Looking for PoS2 Scans

[it290]

Yeah, I do, but the game essentially revolves around who lands on the best color groups first and is able to start building monopolies immediately. Maybe there's a better strategy, but IMHO the best thing to do is buy whenever you're able (99% of the time). Not only that, but once you have a good lead, it's nearly impossible to lose it. You can 'coerce' the other players into making deals at that point, but it's always to your advantage.. basically you become a loan shark. I'm not saying I dislike the game, but there really isn't much skill involved. It would be better if there were some random way to lose a lot of cash (ie community chest/chance cards that really had an effect, right now the only one that really hurts the player is the property repairs, and that's usually just an annoyance).

I don't play with the auction rules, though (does anyone?). I'm sure that gives the game more depth, but I just find it too tedious and boring.

Speaking of Monopoly, what's up with this 'Kid's Monopoly' I keep seeing? I played Monopoly all the time when I was a kid, do they really need to make it any more simplistic for children?

 

[Alexvrb]

Originally posted by it290+Jun 1, 2004 @ 04:10 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(it290 @ Jun 1, 2004 @ 04:10 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> I don't play with the auction rules, though (does anyone?). I'm sure that gives the game more depth, but I just find it too tedious and boring. [/b]

Yes. That way every time someone lands on an unclaimed property, somebody gets it.

<!--QuoteBegin-it290@Jun 1, 2004 @ 04:10 AM

Speaking of Monopoly, what's up with this 'Kid's Monopoly' I keep seeing? I played Monopoly all the time when I was a kid, do they really need to make it any more simplistic for children?[/quote]

Apparently. Maybe nobody has the patience to teach them the rules anymore? Though actually I think the primary changes are to the names and stuff, to make it more kiddy. They want you to buy multiple sets of monopoly. Have to get all the special edition ones, ooh star wars, get one for the kids, etc.

 

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

I never got into Monopoly myself. The rules were too confusing for me. I really wasn't a very patient kid. :huh

Anyone play Chutes and Ladders? I hardly ever see that one anymore, but that was a fun game.

Clue's another board game that's produced several variations. But really, what's Clue with Professor Plum, Mr. Green, Colonal Mustard, et all? It just doesn't work.

 

[it290]

I like to play a lot of chess, but the ultimate board game for more than two players has got to be Risk. There is just so much treachery and deceit that goes on when you have 4 or more players.. the game is taken to a whole new level.

I also enjoy a good game of Mille Bournes now and again. It's simple, but good fun.

Speaking of games, man, I had a tragic childhood. I loved playing all types of games (board, card, rpg, sports, or just imaginative games of my own invention), but I could never get anyone in my family very interested. I wasn't allowed to have a video game system for quite some time... look what it did to me! Because of my past, I was turned into a game hoarding monster.

 

[mtxblau]

Ironically, I played clue and monopoly with several friends over the weekend, and I concur that monopoly is primarily a game of chance. The only way to make it of any interest is to make up your own rules - for instance, one person (my fiancee) pretty much had all of stomped (because of a dumb trade by another one of the players..., my best man) and so the remaining three decided to make a merger. Now THAT'S how you make a monopoly.

 

[Alexvrb]

You just weren't skilled enough, that's all!

If you want to talk about a game that is pure chance (with a dash of deceit, which fades quickly after you've narrowed the field), Risk is it. I've got a friend that won't play Risk anymore. I had 1 army which fended off about 7 attacks by vastly superior forces, killing one every time. To make matters worse, I informed him that my army was actually a lone redneck with a shotgun and a bench to hide behind. They got him when they eventually wised up and came around behind him.

 

[it290]

Risk does involve a whole lot of chance, especially in drawing your starting locations, but once you get down to large-scale warfare there's a lot of strategy (particularly with more players). You have to decide when to attack and when to stay put, try not to spread yourself too thin, choose which territories to go after, etc. Also, although the dice rolling is an element of chance, when you start calculating your odds it becomes more reliant on skill as well. Freak encounters like the one you mentioned will happen, but that makes the game more interesting (hey, that kind of thing happens in real life wars as well).

 

[Alexvrb]

Originally posted by it290@Jun 2, 2004 @ 03:42 PM

Freak encounters like the one you mentioned will happen, but that makes the game more interesting (hey, that kind of thing happens in real life wars as well).

Not this badly, trust me. You'd think my army would like, take casualties and stuff. Which is probably why (although I do like Risk) if computers are available I'd rather play something more advanced. Heck, you only need one (relatively slow) machine to run a big game of Heroes 4 via hotseat. The only problem is that with some of the maps, the games can take many hours. But there's always TV and console games when you're waiting for the other players to quit stalling.

 

[it290]

Hey, the same type of thing happens in Civilization (all versions). I hate it when my friggin' Abrams tank is destrouyed by some spearmen.

 

[racketboy]

wow -- I've seen some really off-topic threads before, but this has to be the most off of the off-topic of the off-topic thread I've seen so far

 

[Alexvrb]

We're goin for #1!

it290: I know what you mean. But that's not nearly as messed up as Empire Earth, and you know it. Once for laughs, we clubbed a tank to death with some cavemen.

 

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

So anyone seen that Day After Tomorrow movie? It looks pretty bad to me.

This Summer looks to be rather disappointing as far as movies go. I am looking forward to the Prisoner of Azkaban, however.

 

[mal]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an excellent film.

It's the best film I've seen in years. Go see that.

 

[Cloud121]

Originally posted by racketboy@Jun 2, 2004 @ 03:10 PM

wow -- I've seen some really off-topic threads before, but this has to be the most off of the off-topic of the off-topic thread I've seen so far

And I started it! :lol: <_<

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by mal@Jun 3, 2004 @ 03:26 AM

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an excellent film.

It's the best film I've seen in years. Go see that.

Is it really that good? I almost saw that at the discount theatre last night but chose to see 13 Going On 30 again -- which is the best romantic comedy I've ever seen and the most fun film I've seen in a long time

 

[racketboy]

I'm interested in The Village -- I like M. Night Shyamalan's stuff

 

[mal]

Originally posted by racketboy@Jun 3, 2004 @ 02:07 PM

Is it really that good?

It is a little bit weird at first (and I can't tell you why), but it is a stunning piece of cinema, IMHO.

 

[it290]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an excellent film.

It's the best film I've seen in years. Go see that.

Eh. I thought it was wayyy overdone, and although Jim Carrey's character/acting was excellent, most of the other acting felt pretty hollow (the doctor and main technician were pretty decent characters, though). The premise was also too similar to Being John Malkovich, IMHO.

I liked the conclusion of the movie, but I felt that Eyes Wide Shut was a far superior film with that type of conclusion.

 

[mal]

Overdone? Really? I didn't see it that way at all.

The only similarities I can see between it and Being John Malkovic (a favorite of mine) are that they're both a little strange (as far as Hollywood films go) and that they both are written by (at least partially) by Charlie Kaufman. Other than that they are very different films.

And I hope you're not going think I'm just disagreeing with you because I can, but I didn't get that 'hooked' by Eyes Wide Shut. It was an OK film, but it just never really grabbed me. *shrug*

I guess it also doesn't help that I find Kate Winslet far more attractive than Nicole Kidman either.

 

[it290]

I just meant 'overdone' in the sense that I felt they tried to drive the central themes home a little too hard and overused the little clever tricks and special effects related to the main character's memory.

I thought it was too similar to BJM in the sense that they both used the plot device of 'shadowy organization that does something odd to people's minds'. It was quite different otherwise, but still, it just wasn't as novel the second time, y'know? I'm not a big Kaufman fan, but I thought Adaptation was definitely the best movie of his I've seen.

As for Eyes Wide Shut, yeah, it seems to be one of those films that people really get into or they don't. No biggie, most of my friends don't care for it too much either. I have to disagree about the Kidman vs. Winslet thing, though. .. although it's true that Kidman isn't someone you can really empathize with as a character (in general, not just in EWS.. I don't think Kubrick wanted any of the characters to really be identified with in EWS). That's one of the reasons the new Lars von Trier movie looks so bad to me, heh.