Matt -

Well thought out article.

I guess my take is dislike instead of hate. The game was obviously ahead of its time when it came on the scene, but that doesn’t mean as much to a child born today… just as that child is not likely to listen to Bach or watch a black and white movie (though I would rather do those things than play Monopoly). The difference in most of these scenarios is choice.

I think that if Monopoly wasn’t on shelves it would be replaced with more mass market fare as you said… but that might be 4 different games as there are 4 different versions of Monopoly on a shelf through licensing agreements. I also would play those other games over Monopoly fir various reasons.

Everything you listed and more combine to give the reason as to why the game is so disliked. Add in the fact that you failed to mention it is mostly an entire luckfest.

Monopoly wouldn’t be so bad if it TRULY modernized itself instead of throwing in gimmicks like credit cards. When any other game gets updated in the smaller markets, it responds to the reactions from those that play it. We all know that roll and move is outdated.... maybe I’m wrong, but every version of the game I have heard of still uses roll and move. Ditto for Trivial Pursuit and Sorry. Games I don’t want to play.

Then, you have to add the long running nostalgia and its wave effects. Grandma’s safe purchase. The one game that most everybody knows how to play… but its also the start of the game groans for parents and eventually kids.... “Not that again!”

Monopoly represents much of what is bad in licensing, strangleholds of the big corporations, and nostalgia. It’s not the worst game ever, but I hate what it says about society and the bad lessons it teaches with the good.

And as far as a RECENT wave of hatred for the game, I suggest you go back into your video archives to watch the episodes of THE YOUNG ONES. They nailed the opinion of many back in the early 80’s.

It’s well-known amongst the stats nerds on BGG that game rankings follow a curve - they ascend rapidly as the early adopters rush to get a copy, then descend slowly as the people who were never really interested get roped into playing and rate the game lower than the early adopters. Monopoly is at the very tail-end of that curve - EVERYBODY’s played it, even those people who really really didn’t want to.

Secondly, most people played this when they were kids, and it’s not particularly a kids’ game. I remember we didn’t use the auction rule because Mum knew we’d just spend all of our money trying to win the auction at all costs (I’ve educated my kids better). As for calculating 10% of wealth - get out the calculator for that one! To really appreciate Monopoly you probably need to be about 12. Younger than that you should be playing Hey! That’s My Fish! or Dominion or something easier. Now because you didn’t understand the rules, and neither did your little sister, there were undoubtedly arguments about fairness. I think almost all childhood games are tainted with some crappy memories. So I think Monopoly gets a bad rap from that as well.

Finally, BGG’s Bayesian averaging penalises Monopoly for being so popular. Just as Puerto Rico is assisted by having many rating pulling it away from the Bayesian average of 5.5 (or whatever), Monopoly is assisted in the opposite direction. Monopoly’s raw average (4.52, rank 4994) is below the Bayesian default, but the high number of ratings pulls it closer to its raw average. Many other bad games either don’t get enough ratings at all to get a ranking, or have so few votes their rating is pulled closer to the Bayesian default, e.g. Mid-Life Crisis (3.98, rank 4748).

Although Monopoly is not a great game, I think it is irrationally demonised by BGG, and unfairly treated by the ranking system. Comments from BGG admins suggest the ranking system is hard to change for political reasons (e.g. pissing off Age of Steam fans who see their game drop one ranking) despite the solid technical reasons to change it.

I think William is right - it is more what Monopoly represents that makes it a whipping boy.

“Plan 9 From Outer Space” is not the WORST movie of all time (it is a least watchable for 30 minutes or so!). But it has come to represent inept filmmaking for whatever reason. Monopoly for many, represents what is wrong with mainstream boardgames in America (and Australia, etc).

I get annoyed by Monopoly because for the average person it is basically the extent of their understanding of boardgaming. And this is sad, because (unlike in Europe) American corporations suffocated the gaming hobby and turned the 3 or 4 best designs of the first half of the century into mere product to be repackaged again and again. The game design profession was essentially destroyed. Monopoly sits on everyone’s shelf gathering dust and reminding hobby gamers of this sad fact.

Now I don’t think getting annoyed at this is elitism. The reason is that Hasbro has essentially cut off any choice for the consumer. We are not mad because the Monopoly player chooses Monopoly and we don’t like it (elitism), we are mad because the Monopoly player has no other choice but Monopoly! Unless there is an intervention from a nice German friend or perhaps Alan R. Moon happens to ask to use your telephone, there is almost no chance of the average person being able to make a truly informed decision about boardgames! (Of course this is no excuse to treat Monopoly players poorly).

Imagine if Hollywood stopped making movies in the 50s and then just kept re-releasing versions of Ben-Hur. Sure, Ben-Hur is a pretty good movie, but I think a bit of Ben-Hur bashing would be understandable 60 years down the track.

Phil, I take your point about Monopoly representing the worst of corporate laziness, but I don’t really buy the rest of the argument. As I said above, it’s not like Monopoly is the one and only mass-market game around. There are plenty of others: most people have passing familiarity with Risk, Scrabble, The Game of Life and so on. Many party games are similarly prevalent. A visit to any mainstream toy shop will showcase dozens more mass-produced games which might be lesser known but which will still sell by the bucketload to people who are slightly-keener-than-average on games. Many of these games are - on pure analysis of depth of play and mechanics alone - “better” than Monopoly. Yet people continue to buy Monopoly. It’s not because of lack of choice - many people actually like the game.

From the perspective of a Euro/hobby gamer, the problem with Monopoly is that it is a stereotype that prevents people from learning about the parts of the hobby that are really interesting and attractive.  For lack of a better metaphor (and speaking as one with Muslim friends), it is the terrorist image in the average American’s mind that keeps people from actually learning about and appreciating the depth and beauty of the majority of Islamic religious traditions.  Ultimately, it is disliked because of its success as an obstacle to enlightenment rather than because of its failure as an interesting game.

There was anti-monopoly hysteria? Where did that occur? I must have missed it.

First of all, “Corporate Laziness” is actually “Corporate Risk/Reward Management” and is smart business.  Hasbro should indeed be trying new games, like maybe a new Version of Sorry with rolling pieces, but not selling Monopoly when there is a guaranteed ROI for it would be a truly boneheaded decision.  Bidness is bidness.

With just a shade bit of relaxation of the rules Monopoly can include deals on futures options, strategic partnerships, risk management, etc.  I stumbled across a guy named Hank in the most recent Monopoly review on BGG that has taken this game to a level vastly beyond what most of us think of the game.  It’s a crazy read, but entertaining as hell and an indication of just how juvenile most of our opinions of the game are.  Read it.

Were more “serious” players to sit down and wring out its economic possibilities, I think Monopoly would look like a game with a short ruleset, deep play, multiple paths to victory, intensive player interaction, and a firm connection on its theme.  In short, it could be a kick-ass hybrid euro. 

That would require those “serious” players swallowing a fair portion of their ego for ninety minutes, which is likely too much to ask.

Sag.

Matt, Monopoly is certainly something of a whipping boy in the gaming hobby, but just about all the complaints about it have more than a germ of truth.

I think the idea that if Monopoly wasn’t around, the games we like to play would swell in popularity is a pipe dream.  But, in the US at least, the game’s omniprescence certainly chokes the rest of the market.  Hasbro’s stated goal (at least at one time) is not only to have Monopoly be the default game gift, but to have the gift never be played; that way, another well meaning relative can buy another copy for the family at some later date.  This is undoubtedly good business, but you can’t blame people who have such affection for games being upset by this attitude.

There are also many non-gamers who have bad memories of playing Monopoly as a child, or being forced to play it as an adult (just check the web, you’ll find some hilarious articles).  For a good percentage of these folks, this has been their only exposure to games and therefore colors their thinking about what they represent.  I’ve met a number of people who think games are strictly for kids and when I ask them what makes them feel that way, they point to bad children’s games like Candyland and Monopoly.  So I do feel the game has made our efforts to represent our hobby harder.

Finally, it’s tough when you say you play games as a hobby and the inevitable response is “Oh, like Monopoly?”.  If you say yes, you’re immediately dismissed and if you try to explain why they’re not like that, you risk confusing them and coming off as a snooty elitist.  It’s a tough situation and I imagine gamers resent being put in that position, so some enmity is understandable.

So the hatred is stronger than it should be, but there are reasons for at least some of the attitudes.

Matt, with respect to one of the other mass market games you slammed:  have you actually played Careers?  Based on your comments, I have to assume you haven’t, because when it comes to real decisions and scope for skillful play, the game is miles ahead ahead of Monopoly.  There are multiple ways of moving around the board, multiple tracks, a method of secretly allocating objectives that is still unique in gaming, and numerous other innovations.  It was a staple in my old gaming group and I won something like 40 games of it in a row, so skill and experience is certainly rewarded.  Try it with four or fewer players and I think you’ll be very pleasantly surprised.

I’ll throw in my two cents. I pretty much am a Monopoly hater, but it stems from the very limited decision making which occurs. The way I describe my primary complaint about Monopoly is that it is a game which “plays the player”. This statement comes of the game needing the player to roll the dice and move the pawns, and in most of my experience the only real decision you seem to make in regards to Monopoly is to play it or not… everything else seems made up for you. Granted, hotel and house placement should matter but in my experience even if you control a side of the board you can’t really make the houses themselves effective because you never interact with the players movement or decisions just that dice. Over and over and over and over again.

Sag -

Unless Hank changed the rules, both you and he are a bit deluded… this game could never be a Euro because it is, for the most part a huge LUCKFEST. The rules, as written make it so. So, no, I won’t be wasting 90 minutes+ on that and neither should most rationale people. Yahtzee has more decision making than Monopoly during some unlucky games. Whatever you believe, you can’t say it is a Euro… and if Hank (link?) changed the rules to make a better game, why then any game could be great under those conditions.

Mr. Baldwin, your statement leaps to the conclusion that euros can’t have luck and that luck is the primary deciding factor in Monopoly, in spite of the same people winning the national competitions every year. 

Since you refuse to play ever again, any conversation beyond that is at best an academic exercise, though I look forward to reading anything you wish to add to the conversation.

Sag.

One conclusion that I’ve come to is that the Free Parking optional rule is actual a (comparatively) minor culprit compared to the Free-Wheeling Deals problem. The Monopoly rulebook is actually fairly explicit about what deals are allowed - cash, undeveloped properties - but could be clearer that things like futures deals and options are actually *not* allowed. Allowing deals like rent immunities actually does more to prolong the agony than Free Parking for somewhat complicated reasons. While I kinda like Monopoly, beyond 90 minutes it does become agonizing, and anything that drags it out past that point you gotta get rid of. Another big problem is playing with more than 4 players. You really, really want to stick with 4 tops.

Regardless, though, I think “gamers’” antipathy for Monopoly is actually much more straightforward. Look at the BGG top 50 or top 100, and how many deal-making games do you see? Exactly one game, Traders of Genoa, and that wonderful game ranks 79th. Other than that, nothing. No Chinatown, no Quo Vadis. Not even Bohnanza. Well, there is Settlers, but it’s not quite the same thing. How many deal-making games are published in a year by Kosmos, Rio Grande, Hans-im-Gluck, or anyone else? On average, I’d have to say zero. Gamers like tactical games primarily, but also they like bidding games, they like card games, they like auction games, but they just don’t like deal-making games. Monopoly is a deal-making game. You can play it other ways, as a pure roll-n-move for example, but then it’s boring. Really boring.

The idea you can only really trade with another player when you both complete monopolies is a common misconception. Clearly a property that completes a monopoly is a lot more valuable than one that doesn’t. But clearly there is a value there that can be established. You do see people pay so much to buy a property that completes a set that they can’t afford to develop it and subsequently go bust.

I’ll be brief:

I think Pass the Pigs has _some_ of the decisionmaking of Can’t Stop and others of that ilk.  (You get to decide when to keep going and when to hold...)

I never saw a recent anti-Monopoly hysteria, but Eurogamers have always had a background level of anti-Monopoly opinion.

My personal opinion would be that it’s an “OK” game but I like so many games _better_.  It is also unfortunate that it seems to be one game everyone knows, but it has very few common play mechanics with the types of games I enjoy playing.  (ie. someone who plays Monopoly will not have much of a leg-up when they try other games.)

While I have no problem with free parking being empty (I was a terrible culprit of adding cash to that when little) I would protest Chris’ interpreation of rules.  I think the game is a bit dry and so wheeling and dealing is the best part of the game for me.  If I’m allowed to trade cash & properties, then I can’t see why I’m not allowed to make future deals and options?  The trick for me would be that the rules don’t allow you to make binding contracts.  (If I can trade cash and/or properties, why can’t I sell you a property for $1 now and then at some later date you could give me cash equal to some rent I needed to pay?  Seems like both ways we’re only exchanging cash & properties...)

The problem is that Monopoly is not an everyone-gets-richer game, it’s a beggar-thy-neighbor game with no binding contracts. So if I make a rent immunity deal, and you later land on my property in such a way that you’ll be crippled if I collect the rent, there is a *huge* incentive to break the deal and ding you. In fact, if I keep to the deal and let you skate, I’m really not playing in the spirit of the game, and, critically, I’m just playing a delaying game, dragging the game out. It’s not like in Settlers, where I might be taking out a very valuable trading partner; I’m doing what it takes to win Monopoly, i.e., taking away all your money. Something like rent immunity has a monetary value, so just put a price on it right now and do the deal in cash. That’s a far more interesting way to play the game anyway.

There is already huge scope for wheeling and dealing in Monopoly even without unenforceable, hugely risky deals with potentially nasty outcomes.

Often the main thing blocking more wide-ranging deals is in fact just players’ addiction to the often wildly inaccurate list price. A monopoly-completing property is potentially extremely valuable, and if you have it and are willing to do some high-stakes deal-making, you can pocket a lot of cash and help yourself out quite a bit. Property evaluation in Monopoly is as nuanced as in any euro, probably moreso.

In the end it’s best, I think, to just disallow “future favors” in Monopoly because of the unbearable pressures towards betrayal make them in reality just not worth doing, so you might as well just cut to the chase and get rid of them.

Huge scope for wheeling and dealing?

Chinatown:  Yes.
Traders of Genoa:  Absolutely.
Monopoly:  I don’t see it.

The game is too one-dimensional.  You’ve got properties and you’ve got cash--that’s it.  I just don’t see the potential for imaginative trades.

That’s one of my main beefs with the game.  Even when played by adults, it’s just too hard to get any trading done, since everything revolves around monopolies.  Maybe one day, I’ll play with some knowledgeable fan of the game and he will show me the error of my ways.  But rather than go through all that, wouldn’t it just be better to play a great game of Chinatown instead?

Matt,
Yes consumers do have *some* choice… Scene It or Pictionary or whatever. But I certainly don’t get the impression people are choosing Monopoly to buy because they prefer its gameplay. They don’t think like us - comparing the mechanics and fun factor of different games in their minds. I think they buy it for the same reason they buy a welcome mat. Every house has one, and its function is to just sit there.

It seems to me that more people actually play Scrabble, and more people actually enjoy Scrabble, than Monopoly. But somehow many more people own Monopoly, such is the completeness of Hasbro’s marketing strategy.

I do not recall being asked to play Monopoly once in my adult life, yet almost everyone I know owns it! They have not “chosen” it over Risk because they prefer the mechanics, they just bought it without really thinking. This to me is truly not *choosing*.

By the way, I can only speak for Australia in all this. Here you need to go to a specialty toy store to even find Risk (and sometimes Scrabble!). K-Mart just has Monopoly, Scene It and other TV show tie-ins. Also, there is a bizarre tradition where many young couples put Monopoly on their wedding gift registry even though they never play boardgames!

Oh,please.  What is this with the qualified comments about this game?  No ambiguity here: Monopoly is a “well-designed” game.  I know tons of people who thoroughly enjoy playing this game.

I’m amused by this idea of how everyone keeps expressing this moniker of it being a “roll and move” game too.  It is not.  That is merely a mechanism which is employed in the game.

First and foremost. It is a NEGOTIATION game.  BGG is permeated with engineering types and IT types who enjoy thought out processes, structured complication and well-thought out systems which ooze elegance and are very much “clean” neatly designed games.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  But let’s call it for what it is. 

Monopoly, by contrast, is uneven, untidy, absolutely free-for-all negotiation.

BTW, I remember that there was a survey on BGG once which asked people to list their occupations.  Sales and Marketing were occupations not even listed when the results came out, I do believe.  But a lot of engineers and IT types were on it. Sales and Marketing people are often BIG and BOLD “Type A” personality types.

so what I am saying is that “Type A” personalities do exist on BGG… but I believe not in proportionally great numbers.  And I would also say many “Type A” personalities love the flexibility in negotiations that Monopoly allows.  So hence a disparity in the BGG ratings perhaps.

Another thought:  Most people don’t play the Monopoly by the rules… but they DO play by HOUSE rules...designed to unwittingly keep everyone in the game and pretty much ruin the intended game experience.

In summation:  Monopoly is a very good game.

Thank you.  : )

P.S.  GO CARDINALS!!!!!!!!!

Sag -

For the vast majority, Monopoly is a luckfest. There is always going to be players that microscopically analyze games (your tourney champs that you mention). These people know that the optimal properties are. They are also playing with tournament rules. They play in tournaments all the time. They know that they are playing timed rounds and, from experience, know where they need to be wealth-wise by the time the round ends dependent on how many points they’ve accumulated throughout the rounds so far. The rounds are scored based on number of players remaining in the game as well.

The tournament structure brings out the analyzers and it also CHANGES THE GAME. By using the tournament structure, like in Texas Hold ‘Em, sometimes winning isn’t the goal but playing to outlast is. By adding timed rounds and a tournament structure, you have stall tactics, meta-gaming, mathematical analysis of each property and each potential deal.

Here’s the thing about the skill factor - in a strictly 2 player, no time limit game amongst a person with a knowledge of property importance and a top pro, it is a luckfest… because it all comes down to dice. Memorize the CC and Chance cards and count them.... will it really matter when a player owns 2 monopolies to your 0? No. Will that player trade with you? No (in tourney rules, he wouldn’t be allowed to anyway). There are established strategies, but it all comes down to the first monopoly and the negotiations around it (if arrived thru trade) and the immediate negotiations thereafter to try to get a monopoly.

My offense with what you proposed is that modern Euros are never going to have as much of a luck factor as Monopoly. You said it could be a Euro and I say unless the United States somehow joins the European Union, that is as far from true as anything in the boardgaming world.

That amount of luck + player elimination = the opposite of what most Euros are about.

All of the strategy of the game revolves around being lucky… GET THE ORANGE - luck, GRAB THE RR’s and DIVERSIFY - luck, BEING ABLE TO TRADE - luck. You have to land on orange, RR’s or something somebody wants in order to do anything. Roll bad dice all day and lose.

So I’d rather play something else.

Monopoly is not such a bad game.  The problem is that if I’m going to get to play a game with family/non-gamers, I’d rather play something else but Monopoly is going to be competing with that something else.  Everyone already knows how to play Monopoly and non-gamers hate learning new games.  It’s familiar and non-gamers dislike the new.  It doesn’t require much thought and non-gamers don’t want to think during a game.  The only defense against this is a vehement refusal to play Monopoly, otherwise, that’s what you’re playing at Thanksgiving.  And once you’ve taken such a stand, it’s hard to admit that the game isn’t so bad.

It’s not the game people hate, so much as the fact that people who could be playing games that are more challenging with you are instead forcing you to play Monopoly.

I have fond memories of playing Monopoly as a kid.  I also played it in my late teens by the correct rules with a group of teens and adults who viewed and played it as a trading game.  I remember it from this time as an ok to good game.

So, I was interested to see whether it stood up to the test of time when I played it a few years ago at Christmas with a group of five children, ages 7-12.  We played a new version that one had just got as a gift, with an electronic credit card mechanism (instead of cash), but the actual game play was unchanged.  The children enjoyed swiping the credit cards for the first 1/2 hour or so and then were totally frustrated and bored with the game and gave up on it.

What I noticed was that the game consisted of 20 minutes of effective setup (after the start of the game) as players randomly buy properties until someone has a set, motivating trading.  Then there’s about 20 minutes of interesting play, when the trading takes place; and then there’s about 40 minutes of rolling and making payouts (with the odd interesting build decision in there) until someone wins.

1/4 time interesting decisions; 3/4 time boredom.  I never want to play Monopoly again.

Sure, there may be some elitism in putting down Monopoly, but having played Careers, Risk, Stratego, and Monopoly as an adult, in my opinion, Monopoly is the worst of these four games by far in terms of strategy or meaningful decisions per unit time.