(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/16/business/16MONOPOLY/16MONOPOLY-articleLarge.jpg)
Quote from: New York TimesYou can still collect $200 when you pass “Go,” but not in piles of play money.
In the new version of Monopoly, the game’s classic pastel-colored bills and the designated Banker have been banished, along with other old-fashioned elements, in favor of a computer that runs the game. (...)
Read the article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/business/16monopoly.html?_r=1)
More misguided crap from dumbshit businessmen who think that integrating the popular socialization tools of younger generations with older mediums is going to somehow "save" them.
No, sorry, video-games are in. Putting a computer on top of a Monopoly board is not going to make it sell any better.
Take a card from the "Win or Lose" pile (you can of course purchase booster packs of randomized cards to increase your odds).
If the card says "Win", you win.
If the card says "Lose", you lose.
The next edition of the game will of course simplify this with a computer that will read the card aloud for you, in case you are illiterate. Studies have indeed shown that players of the "Win or Lose" card game don't actually want to read.
I think there is a bit more appeal for people who don't own the game. For example: my wife and I just bought our own house and don't personally own the game ourselves.
From the video demo, looks about as fun as a root canal.
Quote from: Benoist;440756Take a card from the "Win or Lose" pile (you can of course purchase booster packs of randomized cards to increase your odds).
If the card says "Win", you win.
If the card says "Lose", you lose.
The next edition of the game will of course simplify this with a computer that will read the card aloud for you, in case you are illiterate. Studies have indeed shown that players of the "Win or Lose" card game don't actually want to read.
It's not even about dumbing it down. I enjoy simple card games and things, too. Checkers is pretty routine.
I just don't get the appeal of taking out the very things that differentiate the experience from other types of games. The tactile nature of board/card/dice games is one of the draws. Shuffling a deck of cards, sorting through paper money in Monopoly...it adds to the experience. Hell, I'm not that big on miniatures with RPGs, but I can understand why people love them. It's all part of the experience.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;440758From the video demo, looks about as fun as a root canal.
I never much enjoyed the game to begin with... but at least it had cool little toy bits.
Quote from: Peregrin;440761The tactile nature of board/card/dice games is one of the draws. Shuffling a deck of cards, sorting through paper money in Monopoly...it adds to the experience. Hell, I'm not that big on miniatures with RPGs, but I can understand why people love them. It's all part of the experience.
Oh I completely agree! Do you guys remember what made the game cool the first time you played it as kids? Maybe the dice, maybe the little toy icons, the car, the shoe etc. But dude! Paper money! That was awesome!
And they want to get rid of it. IDIOTS!
Does it come with fake investment ponzi schemes and taxpayer subsidized bank bailouts? That would really modernize it!
What would amusing is a square representing "Enron".
Wow, it's Dark Tower.
Monopoly is what - 30 years late to the party?
They replaced the cash with a credit card reader and cards a few years ago now so this is just the natural conclusion of that direction really, also has anyone seen what they've done to Risk recently? now thats a game theyve ruined completly with there "make the game run faster and fairer" mindset.
This mindset is pure bullshit and it needs to die.
Quote from: Benoist;440785This mindset is pure bullshit and it needs to die.
But surely if we take the easy route of mixing the elements of a more popular medium with a less popular one, everything will work out great!
It's not like we should actually stress the unique strengths of a medium, I mean that's just dumb. We need to dilute elements of two completely different types of games and slop them together in the hopes that it creates a satisfying experience. So rather than having a full-on video game experience, or a full-on tactile board-game experience, you get a primitive computer with some crappy IR sensors and a half-boardgame that nearly plays itself.
The kids will
love it. They'll definitely drop their Xbox controllers and go back to board-games now!
But of course! Totally! Why? Are you dumb? This is a brilliant idea! :D
(http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cigar_brilliant.jpg)
Once US currency became worth approximately the same amount as Monopoly money, it was no longer cost effective to put it in the game, you see.
Quote from: Benoist;440788But of course! Totally! Why? Are you dumb? This is a brilliant idea! :D
Well, I am both dumb and brilliant, but that's besides the point.
My business sense tells me that:
Where X, Y = sales of a given type of product
If X > Y, then Y + X > Y
Therefore:
Combining classic board-games with half-ass digital devices will lead to more sales.
QED
Other factors and points of consideration are just noise that don't need to be taken into account. My business degree didn't think they were important. Or maybe I'm just forgetting, since in all likelihood I either scraped by with the bare-minimum GPA to stay in business school. Or I graduated over 20 years ago and am horribly out of touch. But I doubt it. It's not like I was promoted to my own level of incompetence or anything.
The Monopoly game looks like it would be as much fun as pulling teeth.
But I have to confess that that new Battleship looks pretty entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGBaHcrdzRk&feature=player_embedded
Not $50 worth of entertaining. But entertaining.
I didn't get where the fun of the original game was supposed to be, anyway.
I never liked the game anyway. But there have been a hundred versions of Monopoly, this is just one more. I doubt that they'll totally to away with the original.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
I am at a loss for words. Really.
:eek: is as articulate as I can get on the subject.
I love me some Monopoly.
Mini-rant. My friends never want to play and bust my balls about how "long" it takes. And then they break out Settlers of Motherfucking Catan (a.k.a. Sid Meier's Civilization: the Boardgame). :rolleyes:
The video
plusQuote from: From the article"There is a recognition that people's attention spans maybe aren't as big as they used to be, or they don't have the time to dedicate to this activity," said Sean McGowan, a toy analyst with Needham & Company.
equalsI don't know if this a hoax from TheOnion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYQhvW-tjNM) or Hasbro is actually this dumb.
Fuuuck I hate that stupid "They're busy Americans so they don't have time for this shit" attitude. People. Learn. To. Make. Time. Christ.
Scheduling RPGs may be hard because it requires a certain amount of prep, but you don't need to do that shit with Monopoly.
Not to mention, people spend hours playing shit like Call of Duty online, or grinding away in Pokemon. Their attention isn't gone, it's just been turned elsewhere.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;440768Does it come with fake investment ponzi schemes and taxpayer subsidized bank bailouts? That would really modernize it!
Quote from: ggroyWhat would amusing is a square representing "Enron".
I want that game! You could play it with paper money starting at $100 mn denominations, and if you landed on the SEC square, you would have to pay $ 100 mn and lose a turn. :D
Except, much like Monopoly, people would probably take the idea at face value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game) and it would eventually become a massively successful household brand.
Quote from: Melan;440854Except, much like Monopoly, people would probably take the idea at face value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game) and it would eventually become a massively successful household brand.
Dude, using a board-game to teach some sort of societal lesson? Total Swine that Magie was.
Quote from: avidreader514;440774Wow, it's Dark Tower.
Mmm - Dark Tower. I played the fuck out of that game. Still would, if I had it.
Quote from: Imperator;440838I didn't get where the fun of the original game was supposed to be, anyway.
Quote from: The Butcher;440843Mini-rant. My friends never want to play and bust my balls about how "long" it takes. And then they break out Settlers of Motherfucking Catan (a.k.a. Sid Meier's Civilization: the Boardgame). :rolleyes:
Why you hate Monopoly. (http://scibbe.com/index.php/2009/03/12/you-hate-monopoly-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/) (appreciate the irony of the link applied to different contexts)
Wonder how many people used the "Free Parking Jackpot" houserule, which stretched the game on for hours and hours.
Quote from: Peregrin;440858Dude, using a board-game to teach some sort of societal lesson? Total Swine that Magie was.
AH! So that's what criteria for the Swine look like! ;)
Quote from: Peregrin;440858Dude, using a board-game to teach some sort of societal lesson? Total Swine that Magie was.
That would be as bad as taking a game that demonstrates that landowners inevitably wind up with all the wealth to promote property tax as the only fair tax and turning it into a family favorite without paying the original designer.
Monopoly is much improved and shorter with the actual rules - it brings it up from mind numbingly terrible to mediocre.
You gotta understand how few people are really into reading rules anymore.
Some friends of mine, adults (25-44), were playing a game of Monopoly, first time they had in ages, had been for days, and, since they knew I was a 'gamer', they asked me what might be going wrong. I came over and looked over the board and it didn't make any sense, and everyone had piles of money, because they'd all circled the board so many times.
Turns out they were doing a total mishmash of rules. I can't remember all the nonsensical stuff they were doing but there was plenty. "You can only build on a property if you land on it" was probably the main slowdown, along with the idea that 'trading' was gauche in some way, and many properties were unpurchased because they didn't think much of many of the properties (wouldn't even bid under the mortgage value, even).
I tried to straighten things out a little by pointing at the rulebook...not sure I did much good.
I actually really like Monopoly. But then, I think root canals aren't all that bad either. I agree that taking away the paper money removes a wonderful tactile element of the game.
Quote from: Benoist;440785This mindset is pure bullshit and it needs to die.
You're the sort of guy who would have protested against the opening double-step for pawns in chess aren't you, and argued for the addition of dice? ;)
Quote from: Peregrin;440853Fuuuck I hate that stupid "They're busy Americans so they don't have time for this shit" attitude. People. Learn. To. Make. Time. Christ.
...
Not to mention, people spend hours playing shit like Call of Duty online, or grinding away in Pokemon. Their attention isn't gone, it's just been turned elsewhere.
This has been a rant of mine for a while now...
People around me have this fetish for telling everyone how completely overwhelmed and 'busy' they are... but when I figure out how they're actually spending their time... they aren't fucking 'busy'... it's just a word that means, "don't ask me to do anything I don't want to do because I'd rather be on Facebook."
Quote from: Benoist;440866Why you hate Monopoly. (http://scibbe.com/index.php/2009/03/12/you-hate-monopoly-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/) (appreciate the irony of the link applied to different contexts)
Great read. Posted on facebook for all my pussy non-Monopoly-loving friends.
Quote from: Peregrin;440752More misguided crap from dumbshit businessmen who think that integrating the popular socialization tools of younger generations with older mediums is going to somehow "save" them.
No, sorry, video-games are in. Putting a computer on top of a Monopoly board is not going to make it sell any better.
I dunno, how shitty would Dark Tower have been without the computer centerpiece? :)
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;440768Does it come with fake investment ponzi schemes and taxpayer subsidized bank bailouts? That would really modernize it!
Your internets are in the mail.
Quote from: Benoist;440866Why you hate Monopoly. (http://scibbe.com/index.php/2009/03/12/you-hate-monopoly-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/) (appreciate the irony of the link applied to different contexts)
Nah... I already knew the stuff in that article... the 'real' rules are quicker... but even then I don't think it's a fun game. The best thing about it is the classic design... the toys... elements that a better game might make use of.
Quote from: Simlasa;441069This has been a rant of mine for a while now...
People around me have this fetish for telling everyone how completely overwhelmed and 'busy' they are... but when I figure out how they're actually spending their time... they aren't fucking 'busy'... it's just a word that means, "don't ask me to do anything I don't want to do because I'd rather be on Facebook."
In practice, this has been my experience too.
Computer-aided boardgames were the rage in the 80s. I see no reason that they shouldn't add comps to modern board games if it enhances the game or speeds up the play.
Quote from: Spinachcat;441124Computer-aided boardgames were the rage in the 80s. I see no reason that they shouldn't add comps to modern board games if it enhances the game or speeds up the play.
>in the 80s
>80s fad
I (totally) found the problem here.
(Forseriously, though) It's fine if it enhances gameplay. I don't see how the computer in this adds some new dynamic to the game. Other than playing the game for you. It's not a creative new take on board-games, it's just lazy toy/game design.
So what's wrong with lazy toy/game design? The fact of the matter is many people no longer can count well enough to handle money, as anyone who's tried to hire a cashier can tell you. Even taking 10% is major challenge for well over half the population (rather why people ignored that 10% rule for mortgages).
So, their choices are to either let Monopoly die, or try to repackage it in a way that keeps the license selling. Considering how little effort it took to put a computer in, the risk/reward isn't bad here.
Somehow my gut tells me it's not going to help Monopoly sell any better than it already does.
When they make Steelers Monopoly with Myron Copes voice coming out of the computer tower, I'll buy it.
Quote from: danbuter;441170[strike]Steelers[/strike] Packers Monopoly
Fix'd.
So you're one of the 3 Packers fans in the world? Or are you on the current bandwagon? :p
Packers just made it because the Bears allowed them.
Quote from: danbuter;441204So you're one of the 3 Packers fans in the world? Or are you on the current bandwagon? :p
I don't watch football, really. I just like to be contrary.
Just for good measure, though. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqLhdInGrk)
Quote from: Peregrin;441162Somehow my gut tells me it's not going to help Monopoly sell any better than it already does.
Monopoly sells incredibly well. That's why you see all the variant boards. This will just be another variant...unless it really does add speed to the gameplay. If so, it may be a hit.
Best way to know is check ToysR'Us a year after it comes out. If its on the shelf, its a seller. If not, its a dud.
And the craze of 'the digital initiative' continues...
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/618890/the-future-of-boardgames-by-hasbro/page/1
I had to switch off the video after 30 seconds. Some of the comments are more entertaining, anyway.
The thing reminds me of what my ex said re: modern theatre. Contemporary stage directors no longer believe in their own medium, so they have to put large digital screens with weird moving background imagery onto the stage, to compete with the actors for the audience's attention.
The case at hand is a lot less intellectual. It's really some stupid exec's idea of "how can we lure the kids away from the screen? that's easy - we simply tell them ... it's more of the same!". That thought isn't stupid on its surface - far from it - but then you look at the implementation and you go 'wow, I guess he meant that literally'.
Once again, it is a losing strategy. For losers. :hatsoff:
Yet on the other hand this big multi-national corporation has come up with one of the most innovative board games I have seen for some time:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/105134/risk-legacy
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/691729/english-rules
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/690270/designer-notes
I recommend checking the links out - in many ways this is the closest a board game has ever come to a role-playing game.
It's a neat idea. But at the end of the day, take it or leave it, it's still Risk.
Draw backs are that the game isn't really resettable without modifying the game. It doesn't play well between different groups of people. You need to play 15+ games of it to really see the evolution of the game.
But still I do think it's a neat idea. I just think it could have been done better, probably at a higher price point. But then it would be a resettable game, playable between multiple groups of people and perhaps provide something a little stronger then risk.
Quote from: Glazer;478825Yet on the other hand this big multi-national corporation has come up with one of the most innovative board games I have seen for some time
Thanks for alerting me to the game. :) However, could you kindly help me contextualize this value statement ... e.g. how does it fare in comparison Android or Mansion of Madness, just to mention two recent mainstream designs that did attempt to offer a new experience.
Quote from: Glazer;478825Yet
I recommend checking the links out - in many ways this is the closest a board game has ever come to a role-playing game.
Again, I'd want to know which other games you've tried that would justify this statement. I could think of any multiplayer wargames with thick alliance subsystems that require diplomacy... Where does this game outshine the other efforts, where does it offer something else?
Just to prevent that my post is getting across the wrong way... I'm not dissecting your post to probe (or worse, undermine) its credentials, it's just that I'd appreciate a bit more contextualization to see how what your says figures in the larger scheme of things - i.e. compared to other things. I say that as someone who hasn't played this version of Risk (or any other, I hasten to add).
Quote from: Glazer;478825I recommend checking the links out - in many ways this is the closest a board game has ever come to a role-playing game.
Yeah, I don't see the RPG element here, except for maybe from a limited world-building perspective. Still intrigued by the game, though.
Quote from: kryyst;478828Draw backs are that the game isn't really resettable without modifying the game.
The mods wouldn't be terribly difficult to do, however.
For me, the innovation comes from the way that the game evolves through play, and the way that it is designed for ‘campaign play’. As Kryyst pointed out, this isn’t a normal board game; you can’t play in an ad-hoc fashion with different groups of people. It will require a committed group of players that meet together regularly for each session of the game. What’s more, it’s specifically designed to work in such an environment, and won’t work if used in a more traditional way (although you can play Android or Arkham or Battlestar Galactica week after week, they aren’t designed specifically to work that way).
It’s these element that make it seem like an RPG to me. Risk Legacy takes the social, long term ‘lets meet up every Friday to play the same game’ aspects of role-playing and straps them onto a board game. More importantly, it takes these important aspects of role-playing, and straps them onto an accessible mass-market game that lots of people will pick up, and many may even be tempted to play. It could be an ideal gateway game to the tabletop rpg hobby. “You've played Risk Legacy have you? Well D&D is a bit like that, except you play one person rather than run a whole country. A group of us meet every Friday to play the game…”
Quote from: Windjammer;478798I had to switch off the video after 30 seconds. Some of the comments are more entertaining, anyway.
I could endure nearly 2 minutes of this before I had to switch it off. I still wonder how I did it.
Quote from: Glazer;478862For me, the innovation comes from the way that the game evolves through play, and the way that it is designed for ‘campaign play’. As Kryyst pointed out, this isn’t a normal board game; you can’t play in an ad-hoc fashion with different groups of people. It will require a committed group of players that meet together regularly for each session of the game. What’s more, it’s specifically designed to work in such an environment, and won’t work if used in a more traditional way (although you can play Android or Arkham or Battlestar Galactica week after week, they aren’t designed specifically to work that way).
It’s these element that make it seem like an RPG to me. Risk Legacy takes the social, long term ‘lets meet up every Friday to play the same game’ aspects of role-playing and straps them onto a board game. More importantly, it takes these important aspects of role-playing, and straps them onto an accessible mass-market game that lots of people will pick up, and many may even be tempted to play. It could be an ideal gateway game to the tabletop rpg hobby. “You've played Risk Legacy have you? Well D&D is a bit like that, except you play one person rather than run a whole country. A group of us meet every Friday to play the game…”
If
that's the (primary) thing that makes it the "closest to RPG ever boardgame" then it faces some pretty stiff competition, actually. Europa Universalis and Empire in Arms to be specific. I haven't played either, though people at my wargaming club have. You'll find a review of EiA on BGG that references it as "the greatest RPG ever". (The drawback of the games is, however, that they take months to conclude.)
Even the more commercial two-player wargames like Memoir 44 or Tide of Iron (mostly, but not predominantly 2-player games) come with campaign modes these days. And then there's of course Descent 'Road to Legend' and the campaign rules for Warhammer Quest.
Once we take stock of all these (mostly) great titles, I can't see how plastering the idea of campaign length play onto the Risk base engine would rule them all, let alone how this could be so terrifically innovative.
I certainly agree with your closing point, however, as to how this could neatly feed into a marketing initiative for the nowadays somewhat neglected D&D enterprise. Whether Hasbro is that clever at cross-marketing its IPs... you make the call. ;)
Quote from: Windjammer;478966If that's the (primary) thing that makes it the "closest to RPG ever boardgame" then it faces some pretty stiff competition, actually. Europa Universalis and Empire in Arms to be specific.
You're spot on about EiA - it was what I thought of when I read about the game. As it happens I have played an EiA campaign. A group of us met about once every week or so for more than a year - it was a blast! And of the board games I've played, it was the closest in feel to an rpg campaign I've come across.
However, even EiA doesn't have have quite the same idea of the campaign being a one-off thing, and unique, and created (at least in part) by the players. By this I mean that, during play, you create your own unique game-board and world with its own little back story and history, and what's more, you create it as a artefact that you will keep. Much like we create our own game worlds when we play an rpg.
Check out my link to the rulebook, give it a read through, and I think you'll see what I mean.
My reaction to Hasbro's Decision (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5R_pS0h5Qk)
Quote from: Benoist;478864I could endure nearly 2 minutes of this before I had to switch it off. I still wonder how I did it.
I still have no idea what the woman was trying to say in the first thirty seconds.
"Live game interaction...strategy and everything...is...being involved...with this MVP...Motion Sensor Player"
:confused:
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly "Live Game Interaction" is, or how it differs from the Live Game Interaction I had last night while playing
Ra with some friends (really good board-game, btw), but I'm just going to guess it's marketing gobbly-gook. It'd be a lot more honest just to say "We slapped a talking computer on the game that the kids'll love but you'll hate because it'll suck up AA batteries like a pothead going through bags of Funions."
Agreed, Peregrin. It's just smoke and mirrors, new shiny bullshit.
Herpy Derp.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;440768Does it come with fake investment ponzi schemes and taxpayer subsidized bank bailouts? That would really modernize it!
It's already got the "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
JG
To really modernize it, we'd need an alien invasion plan to give everyone real wealth (an extra 10k for passing Go, I reckon):
http://mises.org/daily/5559/Keynes-and-Space-Aliens
Aliens are pretty passe. It's all about the undead, now.
I've never been a fan of Monopoly, but Battleship Galaxies (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/93538/battleship-galaxies-the-saturn-offensive-game-set) looks kinda sweet.