By Best I mean That I believe it is one of the more enjoyable games.
However, most of us on these boards do not use the word "best" when it's a matter of truly personal opinion, or at least in cases where we recognize that something we enjoy immensely isn't really objectively "good."
For example, the new Star Trek movie is not necessarily "good" in terms of plot structuring and other filmmaking elements, but it is immensely enjoyable. It's not one of the "best" movies, but that doesn't mean you can't like it.
Monopoly is not a "good" game from a game theory perspective. It can, however, be enjoyable on other levels, and that's what you're saying. A better way to phrase that (instead of saying "I believe," because that's really a redundant phrase) is to say, "While Monopoly may have flaws in its game design, I find it enjoyable." Or, "I like Monopoly." It's cool. We might razz you for liking Monopoly, but it's not as flagrant as saying "MONOPOLY IS THE BEST!"
But I said I Believe it is the best. Why is it wrong for me to express my opinion that way. The word best does not have to be used in a objective statement. And saying I believe, means I am referring to my own opinion. How many times do I haven to remind everyone. I said this:
"I believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
I am allowed to say Monopoly is the best, I never stated this as fact. What is so hard to understand. The problem here seems to be with the fact that I like Monopoly. Not the way I said it.
The word best is not the problem. The word "is" is the problem. It's time for a lesson in the English language.
monopoly is the best
The subject of the sentence is Monopoly, the game. The predicate is the verb is. Monopoly is. In a sentence such as this, you aren't talking about your feelings. You are talking about the game, Monopoly, and applying properties to it. The subject of the sentence is a physical thing, which we can all discuss relatively objectively.
Adding the "I believe" to the beginning doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It simply states that it is in your mind that Monopoly has this property. I can say "I believe that grass is purple". That's not a statement of opinion. That's a statement that I am an idiot, and believe something which is clearly false.
If you want to state an opinion, you have to make yourself and your feelings the subject of the sentence. In the sentence "I like Monopoly" the subject of the sentence is no longer the game Monopoly, but is you, the person. I love Star Wars. The sentence doesn't say anything about the Star Wars movie itself. It only talks about my feelings towards it.
English language, subject predicate. Learn the shit.
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.
Good to see you've figured out the quoting system. And good on you for defining your use of the word "best". It's one of those words which, on the one hand, seems to have a definitive meaning but really could mean anything at all based on context (or personal opinion).
To get back to your opinion, I'm just wondering if you've had a chance to try any boardgames that are not readily available in the local WalMart or Target. I'm thinking of games like Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, or Ticket to Ride. If so, which ones and what was your opinion of them?
> Triple posting within 4 minutes, advice: Stop being stupid and use the edit button to condense your posts in one single entity. > Continuous disregard of quoting etiquette, advice: Stop being stupid and reread the Rules and Hints topic. You are doing it wrong if you hit Return after a quote. > Throwing a tantrum when he is told he is wrong, advice: Stop being stupid and read what you yourself wrote. > Telling people they lost an un-winnable argument, advice: Stop being stupid, you lost Captain™ Obvious™™™. > Calling quotations insults, advice: Stop being stupid, there's nothing to insult. > > Conclusion: You are acting stupid, stop acting stupid.|
> Triple posting within 4 minutes, advice: Stop being stupid and use the edit button to condense your posts in one single entity. > Continuous disregard of quoting etiquette, advice: Stop being stupid and reread the Rules and Hints topic. You are doing it wrong if you hit Return after a quote. > Throwing a tantrum when he is told he is wrong, advice: Stop being stupid and read what you yourself wrote. > Telling people they lost an un-winnable argument, advice: Stop being stupid, you lost Captain™ Obvious™™™. > Calling quotations insults, advice: Stop being stupid, there's nothing to insult. > > Conclusion: You are acting stupid, stop acting stupid.|
I am nice, I am giving advice.
My advice: Shut up
That has to be one of the most absurd and moronic posts I have seen on these forums. I use the quoting system to help people understand what I am referring to. I would also like to point out that this whole forum is listed under discussions. So how the hell is it a tantrum when I retort some else's arguments? And I call some of the quotes insults because they directly insult my intelligence, some of you seem to think I have forgotten what I have said. All of Apreche's posts are extremely patronizing, arrogant and condescending. So excuse me if you are sensitive to my arguments. Deal with it.
And to address Apreche's latest retort, and his expertise in the English language, I want to point it out again. I feel like I am teaching first graders here.
1) I said that I believe that monopoly is one of the best board games ever.
==> Notice I did not say it was the absolute best
2) By stating "I believe", that means that it is my belief. My opinion. My point of view. We are not discussing monopoly, we are discussing the fact that you guys think this means that I declare my statement above as fact. As a US citizen I am allowed to express my opinion. Even if its absurd or it disagrees with other people's opinions. This Monopoly statement is different than the purple grass statement. Since it is scientific fact grass is not purple. Whereas the characteristics and properties of the game Monopoly are totally subjective. It is not possible to say Monopoly sucks as a scientific fact. Because something that "sucks" as in its bad, is an opinion, not fact.
It is perfectly fine to state "I believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever". This is my opinion. I THINK it is one of the best board games, you may disagree, that is fine. But I am permitted to say it is one of the best, and that can be fact. For me it can be one of the best. So why is it so hard to comprehend? Is there something wrong with you guys?
Honestly, the "I believe" is important. For example, people say "I believe" in God. Others say they don't. Just because someone says I believe, does not make it fact.
And I would also recommend that we may continue this on skype, because sometimes I feel I can better explain this orally.
I believe that any game in which luck plays a significant role is in theory a bad game, though a game may still be fun if it is random. That being said, Puerto Rico is one of my favourite games, but very hard to get into. As a German I grew up with all these games and would advise to first try out Settlers of Catan, since it's a pretty quick and simple, yet fun game.
By stating "I believe", that means that it is my belief. My opinion. My point of view. We are not discussing monopoly, we are discussing the fact that you guys think this means that I declare my statement above as fact.
But the way you stated it is tantamount to me saying "I believe that 4+4=5." This may be my sincere belief, but it is one that is easily challenged.
As a US citizen I am allowed to express my opinion.
Yes. But, the converse of this freedom is that anyone is afforded equal freedom to challenge any assertion you make.
This Monopoly statement is different than the purple grass statement. Since it is scientific fact grass is not purple. Whereas the characteristics and properties of the game Monopoly are totally subjective.
While I mean to be polite, here is where you are wrong. If you had stated "Monopoly is one of my favorite games," then while people could disagree with your opinion, there is no real objective argument to be made. But, you stated something very different. You stated that it was one of the best. "I believe" does not change the statement into an entirely subjective assertion. Stating that it's "one of the best" categorically implies that it is better in some non-personal and general sense than the majority of games in existence.
The analysis of a game includes many factors. In terms of pure gameplay, all games are simply mathematical state machines of some kind. You put the game into a state, and your opponents put it into a different state. Mathematically, the skill of a player has very little to do with his frequency of winning in Monopoly. Of all the (few) options for decision-making that you have in a given game of monopoly, the vast majority are either obvious or arbitrary to even a moderately skilled player. As such, there is no true contest among skilled players, since in the face of universally sound decision-making, randomness becomes the only determiner of victory.
From other perspectives, Monopoly is also lacking. From a pure "fun" standpoint, games tend to start out interesting, but drag on into a very long and pointless endgame. The math of the game practically ensures this, and most people agree that the endgame of Monopoly is not fun. The nature of the games prevents much decision-making, and player-player interaction is trivially stifled by stonewalling. In every aspect, and from every perspective, Monopoly is generally agreed to be inferior.
You are welcome to like Monopoly. If you say that Monopoly is one if your favorite games, then no one can argue with this fact: it is true. They can present the reasoning for their own contrary opinions, and you can present yours. But, if you make a generic value judgement about the general quality of the game without providing any context or supporting logic, then you have opened debate with an unbacked assertion.
In general, simply stating your pure opinion on something in this forum is discouraged, as it does not lead to any interesting discussion. "I like this, but not that" is not interesting in and of itself. "I think this is better than that." is even worse, since you're now making a value judgement as well. A better post is something like "I think this is better than that, because of these." Your statement that Monopoly is "best" in any way was unbacked, and many people hold to counterclaims. Notice how all of the counterclaims were backed up with some solid reasoning.
Never think that saying "I think" or "I believe" before making a statement somehow shields it from debate. Free discourse in the marketplace of ideas is the best and truest form of communication. Many people disagree with you, and have a great deal of reasoning as to why. Whenever this happens (to anyone), the best logical course is to either provide a similarly substantive body of reasoning to the contrary, or to consider why you opinion or belief is contested so. If you can't provide reasoning to counter, then there's a good chance that there is something wrong with your assertion.
As a side note, I LOST COUNT is often very, very annoying: don't let it get to you.
That has to be one of the most absurd and moronic posts I have seen on these forums.
Your reaction is better.
I use the quoting system to help people understand what I am referring to.
Quoting entire multi-paragraph posts isn't the best way to do that. Also, that's not what I was referring to, as I said, read the Rules and Hints topic.
I would also like to point out that this whole forum is listed under discussions. So how the hell is it a tantrum when I retort some else's arguments?
Your failing your comprehension rolls dude.
And I call some of the quotes insults because they directly insult my intelligence, some of you seem to think I have forgotten what I have said. All of Apreche's posts are extremely patronizing, arrogant and condescending.
It's Scott, if you're stupid, he'll point it out and act patronizing. Don't worry, he's not the only one.
So excuse me if you are sensitive to my arguments.
I'm not sensitive to your arguments, just the utter stupidity you attempt to bring them with.
Deal with it.
I did, though can you keep still for one more moment? The timer almost runs out and then I'll have my picture with a moron.
I live in Overijse, Belgium.
Oh, dat verklaart. Belgen hebben een zware intelligentie penalty. Mijn excuses.</Babelfish>
EDIT:
As a side note, I LOST COUNT is often very, very annoying: don't let it get to you.
Posting 6 seconds before me. I'm just holding up a mirror.
your arguments are very well based and mostly true. But we disagree on a fundamental aspect of this debate.
"I Believe that Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
Ok, your example was 4+4=5, that is a mathematical fact. Indisputable unless you are totally irrational. Now Monopoly is not mathematically boring. Monopoly is a board game for entertainment, it is an item designed to entertain, create enjoyment and kill time. And we all judge its value, differently. So this is not a good analogy.
According to your logic, I am not allowed to call anything the best. Calling something the best is a point of view. I think Arby's is the best Fast-Food place for example. For me it is. I am not implying or stating that it is the best to everyone. I never said everyone should like monopoly. It is perfectly acceptable in both logic and English terms to call something the best. And If you think I imply that it is better than other board games by saying this, thats true, I do. But this only applies to me.
Because any argument about Monopoly IS Subjective. Some people enjoy the game, others don't. Games are either enjoyable or not. Those are two different views. There is no scientific methodology to monopoly's playability.
There are certain qualities that make a good board game. See this article. Monopoly doesn't meet any of these criteria, except for maybe "Immediate, useful rewards."
[opinion]Monopoly is a bad, stupid, boring game. I don't understand why anyone would play it voluntarily. Its only value is social, and if that's what you're going for, you might as well play Apples to Apples.[/opinion]
There are certain qualities that make agoodboard game. Seethis article. Monopoly doesn't meet any of these criteria, except for maybe "Immediate, useful rewards."
Monopoly is a bad, stupid, boring game. I don't understand why anyone would play it voluntarily. Its only value is social, and if that's what you're going for, you might as well play Apples to Apples.
Check your source, Your article refers to Computer and/or console games. That article might slightly relate to this but not by much. Do board games really need storylines?
Your assessment of monopoly based on this criteria is invalid.
Check your source, Your article refers to Computer and/or console games. That article might slightly relate to this but not by much. Do board games really need storylines?
Your assessment of monopoly based on this criteria is invalid.
Games are games are games. The same basic theories underlie all games, be they sport, board, or video. Good board games do in fact have good stories or themes. Even abstract, seemingly themeless games, like Jenga or Checkers still have an aesthetic theme which is a very important part of the game itself.
I would have to disagree. I agree there are several similarities between board games and video games. However,there are fundamental differences. Stories are different than themes. Checkers does not have a story, no plot line, no characters or twists. No nothing, its a simple game of strategy. Now compare that with Age of Empires 3 for example. AoE 3 is Historical fiction (in terms of story) and has characters. First Person Shooters and RTS are very different games than Monopoly.
Now there are similarities between games like Settlers and RTS. But they are very different. TO name a few different things. Format, stories/themes, rules, level design, etc.
I agree that games are games and there are some fundamental similarities. But If we compare CoD4 to Monopoly, are you telling me the basics are the same? It would have to be very abstract.
And trogdor, that article is simply another opinion. It is not a set of criteria or something else mathematical/scientific.
I think the main thing that needs to be clarified is why you (everyone but Gordo) thinks that "best" is not, in itself, a subjective thing. I myself am curious what the rationale is there. It seems to me that ideas like "best" and "worst" are feelings and can therefore not be compared to things like the color of grass, which does not change depending on the person. Intelligent people tend to appreciate things like craftsmanship, creativity and innovation, but why are those things objectively good? What is the nature of objective quality?
My principle problem with Monopoly is that it is shallower than a puddle. There is almost no depth or strategy to that game. In fact, I played it the other day with friends, figuring that after buying Settlers I might as well give an American board game a second chance. It was like being kicked in the balls, it was so boring. Roll your dice, move your mice, buy property, extra movements/plays of cards/piece placement, lather, rinse, repeat. You could write a script to generate optimum Monopoly moves for you, keeps track of your money, and use a random number generator and a motorized piece to make all your rolls and moves for you, and it would be the SAME GAME. There is no need for a human element, as the game is entirely formulaic. Whoo, Go, gimme $200.
Take two videos of a computer-only Monopoly game, and one with all human players. I guarantee you, you will not notice a significant difference. At least in a game like Settlers, arguably the weakest of the German board games, there are some strategic options and a human element varying from minor to major depending on who you're playing with. I've played Settlers at parties and had a blast with my friends, because we were shouting trash talk, arguing about trade rates, and screwing each other over with the robber and knights. I've never had more than a slight squabble in Monopoly, and even then, only about minor errors in its simplified form of accounting and "rent control."
So, I guess the challenge I offer is this: show me the same human factor in Monopoly as there is in an entry-level German board game like Settlers, and, more importantly, show me how it is fun.
There wasn't really anything I could add to that argument (being that Rym and Scott are pretty much juggernauts when it comes to subjective vs. objective) , so I put us back on the Monopoly course.
1. Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent: the best performer; the best grade of ore. 2. Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirable: the best solution; the best time for planting.
Favorite
adj.
Liked or preferred above all others; regarded with special favor.
Gordo, while I respect your right to pick a game as a favorite, you should really base your opinions on some kind of rational reasoning. After all the evidence presented here about the aspects of Monopoly do you STILL "believe that Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"?
So far your arguments have been semantics based (I put some relevant definitions above so we're not confused), and you've yet to sway anyone. How about showing how the best game mechanic is luck? How about demonstrating that the most enjoyable decisions to make while playing a game are those that are trivial to the outcome of the game? How about showing that the most satisfying ending to a game is one that takes a long time to get to, makes players leave the game before it is over, and determined by who first landed, by luck, on the final square of the board?
Come on... defend your choice! If not, admit that your original assertion may be incorrect.
I was not arguing about monopoly being a good or bad game. The discussion was about subjectivity, not quality of game. So my arguments would seem strange.
I was not arguing about monopoly being a good or bad game.
Then don't say "best." Say favorite. You clearly misunderstand what the word "best" means.
Furthermore, even if you say favorite, do you really not have any personal reasoning for such a statement? Why don't you just defend the game you clearly claim to love?
I'm afraid you missed the point.
You made an assertion. Regardless of what you intended to convey, what you actually did convey was deeply contested. Since everyone read it this way, you clearly failed to articulate what you intended. Your ensuing semantic dodging did not help matters.
Finally, how can you have an opinion without some reasoning behind it? Why can't you defend the game? Anyone who has an opinion on something had better have some rationale behind said opinion, or else said opinion has little value.
I understand disagreement with my word choice. But I find it ridiculous that I am not allowed to say that I believe that something is the best. To be honest, I think this whole argument is continuing because people just don't like monopoly. To me it seems that a board game has to be rare, foreign and extremely special for it to be accepted my this community. I apologize for asserting my opinion, which some people still don't get.
Maybe Best was not the most accurate word. But there is certainly nothing wrong with using it as I did. Nothing in terms of Logic, Objectivity and English Grammar. My sentence was correct in every fashion. There were no implications. People contested what I s aid because they are so hostile about me liking this mainstream game. So this naturally triggers a shit-storm. Thats why people tried to pick apart my sentence and misquote me. My opinion was contested by other opinions, no facts.
I stand by my arguments. I feel like I repeat myself in every post. So if you still disagree then re-read my previous posts a few times.
But I find it ridiculous that I am not allowed to say that I believe that something is the best.
You can say it. However, many people disagree with you, and can also express their sentiments.
To be honest, I think this whole argument is continuing because people just don't like monopoly.
That is exactly why this is happening. You said it was the best, and almost everyone disagrees with your assessment.
Nothing in terms of Logic, Objectivity and English Grammar. My sentence was correct in every fashion. There were no implications.
The implication was that it was the best. You made a claim: you claimed that it was one of the best. You did not back this claim, and several people provided backed counterclaims.
People contested what I s aid because they are so hostile about me liking this mainstream game.
Mainstream or not has nothing to do with it. It's a bad game by almost any metric. If you feel otherwise, please defend the game.
I stand by my arguments.
You didn't make any arguments. You hid behind semantics.
I feel like I repeat myself in every post.
You don't say anything new.
So if you still disagree then re-read my previous posts a few times.
I did, and you made no articulate argument. If you want to discuss whether or not Monopoly is a GOOD game, you've said nothing at all about the subject. If you want to discuss whether or not you personally enjoy Monopoly, you poorly stated that opinion once, and then proceeded to repeat it.
So, which are we discussing? Whether you personally like Monopoly, or whether Monopoly is worth liking in general?
This is interesting Rym, we are both arguing the same point. I know my previous posts were not about Monopoly, nor did I intend to defend the game in any way. The discussion was shifted. So I proceeded to shift my argument.
My discussion was about objectivity and correct word use. And whether my opinion was a factual statement or an expression of my views. I would gladly shift this discussion back to Monopoly. But I just wanted to clear up why I have been arguing these points. It was never about Monopoly really...
Then you really need to express yourself more clearly.
Regardless, opinions are not sacred. As I said, stating your opinion in a vacuum is pointless. Opinions only have weight if you can support them with reason. Otherwise, why even have them?
If you like Monopoly, tell us why. If you can't tell us why, then consider why you actually do like it.
Comments
For example, the new Star Trek movie is not necessarily "good" in terms of plot structuring and other filmmaking elements, but it is immensely enjoyable. It's not one of the "best" movies, but that doesn't mean you can't like it.
Monopoly is not a "good" game from a game theory perspective. It can, however, be enjoyable on other levels, and that's what you're saying. A better way to phrase that (instead of saying "I believe," because that's really a redundant phrase) is to say, "While Monopoly may have flaws in its game design, I find it enjoyable." Or, "I like Monopoly." It's cool. We might razz you for liking Monopoly, but it's not as flagrant as saying "MONOPOLY IS THE BEST!"
"I believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
I am allowed to say Monopoly is the best, I never stated this as fact. What is so hard to understand. The problem here seems to be with the fact that I like Monopoly. Not the way I said it.
monopoly is the best
The subject of the sentence is Monopoly, the game. The predicate is the verb is. Monopoly is. In a sentence such as this, you aren't talking about your feelings. You are talking about the game, Monopoly, and applying properties to it. The subject of the sentence is a physical thing, which we can all discuss relatively objectively.
Adding the "I believe" to the beginning doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It simply states that it is in your mind that Monopoly has this property. I can say "I believe that grass is purple". That's not a statement of opinion. That's a statement that I am an idiot, and believe something which is clearly false.
If you want to state an opinion, you have to make yourself and your feelings the subject of the sentence. In the sentence "I like Monopoly" the subject of the sentence is no longer the game Monopoly, but is you, the person. I love Star Wars. The sentence doesn't say anything about the Star Wars movie itself. It only talks about my feelings towards it.
English language, subject predicate. Learn the shit.
To get back to your opinion, I'm just wondering if you've had a chance to try any boardgames that are not readily available in the local WalMart or Target. I'm thinking of games like Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, or Ticket to Ride. If so, which ones and what was your opinion of them?
> Continuous disregard of quoting etiquette, advice: Stop being stupid and reread the Rules and Hints topic. You are doing it wrong if you hit Return after a quote.
> Throwing a tantrum when he is told he is wrong, advice: Stop being stupid and read what you yourself wrote.
> Telling people they lost an un-winnable argument, advice: Stop being stupid, you lost Captain™ Obvious™™™.
> Calling quotations insults, advice: Stop being stupid, there's nothing to insult.
>
> Conclusion: You are acting stupid, stop acting stupid.|
I am nice, I am giving advice.
That has to be one of the most absurd and moronic posts I have seen on these forums. I use the quoting system to help people understand what I am referring to. I would also like to point out that this whole forum is listed under discussions. So how the hell is it a tantrum when I retort some else's arguments? And I call some of the quotes insults because they directly insult my intelligence, some of you seem to think I have forgotten what I have said. All of Apreche's posts are extremely patronizing, arrogant and condescending. So excuse me if you are sensitive to my arguments. Deal with it.
And to address Apreche's latest retort, and his expertise in the English language, I want to point it out again. I feel like I am teaching first graders here.
1) I said that I believe that monopoly is one of the best board games ever.
==> Notice I did not say it was the absolute best
2) By stating "I believe", that means that it is my belief. My opinion. My point of view. We are not discussing monopoly, we are discussing the fact that you guys think this means that I declare my statement above as fact. As a US citizen I am allowed to express my opinion. Even if its absurd or it disagrees with other people's opinions. This Monopoly statement is different than the purple grass statement. Since it is scientific fact grass is not purple. Whereas the characteristics and properties of the game Monopoly are totally subjective. It is not possible to say Monopoly sucks as a scientific fact. Because something that "sucks" as in its bad, is an opinion, not fact.
It is perfectly fine to state "I believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever". This is my opinion. I THINK it is one of the best board games, you may disagree, that is fine. But I am permitted to say it is one of the best, and that can be fact. For me it can be one of the best. So why is it so hard to comprehend? Is there something wrong with you guys?
Honestly, the "I believe" is important. For example, people say "I believe" in God. Others say they don't. Just because someone says I believe, does not make it fact.
And I would also recommend that we may continue this on skype, because sometimes I feel I can better explain this orally.
.
My skype name is gordotheman. I live in Overijse, Belgium
I believe that any game in which luck plays a significant role is in theory a bad game, though a game may still be fun if it is random. That being said, Puerto Rico is one of my favourite games, but very hard to get into. As a German I grew up with all these games and would advise to first try out Settlers of Catan, since it's a pretty quick and simple, yet fun game.
The analysis of a game includes many factors. In terms of pure gameplay, all games are simply mathematical state machines of some kind. You put the game into a state, and your opponents put it into a different state. Mathematically, the skill of a player has very little to do with his frequency of winning in Monopoly. Of all the (few) options for decision-making that you have in a given game of monopoly, the vast majority are either obvious or arbitrary to even a moderately skilled player. As such, there is no true contest among skilled players, since in the face of universally sound decision-making, randomness becomes the only determiner of victory.
From other perspectives, Monopoly is also lacking. From a pure "fun" standpoint, games tend to start out interesting, but drag on into a very long and pointless endgame. The math of the game practically ensures this, and most people agree that the endgame of Monopoly is not fun. The nature of the games prevents much decision-making, and player-player interaction is trivially stifled by stonewalling. In every aspect, and from every perspective, Monopoly is generally agreed to be inferior.
You are welcome to like Monopoly. If you say that Monopoly is one if your favorite games, then no one can argue with this fact: it is true. They can present the reasoning for their own contrary opinions, and you can present yours. But, if you make a generic value judgement about the general quality of the game without providing any context or supporting logic, then you have opened debate with an unbacked assertion.
In general, simply stating your pure opinion on something in this forum is discouraged, as it does not lead to any interesting discussion. "I like this, but not that" is not interesting in and of itself. "I think this is better than that." is even worse, since you're now making a value judgement as well. A better post is something like "I think this is better than that, because of these." Your statement that Monopoly is "best" in any way was unbacked, and many people hold to counterclaims. Notice how all of the counterclaims were backed up with some solid reasoning.
Never think that saying "I think" or "I believe" before making a statement somehow shields it from debate. Free discourse in the marketplace of ideas is the best and truest form of communication. Many people disagree with you, and have a great deal of reasoning as to why. Whenever this happens (to anyone), the best logical course is to either provide a similarly substantive body of reasoning to the contrary, or to consider why you opinion or belief is contested so. If you can't provide reasoning to counter, then there's a good chance that there is something wrong with your assertion.
As a side note, I LOST COUNT is often very, very annoying: don't let it get to you.
EDIT:Posting 6 seconds before me. I'm just holding up a mirror.
your arguments are very well based and mostly true. But we disagree on a fundamental aspect of this debate.
"I Believe that Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
Ok, your example was 4+4=5, that is a mathematical fact. Indisputable unless you are totally irrational. Now Monopoly is not mathematically boring. Monopoly is a board game for entertainment, it is an item designed to entertain, create enjoyment and kill time. And we all judge its value, differently. So this is not a good analogy.
According to your logic, I am not allowed to call anything the best. Calling something the best is a point of view. I think Arby's is the best Fast-Food place for example. For me it is. I am not implying or stating that it is the best to everyone. I never said everyone should like monopoly. It is perfectly acceptable in both logic and English terms to call something the best. And If you think I imply that it is better than other board games by saying this, thats true, I do. But this only applies to me.
Because any argument about Monopoly IS Subjective. Some people enjoy the game, others don't. Games are either enjoyable or not. Those are two different views. There is no scientific methodology to monopoly's playability.
[opinion]Monopoly is a bad, stupid, boring game. I don't understand why anyone would play it voluntarily. Its only value is social, and if that's what you're going for, you might as well play Apples to Apples.[/opinion]
Your assessment of monopoly based on this criteria is invalid.
Now there are similarities between games like Settlers and RTS. But they are very different. TO name a few different things. Format, stories/themes, rules, level design, etc.
I agree that games are games and there are some fundamental similarities. But If we compare CoD4 to Monopoly, are you telling me the basics are the same? It would have to be very abstract.
And trogdor, that article is simply another opinion. It is not a set of criteria or something else mathematical/scientific.
Take two videos of a computer-only Monopoly game, and one with all human players. I guarantee you, you will not notice a significant difference. At least in a game like Settlers, arguably the weakest of the German board games, there are some strategic options and a human element varying from minor to major depending on who you're playing with. I've played Settlers at parties and had a blast with my friends, because we were shouting trash talk, arguing about trade rates, and screwing each other over with the robber and knights. I've never had more than a slight squabble in Monopoly, and even then, only about minor errors in its simplified form of accounting and "rent control."
So, I guess the challenge I offer is this: show me the same human factor in Monopoly as there is in an entry-level German board game like Settlers, and, more importantly, show me how it is fun.
adj. Superlative of good.
1. Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent: the best performer; the best grade of ore.
2. Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirable: the best solution; the best time for planting.
Favorite
adj.
Liked or preferred above all others; regarded with special favor.
Gordo, while I respect your right to pick a game as a favorite, you should really base your opinions on some kind of rational reasoning. After all the evidence presented here about the aspects of Monopoly do you STILL "believe that Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"?
So far your arguments have been semantics based (I put some relevant definitions above so we're not confused), and you've yet to sway anyone. How about showing how the best game mechanic is luck? How about demonstrating that the most enjoyable decisions to make while playing a game are those that are trivial to the outcome of the game? How about showing that the most satisfying ending to a game is one that takes a long time to get to, makes players leave the game before it is over, and determined by who first landed, by luck, on the final square of the board?
Come on... defend your choice! If not, admit that your original assertion may be incorrect.
I'm afraid you missed the point.
Furthermore, even if you say favorite, do you really not have any personal reasoning for such a statement? Why don't you just defend the game you clearly claim to love? You made an assertion. Regardless of what you intended to convey, what you actually did convey was deeply contested. Since everyone read it this way, you clearly failed to articulate what you intended. Your ensuing semantic dodging did not help matters.
Finally, how can you have an opinion without some reasoning behind it? Why can't you defend the game? Anyone who has an opinion on something had better have some rationale behind said opinion, or else said opinion has little value.
Maybe Best was not the most accurate word. But there is certainly nothing wrong with using it as I did. Nothing in terms of Logic, Objectivity and English Grammar. My sentence was correct in every fashion. There were no implications. People contested what I s aid because they are so hostile about me liking this mainstream game. So this naturally triggers a shit-storm. Thats why people tried to pick apart my sentence and misquote me. My opinion was contested by other opinions, no facts.
I stand by my arguments. I feel like I repeat myself in every post. So if you still disagree then re-read my previous posts a few times.
So, which are we discussing? Whether you personally like Monopoly, or whether Monopoly is worth liking in general?
My discussion was about objectivity and correct word use. And whether my opinion was a factual statement or an expression of my views. I would gladly shift this discussion back to Monopoly. But I just wanted to clear up why I have been arguing these points. It was never about Monopoly really...
Regardless, opinions are not sacred. As I said, stating your opinion in a vacuum is pointless. Opinions only have weight if you can support them with reason. Otherwise, why even have them?
If you like Monopoly, tell us why. If you can't tell us why, then consider why you actually do like it.