this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1071 points (99.9% liked)

Comic Strips

12538 readers
3337 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 83 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (5 children)

Monopoly started out to show that capitalism is based on luck and opportunity, and that the end result is one person owning everything.

The whole process is miserable and even when you win you have to sit thru a prolonged ending where you slowly drain every last resource from you friends and family.

It's not a bad game, they just overestimated how well Americans can pick up irony.

Originally called "The Landlord's Game" Parker Brothers changed it to something less obviously terrible in the run up to the great depression.

I don't know if Far Side is really that deep but:

The only way to win is to not play

Is literally the point the game tries to beat over family's heads for hours at a time.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 34 points 4 weeks ago

In an ironic twist of complete capitalist predictability, the game we know today was also stolen from the original developer.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 17 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Far Side? Here I thought that was from War Games.

[–] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

It definitely is. As an avid fan of The Far Side, I can’t come up with any connection between it and that quote.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Originally called "The Landlord's Game" Parker Brothers changed it to something less obviously terrible in the run up to the great depression.

Goes to show you how indoctrinated and manipulated we all are when we think that the idea of a monopoly is more acceptable than a landlord.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 2 points 4 weeks ago

They clearly meant it's a worse name for a board game, not that it references a worse thing

[–] yogurtwrong@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

That's what I've been saying all the time when my brother says monopoly sucks when you don't win. It's literally designed to make you suffer

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sundray@lemmus.org 59 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Whenever anyone suggests playing Monopoly I always insist on following the rules as written. (Auctions, no money on Free Parking, building evenly across properties, when there's no more houses left in the bank no one can build houses, etc.) The game goes a little faster that way... because everyone eventually agrees to quit and play something else.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 points 4 weeks ago

If you play by the rules the game isn't that long, either whoever owns orange or who gets lucky at the beginning just wins the game.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 weeks ago

When I was a kid the family rule was that the game is only over once there's a "real" winner, meaning all the others gone bankrupt. Always great for the first loser and easy 3-4 hour games. I just liked playing the bank and sorting bills.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 39 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

Monopoly's precursor "The Landlord's Game" was invented by Lizzie Magie in the early 1900s to demonstrate why Capitalism needs Georgism to actually have any semblance of fairness, competition, and longevity.

Georgism is roughly the idea that ALL tax should come from land ownership, and that taxes on labour/wages should be abolished.

The game was created to be a "practical demonstration of the present system of land grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences". She based the game on the economic principles of Georgism, a system proposed by Henry George, with the object of demonstrating how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants. She knew that some people could find it hard to understand why this happened and what might be done about it, and she thought that if Georgist ideas were put into the concrete form of a game, they might be easier to demonstrate.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Personally I think the landlords would just increase the rent while saying their interests are literally the only ones that need protection from the state because they generate all the revenue but can't blame them for trying.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Generally speaking landlords charge as much in rent as the market will bear. If they could get away with charging more they would already be doing so.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 weeks ago

Counterintuitively, a LVT wouldn't distort prices because the supply of land is fixed.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 4 points 3 weeks ago

My first thought was that ending the taxes at land ownership was shortsighted - all capital should be taxed - but then I looked up Georgism on Wikipedia and saw that that was basically already in scope (mostly by “including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g., intellectual property)”).

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] IntheTreetop@lemm.ee 27 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

I will forever shout it from the rooftops. Monopoly is a 30 minute game, regardless of how many players you have. If you play by the actual rules, and none of the house rules you've made up for yourself, it's really quick and really fun. No families need to be shattered over the game. No friendships lost. Just play by the actual rules!

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 20 points 4 weeks ago

Have you tried to play literally any other board game?

[–] Dalvoron@lemm.ee 14 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Monopoly has one great rule (or lack of specificity), that it doesn't put any restricting on when you are able to trade (doesn't even say it has to be your turn!). This creates a great ten minutes or so when most of the properties are bought and people are making interesting deals with each other.

Everything else in the game is bad because there are very few interesting decisions to make. The dice tell you where you go and the space you land on tells you what to do. Strictly you "decide" whether or not to buy an available property if you land on it, but it's virtually always a good idea. In the rare auction case you can decide your bid. You can decide which order you mortgage off your properties if you are out of money. I think one of the chance/CC cards has a choice on it? Even buying houses is kind of dull since you have to build them evenly across the block.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

It's a critique of capitalism, there not being many choices and alway accruing capital that's limited in supply is the exact point of the game.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

This is it! Everyone I've ever met that hates monopoly doesn't play by the rules. They don't auction, they put all the money under free parking, and I've even had some people that increase the $100 when you pass go once all of the properties are bought. Of course you hate the game, you've been playing it wrong.

[–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd love to know where the free parking thing cane from. I distinctly remember not doing that as a kid but then suddenly I don't know why in my teens(I think) it appeared in a way like it was not doing it was incorrect.

Never heard of the pass go thing though.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

The Pass Go thing came from a friend of the family that came over for Christmas dinner one year. It went from $100 to $300 once all the properties were bought, and the reason was "so everyone can afford to land on hotel spaces." So, yeah, completely defeating the point of late stage of the game.

load more comments (2 replies)

Everyone I've ever met that hates monopoly doesn't play by the rules

Or they've tried any other modern boardgame released in the last couple decades

[–] Hazzard@lemm.ee 4 points 4 weeks ago

Exactly, play by the original rules, and play aggressive as all hell. You don't need almost any property, it's just fine to mortgage everything but your main set, the goal is to get one very developed set ASAP.

Not only is this a pretty effective way to win (a conservative player who lands once on a very developed property is basically out of the game), it also makes the game progress much faster, especially if other players are willing to concede before the bitter end. 2 or 3 players like this, and you've actually got a recipe for a decent time.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 12 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I actually enjoy monopoly. Its not anywhere close to my absolute favorite board game of those Ive played, mostly because I feel like it relies too much on rng and that this makes the strategy less useful, but its at least in like, the top 10 or so

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 weeks ago

Why? There's literally thousands of better games. Just pick any from the top thousand on BGG.

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I do too, even though I'm 1000% aware of the original message behind it. It's like a toxic relationship.

[–] painfulasterisk1@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 weeks ago

They should "update" the game rules to mimic the real life experience. 1 or 2 players begins the game either with 25% of the amount of money that the game brings (or with 1 set of average cost properties with either houses or hotels) and the rest of the players begin the game following the original rules.

They should call it Bezopoly or something like that.

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 4 points 4 weeks ago

Evolution, settlers of Catan, Machi Koro (okay, that ones more a card game, but it plays like it has a board almost) are top ones. Next two probably vary a bit on the situation, if I'm having to play with children, due to visiting family that has them, King of Tokyo is good. If they're aren't any children and there's a lot of time, I enjoy risk sometimes too.

I'm not a huge board game player though, so I've played, maybe 2 or 3 dozen different ones over time?

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 11 points 4 weeks ago

I feel like a lot of the major problems from the game, like the house rules or people not wanting to make trades, stems from the fact people not wanting to lose in Monopoly. A loss in Monopoly is a hard loss.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It works to the same principles like our economy.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's actually a bit better since you don't pay income tax every time and there's guaranteed income.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lugal@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Wasn't there a chess robot who broke the finger of a kid to win or something?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 4 weeks ago

Iirc the kid had their hand on a piece even though it was the robot's turn, so it was really just an anti-cheat feature if you think about it.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Hahaha ok now let's teach it Risk

load more comments (3 replies)

And now the robot is a revolutionary communist, great job guys.

[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah, monopolies are the worst... everywhere.

load more comments
view more: next ›