Oh god I actually played both of these for a bit and liked them. What is wrong with me D:
To be fair though, I quit ayakashi and other f2p grinding games, and I got bored of nanashi a long time ago. I think there's a sequel too.

I have to say that Risk and Monopoly are pretty bad. It's been said before, but it always warrants saying again. Both are incredibly drawn out and grindy. Though the cards alleviate it somewhat, the deciding factor in most Risk games is out of game politics. Monopoly has luck play too big a role. I'm pretty sure that Monopoly is the most cheated-at game of all time. Take care when nominating your banker.

Tic-tac-toe was fun when I was young and dumb, but now everybody knows how to tie any game and the only way to win is to go first and hope the other guy messes up. Still fun for tormenting kids though.

Osmos is an indie game with a relaxing atmosphere, loose controls and mind-breaking difficulty. Levels are semi-random too, so you may actually end up with an impossible level.

Hey, I love Monopoly . I spend at least three hours a game and about twenty hours a year playing it. And I make the most excellent banker. If you don't pay your bills on time, I will hound you mercilessly until you do. "Oh, I'm sorry you lost your house, but don't come crying to me, mom. Get your own box to live in. I've got six hotels and a beach house to take care of."

Monopoly has a bad rap because most people play it wrong.

One of the main rules of the game is that the player's get to bid on any property that someone lands on and chooses not to buy. This adds a huge element of skill to the game as well as the inherent luck, but...... a lot of people don't even know this rule exists. Even though it's directly in the main rules in every box.

Just goes to show how many people read the rules of monopoly right?

*clicks "go to first unread post"*
*reads about Risk and Monopoly*
*looks at post date* (January 15)
*goes to last page*
*still talking about Risk and Monopoly*

You took a Risk coming here ... cause they have a Monopoly on the conversation.

*gunshots are heard*

When I first opened Monopoly, the first thing I wanted to do was read the rules pamphlet. Everybody said that takes too long and just wanted to roll some dice. While I went over the rules, everyone else was playing what seemed like a unique game of Trouble on a Monopoly game board.


Monopoly will always be relevant.

You know what is actually the reason I never play Monopoly anymore? Even though I find the game fun?

I can't get people to follow the rules. And when I bring up some of them people don't believe me until I literally get the instructions and spend 15 minutes delaying the game to find the stupid rule that they won't believe me on. And then they don't care enough to remember so we have to do it all over next time. It's the game designed to turn your brain into dust from sheer ........ whatever you want to call it.

..... No wait. That's Simon.


BTW. Never touch a Simon machine. The world would be better off if we gathered up every one of those games and held the worlds largest bonfire.

I wonder what the Monopoly and Pathfinder of the video game industry is. I don't think that the AAA shooters are quite bad enough, but they're probably the only one that can fit.
Or LoL, maybe.

Edit: I guess, to a degree, that DnD fits better than PF in some ways, but more as a franchise.

Angry Birds?

World of Warcraft?

~SE++

I wouldn't fault anyone for playing those games though. I think they both achieve their intended purpose rather well.
Video games have probably reached too much of a common acceptance for there to be a suitable answer to the criteria scenario, which is:
"I play [board games]."
"Oh, you mean like [monopoly]?"

Of course, Pathfinder/3.5 is rather popular among those invested in the hobby, unlike Monopoly, so maybe it's more akin to Munchkin in that respect, and there is no suitable rpg one, because it's a more obscure hobby.

The LOL community is no worse than any other multiplayer community.

You're going to have to define that more clearly, because I don't believe I brought up any behavioral issues in the discussion, so it's sort of irrelevant.
It just needs to be mechanically unsound and be the game that is most strongly associated with video gaming by people who are primarily unfamiliar with the hobby. But as I said, most people know too many video games, so it doesn't really work too well unless you talk to your gramps or something like that.

I think Facebook games are approaching Munchkin tier though.

That was in response to someone multiple posts above.


I play a very large number of very popular video games on the internet. DOTP, YUGIOH, HEARTHSTONE, COD, CRYSIS, LOL, and...... more.

Not a single one has a worse community than any of the others. Every single one in fact has about the same community. You have a large portion that are.... "taking things too seriously"..... and you have a bunch of people who are actually pretty nice. And in each game it shifts towards the worse the higher up you get on the ladder. LOL just gets a bad rap because it gets more exposure.

The monopoly of video games is the monopoly video game.

This is true.

Farmville. That one seems to be well known by all.

~SE++

Monopoly was invented by a woman to show people how horrible capitalism is. It's supposed to be grindy and horrible. It's just that some other guy claimed it as his own invention and sold it to Parker Brothers to delight children.