It's notorious, really, in itself, it provides very little in terms of meaningful choices. You mostly do what the dice and cards tell you, when you land on a property and can buy it, it's generally best to do so. The most meaningful decisions would be negotiating with other players, which is not governed by the rules.
... I'm sure you can google to find much more erudite and ringing condemnations of the world's most commercially successful boardgame, serious TT boardgamers seem to be really down on it. (no funny coincidences there)
(Candyland is the poster child for choiceless game. The dice essentially play the game. That's what makes it so suitable for very young children. Well, that and color matching vs counting)
In competitive games, fairness, which is, really, a lower standard than balance, is a minimum. In comparison to balance, fairness is each player has the same choices as the others (for instance, all could make the same choice, if it clearly the best choice), if imbalanced, some choices would non-viable (experienced players avoid them, they serve only as traps for the unwary) or meaningless (serving only to distract naive players from important choices).
In cooperative games, balance is essential. Each player needs to contribute to success, both for their own enjoyment, and for the collective win. Being dead weight isn't just un-fun, it can result in the collective loss. So choices need to be viable. Further, everyone contributing the same thing in the same way is less interesting than contributing in different ways, so the choices should be meaningful, as well.
