Metanet Forums

Which do you prefer? Tabletop Risk with dicecounting and manually marching your armies around the board, or having a computer do it for you (Versions of the game made for game consoles/computers, etc.). Holding the monopoly money in your hand and having a banker, or having a computer do it all for you? Are these aspects a part of the game, or are they simple distractions taking you away from the true essence of the game?

Playing board games on the computer means you miss the best part of the game: cheating.

Boardgames are about hanging out. It's a social event, not a gaming event.
I see little sense in playing a boardgame unless it's with a physical board surrounded by friends.

I hate setting up games, so I much prefer the electronic kind.

toasters wrote:Playing board games on the computer means you miss the best part of the game: cheating.

Precisely.

Risk, especially, is just not the same. Between the board and GBA versions, the board game is far superior just because of the atmosphere.

playing electronic versions of board games seems ridiculous if you ask me. I don't know why I think that it just seems really weird to not just play the board game version, and like toasters said

Playing board games on the computer means you miss the best part of the game: cheating.

It's always the human element with board games. People can modify the game more freely to whatever terms they want and not limit themselves to the terms of the computer. Traditionally, when my family used to play monopoly, we would always lay $500 Monopoly money to the person who can land on Free Parking, something the computer version doesn't allow (as far as I know).

Subterfuge wrote:It's always the human element with board games. People can modify the game more freely to whatever terms they want and not limit themselves to the terms of the computer. Traditionally, when my family used to play monopoly, we would always lay $500 Monopoly money to the person who can land on Free Parking, something the computer version doesn't allow (as far as I know).

My computer version allows that.

I just concider electronic versions of games like Risk or Mononopoly or any other tabletop game are just 'electronic' versions of the original games, because companies know that it would get attention if they sell a very good- and classic - tabletop game's electronic version, and because they do sell it with a higher price, I don't like them. Goddammit Hasbro.

Though, tabletop games are meant to play with a friend in case that if you want the game to be fun.

rocket_thumped wrote:I hate setting up games, so I much prefer the electronic kind.

It could be annoying, but I prefer it playing with my friend, erm, physically.

Tsukatu wrote:Boardgames are about hanging out. It's a social event, not a gaming event.
I see little sense in playing a boardgame unless it's with a physical board surrounded by friends.

Not actually. There is a lot difference between clicking a button to roll the dice and/or taking/giving money from/to your opponents. I find it a lot more fun laughing and talking with a friend while playing the game. It destroys true essence of the game, imo.

Depends on the game. For instance, I have no qualms with playing M:TG via LackeyCCG with my friends. However, if I'm gonna play something like Monopoly, I much prefer the physical, tabletop version to the electronic sort.

And of course, playing Warhammer Quest over the Internet pales in comparison to Questing around a table with friends until 2 in the morning.

But that's just me.

Spin the Bottle is very often a game I'm not interested in playing in person. The sorts of people who flock to those kinds of games are the sort you only want to interact with through a thin little cable coming out the back of the computer.

Subterfuge wrote:It's always the human element with board games. People can modify the game more freely to whatever terms they want and not limit themselves to the terms of the computer. Traditionally, when my family used to play monopoly, we would always lay $500 Monopoly money to the person who can land on Free Parking, something the computer version doesn't allow (as far as I know).

If you land on Free Parking, you get whatever money's been taken away by the Chance cards from other players, right? But then, Monopoly has more variations then any other game on earth.


(I voted Trad, with the lone exception being Online Bridge, b/c I can match my skill level and stuff.)

flagmyidol wrote:

Subterfuge wrote:It's always the human element with board games. People can modify the game more freely to whatever terms they want and not limit themselves to the terms of the computer. Traditionally, when my family used to play monopoly, we would always lay $500 Monopoly money to the person who can land on Free Parking, something the computer version doesn't allow (as far as I know).

If you land on Free Parking, you get whatever money's been taken away by the Chance cards from other players, right? But then, Monopoly has more variations then any other game on earth.


(I voted Trad, with the lone exception being Online Bridge, b/c I can match my skill level and stuff.)

FREE PARKING MEANS FREE GOD DAMN PARKING WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE

ortsz wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:

Subterfuge wrote:It's always the human element with board games. People can modify the game more freely to whatever terms they want and not limit themselves to the terms of the computer. Traditionally, when my family used to play monopoly, we would always lay $500 Monopoly money to the person who can land on Free Parking, something the computer version doesn't allow (as far as I know).

If you land on Free Parking, you get whatever money's been taken away by the Chance cards from other players, right? But then, Monopoly has more variations then any other game on earth.


(I voted Trad, with the lone exception being Online Bridge, b/c I can match my skill level and stuff.)

FREE PARKING MEANS FREE GOD DAMN PARKING WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE

I forgot to mention; if whoever's playing as the car lands on Free Parking, they win a used 1994 Audi. Sorry.

We used to play Russian Cabalist Monopoly, where anyone who lands on free parking has to sever a portion of their own pinky.

We usually play American Monopoly. Every turn, everybody gives twenty percent of their money to the weakest player and twenty percent to the board for hosting them. The game goes on for years, until one of the players dies and hopes that his debt wasn't large enough to significant harm his son's chance at a decent life.

Well, I think you need to make this more clear. In general I like electronic games better, but when you have a tabletop game made into an electronic game the tabletop version is better. For example, I would much rather play Baldurs Gate 2 Shadows of Amn on the computer, than play Risk, Monopoly, or D&D on the table. If we are talking about monopoly, then yes I prefer the real life experience

ortsz wrote:[FREE PARKING MEANS FREE GOD DAMN PARKING WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE

.
I feel the same way.

Tunco wrote:I prefer it erm, physically.

Had to do that XD sorry.

I'm kinda neutral on this, it is fun to get a group together when playing tabletop and the tangibility of the pieces makes it more fun (Especially in war games where pieces are hand painted) there's also an inherent flaw. Here's an example:

"Hey Dave want to play Risk?" says LF

"Sure LF" says Dave

"Oh wait we can't, we're separated by a giant fucking ocean" complains LF

"Well, shit" says Dave dejectedly

Now with electronic games we can play Risk together (Or pretty much any other table top game you can think of). So I call upon a mod/admin to edit the poll in the topic and add a "Both" option.

Ackmest Dansam wrote:I'm kinda neutral on this, it is fun to get a group together when playing tabletop and the tangibility of the pieces makes it more fun (Especially in war games where pieces are hand painted) there's also an inherent flaw. Here's an example:

"Hey Dave want to play Risk?" says LF

"Sure LF" says Dave

"Oh wait we can't, we're separated by a giant fucking ocean" complains LF

"Well, shit" says Dave dejectedly

Now with electronic games we can play Risk together (Or pretty much any other table top game you can think of). So I call upon a mod/admin to edit the poll in the topic and add a "Both" option.

If Dave lived next door to you, would you prefer to play with him in person or electronically?
No need to nuke the poll results.

I prefer manually. Electronically you can cheat by taking hints at Scrabble, but manually, there's more. You can cheat also at what tiles you draw.

Anyway, just manually, 'cuz tabletop games are social games, for that it is better being near them than just through the computer.

If Dave lived next door to you, would you prefer to play with him in person or electronically?
No need to nuke the poll results.

Hell yes I would. Again, playing with the pieces in hand is generally more fun then electronically, and cheating is nice.

Depends on the game and the situation.

I just got in to M:tG a few months ago because they put out a version for XBL that was just $10, and 4 of my friends got it. My problem with it now is that it doesn't have nearly enough cards or deck management options for my liking. However, it is a heck of a lot cheaper than buying cards. And it keeps track of all the bonuses and related without having to screw with pennies or tokens or your marker of choice.

Then there is the complete awesome that is this. Table size touch screens I think are an awesome middle ground. I think I'd still prefer to roll the dice by myself, but it makes keeping track of things much easier. Imagine a M:tG game on this where you could scan in your cards as you play them, and then you could still sit across from your opponent.

And then add holographic projectors and ridiculous renderings of every monster/ability/whatever and you basically have the Yugioh cartoon setup.


Yay thread revivals! In my defense, this is only the second time I've looked at this sub-forum and I posted on topic.

smartalco wrote:Depends on the game and the situation.

I just got in to M:tG a few months ago because they put out a version for XBL that was just $10, and 4 of my friends got it. My problem with it now is that it doesn't have nearly enough cards or deck management options for my liking. However, it is a heck of a lot cheaper than buying cards. And it keeps track of all the bonuses and related without having to screw with pennies or tokens or your marker of choice.

Then there is the complete awesome that is this. Table size touch screens I think are an awesome middle ground. I think I'd still prefer to roll the dice by myself, but it makes keeping track of things much easier. Imagine a M:tG game on this where you could scan in your cards as you play them, and then you could still sit across from your opponent.

And then add holographic projectors and ridiculous renderings of every monster/ability/whatever and you basically have the Yugioh cartoon setup.


Yay thread revivals! In my defense, this is only the second time I've looked at this sub-forum and I posted on topic.

MTGO: The Best of Both Worlds! Impersonal and Expensive!

SBD wrote:

Subterfuge wrote:It's always the human element with board games. People can modify the game more freely to whatever terms they want and not limit themselves to the terms of the computer. Traditionally, when my family used to play monopoly, we would always lay $500 Monopoly money to the person who can land on Free Parking, something the computer version doesn't allow (as far as I know).

If you land on Free Parking, you get whatever money's been taken away by the Chance cards from other players, right? But then, Monopoly has more variations then any other game on earth.


(I voted Trad, with the lone exception being Online Bridge, b/c I can match my skill level and stuff.)

I think I play a variation on this. Whoever lands on Free Parking gets all the money in the "pot". That is, money collected from Income Tax and whatnot. So it's pretty fun that way.

Also, I agree with LF. Electronic games have their own use, and I appreciate them for it. There are games that couldn't really work if they weren't electronic, like Quadradius. And then there are other games that don't really work as electronic incarnations, like, you know, Monopoly. I'd like to say I like both, but if I had to choose, I'd probably say traditionally, since I can think of more scenarios where a physical board would be better than a digital one.

I would also like to say that smartalco pretty much said what I was going to say. An excellent middle-ground would be found in table-sized touch screens, and I'm just upset that by the time those become mainstream, the games available probably won't appeal to me anymore. ;-;