> No it isn't, because board game people hate it. I don't know who is defending Monopoly, but it's not board game fans.
It's a great example because almost everyone discussing this topic understands the game and its flaws in physical game form, and most of us have probably played at least one digital version over the years.
Also board game people are the same people quoted in the article as saying that bad rulebooks were in fact great, so their judgement may not exactly be the best. Enthusiasts of any category tend to be able to ignore a lot of flaws in their favorite thing as long as the thing they like about it works. I'm a car enthusiast, and there are a lot of us who absolutely love objectively bad vehicles just because of one unique quirk that happens to make us smile.
> Sure. It still doesn't make for a fun game though.
Right, but it takes a lot of the parts that actually ruin most physical plays and solves their problems.
> Sure. But good games avoid tedious tasks to start with.
Remembering a book full of rules and what applies when is a tedious task. If the game requires players have a grasp on a substantial rulebook for basic play it is not avoiding tedious tasks.
That's what's great about computer versions of board games, the computer handles that part and players are only able to do things that are allowed. You never have to remember what you can do when, and more importantly never have to decide between unwinding multiple turns worth of gameplay, just rolling with it, or throwing away the entire session when inevitably someone gets it wrong.
There is exactly one game I've played with my partner's board game crew where I didn't discover some way they were doing it wrong, and that's Everdell which has a very well done computer version that they regularly play as well as physical, so they've been forced to learn how the game actually works instead of how they think it works.
> If anything I'd say the converse is true: most computer games would be improved by trying to make a board game version and cutting the mechanics that make that difficult.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but the fact remains that computers allow more complicated mechanics to be implemented without increasing the cognitive load on the players or increasing the odds of a game-breaking misunderstanding.