Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

London Turned into Giant Board Game

Posted by samzenpus on from the detroit-chutes-and-ladders dept.

webponce writes "Hasbro have fitted out 18 London cabs with GPS tracking devices, and hooked them up to a real time, real life game of monopoly. You get to choose which cab driver you want to 'play' with, and then pick which properties around London you want to put your houses and hotels, hit go, sit back and wait for the other cab drivers to land on your square and make you rent. You get 24 hours of your cab running around London, and you have to see how much money you can make in a day (my bet, put your property on Wimbledon this week ;)"

10 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Monopoly is boring by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, I know Hasbro is running the game, but..

    Why not do something interesting like this based on a game that is actually fun to play. Puerto Rico, Catan, Carcassonne, etc. Especially in Europe where they don't play crap like Monopoly, and they play good games.

  2. Re:Boring story. Threadjack opportunity by poor_boi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It gave losing players a chance to suddenly make a quick turnaround...

    Sweet deities, you've found a way to make an already punishingly protracted game last even longer.

    Here's my idea for a MpyMod: start all the players out with five bucks so we can actually finish the game tonight.

  3. Why Monopoly by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Cool idea, but why the hell would they choose Monopoly as the game to be played this way? Monopoly is incredibly boring.

    Why not Scotland Yard? It's IDEAL to be played in the centre of London!

  4. Re:but... by dominiv · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well, I can only agree and do not see why this is regarded as being a troll, the parent has a valid point, especially since we know that american soldiers are nowadays trained using shoot-em up's. Heck, the american army even releases their own shoot-em up.

    Shoot-em ups are fun, if you keep yourself saying they are not for real. They become disgusting and dangerous if they are a replacement and/or training for real life.

  5. Re:Obligitory spelling error by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    London Tuned into Giant Board Game

    Some idiot marked that "redundant". Maybe pointng out spelling and grammatical errors in a samzenpus story is redundant, but I'll add that "London" and "Wimbledon", in quaint British usage, normally have capital letters.

  6. You lazy.... by joshsnow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Only six miles? You'd better buy a bicycle - and BTW, can you verify your comment about getting "paid more to sit on your fat ass on the sofa all day than you would with a minimum wage job" ?

    1. Re:You lazy.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get yourself a couple of kids, council house and your laughing. Certainly enough to pay for your fags and tennants super all day.

      Once the kids are old enough they'll be out on the rob and will be able to finance their own drug and alcohol addictions themselves.

  7. Re:but... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fact that they would be transmitting this data is enough to track them, you dont need to decrypt the signals. Just by capturing hte data, you can work out if there are troops near your position and that gains you a significant advantage.

  8. Re:but... by rho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They might have such devices, but it's not so that generals in remote locations can direct a battle. The Army spends a lot of time and money training their soldiers and officers to be independent thinkers and to react intelligently to new situations, but grounded on solid foundations of tactics and mission objectives. Directing blips on a screen is more likely to be harmful than useful. There's a lot that simple locations cannot tell you about what's going on on the ground.

    --
    Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  9. Re:but... by bynary · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Based on what information? Here's a common scenario (based on news coverage):

    U.S. Army discovers roving band of insurgents. U.S. Army decides that roving bands of insurgents is not a good thing. U.S. Army decides to destroy roving band of insurgents. U.S. Army sends 1,000 soldiers with M-16s, 5 M-1 Bradleys, and 3 Apache attack helicopters to engage the roving band of insurgents. They meet somewhere out in the desert.

    Results:
    Insurgents killed: 50 - 100 out of about 300.
    American Soldiers killed: none, but one guy sprained his ankle and another one got a migraine

    By far, the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq are because of IEDs. The insurgents know by now that they flat out cannot win a face-to-face firefight.

    In conclusion, how do you figure it's better to be on the Ts?

    --
    http://www.bynarystudio.com