That's a pretty low bar, considering how little strategy is involved in a game of Monopoly.

What are your definitions for "complex" and "complicated"?

Monopoly has less strategic depth but more rules. Or at least feels that way to me.

Monopoly has zero depth. Zero! Imagine making a computer game out of it, so throwing the dice, counting money and moving your game figurine is automated. What is left? Almost nothing. It is busywork, there are no decisions for the players to make.

That's not necessarily true actually. Monopoly isn't a terribly complex game, but if you play it correctly you must either buy or auction every property landed on. It's mostly an auction and money management game, and there are decisions to be made

> if you play it correctly you must either buy or auction every property landed on

But this is an awfully short and simplistic decision tree, isn't it?

I agree that auctioning/trading can be interesting, but if you play with experienced strategy players or seasoned eurogame-gamers you will either find that A) there is a naive sucker at the table who will make an uneven trade and hand another player the victory or B) find out that everyone will hold on to their cards.

I loved playing Monopoly as a kid, but comparing it now to German Boardgames like Settlers of Catan I realize now that kids are a bit stupid (and I was no exception) and it just felt great to count the paper money.