is your personal preference. Once you make a statement saying Monopoly is "the best" game, now you are no longer talking about your personal preference. You are talking about an objective measure of quality, or at least a semi-objective measure of subjective criteria.
I may not like looking at the Mona Lisa. In fact, it's not really all that exciting. It is not my favorite painting by far. Yet, it is the best painting, comparable only perhaps to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The same goes for Citizen Kane being the greatest movie, even if you think it's boring. It is subjective? Sure, but it's subjective according to well accepted criteria, some of which are quantifiable.
This is how art teachers give grades to their students. What if an art teacher really liked stick figures? Would it be OK to give the stick figure drawers As and Fs to the students who actually had skills? No, of course not. You have to learn to evaluate a work of art academically, and ignore your personal preference. I know Initial D is a shitty anime, even though I like it a lot. That's because I can critique the work according to criteria while ignoring my personal feelings about it.
What's worse for you, in this argument, is that board games are highly quantifiable. Every board game boils down to math. That gives us a very large amount of objective criteria upon which we can judge the quality of a game. Whether you believe it or not, Monopoly is mathematically an entirely random game, unless some of the players frequently make very poor decisions, like never buying any properties at all. It's a mathemtical fact, and your beliefs won't change it.
You can like Monopoly all you want. You can say things like "I like Monopoly" or "I love playing Monopoly" and nobody will argue with you. But when you say "Monopoly is the best game" or "Monopoly is a great game", we're going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. Choose your words very carefully. If you screw up your semantics when you make a controversial statement on teh Internets, you will regret it.
I underlined Apreche's argument
First of all, what I stated in my previous posts is simple and undeniable. This is the exact quote
"I still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
Now read it again 5 times, since I think some people just aren't thinking. My opinion is that it is one of the best board games ever. Apreche, according to your argument, I am not permitted to use the word best, since it implies that everything else is horrible. Where in my posts did I ever claim that my opinion is fact or completely objective. The point of this forum is to voice and share opinions. And now I am being criticized for the way in which I presented mine. There is nothing wrong with me thinking that Monopoly is one of the best games. That is my opinion. My opinion is that it is one of the best games. I am not saying that the 100% factual and objective truth is that monopoly is the best game ever. I do not know if you are misinterpreting my argument or you just don't get it.
Now this has become a discussion about objectivity, instead of Monopoly. So your argument about the game being quantifiable is something else. I stated that I know the game is based on chance. However, I also stated that the game has a strategic aspect, however small it may be.
Again, I strenuously emphasize the fact that I stated that I BELIEVE that Monopoly is one of the best games ever. I never implied nor directly declared complete objectivity in my posts.
I do not know why I am being blatantly misquoted here, especially since my posts are very recent. So I ask you.
Don't misquote me on arguments that have not even been on this forum for even an hour. It insults my intelligence. This is true not just on the Internet, but in everyday life.
If you would rather that people don't dispute or discuss your opinions, don't offer your opinions.