If anyone says you flipped the table without you flipping the table, their punishment is you getting to flip their chair while they're sitting in it :D
IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS A MILLION HATERS, I'M ONE OF THEM IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS A HUNDRED HATERS, I'M ONE OF THEM IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS TEN HATERS, I'M ONE OF THEM IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS ONE HATER, I'M THAT ONE IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS NO HATERS, I'M DEEEEAAAD
The one time I had fun playing MCE, we were playing with one friend who is INCREDIBLY competitive (in a fun way, not in an "I have to win or I flip the board" way), and every single turn she would accuse me of cheating. Of course, since she was doing this, I didn't cheat a single time during the whole game. But we'd locked ourselves into a vicious cycle of psychological warfare - what if as soon as she stopped accusing me, that was the turn I DID cheat? So she felt compelled to accuse me (and pay up when she was wrong) every single turn. So long story short, the best way to enjoy MCE is to completely ignore the new rules, ig lol
i love the card game BS for this exact reason. if you're not familiar, you play with one or more decks of standard playing cards (depending on the size of the group). you go around the table and, in order, players lay cards from their hand face-down. first player drops their aces, second drops their twos, and so on. if you have none, you lie. or you could slip an extra card in that, if you've counted the cycles, will not be assigned to you in the reasonable future. if you think someone's lying, you call them out. if you're right, they take the whole pile. if you're wrong, you take it. you win by emptying your hand. a lot of the fun from the game comes from the psychological warfare of lying on low-stakes small piles, bluffing a lie, and psyching out other players. it's essentially the theoretically good parts of MCE condensed into a card game that you could play with cards that you likely already own.
MCE is just a showcase of corporate compliancy as a result of having a monopoly. Maybe the only true cheaters are the people who made this game possible.
New cheat idea: You eat one of the pieces on the board. If you get caught eating one of the pieces then you have to violently vomit it back out onto the board. And now since the board is covered in vomit it is no longer playable. Now you have no choice but to play another board game.
Is it a dead horse if people are still defending it? yes, that's an actual question; I'm not a native English speaker, I'm still wrapping my head on this idiom.
@sponge1234ify Beating a dead horse means to keep doing something after it has long lost its usefulness. The horse is dead, so whether you wanted to kill it or just to punish it, there's no point in continuing to beat it. In this context, this could say that MM already made his point and doesn't need to elaborate any further ...kinda a morbid idiom now that i think of it
The ones that Nintendo worked together can easily hit half an hour if you know what you're doing. But that one is set up with a time limit. When you face a Koopa kid, if you don't beat them, they're gone. If you fail to beat Bowser, the game is over and it's time to count your wealth.
I have a little perspective on where "Monopoly takes no skill" might come from. I grew up to despise Monopoly ferociously and didn't realize until very much later that the actual game being played at the table was so stripped down that it didn't even really qualify as "Monopoly" anymore. I was told that Monopoly HAD no mechanics, really. If you came to our table talking about "negotiating" or "making deals", people would laugh at you or tell you to read the rule book that they apparently never read. You aren't allowed to trade properties, or buy or sell properties with other players. Auctions don't exist. People respected that you needed to complete a set to build houses/hotels, but because you needed to land on each property before anybody else got any of them, nobody ever completed a set ever, so the house and hotel pieces rotted away in the box, the bag untouched by human hands. This bootleg, "pidgin" Monopoly was just accepted as the "true" nature of the game. You roll the dice, and pay what the board says to the bank for the title, or what the card says to the owner as rent, and the game ends for you when you can't afford to do that. That's it. That's all of Monopoly. Nothing is in your control, the dice just tell you what happens and you take it. It's Candyland but with more math and 10x the runtime. You don't like that? I guess you just don't like Monopoly then. That was not an isolated incident. I knew more than one family that simply played Monopoly that way under the assumption that that was just the game played as the rules were written. I don't know where Pidgin Monopoly comes from, but that variant does indeed involve no skill or strategy, and many people who play it don't realize they're playing a variant.
Tbh realising how common this is is kinda horrifying? Like it's a microcosm of far reaching misinformation, that despite how easy it would be to correct the vast majority of people just dont think to do that.
oh my god this is my family w every board game. even shit like freaking chess they somehow mess it up. i genuinely dont know how people would spend a hour or two on monopoly and not read the rules beforehand, and this happens w every board game too. im guessing its just from passed down information from other people about how the game works, and now they just cant be convinced to change anything abt how they play the game.
Same with me, i played not much of Monopoly in my life, but it was only this stripped down version. I considered it ultra-simple game for elementary school children until stumbled upon this video at random, lol. Greatest fun was in exchanging colorful money papers with big numbers on them (that was even before elementary school actually)
me and my brother got banned from playing monopoly because we'd set up fucked up deals like 'i'll give you the last piece of your monopoly if i don't have to pay rent on it' and our mom hated it
"The handcuff doesn't have to be attached to the board!" *[EXTREMELY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]* That alone made this video twice as worth the watch as it already was
The handcuff thing really is the dumbest. On paper, it sounds logical enough. "You have a handcuff, so you 'wear' it to have it on you", and most people inherently interpret that as "Okay, so I can just have it next to my money on the board or something like a card." But no, it's LITERALLY meant to be worn ON YOUR WRIST and placed under the game board. Because being unwieldy as fuck and making you basically play one-handed is ACTUALLY the point! They straight-up made a mechanic that effects people disproportionately and sucks to use JUST so you could 'cheat' by not engaging with it to flesh out as many cheat cards as possible. You think just having the handcuff is good enough. But because of the rules, you literally NEED to wear it on your actual physical wrist or you're unironically doing a gameplay mechanic. Congrats, Hasbro! You've created an annoying feature you literally can't homebrew out of the game without removing an entire fully functional system! The only workaround you could possibly have is to get decent sized fake handcuffs to wear, but by doing that you're actively invalidating a major mechanic and making the cheat a non-issue. It's so broken from a fundamental level!
I have a friend who has a disabled left arm, and the second I heard in the original video about how the handcuffs worked, I imagined me telling him he simply couldn't play because he was just that fucked if he went to jail. That whole 'playing with one less hand' thing would really suck if you only have one to start with!
@@danielgehring7437 It's a good thing the mechanic is arse - it would be a shame to have good mechanics go out the wayside because some people can't enjoy them.
Tbf, it's not just youtube videos; iirc it's been a trend in broadcasting in general that negative news gave more views. UA-cam just stumbled upon that meta when it focuses on maximizing views.
@@MassacresMansion I told all my friends about that Video and how it went so massively popular in a matter of weeks. I hope they all saw it but I can't say for sure.
This is the professional level hating we like to see. Not just some random comments on why the thing is bad but an in depth analysis critiquing the issues with rational statements. I aspire to achieve the level of hating you have good sir.
"just don't make mistakes lol" ppl w/ bad memory, ppl w/ bad vision, ppl who were having fun socializing and didn't think about the board for a second, ppl who can only use one hand, ppl who have trouble gripping objects:
My ADHD ass trying to multitask socializing and playing a new board game I'm not familiar with that requires me to pay attention to what others are doing while strategizing myself:
The idea that any well-designed game would get worse if you took it seriously is on par with film bros defending their favorite movies from critique by telling you to "turn your brain off" while watching. Not being able to withstand analysis does not make media above analysis.
I feel like it's a semi-reasonable defense in both cases, but that it applies only up to a point before it becomes clear that you're kind of taking everyone for a ride. Complaining that Wily's Wonderland, a movie about a mute Nick Cage beating the crap out of robots in a wacky twist of the horror genre not having great character development isn't really sensible. Complaining that if you memorized every single Headbandz in Headbanz and asked very intricate questions that you could nail it in just three minutes isn't sensible either. However, that being said, again this has limits, and MCE monopoly definitely surpasses em. I don't think I've seen a single game with mainstream-ish-ness of this level that woulld crumple to the ground so quickly if you ran it entirely "Rules as Written" besides maybe some poorly balanced TTRPG modules, and even then, those are almost (looking at you, tomb of horrors) always stipulated with an implied or outright stated "band-aid" of "yeah feel free to change this stuff if your group ain't vibing with it."
@@skunkbrains5656 Good analysis. I'd like to add to this that when playing with friends, the optimal way to play any dice-based game is to learn to rig the dice rolls. But that's probably a bad way to play. Actually later in the video I see there is a bit about sitting 6 feet from the table (among other things). Technically that would be an optimal play strategy within the letter of the rules as well. Spirit of the rules is a consideration.
@@skunkbrains5656ehhhh I mean we can’t fall into the everything is subjective pit. I would definitely say that particular movie does hold up enough well to analysis, that being it doesn’t fall apart and adheres to its own logic well enough. I guess maybe the term most applicable is suspension of disbelief, like if a movie can hold to its own internal logic without straying too far from being coherent, than it’s at least an objectively good movie. Like for example, in fallout I would never critique the existence of ghouls as an objective fault. I think it’s pretty silly and an extreme misunderstanding of how radiation works, but that’s how radiation is established to work in the universe. That’s just a matter of taste me not liking the concept. But when it contradicts it’s established lore on ghouls, then I think it crosses into be an objective flaw with the writing. Like we can separate matters of taste, whether or not you like a certain genre or prefer not or less character development from matters of objective quality, like the plot making sense and there being no sort of unintended production issues, like boom mics or extras in the wrong shot. There’s nuances to it but I do think there are ways to objectively measure the quality of media that can’t be ignored. Edit like 2 months later: To clarify too, there are obviously films that you can find where the whole point is to not make sense to achieve some other form of artistic expression such as cool shots or trippy effects. That doesn’t really change anything, as they’re the minority and you can’t use outlying examples to disprove the average way you should treat films. If we did that with everything, we would have 0 objective definitions for anything practical, because there are always outliers.
@@skunkbrains5656 Willy's Wonderland sucks because it fails miserably at everything it attempts to do, not because it doesn't have any character development. That's a horrible example.
@@dymaxion3988 House rule: Every time the player stands up to do something, the table has to be fastened to them and every other player needs to follow them to wherever they're going. There you go, Monopoly Kidnappers Edition
@@MassacresMansion we need thrilogy, that comes on april first (1rst), and thats is "i play monopoly cheaters edition" or "why monopoly cheaters edition is a good and strategy-besed game"
This comment is so true because after I watched the first video I literally looked through other videos on his channel for more rants. I thought youtube was recommending me the same old video because I watched it a few times (what I do when I really liked the content). I literally had to check that it was newly uploaded by going to his channel.
Every time my family played monopoly no-one wanted to trade with anyone else and anytime I wanted to make a trade they would always say no or give some extremely unreasonable deal then if I tried to continue it they would discourage me and say “just take your turn”, then anytime I asked to play monopoly they would always say “it’s boring. I never knew that people actually traded and had complex trade agreements in monopoly.
This is my experience as well. The only time any trading would occur is when I would play it digitally against AI or randos online. If I'm going to play a digital board game in this genre, I'd prefer to play Fortune Street instead
@@LendriMujinaThey don't. They learn from a friend, who learned from a friend, who learned from a friend, who learned from a cousin, who learned from a cousin who was purposely trying to play a trick on their younger cousin to make them lose.
Re: Taking all of your stuff away from the table to protect it from being messed with- Even if your table *did* collectively agree that it was okay to take your stuff with you when you left, AND you could guarantee that everyone only used that mechanic in good faith and with no abuses, Congratulations. You've just made Tedium a game mechanic. It would be tedious to pick all of your stuff up, take it with you, do whatever you're doing, come back, and reset your board state every single time you left the table. And tedium is an anathema to good game design.
And he didn't even fully touch on the fact that whatever you are doing may require both of your hands. He mentioned putting the items in your pockets, but that assumes you have pockets, and only partly touches on the issue. Carrying the stuff around could actually get in the way of everything else that your doing actually making it more viable to leave the items behind while you do it, or things happening that aren't going to wait for you to take the time to gather up all your stuff and remove it from the board... It's a horribly thought out argument to attempt to block an intended mechanic on many levels.
@@Quandry1 I want the people who suggested this to look me in the eye and honestly say that they're OK with the property cards and cash being taken into the bathroom, where God knows what they'll accumulate, and then they have to touch them.
I believe in Sid Meier's addage that "players will optimize the fun out of a game given the opportunity" (I think most MMOs suffer from this honestly,) but it's a game designer's job to make that as unlikely as possible.
@@MassacresMansion Mark Rosewater (the head designer on Magic: the Gathering) has also said this publicly on multiple occasions. (Along with several other game design lessons.) Notably, Hasbro owns Magic, and Magic is by far their most successful product. You'd think that they'd at least listen to the guy who's in charge of designing their most successful game.
Perhaps a video on regular monopoly would be interesting. I have to admit, I"m a certified Monopoly Hater, and most of the people I play board games with feel the same way. The way the game would always go with my family is: No one would get a natural monopoly, because that's unlikely. Then, no one would ever make a trade that would give an opponent a monopoly. Because there isn't much to spend excess money on unless you can build houses, no amount of money was incentive enough to make someone make that trade. Once in a blue moon, it would work out that two people had properties such that they could trade them and both get a monopoly, but still, it tended to be for property groups of highly different values, and those trades were still very hard to make anyone accept. I think in a dozen or two hours of playing I saw someone build a house maybe once. And the game just defaulted to "go around the board until people run out of money" but base rents are so low this could take hours. But, to hear you talk about Monopoly, makes me think there is something I've missed all these years. So, I'm interested in how you play monopoly to make it fun.
This is an issue that tends to come from a group of players that are insecure about trading. They have no real strategy going forward, so they don't want to risk giving someone else a Monopoly because they don't know how to secure one themselves so it feels like a guaranteed loss. I love Monopoly, but I've played with *a lot* of groups where something like this happened. I absolutely understand the frustration. A similar thing used to happen when I had a friend group that I was trying to get into chess, of all things. A lot of times my friends weren't wanting to play against me, so they'd play against each other, but due to a lack of strategy, would just end up in weird, drawn-out board states where no one could move a piece anywhere without losing another piece and so they'd all just give up.
@@luminationbutthisisforvide522 That actually sounds crazy dude, taking risks is one of the core pillars of chess. But i guess that's what happens, when you don't have a timer when you play chess.
@@luminationbutthisisforvide522 Meanwhile my friend looking at my chess board states "How the %@#^ do the two of you have both your queens, 2 bishops, and a rook all hanging at the same time?"
Now this is my favorite genre of UA-cam videos. A random nerd (and I mean "nerd" in the best way possible) monolouging about a topic they are passionate about.
Oh ok, "I don't mean to insult you BUT", okay buddy, yeah, nerd in the best way possible. Like I'd believe you. I KNOW YOU ARE LYING. I KNOW EVERYTHING.
21:00 Gonna stop you right there for a bit. Elizabeth Magie was not an anti-capitalist, but actually a Georgist ('geoist' is a more modern term). Without going into hyper specifics, Georgists are for owning capital, but take issue with the idea of land ownership constituting as someone's wealth. The guys the Georgists really have it out for are landlords, not capitalists. In fact, Georgists believe that everyone in a capitalist world would be better off if you taxed the unimproved value of the land, known as a "land value tax". Karl Marx himself criticized Georgism for being a capitalist ideology. Plus when you think about it, the lose condition of Monopoly is when you can't afford to pay your rent, not when someone owns more stuff than you. Also it was originally called "The Landlord's Game", that's probably relevant. Though to be fair, I wouldn't blame anyone for not knowing about the Georgism stuff with how often news sources from all over push the anti-capitalism narrative. Otherwise the creation of Monopoly isn't nearly as dramatic. TLDR: Monopoly was never intended to be a critique of capitalism.
Not that landlords are bad either, to be honest. The Landlord's Game had to strawman the very concept of landlording to Hell and back to try and make the criticism stick. For a start, why are you forced to pay rent all the time? Just... stay at a place you already own. The dearth of properties available to buy in modernity is the fault of mass immigration, not greedy landlords.
“The problem is that you were playing optimally” is the reason I don’t like Super Mario World as much as other people. If I want to beat the level, l’m gonna use the cape. The thing that automatically beats 95% of all SMW levels.
Tbf, that was part of the draw for me as a kid. It's like Kirby; I could just cheese any level by floating, but that's only an option for when I'm getting frustrated and I want to move on.
My family never traded while playing monopoly growing up. Some family members actively hated that part of the game because “it gives an unfair advantage for being deceitful” which…. Unfortunate childhood circumstances.
A cursed thought exercise re: MCE as a social deduction game: At the start of the game, each player is assigned another player as a partner in secret. If you aid that player in cheating, you each get a small bonus at the end of some defined period of time - a few goes around the board? - but if you get caught assisting another player, you both pay out a penalty to the player who spotted it and go to jail. At the end of (unspecified period of time), shuffle partners again. Penalties and bonuses then raise. i hate myself for putting thought into this
@@judahfactor5908 Sounds like a pretty good Fakin' It sequel. 1-2 players get different rules to a simple game, with both the game and the players changing every round? That'd be pretty fun if it was well-executed.
Did something like this in Scrabble. Every round we drew cards; get the joker card and you have to make a fake word on your turn. Turn order randomized per round. Get away with it and gain 3x pts. Get caught and have your turn erased. An incorrect accusation erases the accusors' next turn *and* gets them docked 50 pts. Make a wrong word on your turn and get caught but you aren't the joker? Erase your turn but get 10pts to ease the pain. Important! You can only look at the Scrabble Dictionary on your turn.
I don't know if this has already been said but, in case it hasn't, skipping out on rent actually isn't a cheat or mistake in regular Monopoly, it's a bona fide game mechanic. Look in the instruction book and you'll see it specifically says that, if a player lands on an owned property, it's up to the _property owner_ to ask for rent. If they forget to ask for rent before the next turn, then no rent is paid. This makes the Free Stay "cheat" even worse, since it means someone who is very familiar with normal Monopoly and waits for the property owner to ask for rent can be accused of cheating and get punished for it. Total bullshit.
I’m envisioning a game called Peddlers. Like Monopoly, you roam the countryside as a Peddler to buy and trade various goods and currency. First go around, pretty much like Monopoly mechanics. When you start the next go around (“passing GO” equivalent), you get a powerful ability at random from a pool of abilities. You get up to 5 abilities total, 1 new ability each time you “pass GO”, and for every “pass GO” after that you can choose to give up an ability for a new ability. Here’s the twist: Peddlers are not always honest. Shady Peddlers can try to “bend” one rule each turn, and if they are not caught during their turn they get away with it. They DO NOT announce their success, because a good Peddler NEVER reveals their secrets 😉 Because the Peddler abilities are powerful and varied, it’s not always clear if a Peddler is honestly following the rules or bending the rules in their favor, meaning players have to use strategy to mask their cheating or they won’t get away with it. Peddlers caught cheating are Thrown Out of the town they’re currently in (think being forced to move to the space after a group of properties in Monopoly and resolving the effects of the new space) and would pay a Fine if entering the Town on their next go around. If a Peddler can prove they are falsely accused using the game rules, the accuser must pay a fine to the one they accused. The first go around without abilities helps Peddlers get themselves established before abilities and accusations start flying, and the slow ramp up of abilities makes getting used to the rhythm and flow of each game manageable. High level play with 4 maxed-out Peddlers would feel like a masterful accomplishment, not an exhausting slog. Perhaps a variant could be 3 Peddler abilities instead of 5, making the strategy comprehensible without going full Galaxy Brain. And it also tests out a player’s ability to lie and bluff without abandoning strategy or skill. I just made Monopoly: Cheaters Edition fun. You’re welcome ☺️
There is 100% an officially licensed parody of Monopoly called "Monopoly: Socialist Edition" that DOES market itself with the original Landlord's Game premise. However, it's a parody, obviously a jab at the people who believe that modern Monopoly is meant to highlight the dangers of capitalism.
I think you can still read the way Monopoly plays as a demonstration of the danger of capitalism. It’s not a particularly deep or nuanced critique, but “when you get more money, it gets easier to get even more money” is a pretty clear consequence of the rules. Is the game necessarily intended to have that message? Not really, but you get to interpret a piece of media however you want. It’s perfectly legal.
Emulating the critics with the average attention span after clicking on this video: "What's wrong with Monopoly Cheetos Edition? All the cards are indeed greasy and smell of cheese aroma (not cheese, but cheese extract), that's the point. So what if your friend kept selling his hotels to buy all of the bags of Cheetos? Just use your rent to get some of the singular snacks for yourself!"
The only time I cheated at the game was when the others were yelling at each other because they all thought the others cheated but couldn't prove it. I had the banker's stuff in front of me at the time and took a property card. When they were done arguing, I took my turn and the game continued. When it came back to me, I told them what I did and since I got away with it, I could claim the prize on the card. Literally the only time.
I... I don't think I've ever negotiated in Monopoly. What you described (continuous dice rolling and what is effectively accounting) is exactly how every game of Monopoly I've ever played has gone. I never even really thought about doing that in general.
No trading in monopoly is boring. The best thing is in like 4 player as soon as someone agrees a set complete trade, the others are immediately more desperate to trade
In fairness, base Monopoly doesn't really function all that great with 2 players either. In a 1v1 scenario, every interaction is pretty much by definition a 0 sum game, disincentivizing you from doing any real negotiations or interacting with the opponent in general.
"my brother in christ, it's already fucking dead" they said. and you responded with "we can't take any fucking risks. who knows if someone tries to resurrect the body?" as you burn the remnants of the game's good image to ASH. and i am HERE for it!
So about the whole “you played too optimally” thing. I do think there is a point, ironically at an intermediate skill level 99% of the time, where trying to play as good as possible actively saps away at the fun. The kind of tilt you get from reading a strategy guide or listening to a tier list, rising up to the challenge, and getting your ass kicked by a slightly narrower margin. Granted, that’s a sociology problem far outside the scope of board game development (but not video games, Why It’s Rude to Suck at World of Warcraft is probably my favorite video on that topic), but it’s not surprising people conflate frustration at games with frustration at metatextual resources that drill into your head that you need to do [thing] to be a top gamer, and therefore enter the kingdom of Heaven. More importantly, I’ve absolutely seen “why are you taking this causal game too seriously” before. It’s not even a hypothetical; it’s every third post on the MTG Commander subreddit
Also, isn't it the role of the game designer to design their game to mitigate this issue? To use an MtG example: MaRo has said that the Gotcha mechanic (which punishes people for saying certain common words) is the worst mechanic he's ever designed because of what playing optimally around it does to the game. (Namely making everyone stop talking in what is meant to be a casual, silly format). M:CE seems more to take everything Gotcha does wrong and dial it up to 9000. The optimal way to play seems to be to avoid playing the game as much as possible, and instead laser focus on cheating and preventing cheats. Drag the game to a standstill by questioning and clarifying everything your opponent does. Cheat as much as possible. Utterly break the game with random combos. There could be a game that gamifies those incentives in a fun and interesting way. However M:CE isn't that game.
the issue with cheater's edition is that it incentives you so hard to be a cheating bastard. The rewards for cheating are so great, and the punishment is so low, that actually playing the game like a nice person will cause you to lose, every time. Cheating isn't some sweaty, optimal thing that only pros do. it's *the entire point of the game*!
@@MassacresMansion and since I got the attention of the man himself, this general problem is also what leads people to the “Monopoly is not a skilled game” route as well. Yes, Monopoly is a game with very little moment-to-moment player agency, occasional BS from random factors outside your control, and an uncomfortably long playtime per session if you’re not ready for it (this description is a surprise tool that will help us later). I’ve seen the Numberphile video, I know on a mathematic level that the first couple property colors are the strongest, along with properties just outside of jail. Assuming everybody plays rationally, it’s a game about buying monopolies, breaking your opponent’s monopolies, and never ever trading them, but no amount of rote probability can ever replace the tension of a 4-way prisoner’s dilemma, as all of you walk around in circles in a minefield. Also, by my description of Monopoly and other details I left out to not show my hand, The Landlord’s Game (and Monopoly by proxy) is the world’s oldest roguelike, and almost definitely the first roguelike featuring user-created level generation.
@@simonteesdale9752 And to be very honest, the hypothetical game of Cheater’s Edition minus Monopoly, already exists. It’s been on shelves for ages. Hell, it even says directly in the rulebook “please deliberately misinterpret the rules to gain an edge, it’d be funny and in the spirit of the game.” MCE is the unholy lovechild of Hasbro’s greed and Munchkin
My favorite part about the argument that “if the other players are nice, they won’t abuse the broken mechanics,” is the simple fact that *its monopoly*. Base Monopoly is literally infamous for destroying friendships, and that’s without unbalanced cheating rules. Finding a group of people where everyone will “play nice” in Monopoly is rare as it is.
"You can't expect people to not try to play optimally" someone tell that to "It's a party game" Sakurai. Dude's a legend, don't get me wrong, but the way that it feels like Nintendo actively despises people playing Smash Bros competitively is just bizarre, and I'm not even a tournament player! (That said though, some people definitely play games to cause chaos rather than to win, that's a very real thing)
I don't think Sakurai even hates competitive players - he's stated several times that his worries are about the skill _floor_ getting too high, with nobody outside of the old guard even being able to get their foot in the door. During the Wii U era, he said in a Famitsu interview that he is, in fact, happy Melee is still getting love - it is his work, after all. He just empathizes with people who are getting left behind in the arms race. It's not an easy balance to strike in the slightest. If you're talking about Nintendo as a company being actively obstructive, though, yeah, they do that, and they're very irritating for it.
Sakurai says it's a party game because Smash is a game where you're allowed to bend a huge amount of rules. There's tons of items, a bunch of settings, and special modes to mess with. It can even up the play field for players with a wide range of skill. Competitive play removes that entire aspect of smash bros. Turning off items and setting up fair rules for competition has nothing to do with playing optimally. Smash IS a party game, it just also allows competive play as a bonus.
as a proud chaos player, you need the norm to be attempting to win. it makes the game better for everyone. and the game becomes more resistant to the chaos turning it into a slog. chaos will get dragged back on track most of the time if they do. if they dint, you not only derail the game for people who want to play more sincerely., but the chaos isnt fun either a nonsequitor in a conversation can be entertaining, several people saying words at each other isnt
Fun fact: I came up with some custom rules for Monopoly that my family tried last time we played: - Being in jail requires $50 on EVERY unsuccessful turn, and not just on the third one. - You can place houses/hotels on a color which you do not own all properties from BUT whenever you do so it receives a special marker signifying that the first person to land on it pays zero rent. The jail rule was originally going to be harsher and somehow tied to your specific dice rolls, but just doing $50 per turn was enough to make jail feel like an actual punishment instead of easy property evasion. The second rule was one which I figured was a good idea due to how it enhances strategies and requires players to weigh individual property value, land coverage, probability, risk, and rewards. I hope you like these rule changes; I just wanted to tell you about them!
Building off of what some other commenters have spoken on, you'd be shocked how many people act two steps from viscerally terrified of trading in vanilla Monopoly. A lot of players I've met absolutely refuse to take trade deals unless they're explicitly in favour of themself. They also have a tendency to mark one player as "the guy who always wins" and refuse to ever take any deals with that person, even to their own detriment. Not only that, but even more players will tend to back out of any deal if you try to negotiate beyond a single counteroffer, accusing you of holding the game hostage or otherwise dragging things on. This aversion to the social interaction elements of the game absolutely renders it barely less RNG-based than something like Chutes and Ladders. Roll dice, move piece, buy property or pay rent, repeat... With this in mind, it's really easy to see how people come to the conclusions about Monopoly that they do. "It takes no skill," "there's no strategy," "the game's so drawn-out and boring," etc. are very easy claims to make once you realize that people tend to, even unintentionally, remove practically every compelling aspect of gameplay. That being said, as a personal and edited note, I never play with the auction mechanic, however. I dislike that mechanic because it just serves as a stupid forced money sink and encourages "just buy everything on the board when you land on it" type gameplay. I always just play where players can just... strategically choose not to buy things.
The whole railroads advancing you thing is actually a neat mechanic, they just didn’t have to remove the rest of the space’s functionalities. Like, just make it so that you can pay a fare to move forward when you land on the space.
To the "play casually not optimally" point: that _can_ be a valid way to make playing games more enjoyable - I know, because I do it all the time - but it falls under the same umbrella as the "just change the rules" point. As context, I am the eldest of four siblings, and I have spent a good portion of my life finding creative ways to hold back in games, since _(while I know there are other people with younger siblings who disagree)_ wiping the floor with little kids...wasn't fun. For them or for me. And now that we're older, they're actually a lot _better_ than me at most games we play, meaning even if I played my absolute best, I would still probably lose. Sometimes while playing a game, due to the context of who you're playing with, a player might _not_ be trying their hardest to win, either to make another player feel better or because the amount of energy it would take to calculate and try to execute the most optimal move is more trouble than it's worth for a chance at winning (since in my case, the fun to be had isn't in winning, but just the act of playing with my siblings). But none of this helps MCE's case. If the best advice to enjoy a game is to NOT engage with it as presented to you (by adding rules or not taking it seriously), the designers did something wrong, and I don't think that's what Hasbro was trying to design around anyway. I'm sure it's _possible_ to play this game and have fun, if you're playing it in a detached or modified way (and I assume that's what those comments were getting at), but that doesn't make it any less terribly designed. That just means those people were able to have fun in spite of it. (And personally, this game sounds like a stressful nightmare to play at any level of engagement or "try-hardiness".) All of this to say, yes, sometimes players aren't always trying to win, and that can be a legitimate way to have more fun in a game, but that doesn't invalidate anything you said in the first video.
Going out of your way to hold back IS try-harding though. Normally people play at about 70ish% of their effort and perform what they believe to be the optimal strategy. Switching to suboptimal strategies or putting in more OR LESS effort takes mental exertion.
the fact the first uno amalgam video from 7 months was surpassed by the first MCE rant video from 2 months shocks me, the uno amalgam is what brung most of the fans and is the driving force for this channel.
Another point supporting your argument against the "just take your stuff with you" take is the fact that, unless you then set a house rule against doing so, you have absolutely no requirement to bring _everything_ back from wherever you went. You can hide some of your cash somewhere on the way, then, if you're about to lose, you say you'll be right back, go grab your "hidden cash" and suddenly not only have you saved yourself, but you've potentially undone all the effort your opponent put in to get you to a point where you might ever lose. You can even claim you cheated when you get back if you do choose to do this on your turn, ending your turn after you get back and playing "perfectly normally", forcing players to then pay you money because you did something they could not physically have seen. As someone who hasn't played monopoly in years, yet always had a good time on the rare occasions that I did, I can safely say that I want this absolute bastardization of monopoly as far away from me as physically possible. I could sit down in front of a base Monopoly board right now and fully understand and follow everything going on. I could do the same with MCE and I'd have no clue what the actual hell is going on at any point because NONE of my limited knowledge of base monopoly would really matter.
Honestly, I find the idea that this game is designed for 'Monopoly haters' to be kind of baffling. As a Certified Monopoly Hater myself I have heard nothing about this game that would make me say 'ah yes, this sounds like an improvement over the previous game'.
Out of curiosity, I went back to the original MCE video, and you were not lying about responding to every comment! Always impressed by the community side of your videos - and I also love that this video was essentially one giant clarification time Clarification time is best time
Video rants like this only just strengthens my trust in the man adding more and more uno versions into their cauldron; slowly preparing for us to drink it
I agree with everything except one point. "When you sit down for a game do you want to win or do you want to lose?" My favorite hobby is Magic the Gathering. Of course I want to win, but in the end, what I love about it is the opportunity to catch up with friends over a card game for a couple hours. Maybe see some fun combos. But ultimately games are and should be about the fun of playing not the competition. Now you could say that this is not a fun game, and that makes it so competition is the only option. But in my opinion that's just another sign this is a bad poorly designed game. Rather than breeding an environment of fun it breeds contempt and anger
10:56 I think what they're trying to say is, “The game is more fun if you don’t play optimally,” except the problem is that’s still a flaw. I’ve heard this quote in a few Game Maker’s Toolkit videos. “If given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of games.” (The quote wasn’t from him, though he was quoting Soren Johnson, but you can get the point.) So if the optimal way to play a game isn't fun, then that’s a problem, and the game needs to be changed to discourage that way of play.
@@theflyingspagetSame energy as when Adam Something takes a bullshit transportation project (such as the hyperloop), and “optimizes” it back into being just a regular train. 😂
Wait, the rules actually say the handcuff needs to be attached to the board at all times? Wow, I've really been hit by the Mandela Effect, because I didn't remember seeing it anywhere in the rules. Actually had to pull out my copy of the game just to verify, and yeah, turns out I've just been dumb all this time.
The handcuff is 100% designed with hostility. If you cant fit your hand in it you're screwed. If you *can* wear it but have short arms good luck doing anything. If you have shaky hands or anything like that (tremors, tic disorder, motor issues, hell even just moving when being startled), you'll be punished for "cheating" despite not genuinely trying to move. I have hand tremors, my hands just shake a lot, and it's something that runs in my family. If I ever played and had to go to jail, I'd be bankrupted for a medical condition that i can't control turning the board into a quake zone.
being disproportionately punished for having a disability or condition? They almost actually made a commentary on capitalism again while trying to avoid it 😂
@@luciferkotsutempchannel Wrong. Disabilities themselves punish and disadvantage people who have them. That's why they're called DISabilities - you are less able because you are the victim of them. Equity would therefore require the disabled to be given an unfair advantage, punishing those who are not disabled for no fault of their own. The alternative is to cure the disability, but that's ableist.
@@KopperNeoman Refusing to accommodate a disability does, in fact, punish them for being disabled. But why would I expect someone who thinks immigration is socialism to know that? You probably think accommodating the disabled is socialism too, right?
This man has a affiliation link in his description for the game he hates, he's profiting off of his hatred for this game and thats absolutely incredible i love it
This video feels poorly argued tbh. You just explain what you think is wrong without delving into why it is wrong. Also you fail to mention counterarguments that most people would think of such as taking your property cards with you if you have to get up or the fact that the handcuff does not have to stay connected to the board. Some criticisms you make are valid but you substantiate so few of them. I don't mean to hate but I definitely feel like you could do better.
Your point about the cheat mechanic being much more suited for a game built around them is so correct! I played a chess video game that had an ai opponent who could cheat in tremendous ways, but the game was designed around this and was thus really fun! It’s called King of the Bridge
One argument I disagree with strongly is the "you want to win" Personally I play to have fun, yes I will try to win, but if I have more fun doing sub-optimal or even bad plays, than I will do those plays.
This argument goes both ways. For example if my way of having fun is winning, then how much do I have to hold back to make the game enjoyable for others? Even then, the game isn’t enjoyable at any point 😂
@@MassacresMansion First I should mention I also think MCE is stupid. I just think different people have different ways of having fun, not saying your way is wrong in any way.
I actually would love to see your review of the “Monopoly Longest Game Edition”. I got it as a joke for my friends but I couldn’t get anyone to actually try it out. However after some research and watching a KamSandwich video, it was mentioned that, thanks to some poorly thought out and play tested rules, the game actually tends to be SHORTER than regular monopoly. I would love to see your take or thoughts on it, and if you ended up coming to the same conclusion! Either way, I still love your stuff, and still excitedly watch every new video you release, and seeing your response to the comment I made on my first time watching this always makes me smile. I love your content, and I’m always excited to see more! Keep up th awesome work!!! I am a fan of monopoly, and genuinely enjoy playing it, and it’s always an uphill battle to try to convince my friends or partner to even CONSIDER playing it, so I always enjoy hearing how bad a version of monopoly is from the perspective of a monopoly fan, instead of from “monopoly is bad, this other version is also bad, to the surprise of no one”
This video feels well argued tbh. You just explain what you think is wrong while delving into why it is wrong. Also you mention counterarguments that most people would think of such as taking your property cards with you if you have to get up or the fact that the handcuff does not have to stay connected to the board, despite these situations being ridiculous. Some criticisms you make are valid and you substantiate so many of them. I don't mean to hate, but I definitely think you could do worse.
i was shocked and horrified to see this video in my notifications after there was already one decently long video on this topic. the rage of a man scorned by bad game design knows no bounds
Lol, i did in fact, mention the capitolism thing on you last video, and while I was mostly joking, I have now decided that my headcannon for MCE is that it is in fact a capitolism critique that some genious rogue developer managed to sneak past hasbro's corperate overlords by branding it as a cheaters edition of monopoly
I feel like the intended game play experience of MCE is a small child smugly announcing that they cheated, or excitedly catching an daddy cheating, while the adults smile knowlingly at each other. But even with that concept (which as you say, isnt how the game was marketed), the damn cuff needs to fit an adult. Can you imagine the infinite disappointment of this hypothetical child catching daddy cheating, getting to slap him in irons, only to find out the irons dont fit
Wow this guy really hates MCE! You know what I think he should do, he should really stick it to Hasboro and create his own Monopoly that combines EVERY mechanic from EVERY monopoly version out there into one uh… what the word… erm… Amalgam? That surely hasn’t been done anywhere with anything else right!
@@MassacresMansion Absolutely! as most people are 70% water. I am 70% CHAOS. and Amalgam's most prominent component is CHAOS. Dus it is my favorite game, and since you are the creator* of it. You are my fav. because I LOVE CHAOS. And you provide it.
oh hell yes, a second part of this. the first one is how i found your channel and am now fully invested in seeing the creation of Chemicards, so it feels nice to see more of this again **surely, we can expect Monopoly Cheater's Edition in Chemicards, right**
Incredibly excited for this. The MCE video was the first I saw from you, then I proceeded to watch the entire Uno amalgam series. Keep up the good work!
Genuinely, I’m one of the people that was introduced into your channel by that MCE video. And now I’m here for the long haul as I can’t wait for Chemicards. Been loving your channel and games so far, keep up the good work
You know what, after watching both your vids, MCE seems like a great prank gift for a friend that likes Monopoly. If you're lucky, it might even make them not play base game Monopoly for a while after playing that game. The broken nature of the game also makes it more likely that the players will end the game prematurely and move on to something else without wasting too much time.
Loved the first video, but I feel you’re being pedantic on this one. Nobody literally means Monopoly requires NO skill or strategy, it’s just ״buy or not to buy” and ״extremely basic bartering” are SO uninteresting it might as well have none. As a 28 year old that plays board games every single week all my life, from simple 10 minutes ones and ones that requires several sessions of many hours to complete, I’ve never in my life met a single person who even moderately enjoys Monopoly. Not. One. It’s really hard for me to fathom how could you, or anyone else, find Monopoly fun.
This argument goes both ways, because I like Monopoly, I know several experienced board gamers that enjoy it, the bartering system is as complex as you make it, and there’s a lot that goes into what you choose to buy which I went over in this video. 🤷♂️
As much of a "haha Monopoly ruins friendships and stars arguments lol" is, at least in that one you can in a way sit back and just enjoy normal conversations and stuff with friends, meanwhile MCE essentially encourages you to be three times as greedy, untrustworthy of others and be super vigilant, you said it best in the last video, everyone just stares you like that one Sonic meme everytime you move, grab a card, any amount of cash, or do anything really. Like I said, it was sorta fun for what it was, but I not playing it again, it being shorter was what motivated me to play it in the first place as I wasn't particularly in the mood for Monopoly that day.
I disagree with your point about "Everyone is always trying to win". Technically speaking, the optimal strategy in every turn-based game without a timer mechanic is to refuse to take your turn until your opponent resigns. People don't do that tho, in the name of politeness and in the name of fun. Messing with a player who's not at the table falls into that category, as does leaving the table to abuse that politeness.
Technically speaking, that's not a "kindness" thing. The act of sitting and choosing to play a game, including deciding what rules to use, is called a "magic circle". Effectively speaking, it's an unspoken set of rules that players agree to in order to facilitate the game being enjoyable. Think of it as being immersed in a good RPG, you abide by the rules, even if you have an easier way of doing things, because your goal is to fill in your spot in the game world. (Yes, you can still exploit a video game, and even glitch it until it's fully broken; but that's usually reserved for unfun mechanics and speedrunners dealing with slow mechanics respectively. And even then, they have their own magic circle of rules and contracts.)
YES. Another board game rant video! Hopefully we get to hear more of your board game opinions. Anything for this type of content. Additionally, I appreciate the thought of going through comments. My original comment was more of a suggestion for a revamp that could add a new spin on the idea. Railroads would still cost something, but with added (and paid if you don’t own it) fast travel. Seemed fine at the time.
One thing I'm curious about as someone who is terrible at Monopoly, how does the game actually encourage the trading aspect you emphasize? All the players I know who play the game are avoidant to trades specifically because it seems there's no reason to do so: The player who is ahead has no reason to make deals except to take advantage of whoever they're ahead of, and the player who's behind should simply be ignored because they want to get ahead.
Unwillingness to trade seems to be a big problem in the majority of the Monopoly community unfortunately, and it’s sad to see. One thing that could benefit players who are trying to surpass the player in first is making trades along the lines of “I’ll give you X, and in return you’ll never have to pay rent on my Y property.” Alliances in general are a great tool for countering dominant players and boosting players who don’t have much property.
Me and my Friends love the trading aspect of the game, and it really is the main content of Monopoly. Convincing someone that the deal is much better for them than it is for you is where all the fun is. MCE almost removes trading, because why negotiate when you could steal? It changes the game from the capitalist system it's supposed to imitate into complete anarchy, and that loss of structure is the largest strike against MCE for me.
You know, the argument that all board games have some form of luck was already sound but also chess still has some luck in it, whoever gets randomly picked as white first gets an advantage. Great video
@@spi231 I disagree, white has so much more of an advantage, having the first move allows for white to force black into having to play against their opening has a pretty good advantage throughout all ranks of chess. In high competitive play if the games are close the final game black would only need to draw in order to win because of the advantage white has over black.
Watching this for what has to be like..the 60th time and it just occurred to me that the point at 11:00 is maybe the dumbest thing I've EVER heard. "Nobody tries to win as hard as you" This is the version of the game literally inspired by people who wanted to win the base game so badly they BROKE THE RULES to do so. What, and I cannot stress this enough, the FUCK.
I never personally played Monopoly Cheaters Edition and I'm pretty neutral on Monopoly in general. I absolutely love your enthusiasm in tearing it down though, especially your point of specifically looking at the rules and what the product and game actually are not what they could be. I think it's better to have fun with a game like this, and a lot of people probably changed the rules even slightly and when playing it. I at least know I did for almost every tabletop game I've played not called Uno or Yahtzee. So playing exactly as intended is hilarious to me and I can understand why you harbor so much ill will towards it. Keep making Roles, keep making an abomination out of UNO, and keep up the great content!
New Cheat idea: Flip the table and see if anyone notices. If you get caught you play a better board game.
PERFECT!
If anyone says you flipped the table without you flipping the table, their punishment is you getting to flip their chair while they're sitting in it :D
But what if no one notices...
@@TheRebeloftheRebellionyou win the game !
@@TheRebeloftheRebellion If no one notices, you should really stop playing at the morgue
Bro really said "if Monopoly cheaters Edition has no haters I'm dead"
Agreed 😂
IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS A MILLION HATERS, I'M ONE OF THEM
IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS A HUNDRED HATERS, I'M ONE OF THEM
IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS TEN HATERS, I'M ONE OF THEM
IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS ONE HATER, I'M THAT ONE
IF MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HAS NO HATERS, I'M DEEEEAAAD
ABSOLUTE HATING
@@carlosemilio5180 IF THE WORLD IS AGAINST MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION HATERS, I'M AGAINST THE WORLD
@@carlosemilio5180 IF THE WORLD IS AGAINST MONOPOLY CHEATERS EDITION, IM THE WORLD
The one time I had fun playing MCE, we were playing with one friend who is INCREDIBLY competitive (in a fun way, not in an "I have to win or I flip the board" way), and every single turn she would accuse me of cheating. Of course, since she was doing this, I didn't cheat a single time during the whole game. But we'd locked ourselves into a vicious cycle of psychological warfare - what if as soon as she stopped accusing me, that was the turn I DID cheat? So she felt compelled to accuse me (and pay up when she was wrong) every single turn.
So long story short, the best way to enjoy MCE is to completely ignore the new rules, ig lol
Based 😂
i love the card game BS for this exact reason. if you're not familiar, you play with one or more decks of standard playing cards (depending on the size of the group). you go around the table and, in order, players lay cards from their hand face-down. first player drops their aces, second drops their twos, and so on. if you have none, you lie. or you could slip an extra card in that, if you've counted the cycles, will not be assigned to you in the reasonable future. if you think someone's lying, you call them out. if you're right, they take the whole pile. if you're wrong, you take it. you win by emptying your hand. a lot of the fun from the game comes from the psychological warfare of lying on low-stakes small piles, bluffing a lie, and psyching out other players. it's essentially the theoretically good parts of MCE condensed into a card game that you could play with cards that you likely already own.
The greatest cheat, is to not cheat at all.
"Wanna see me complain about Monopoly Cheaters Edition?
Wanna see me do it again?"
Love the reference 😂😎
🧽
“wanna see me talk about monopoly for 47 minutes?”
“wanna see me do it again?”
Counter Argument: Monopoly Cheaters Edition is the rare chance to get a peak at an alternate timeline where people eat glass for enjoyment.
MCE is just a showcase of corporate compliancy as a result of having a monopoly. Maybe the only true cheaters are the people who made this game possible.
Dang probably 😂
I'll try anything once
It also might function as an effective CIA torture technique.
@@bruhspenningmaybe the real cheaters were the freinds we made along the way
New cheat idea: You eat one of the pieces on the board. If you get caught eating one of the pieces then you have to violently vomit it back out onto the board. And now since the board is covered in vomit it is no longer playable. Now you have no choice but to play another board game.
I like this one 😂
Surely there are easier ways to not play monopoly?
@@Xanegoh No, this is the only way to not play it. You must find a way to destroy the board and yourself for even thinking of playing this board game.
This guy didn't just kick a dead horse, he shot the thing with a nuke.
Indeed 😈
And he’ll do it again
Is it a dead horse if people are still defending it?
yes, that's an actual question; I'm not a native English speaker, I'm still wrapping my head on this idiom.
@sponge1234ify Beating a dead horse means to keep doing something after it has long lost its usefulness. The horse is dead, so whether you wanted to kill it or just to punish it, there's no point in continuing to beat it. In this context, this could say that MM already made his point and doesn't need to elaborate any further
...kinda a morbid idiom now that i think of it
@@abrasmage at least you didn't look it in the mouth
monopoly taking at maximum 1 hour is the wildest claim I ever heard
Ikr???
Yeah I think the shortest one I've played was maybe 90 minutes
I've had a game lasted 3 DAYS although we all did our best to keep it going after the first day.
I've had a game lasted 3 DAYS although we all did our best to keep it going after the first day.
The ones that Nintendo worked together can easily hit half an hour if you know what you're doing. But that one is set up with a time limit. When you face a Koopa kid, if you don't beat them, they're gone. If you fail to beat Bowser, the game is over and it's time to count your wealth.
I have a little perspective on where "Monopoly takes no skill" might come from. I grew up to despise Monopoly ferociously and didn't realize until very much later that the actual game being played at the table was so stripped down that it didn't even really qualify as "Monopoly" anymore.
I was told that Monopoly HAD no mechanics, really. If you came to our table talking about "negotiating" or "making deals", people would laugh at you or tell you to read the rule book that they apparently never read. You aren't allowed to trade properties, or buy or sell properties with other players. Auctions don't exist. People respected that you needed to complete a set to build houses/hotels, but because you needed to land on each property before anybody else got any of them, nobody ever completed a set ever, so the house and hotel pieces rotted away in the box, the bag untouched by human hands.
This bootleg, "pidgin" Monopoly was just accepted as the "true" nature of the game. You roll the dice, and pay what the board says to the bank for the title, or what the card says to the owner as rent, and the game ends for you when you can't afford to do that. That's it. That's all of Monopoly. Nothing is in your control, the dice just tell you what happens and you take it. It's Candyland but with more math and 10x the runtime. You don't like that? I guess you just don't like Monopoly then.
That was not an isolated incident. I knew more than one family that simply played Monopoly that way under the assumption that that was just the game played as the rules were written. I don't know where Pidgin Monopoly comes from, but that variant does indeed involve no skill or strategy, and many people who play it don't realize they're playing a variant.
I’m sorry to hear that honestly! It sounds like you missed out on playing real Monopoly for quite some time!
Tbh realising how common this is is kinda horrifying? Like it's a microcosm of far reaching misinformation, that despite how easy it would be to correct the vast majority of people just dont think to do that.
oh my god this is my family w every board game. even shit like freaking chess they somehow mess it up. i genuinely dont know how people would spend a hour or two on monopoly and not read the rules beforehand, and this happens w every board game too. im guessing its just from passed down information from other people about how the game works, and now they just cant be convinced to change anything abt how they play the game.
Same with me, i played not much of Monopoly in my life, but it was only this stripped down version. I considered it ultra-simple game for elementary school children until stumbled upon this video at random, lol. Greatest fun was in exchanging colorful money papers with big numbers on them (that was even before elementary school actually)
Sounds like black people.
You are the only person out there beefing with a literal board game. Keep it up man we love it
Thank you very much 😂
Yea, MCE is basically a real life money drainer and it was only made to make "Money"
That's not true. I've had a lifelong vendetta with Risk, personally.
Better than almost any rap beef.
DO IT FOR THE NICHE
me and my brother got banned from playing monopoly because we'd set up fucked up deals like 'i'll give you the last piece of your monopoly if i don't have to pay rent on it' and our mom hated it
I’m sorry to hear that! You should play with people who want to play the way you do!
That's literally the best part of the game! Last time we've set up stocks for properties, best monopoly game I've played
Out of curiosity did you and your brother ever go back on those deals?
Tell your mom to git gud lol
@@Quwertyn007how does that work with houses? Do you just need a majority to build them or all shares?
"The handcuff doesn't have to be attached to the board!" *[EXTREMELY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]*
That alone made this video twice as worth the watch as it already was
I’m glad you liked that bit 😂
"You're playing the game incorrectly if you try to win"
my brother in christ i didnt pull out this whole-ass board game to not actually compete
THIS
This man's mad this game hasn't become the most hated game in the world.
Returned to make sure no one can forget what this game did to us. 😂
PRECISELY ^^^^^^^^^^^
He simply had to hammer it home for the "UhM aCtUaLlY" people :p
MCE vs Adultery, the final showdown
*Remember what it took from you.*
The handcuff thing really is the dumbest. On paper, it sounds logical enough. "You have a handcuff, so you 'wear' it to have it on you", and most people inherently interpret that as "Okay, so I can just have it next to my money on the board or something like a card."
But no, it's LITERALLY meant to be worn ON YOUR WRIST and placed under the game board. Because being unwieldy as fuck and making you basically play one-handed is ACTUALLY the point!
They straight-up made a mechanic that effects people disproportionately and sucks to use JUST so you could 'cheat' by not engaging with it to flesh out as many cheat cards as possible.
You think just having the handcuff is good enough. But because of the rules, you literally NEED to wear it on your actual physical wrist or you're unironically doing a gameplay mechanic. Congrats, Hasbro! You've created an annoying feature you literally can't homebrew out of the game without removing an entire fully functional system!
The only workaround you could possibly have is to get decent sized fake handcuffs to wear, but by doing that you're actively invalidating a major mechanic and making the cheat a non-issue. It's so broken from a fundamental level!
I agree with all of this 😂
I have a friend who has a disabled left arm, and the second I heard in the original video about how the handcuffs worked, I imagined me telling him he simply couldn't play because he was just that fucked if he went to jail. That whole 'playing with one less hand' thing would really suck if you only have one to start with!
Complete Prisoner Immersion
@@danielgehring7437 It's a good thing the mechanic is arse - it would be a shame to have good mechanics go out the wayside because some people can't enjoy them.
it's kinda surprising that the MCE video did better than EP 1 of The Amalgam I guess the algorithm really is fueled primarily by anger.
It kinda seems that way 😂
this unfortunately is quite a well known fact videos that are negative just do a lot better in general
Tbf, it's not just youtube videos; iirc it's been a trend in broadcasting in general that negative news gave more views. UA-cam just stumbled upon that meta when it focuses on maximizing views.
@@MassacresMansion I told all my friends about that Video and how it went so massively popular in a matter of weeks. I hope they all saw it but I can't say for sure.
guess amalgam needs pure hatred as a mechanic now
This is the professional level hating we like to see. Not just some random comments on why the thing is bad but an in depth analysis critiquing the issues with rational statements. I aspire to achieve the level of hating you have good sir.
I appreciate your recognition of the effort and thought that went into this video. 😎
"just don't make mistakes lol"
ppl w/ bad memory, ppl w/ bad vision, ppl who were having fun socializing and didn't think about the board for a second, ppl who can only use one hand, ppl who have trouble gripping objects:
THIS^
My ADHD ass trying to multitask socializing and playing a new board game I'm not familiar with that requires me to pay attention to what others are doing while strategizing myself:
Them: "Just don't make mistakes lol"
Alcohol: exists
@@danielgehring7437Cheaters Edition really is a drinking game. 😂
@@PointsofDataLEGIT!!! pretty sure the only reason i ate absolute dirt at this game is bc i have adhd 😭
Oh no... The original is what brought me to this channel. Now theres a longer sequel.
Glad you’re here to see the sequel!
Same
Same!!!
Same. Came here for the Cheater's Edition slander, stayed for Chemicards/Uno Amalgam
@@grey_b7319same
The idea that any well-designed game would get worse if you took it seriously is on par with film bros defending their favorite movies from critique by telling you to "turn your brain off" while watching. Not being able to withstand analysis does not make media above analysis.
THIS
I feel like it's a semi-reasonable defense in both cases, but that it applies only up to a point before it becomes clear that you're kind of taking everyone for a ride.
Complaining that Wily's Wonderland, a movie about a mute Nick Cage beating the crap out of robots in a wacky twist of the horror genre not having great character development isn't really sensible. Complaining that if you memorized every single Headbandz in Headbanz and asked very intricate questions that you could nail it in just three minutes isn't sensible either.
However, that being said, again this has limits, and MCE monopoly definitely surpasses em. I don't think I've seen a single game with mainstream-ish-ness of this level that woulld crumple to the ground so quickly if you ran it entirely "Rules as Written" besides maybe some poorly balanced TTRPG modules, and even then, those are almost (looking at you, tomb of horrors) always stipulated with an implied or outright stated "band-aid" of "yeah feel free to change this stuff if your group ain't vibing with it."
@@skunkbrains5656 Good analysis. I'd like to add to this that when playing with friends, the optimal way to play any dice-based game is to learn to rig the dice rolls. But that's probably a bad way to play.
Actually later in the video I see there is a bit about sitting 6 feet from the table (among other things). Technically that would be an optimal play strategy within the letter of the rules as well. Spirit of the rules is a consideration.
@@skunkbrains5656ehhhh I mean we can’t fall into the everything is subjective pit. I would definitely say that particular movie does hold up enough well to analysis, that being it doesn’t fall apart and adheres to its own logic well enough.
I guess maybe the term most applicable is suspension of disbelief, like if a movie can hold to its own internal logic without straying too far from being coherent, than it’s at least an objectively good movie. Like for example, in fallout I would never critique the existence of ghouls as an objective fault. I think it’s pretty silly and an extreme misunderstanding of how radiation works, but that’s how radiation is established to work in the universe. That’s just a matter of taste me not liking the concept. But when it contradicts it’s established lore on ghouls, then I think it crosses into be an objective flaw with the writing.
Like we can separate matters of taste, whether or not you like a certain genre or prefer not or less character development from matters of objective quality, like the plot making sense and there being no sort of unintended production issues, like boom mics or extras in the wrong shot.
There’s nuances to it but I do think there are ways to objectively measure the quality of media that can’t be ignored.
Edit like 2 months later: To clarify too, there are obviously films that you can find where the whole point is to not make sense to achieve some other form of artistic expression such as cool shots or trippy effects. That doesn’t really change anything, as they’re the minority and you can’t use outlying examples to disprove the average way you should treat films.
If we did that with everything, we would have 0 objective definitions for anything practical, because there are always outliers.
@@skunkbrains5656
Willy's Wonderland sucks because it fails miserably at everything it attempts to do, not because it doesn't have any character development. That's a horrible example.
To make sure none of you take my stuff while I'm gone, I'm bringing the entire table and game into the bathroom with me.
Next level trolling 😂
Then the other players would be away from the board and their stuff! The only fair solution is for all players to tag along as well.
@@dymaxion3988 House rule: Every time the player stands up to do something, the table has to be fastened to them and every other player needs to follow them to wherever they're going.
There you go, Monopoly Kidnappers Edition
@@STIMULAT10NOMG DUDE IM DYING RN OMG
I'm gonna wipe my ass with the monopoly money so no one takes it from me
*The sequel no one expected, but all craved.*
Absolutely 😎
Yea
Yes
@@MassacresMansion we need thrilogy, that comes on april first (1rst), and thats is "i play monopoly cheaters edition" or "why monopoly cheaters edition is a good and strategy-besed game"
This comment is so true because after I watched the first video I literally looked through other videos on his channel for more rants. I thought youtube was recommending me the same old video because I watched it a few times (what I do when I really liked the content). I literally had to check that it was newly uploaded by going to his channel.
Every time my family played monopoly no-one wanted to trade with anyone else and anytime I wanted to make a trade they would always say no or give some extremely unreasonable deal then if I tried to continue it they would discourage me and say “just take your turn”, then anytime I asked to play monopoly they would always say “it’s boring. I never knew that people actually traded and had complex trade agreements in monopoly.
This is my experience as well. The only time any trading would occur is when I would play it digitally against AI or randos online. If I'm going to play a digital board game in this genre, I'd prefer to play Fortune Street instead
I've played against people who legitimately thought trades were cheating.
It's like nobody actually bothers to learn the rules.
I’m so sorry to hear that. ):
@@LendriMujinaThey don't. They learn from a friend, who learned from a friend, who learned from a friend, who learned from a cousin, who learned from a cousin who was purposely trying to play a trick on their younger cousin to make them lose.
Me too.
“Getting your own filth and Cheeto dust on game components is disgusting.”
Don’t you mean *Cheat-o* dust?
🤯
Re: Taking all of your stuff away from the table to protect it from being messed with-
Even if your table *did* collectively agree that it was okay to take your stuff with you when you left, AND you could guarantee that everyone only used that mechanic in good faith and with no abuses, Congratulations. You've just made Tedium a game mechanic. It would be tedious to pick all of your stuff up, take it with you, do whatever you're doing, come back, and reset your board state every single time you left the table. And tedium is an anathema to good game design.
YEAH I was thinking this as well, on top of all of the other issues with that :)
AGREED
And he didn't even fully touch on the fact that whatever you are doing may require both of your hands. He mentioned putting the items in your pockets, but that assumes you have pockets, and only partly touches on the issue. Carrying the stuff around could actually get in the way of everything else that your doing actually making it more viable to leave the items behind while you do it, or things happening that aren't going to wait for you to take the time to gather up all your stuff and remove it from the board... It's a horribly thought out argument to attempt to block an intended mechanic on many levels.
@@Quandry1
I want the people who suggested this to look me in the eye and honestly say that they're OK with the property cards and cash being taken into the bathroom, where God knows what they'll accumulate, and then they have to touch them.
I believe in Sid Meier's addage that "players will optimize the fun out of a game given the opportunity" (I think most MMOs suffer from this honestly,) but it's a game designer's job to make that as unlikely as possible.
True!
@@MassacresMansion Mark Rosewater (the head designer on Magic: the Gathering) has also said this publicly on multiple occasions. (Along with several other game design lessons.)
Notably, Hasbro owns Magic, and Magic is by far their most successful product. You'd think that they'd at least listen to the guy who's in charge of designing their most successful game.
It's your own fault if you take the fun out of the game. No one but you.
@@GameFreak2467 Then you should play a different game
@@simonteesdale9752Pretty ironic coming from him since MTG is full of deliberately powercrept cards in the most recent sets.
Perhaps a video on regular monopoly would be interesting. I have to admit, I"m a certified Monopoly Hater, and most of the people I play board games with feel the same way.
The way the game would always go with my family is: No one would get a natural monopoly, because that's unlikely. Then, no one would ever make a trade that would give an opponent a monopoly. Because there isn't much to spend excess money on unless you can build houses, no amount of money was incentive enough to make someone make that trade. Once in a blue moon, it would work out that two people had properties such that they could trade them and both get a monopoly, but still, it tended to be for property groups of highly different values, and those trades were still very hard to make anyone accept. I think in a dozen or two hours of playing I saw someone build a house maybe once. And the game just defaulted to "go around the board until people run out of money" but base rents are so low this could take hours.
But, to hear you talk about Monopoly, makes me think there is something I've missed all these years. So, I'm interested in how you play monopoly to make it fun.
I’ll keep this in mind 👀
This is an issue that tends to come from a group of players that are insecure about trading. They have no real strategy going forward, so they don't want to risk giving someone else a Monopoly because they don't know how to secure one themselves so it feels like a guaranteed loss.
I love Monopoly, but I've played with *a lot* of groups where something like this happened. I absolutely understand the frustration.
A similar thing used to happen when I had a friend group that I was trying to get into chess, of all things. A lot of times my friends weren't wanting to play against me, so they'd play against each other, but due to a lack of strategy, would just end up in weird, drawn-out board states where no one could move a piece anywhere without losing another piece and so they'd all just give up.
@@luminationbutthisisforvide522 That actually sounds crazy dude, taking risks is one of the core pillars of chess.
But i guess that's what happens, when you don't have a timer when you play chess.
@@luminationbutthisisforvide522 Meanwhile my friend looking at my chess board states
"How the %@#^ do the two of you have both your queens, 2 bishops, and a rook all hanging at the same time?"
Pedgin monopoly maybe?
Now this is my favorite genre of UA-cam videos. A random nerd (and I mean "nerd" in the best way possible) monolouging about a topic they are passionate about.
You are my audience 😎
EXACTLY WHAT IM SAYING
autistic infodumps my beloved
This is my entire UA-cam experience, I don't even understand why other types of videos exists
Oh ok, "I don't mean to insult you BUT", okay buddy, yeah, nerd in the best way possible. Like I'd believe you. I KNOW YOU ARE LYING. I KNOW EVERYTHING.
Welp, it's fuck monopoly cheater's edition two, time. I would make an eletric bogolo joke but it's almost as milked as monopoly itself.
So valid 😂
God damnit now I have to edit my comment
21:00 Gonna stop you right there for a bit. Elizabeth Magie was not an anti-capitalist, but actually a Georgist ('geoist' is a more modern term). Without going into hyper specifics, Georgists are for owning capital, but take issue with the idea of land ownership constituting as someone's wealth. The guys the Georgists really have it out for are landlords, not capitalists. In fact, Georgists believe that everyone in a capitalist world would be better off if you taxed the unimproved value of the land, known as a "land value tax". Karl Marx himself criticized Georgism for being a capitalist ideology. Plus when you think about it, the lose condition of Monopoly is when you can't afford to pay your rent, not when someone owns more stuff than you. Also it was originally called "The Landlord's Game", that's probably relevant. Though to be fair, I wouldn't blame anyone for not knowing about the Georgism stuff with how often news sources from all over push the anti-capitalism narrative. Otherwise the creation of Monopoly isn't nearly as dramatic.
TLDR: Monopoly was never intended to be a critique of capitalism.
Perfect! Then that invalidates the argument I was countering in the first place 😂
Not that landlords are bad either, to be honest. The Landlord's Game had to strawman the very concept of landlording to Hell and back to try and make the criticism stick.
For a start, why are you forced to pay rent all the time? Just... stay at a place you already own. The dearth of properties available to buy in modernity is the fault of mass immigration, not greedy landlords.
“The problem is that you were playing optimally” is the reason I don’t like Super Mario World as much as other people. If I want to beat the level, l’m gonna use the cape. The thing that automatically beats 95% of all SMW levels.
Imagine the SMW has 6 player multiplayer, everyone can damage each other with capes, and everyone’s goal is to make you lose. That’s MCE. 😂
@@MassacresMansion That actually sounds kind of fun, and a lot like Mario Vs. Luigi Online
@@graymondgt1397 Man now I feel old
I only ever played that mode in NSMB once on proper (or well, original) hardware and it was great
Tbf, that was part of the draw for me as a kid. It's like Kirby; I could just cheese any level by floating, but that's only an option for when I'm getting frustrated and I want to move on.
@@graymondgt1397god I wish Super Mario Makers 2 vs online wasn't so damn Laggy and Janky because it was basically that.
Add monopoly cheaters edition to the amalgam
Never 😂
plastic handcuff symbol
@@MassacresMansion add the cheat cards to allow you to take everyones cards making everyone except you win
@@MassacresMansion make a monopoly amalgam and add cheaters addition to that
MM when they make an UNO: Cheater’s Edition
My family never traded while playing monopoly growing up. Some family members actively hated that part of the game because “it gives an unfair advantage for being deceitful” which…. Unfortunate childhood circumstances.
Oop
That’s… that’s the whole point…
Monopoly is a critique of capitalism. Players having an unfair advantage is a fundamental part of the game.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel family is religious. My grandmother thought playing poker was wrong. even if you werent playing for money.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel The problem is that a lot of people don't tend to enjoy a game feeling unfair.
@@hiygamer If that was true, games like Sorry, Monopoly, and Uno Show ‘em No Mercy would not be profitable games.
A cursed thought exercise re: MCE as a social deduction game:
At the start of the game, each player is assigned another player as a partner in secret.
If you aid that player in cheating, you each get a small bonus at the end of some defined period of time - a few goes around the board? - but if you get caught assisting another player, you both pay out a penalty to the player who spotted it and go to jail.
At the end of (unspecified period of time), shuffle partners again. Penalties and bonuses then raise.
i hate myself for putting thought into this
Honestly seems really interesting!
That would work really well as a Jackbox style game
@@judahfactor5908 Sounds like a pretty good Fakin' It sequel. 1-2 players get different rules to a simple game, with both the game and the players changing every round? That'd be pretty fun if it was well-executed.
Did something like this in Scrabble. Every round we drew cards; get the joker card and you have to make a fake word on your turn. Turn order randomized per round.
Get away with it and gain 3x pts. Get caught and have your turn erased. An incorrect accusation erases the accusors' next turn *and* gets them docked 50 pts.
Make a wrong word on your turn and get caught but you aren't the joker? Erase your turn but get 10pts to ease the pain.
Important! You can only look at the Scrabble Dictionary on your turn.
at least your putting some social deduction into the game. Because MCE doesn't really have any.
I don't know if this has already been said but, in case it hasn't, skipping out on rent actually isn't a cheat or mistake in regular Monopoly, it's a bona fide game mechanic. Look in the instruction book and you'll see it specifically says that, if a player lands on an owned property, it's up to the _property owner_ to ask for rent. If they forget to ask for rent before the next turn, then no rent is paid. This makes the Free Stay "cheat" even worse, since it means someone who is very familiar with normal Monopoly and waits for the property owner to ask for rent can be accused of cheating and get punished for it. Total bullshit.
TRUE
I’m envisioning a game called Peddlers. Like Monopoly, you roam the countryside as a Peddler to buy and trade various goods and currency.
First go around, pretty much like Monopoly mechanics. When you start the next go around (“passing GO” equivalent), you get a powerful ability at random from a pool of abilities. You get up to 5 abilities total, 1 new ability each time you “pass GO”, and for every “pass GO” after that you can choose to give up an ability for a new ability.
Here’s the twist: Peddlers are not always honest. Shady Peddlers can try to “bend” one rule each turn, and if they are not caught during their turn they get away with it. They DO NOT announce their success, because a good Peddler NEVER reveals their secrets 😉 Because the Peddler abilities are powerful and varied, it’s not always clear if a Peddler is honestly following the rules or bending the rules in their favor, meaning players have to use strategy to mask their cheating or they won’t get away with it. Peddlers caught cheating are Thrown Out of the town they’re currently in (think being forced to move to the space after a group of properties in Monopoly and resolving the effects of the new space) and would pay a Fine if entering the Town on their next go around. If a Peddler can prove they are falsely accused using the game rules, the accuser must pay a fine to the one they accused.
The first go around without abilities helps Peddlers get themselves established before abilities and accusations start flying, and the slow ramp up of abilities makes getting used to the rhythm and flow of each game manageable. High level play with 4 maxed-out Peddlers would feel like a masterful accomplishment, not an exhausting slog. Perhaps a variant could be 3 Peddler abilities instead of 5, making the strategy comprehensible without going full Galaxy Brain. And it also tests out a player’s ability to lie and bluff without abandoning strategy or skill.
I just made Monopoly: Cheaters Edition fun. You’re welcome ☺️
I strongly recommend pursuing this project!
Make this game, NOW
There is 100% an officially licensed parody of Monopoly called "Monopoly: Socialist Edition" that DOES market itself with the original Landlord's Game premise. However, it's a parody, obviously a jab at the people who believe that modern Monopoly is meant to highlight the dangers of capitalism.
Maybe I’ll have to cover that one in the future 👀
@@MassacresMansion Yes, please do!
I think you can still read the way Monopoly plays as a demonstration of the danger of capitalism. It’s not a particularly deep or nuanced critique, but “when you get more money, it gets easier to get even more money” is a pretty clear consequence of the rules. Is the game necessarily intended to have that message? Not really, but you get to interpret a piece of media however you want. It’s perfectly legal.
@@PaulFisher more like a "when you get more money, the best way to get more is to price everyone else out of the market"
@@MassacresMansionples pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls 100000x pls
Emulating the critics with the average attention span after clicking on this video: "What's wrong with Monopoly Cheetos Edition? All the cards are indeed greasy and smell of cheese aroma (not cheese, but cheese extract), that's the point. So what if your friend kept selling his hotels to buy all of the bags of Cheetos? Just use your rent to get some of the singular snacks for yourself!"
😂
...I kinda want to see this edition now.
The only time I cheated at the game was when the others were yelling at each other because they all thought the others cheated but couldn't prove it. I had the banker's stuff in front of me at the time and took a property card. When they were done arguing, I took my turn and the game continued. When it came back to me, I told them what I did and since I got away with it, I could claim the prize on the card.
Literally the only time.
Fair play honestly 😂
I... I don't think I've ever negotiated in Monopoly. What you described (continuous dice rolling and what is effectively accounting) is exactly how every game of Monopoly I've ever played has gone. I never even really thought about doing that in general.
Your eyes have been opened! Take this knowledge with you and live better!
No trading in monopoly is boring. The best thing is in like 4 player as soon as someone agrees a set complete trade, the others are immediately more desperate to trade
This game is probably boring af with just 2 players because you would always know who cheated
TRUE
In fairness, base Monopoly doesn't really function all that great with 2 players either. In a 1v1 scenario, every interaction is pretty much by definition a 0 sum game, disincentivizing you from doing any real negotiations or interacting with the opponent in general.
I love that this video, whose entire purpose was to dunk on a bad monopoly, served me an ad for Monopoly Go, a bad monopoly.
That’s hilarious 😂
That one barely counts, though.
"my brother in christ, it's already fucking dead" they said.
and you responded with "we can't take any fucking risks. who knows if someone tries to resurrect the body?" as you burn the remnants of the game's good image to ASH.
and i am HERE for it!
Very good. 😈 Glad you enjoyed the public bonfire. :)
So about the whole “you played too optimally” thing. I do think there is a point, ironically at an intermediate skill level 99% of the time, where trying to play as good as possible actively saps away at the fun. The kind of tilt you get from reading a strategy guide or listening to a tier list, rising up to the challenge, and getting your ass kicked by a slightly narrower margin. Granted, that’s a sociology problem far outside the scope of board game development (but not video games, Why It’s Rude to Suck at World of Warcraft is probably my favorite video on that topic), but it’s not surprising people conflate frustration at games with frustration at metatextual resources that drill into your head that you need to do [thing] to be a top gamer, and therefore enter the kingdom of Heaven.
More importantly, I’ve absolutely seen “why are you taking this causal game too seriously” before. It’s not even a hypothetical; it’s every third post on the MTG Commander subreddit
Also, isn't it the role of the game designer to design their game to mitigate this issue?
To use an MtG example: MaRo has said that the Gotcha mechanic (which punishes people for saying certain common words) is the worst mechanic he's ever designed because of what playing optimally around it does to the game. (Namely making everyone stop talking in what is meant to be a casual, silly format).
M:CE seems more to take everything Gotcha does wrong and dial it up to 9000. The optimal way to play seems to be to avoid playing the game as much as possible, and instead laser focus on cheating and preventing cheats. Drag the game to a standstill by questioning and clarifying everything your opponent does. Cheat as much as possible. Utterly break the game with random combos.
There could be a game that gamifies those incentives in a fun and interesting way. However M:CE isn't that game.
the issue with cheater's edition is that it incentives you so hard to be a cheating bastard. The rewards for cheating are so great, and the punishment is so low, that actually playing the game like a nice person will cause you to lose, every time. Cheating isn't some sweaty, optimal thing that only pros do. it's *the entire point of the game*!
This ^^^
@@MassacresMansion and since I got the attention of the man himself, this general problem is also what leads people to the “Monopoly is not a skilled game” route as well. Yes, Monopoly is a game with very little moment-to-moment player agency, occasional BS from random factors outside your control, and an uncomfortably long playtime per session if you’re not ready for it (this description is a surprise tool that will help us later). I’ve seen the Numberphile video, I know on a mathematic level that the first couple property colors are the strongest, along with properties just outside of jail. Assuming everybody plays rationally, it’s a game about buying monopolies, breaking your opponent’s monopolies, and never ever trading them, but no amount of rote probability can ever replace the tension of a 4-way prisoner’s dilemma, as all of you walk around in circles in a minefield.
Also, by my description of Monopoly and other details I left out to not show my hand, The Landlord’s Game (and Monopoly by proxy) is the world’s oldest roguelike, and almost definitely the first roguelike featuring user-created level generation.
@@simonteesdale9752 And to be very honest, the hypothetical game of Cheater’s Edition minus Monopoly, already exists. It’s been on shelves for ages. Hell, it even says directly in the rulebook “please deliberately misinterpret the rules to gain an edge, it’d be funny and in the spirit of the game.”
MCE is the unholy lovechild of Hasbro’s greed and Munchkin
My favorite part about the argument that “if the other players are nice, they won’t abuse the broken mechanics,” is the simple fact that *its monopoly*. Base Monopoly is literally infamous for destroying friendships, and that’s without unbalanced cheating rules. Finding a group of people where everyone will “play nice” in Monopoly is rare as it is.
Absolutely!
"You can't expect people to not try to play optimally" someone tell that to "It's a party game" Sakurai. Dude's a legend, don't get me wrong, but the way that it feels like Nintendo actively despises people playing Smash Bros competitively is just bizarre, and I'm not even a tournament player!
(That said though, some people definitely play games to cause chaos rather than to win, that's a very real thing)
I don't think Sakurai even hates competitive players - he's stated several times that his worries are about the skill _floor_ getting too high, with nobody outside of the old guard even being able to get their foot in the door. During the Wii U era, he said in a Famitsu interview that he is, in fact, happy Melee is still getting love - it is his work, after all. He just empathizes with people who are getting left behind in the arms race. It's not an easy balance to strike in the slightest.
If you're talking about Nintendo as a company being actively obstructive, though, yeah, they do that, and they're very irritating for it.
That’s true, but chaotic players often have more fun in games where there’s more order. 👀
I literally thought about Brawl too when that point was brought up 😂
Sakurai says it's a party game because Smash is a game where you're allowed to bend a huge amount of rules. There's tons of items, a bunch of settings, and special modes to mess with. It can even up the play field for players with a wide range of skill. Competitive play removes that entire aspect of smash bros.
Turning off items and setting up fair rules for competition has nothing to do with playing optimally.
Smash IS a party game, it just also allows competive play as a bonus.
as a proud chaos player, you need the norm to be attempting to win. it makes the game better for everyone. and the game becomes more resistant to the chaos turning it into a slog. chaos will get dragged back on track most of the time if they do. if they dint, you not only derail the game for people who want to play more sincerely., but the chaos isnt fun either
a nonsequitor in a conversation can be entertaining, several people saying words at each other isnt
There is an alternate timeline where those first two MCE games never happened and we got a Monopoly Amalgam instead of the Uno Amalgam
The multiverse is crazy XD
And we got a horrible Uno Cheating Edition instead!!!!
@@eggshelleggshellI don't know how to make it as bad as MCE
Fun fact: I came up with some custom rules for Monopoly that my family tried last time we played:
- Being in jail requires $50 on EVERY unsuccessful turn, and not just on the third one.
- You can place houses/hotels on a color which you do not own all properties from BUT whenever you do so it receives a special marker signifying that the first person to land on it pays zero rent.
The jail rule was originally going to be harsher and somehow tied to your specific dice rolls, but just doing $50 per turn was enough to make jail feel like an actual punishment instead of easy property evasion. The second rule was one which I figured was a good idea due to how it enhances strategies and requires players to weigh individual property value, land coverage, probability, risk, and rewards.
I hope you like these rule changes; I just wanted to tell you about them!
These sound like some neat house rules honestly!
Building off of what some other commenters have spoken on, you'd be shocked how many people act two steps from viscerally terrified of trading in vanilla Monopoly. A lot of players I've met absolutely refuse to take trade deals unless they're explicitly in favour of themself. They also have a tendency to mark one player as "the guy who always wins" and refuse to ever take any deals with that person, even to their own detriment. Not only that, but even more players will tend to back out of any deal if you try to negotiate beyond a single counteroffer, accusing you of holding the game hostage or otherwise dragging things on.
This aversion to the social interaction elements of the game absolutely renders it barely less RNG-based than something like Chutes and Ladders. Roll dice, move piece, buy property or pay rent, repeat...
With this in mind, it's really easy to see how people come to the conclusions about Monopoly that they do. "It takes no skill," "there's no strategy," "the game's so drawn-out and boring," etc. are very easy claims to make once you realize that people tend to, even unintentionally, remove practically every compelling aspect of gameplay.
That being said, as a personal and edited note, I never play with the auction mechanic, however. I dislike that mechanic because it just serves as a stupid forced money sink and encourages "just buy everything on the board when you land on it" type gameplay. I always just play where players can just... strategically choose not to buy things.
It’s a real shame honestly. People are missing out!
Yeah, my family played with heavy trading and alliances, but we never used auctions for the same reason.
The whole railroads advancing you thing is actually a neat mechanic, they just didn’t have to remove the rest of the space’s functionalities. Like, just make it so that you can pay a fare to move forward when you land on the space.
Agreed!
As a kid, I was always flabbergasted that the trains were just another property. Like, how can you charge rent on something that moves!?
To the "play casually not optimally" point: that _can_ be a valid way to make playing games more enjoyable - I know, because I do it all the time - but it falls under the same umbrella as the "just change the rules" point.
As context, I am the eldest of four siblings, and I have spent a good portion of my life finding creative ways to hold back in games, since _(while I know there are other people with younger siblings who disagree)_ wiping the floor with little kids...wasn't fun. For them or for me.
And now that we're older, they're actually a lot _better_ than me at most games we play, meaning even if I played my absolute best, I would still probably lose.
Sometimes while playing a game, due to the context of who you're playing with, a player might _not_ be trying their hardest to win, either to make another player feel better or because the amount of energy it would take to calculate and try to execute the most optimal move is more trouble than it's worth for a chance at winning (since in my case, the fun to be had isn't in winning, but just the act of playing with my siblings).
But none of this helps MCE's case. If the best advice to enjoy a game is to NOT engage with it as presented to you (by adding rules or not taking it seriously), the designers did something wrong, and I don't think that's what Hasbro was trying to design around anyway.
I'm sure it's _possible_ to play this game and have fun, if you're playing it in a detached or modified way (and I assume that's what those comments were getting at), but that doesn't make it any less terribly designed. That just means those people were able to have fun in spite of it. (And personally, this game sounds like a stressful nightmare to play at any level of engagement or "try-hardiness".)
All of this to say, yes, sometimes players aren't always trying to win, and that can be a legitimate way to have more fun in a game, but that doesn't invalidate anything you said in the first video.
BASED
Going out of your way to hold back IS try-harding though. Normally people play at about 70ish% of their effort and perform what they believe to be the optimal strategy. Switching to suboptimal strategies or putting in more OR LESS effort takes mental exertion.
An hour long clarification to a 47 minute long negative review of a specific edition of a board game?
I'm sold.
Finally, a My Little Pony font Clarification Time of a decent length.
Good 😎
Here we go again, I am so ready to see you dunk even harder on this illogical mess
You’re in luck 😈
Dude verbally torched the game last time, then went "whoops, missed some spots"
So accurate 😂
the fact the first uno amalgam video from 7 months was surpassed by the first MCE rant video from 2 months shocks me, the uno amalgam is what brung most of the fans and is the driving force for this channel.
It really is! I was surprised as well!
@@MassacresMansion also do you just respond to comments in your free time or something?
Another point supporting your argument against the "just take your stuff with you" take is the fact that, unless you then set a house rule against doing so, you have absolutely no requirement to bring _everything_ back from wherever you went. You can hide some of your cash somewhere on the way, then, if you're about to lose, you say you'll be right back, go grab your "hidden cash" and suddenly not only have you saved yourself, but you've potentially undone all the effort your opponent put in to get you to a point where you might ever lose. You can even claim you cheated when you get back if you do choose to do this on your turn, ending your turn after you get back and playing "perfectly normally", forcing players to then pay you money because you did something they could not physically have seen.
As someone who hasn't played monopoly in years, yet always had a good time on the rare occasions that I did, I can safely say that I want this absolute bastardization of monopoly as far away from me as physically possible. I could sit down in front of a base Monopoly board right now and fully understand and follow everything going on. I could do the same with MCE and I'd have no clue what the actual hell is going on at any point because NONE of my limited knowledge of base monopoly would really matter.
So true!!!!!
So true!!!!!
Honestly, I find the idea that this game is designed for 'Monopoly haters' to be kind of baffling. As a Certified Monopoly Hater myself I have heard nothing about this game that would make me say 'ah yes, this sounds like an improvement over the previous game'.
It sure is a bad game 😂
Out of curiosity, I went back to the original MCE video, and you were not lying about responding to every comment!
Always impressed by the community side of your videos - and I also love that this video was essentially one giant clarification time
Clarification time is best time
I appreciate your dedication to holding me accountable 😎
Video rants like this only just strengthens my trust in the man adding more and more uno versions into their cauldron; slowly preparing for us to drink it
I appreciate your trust 😎
I agree with everything except one point. "When you sit down for a game do you want to win or do you want to lose?"
My favorite hobby is Magic the Gathering. Of course I want to win, but in the end, what I love about it is the opportunity to catch up with friends over a card game for a couple hours. Maybe see some fun combos. But ultimately games are and should be about the fun of playing not the competition. Now you could say that this is not a fun game, and that makes it so competition is the only option. But in my opinion that's just another sign this is a bad poorly designed game.
Rather than breeding an environment of fun it breeds contempt and anger
Indeed, the atmosphere this game creates is a toxic one.
Finally, a video about Mario Cart Eight
So true XD
2:02 why do I see “you just explain what you think without delving into why it’s wrong“ everywhere
Beats me. 🤷♂️😂
10:56 I think what they're trying to say is, “The game is more fun if you don’t play optimally,” except the problem is that’s still a flaw.
I’ve heard this quote in a few Game Maker’s Toolkit videos. “If given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of games.” (The quote wasn’t from him, though he was quoting Soren Johnson, but you can get the point.)
So if the optimal way to play a game isn't fun, then that’s a problem, and the game needs to be changed to discourage that way of play.
Correct!
Okay, okay, hear me out: Part 3 is how to fix MCE (impossible edition)
Now THAT is a wonderful idea.
put it back to normal monopoly
@@theflyingspagetSame energy as when Adam Something takes a bullshit transportation project (such as the hyperloop), and “optimizes” it back into being just a regular train. 😂
Wait, the rules actually say the handcuff needs to be attached to the board at all times? Wow, I've really been hit by the Mandela Effect, because I didn't remember seeing it anywhere in the rules. Actually had to pull out my copy of the game just to verify, and yeah, turns out I've just been dumb all this time.
Success! I have educated! 😂
@@MassacresMansion Joke's on you, I've graduated high school and am thus incapable of learning! Your educationizing has no power over me! ;P
The handcuff is 100% designed with hostility. If you cant fit your hand in it you're screwed. If you *can* wear it but have short arms good luck doing anything. If you have shaky hands or anything like that (tremors, tic disorder, motor issues, hell even just moving when being startled), you'll be punished for "cheating" despite not genuinely trying to move.
I have hand tremors, my hands just shake a lot, and it's something that runs in my family. If I ever played and had to go to jail, I'd be bankrupted for a medical condition that i can't control turning the board into a quake zone.
Yet another reason the handcuff is awful. Avoid this game at all costs!
being disproportionately punished for having a disability or condition? They almost actually made a commentary on capitalism again while trying to avoid it 😂
Yknow, the system being designed to punish and disadvantage people with disabilities is probably the most realistic aspect of this game.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel Wrong. Disabilities themselves punish and disadvantage people who have them. That's why they're called DISabilities - you are less able because you are the victim of them.
Equity would therefore require the disabled to be given an unfair advantage, punishing those who are not disabled for no fault of their own. The alternative is to cure the disability, but that's ableist.
@@KopperNeoman Refusing to accommodate a disability does, in fact, punish them for being disabled.
But why would I expect someone who thinks immigration is socialism to know that? You probably think accommodating the disabled is socialism too, right?
28:52 "did you know 7 is the most commonly rolled number with two D6?"
NO WAY 🤯
This man has a affiliation link in his description for the game he hates, he's profiting off of his hatred for this game and thats absolutely incredible i love it
Indeed. If anyone feels like proving me wrong they can buy the game themselves… from my links 😂
This video feels poorly argued tbh. You just explain what you think is wrong without delving into why it is wrong. Also you fail to mention counterarguments that most people would think of such as taking your property cards with you if you have to get up or the fact that the handcuff does not have to stay connected to the board. Some criticisms you make are valid but you substantiate so few of them. I don't mean to hate but I definitely feel like you could do better.
Dang ya really got me 😂
Your point about the cheat mechanic being much more suited for a game built around them is so correct! I played a chess video game that had an ai opponent who could cheat in tremendous ways, but the game was designed around this and was thus really fun! It’s called King of the Bridge
That sounds radical! Also glad you agree!
Bit of a spoiler:
There's a duck, and if you get the "correctly accused revenge cheat", you can put a piece on it. This includes the Troll.
One argument I disagree with strongly is the "you want to win"
Personally I play to have fun, yes I will try to win, but if I have more fun doing sub-optimal or even bad plays, than I will do those plays.
This argument goes both ways. For example if my way of having fun is winning, then how much do I have to hold back to make the game enjoyable for others? Even then, the game isn’t enjoyable at any point 😂
@@MassacresMansion First I should mention I also think MCE is stupid.
I just think different people have different ways of having fun, not saying your way is wrong in any way.
I actually would love to see your review of the “Monopoly Longest Game Edition”. I got it as a joke for my friends but I couldn’t get anyone to actually try it out. However after some research and watching a KamSandwich video, it was mentioned that, thanks to some poorly thought out and play tested rules, the game actually tends to be SHORTER than regular monopoly. I would love to see your take or thoughts on it, and if you ended up coming to the same conclusion! Either way, I still love your stuff, and still excitedly watch every new video you release, and seeing your response to the comment I made on my first time watching this always makes me smile. I love your content, and I’m always excited to see more! Keep up th awesome work!!!
I am a fan of monopoly, and genuinely enjoy playing it, and it’s always an uphill battle to try to convince my friends or partner to even CONSIDER playing it, so I always enjoy hearing how bad a version of monopoly is from the perspective of a monopoly fan, instead of from “monopoly is bad, this other version is also bad, to the surprise of no one”
Thank you thank you! I appreciate your support! Maybe I will make a video on that version someday!
This video feels well argued tbh. You just explain what you think is wrong while delving into why it is wrong. Also you mention counterarguments that most people would think of such as taking your property cards with you if you have to get up or the fact that the handcuff does not have to stay connected to the board, despite these situations being ridiculous. Some criticisms you make are valid and you substantiate so many of them. I don't mean to hate, but I definitely think you could do worse.
Thank you very much! 😂♥️
i was shocked and horrified to see this video in my notifications after there was already one decently long video on this topic. the rage of a man scorned by bad game design knows no bounds
It’s true. My hatred for MCE is limitless 😂
Lol, i did in fact, mention the capitolism thing on you last video, and while I was mostly joking, I have now decided that my headcannon for MCE is that it is in fact a capitolism critique that some genious rogue developer managed to sneak past hasbro's corperate overlords by branding it as a cheaters edition of monopoly
Imagine 😂
Yes my tiny wrists are ready to be handcuffed to this video for the next hour 🎉
Excellent 😂
i'm not suprised the guy behind the uno amalgam is this thorough
You know me so well :)
I feel like the intended game play experience of MCE is a small child smugly announcing that they cheated, or excitedly catching an daddy cheating, while the adults smile knowlingly at each other.
But even with that concept (which as you say, isnt how the game was marketed), the damn cuff needs to fit an adult. Can you imagine the infinite disappointment of this hypothetical child catching daddy cheating, getting to slap him in irons, only to find out the irons dont fit
So true!
ok, but the idea for a "social deduction monopoly" is kinda a good idea. idk how it would work, but the idea is firing the neurons in my brain.
So true! I’ve thought a little about the idea as well!
Wow this guy really hates MCE! You know what I think he should do, he should really stick it to Hasboro and create his own Monopoly that combines EVERY mechanic from EVERY monopoly version out there into one uh… what the word… erm… Amalgam? That surely hasn’t been done anywhere with anything else right!
Not a bad idea 👀😈
we need that legend commenter to come back with a dissertation that launches the 2 hour long part 3
Imagine 😂
"Babe, wake up. Your fav youtuber made a 1h video essay" (positive)
Your favorite UA-camr?? 🥺 Thank you!
@@MassacresMansion Absolutely! as most people are 70% water. I am 70% CHAOS. and Amalgam's most prominent component is CHAOS. Dus it is my favorite game, and since you are the creator* of it. You are my fav. because I LOVE CHAOS. And you provide it.
@@modlich_303dont worry, we all are Agents of Chaos
@@MassacresMansionI'd say one of my top 5 Favorites. :D
@@DpleDualies no i am agent of ms obama
oh hell yes, a second part of this. the first one is how i found your channel and am now fully invested in seeing the creation of Chemicards, so it feels nice to see more of this again
**surely, we can expect Monopoly Cheater's Edition in Chemicards, right**
MCE will never be in Chemicards 😂
Thanks for the support!
Actually, most things you described as Strategy are also Skills, such as Money Management and Probability Analysis
I suppose some things could be interpreted as both 🤔
Incredibly excited for this. The MCE video was the first I saw from you, then I proceeded to watch the entire Uno amalgam series. Keep up the good work!
Glad you’re here, and thank you!
Genuinely, I’m one of the people that was introduced into your channel by that MCE video. And now I’m here for the long haul as I can’t wait for Chemicards. Been loving your channel and games so far, keep up the good work
Thank you so much! Glad you’re here!
This whole cheating mechanic could work as a twist in regular Monopoly, definitely not as its own game, as we saw in the videos.
It certainly is a good idea on paper.
You know what, after watching both your vids, MCE seems like a great prank gift for a friend that likes Monopoly. If you're lucky, it might even make them not play base game Monopoly for a while after playing that game. The broken nature of the game also makes it more likely that the players will end the game prematurely and move on to something else without wasting too much time.
You’re onto something there 🤔😈
Why would that be “lucky”?
Good idea though
Unrelated, but the plants vs zombies garden warfare music hits hard
Heck yes! 😎
@@MassacresMansion gw2 is one of the best games of all time
Loved the first video, but I feel you’re being pedantic on this one. Nobody literally means Monopoly requires NO skill or strategy, it’s just ״buy or not to buy” and ״extremely basic bartering” are SO uninteresting it might as well have none.
As a 28 year old that plays board games every single week all my life, from simple 10 minutes ones and ones that requires several sessions of many hours to complete, I’ve never in my life met a single person who even moderately enjoys Monopoly. Not. One. It’s really hard for me to fathom how could you, or anyone else, find Monopoly fun.
This argument goes both ways, because I like Monopoly, I know several experienced board gamers that enjoy it, the bartering system is as complex as you make it, and there’s a lot that goes into what you choose to buy which I went over in this video. 🤷♂️
As much of a "haha Monopoly ruins friendships and stars arguments lol" is, at least in that one you can in a way sit back and just enjoy normal conversations and stuff with friends, meanwhile MCE essentially encourages you to be three times as greedy, untrustworthy of others and be super vigilant, you said it best in the last video, everyone just stares you like that one Sonic meme everytime you move, grab a card, any amount of cash, or do anything really. Like I said, it was sorta fun for what it was, but I not playing it again, it being shorter was what motivated me to play it in the first place as I wasn't particularly in the mood for Monopoly that day.
Based
Two more minutes and you could've had an hour long epic.
Dang, so true!
One other scuffed strategy, by intentionally acting shifty without cheating making it much harder to call you out for actually using the cheats.
So true! You can just fish for accusations and ruin other player’s games without even doing anything meaningful. 😂
I disagree with your point about "Everyone is always trying to win". Technically speaking, the optimal strategy in every turn-based game without a timer mechanic is to refuse to take your turn until your opponent resigns. People don't do that tho, in the name of politeness and in the name of fun. Messing with a player who's not at the table falls into that category, as does leaving the table to abuse that politeness.
I don’t know what to say, it’s a flawless strategy 😂
...That still could be argued as a design flaw. Chess is nowadays played with a chess clock for a reason.
Technically speaking, that's not a "kindness" thing.
The act of sitting and choosing to play a game, including deciding what rules to use, is called a "magic circle". Effectively speaking, it's an unspoken set of rules that players agree to in order to facilitate the game being enjoyable.
Think of it as being immersed in a good RPG, you abide by the rules, even if you have an easier way of doing things, because your goal is to fill in your spot in the game world.
(Yes, you can still exploit a video game, and even glitch it until it's fully broken; but that's usually reserved for unfun mechanics and speedrunners dealing with slow mechanics respectively. And even then, they have their own magic circle of rules and contracts.)
YES. Another board game rant video!
Hopefully we get to hear more of your board game opinions. Anything for this type of content.
Additionally, I appreciate the thought of going through comments. My original comment was more of a suggestion for a revamp that could add a new spin on the idea. Railroads would still cost something, but with added (and paid if you don’t own it) fast travel. Seemed fine at the time.
Maybe you will 👀
One thing I'm curious about as someone who is terrible at Monopoly, how does the game actually encourage the trading aspect you emphasize? All the players I know who play the game are avoidant to trades specifically because it seems there's no reason to do so: The player who is ahead has no reason to make deals except to take advantage of whoever they're ahead of, and the player who's behind should simply be ignored because they want to get ahead.
Unwillingness to trade seems to be a big problem in the majority of the Monopoly community unfortunately, and it’s sad to see. One thing that could benefit players who are trying to surpass the player in first is making trades along the lines of “I’ll give you X, and in return you’ll never have to pay rent on my Y property.” Alliances in general are a great tool for countering dominant players and boosting players who don’t have much property.
Me and my Friends love the trading aspect of the game, and it really is the main content of Monopoly. Convincing someone that the deal is much better for them than it is for you is where all the fun is. MCE almost removes trading, because why negotiate when you could steal? It changes the game from the capitalist system it's supposed to imitate into complete anarchy, and that loss of structure is the largest strike against MCE for me.
THIS
You know, the argument that all board games have some form of luck was already sound but also chess still has some luck in it, whoever gets randomly picked as white first gets an advantage. Great video
I didn’t even think of that! Wow!
Wait, that would apply to my other thought of "No RNG games" like Tic-Tac-Toe and Connect 4, damn.
Uh, scissors paper rock? That counts, right?
While I agree with the point you're making here, I would argue black has the advantage
@@spi231For humans it is a matter of preference but most computers and pros say that white has an advantage.
@@spi231 I disagree, white has so much more of an advantage, having the first move allows for white to force black into having to play against their opening has a pretty good advantage throughout all ranks of chess. In high competitive play if the games are close the final game black would only need to draw in order to win because of the advantage white has over black.
Watching this for what has to be like..the 60th time and it just occurred to me that the point at 11:00 is maybe the dumbest thing I've EVER heard. "Nobody tries to win as hard as you" This is the version of the game literally inspired by people who wanted to win the base game so badly they BROKE THE RULES to do so. What, and I cannot stress this enough, the FUCK.
You have a point!
I never personally played Monopoly Cheaters Edition and I'm pretty neutral on Monopoly in general. I absolutely love your enthusiasm in tearing it down though, especially your point of specifically looking at the rules and what the product and game actually are not what they could be. I think it's better to have fun with a game like this, and a lot of people probably changed the rules even slightly and when playing it. I at least know I did for almost every tabletop game I've played not called Uno or Yahtzee. So playing exactly as intended is hilarious to me and I can understand why you harbor so much ill will towards it. Keep making Roles, keep making an abomination out of UNO, and keep up the great content!
THANK YOU 👏 SO MUCH. 👏♥️