Talk:The Game of Life

message: The current article reads:
"In 1960, the one hundredth anniversary of the game, the form of the game now known as The Game of Life, was introduced, designed by Reuben Klamer. There were many re-publishings over the years, including 1959, 1961, 1966, 1978, 1985, 1992, 2000, and 2005." (emphasis mine)
If the new game was introduced in 1960, how could it have been re-published in 1959?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregherlihy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And 34 months later, the question is still not answered and the issue still unresolved.  I am removing the 1959 date.  If it is somehow accurate, then explain the discrepancy and source it. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you had to wait 34 months for the obvious, but I'd suggest you not stop there. In my mind, the re-publishing dates are simply unneccesary filler/trivia. Delete the whole sentence. Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision Date Predates Original 

message: The first line of this article states that the board game was "originally created in 1861," whereas the first line of the History section states "The game was originally created in 1860."
Which is it?
Harlezah (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation date discrepancy 

message: Some info is here:
 Zephyr103 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the fame edition still selling? i could not find it on amazon... Ragnaroknike 14:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sometimes sold on ebay. (google search) Zephyr103 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: other Game of Life versions

message: One uncomfortable feature of the CD-ROM game was that your character could only marry a spouse of the same race (ie. asians could only marry asians, blacks could only marry blacks, etc). Life in BYU, maybe, but decreasingly so in the real world. BethEnd 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be a "race" issue - you can't pick your spouse, period.  They stick you with the character of the opposite sex that looks the most like your own.  Trying to save CD-ROM space maybe? --Goldrushcavi 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Racist or not, the lack of choosing spouse is likely due to memory constraints, the "marriage" video had to be pre-rendered, and if memory serves there were 6 faces of each gender, creating at least 6x6 combinations with just one guy and one girl.--- Also there was a playstation version of the game of life that played identically to the PC version IIRC, though I -know- the PSX version had the option to play like the board game (life tiles, no revenge) or 'enhanced' play (minigames, revenge). Did PC have this too? Lexprod (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer game

message: I disagree with the proposal to merge. See my comment in the discussion page for that article. Rob (Talk)
::I also disagree with the merge, the two games haven't much in common. --AC (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the articles must be merged, then there ought to be more information on "The Checkered Game of Life". All this article has is mention of the title, and the fact that it was created in 1861. It then jumps to the 1960's to talk about the current game.--RLent (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A history section was lost when the article was vandalized on 12 May 2008. I restored it. --Rdodger (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Merge with [[The Checkered Game of Life]] 

message: I recently played a new version of The Game of Life.  Instead of being in 40,000 in debt you start 100,000 in debt.  The Careers also have pay renges so you can't be a Teacher making 100,000 and the doctor can only make the upper echelon money.  LIFE tiles have also been scaled down to 10,000 to 50,000.  If soemone would like to write up a new portion and find out when the game was revised it would be appreciated. Pinewood74 04:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it should be under Current Version. Ragnaroknike 14:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Version

message: In my copy of the game from 1992, the police officer collects $5,000 for anyone spinning 10 and the stock is worth $10K when hit.  Someone keeps changing the fine from $5K to $10K, which makes me wonder if this rule was updated before they officially came out with a new version? --Goldrushcavi 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10k is for the latest version. Ragnaroknike 14:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Police Officer rule in 1992 version

message: Can someone tell me which version contained the space about visiting a shrunken head museum?
I can swear it made you move back a couple of spaces or lose a turn.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.254.108.24 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it is 1992 version, the same one as the one played on pc. Ragnaroknike 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrunken head space 

message: A series of four edits by 70.51.10.189 had a net result of only one word being changed from "five" to "two".  I don't know enough about this game to know if this is vandalism or a genuine correction; could someone check this sentence for validity:  "If a player chooses College, he must immediately take two Promissory Notes from the bank for tuition, and must take the longer path (which in this game is also more "dangerous" than the Career path.)"  --Smiller933 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been yet another edition released.  The newest one would be the five version. --Vrmlguy (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 70.51.10.189 

message: I'm not sure where this would go, but Hasbro will be releasing a game of Life with Visa as money.
This is there press release: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68329&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=971861
Nealc9999 23:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's The Game of Life: Twists & Turns edition.  The only thing it has in common with this version is the name; on the other hand, similarity of names was all it took to get the article for The Checkered Game of Life merged into this one. --Vrmlguy (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life takes Visa 

message: can anybody tell me what the yellow 'revenge - sue for damages'  spaces are for?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.31.173 (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenge space 

message: Removed the "yo momma" vandalism.164.214.1.54 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: many of these sections are essentially reprinting of the rules which isn't allowed per WP:NOT. large sections of this need to be gutted. Any finite details (dollar amounts, spin results, etc) need to be remove unless there is some crucial critical commentary being made.--Crossmr (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: The two parts of the Criticism section are 1) an unsourced criticism that luck plays too great a role in the game, and 2) a criticism that the game may not, in fact, realistically portray life.
Both of these seem bogus.  Regarding the first criticism, Life is intentionally a game of chance, with a small element of skill and decision making.  The criticism would only be valid if the game pretended to be anything other that, which it does not - the box top and rules point out the luck and skill elements clearly.  You might as well criticize a dice-rolling game for its reliance on chance mechanics.  In addition, the paragraph references the chance element of "Life Cards" - I don't even know what those are.  There is nothing in the standard game called "Life Cards"
The second criticism is equally silly.  This is a game - it's not pretending to be a realistic portrayal of everyone's actual life experiences, any more than the game of "Operation" is intended to depict realistic surgical methodology.  To take this alleged gripe found in a single, somewhat obscure book and promote it to the level of criticism that deserves to be listed in an encyclopedic article is to take the game far, far too seriously.
I recommend deleting the entire section.  Comments?  -- Motley Fool 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "...any more than the game of "Operation" is intended to depict realistic surgical methodology." LOL That made my day. On topic, one can be critical without it being reasonable. There probably have been people who claim that it is too much of a game of change "to be a fun game" or a similar reason. The whole point of family games of almost all chance, though, is so that the younger generation can play them. Therefore, while the criticism is not entirely faceless, I agree that without a source there is a wide variety of other statements that could be implied. So, I would say get rid of it. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For deletion - I've tried to get rid of this in the past as I always thought that it was either original research non-NPOV or both. The source in the second paragraph is obviously grinding an axe and should be treated as a lone voice. Ckruschke (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the various reasons listed above, the section has been removed. -- Motley Fool 06:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's back and I am deleting right now.  ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk Email 00:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: remove Criticism section 

message: Curious to know what the career options were in each of the versions from the 1960s to present day. Article should go into greater depth about changes between 1960s and modern day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.31.9 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - There were major changes made to the 1970/80's version when the new one came out in the 1990's - game play was much different and the board was changed/updated. However, I have no sources to substantiate this information and I ditched my copy of the 1990's version after playing it once when I found out how bad it was. Ckruschke (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional changes between 1960s and more modern versions? 

message: I don't know which date/version this should be mentioned in, but in the version my family owned (and no longer do), each player had to decide their definition of success before starting, and the winner was the one who reached their chosen goal first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CA00:387:69A3:82E8:3409:56DD (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important detail missing 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion