Clue makes no sense. Most board games don't have narratives ---
you're just trying to drop checkers in a row like in Connect Four, or
going on a quest for self-actualization by stealing the identity of
another in Guess Who, or whatever the hell Sorry was about. Clue,
however, takes things to a higher level by actually building a story
around its premise and while some might admire their fortitude in board
game innovation, I'm just going to write a snarky blog post about it
since I'm a Guy On The Internet.
If you're going to
build a narrative it should be a logical one, and here's where Clue
falters. Put yourself within the game's world: pretend you're Madam
Peacock, a posh upper-class woman staying at a country manor. Suppose
that your host, Mr. Boddy, ends up dead. If we go by the old-time
mystery novel trope of the manor somehow being inaccessible to and from
the outside world and the guests have to solve the crime themselves,
then that accounts for the need to identify Boddy's killer. Obviously,
if some maniac is killing people within the mansion you're all stuck
within, you need to find that murderer post-haste, but other aspects of
the game get a bit sticky.
For one, needing to discover
the location of the murder. Now, this does make some sense within the
context of the suspect search, since if Boddy was killed in the hall and
someone saw Professor Plum skulking around the hall earlier, that would
be an important piece of information. But though there's a storyline
reason for KNOWING which room Boddy was killed in, there's less of a
reason for the characters to SEARCH for this information in the first
place. Again, put yourself in the position of an actual guest in this
mansion who's found Boddy dead. Where did you find him? Was it in a
specific room? Was he found on the stairs, a.k.a. the middle of the
board? Unless there's a clear reason to guess otherwise (like, 10 trails
of blood leading from the body to every room), you'd just presume that
Boddy was killed whenever he was found. To think otherwise is to presume
that an old lady like Madam Peacock or a svelte bombshell like Miss
Scarlet was lugging a corpse around a mansion in the dead of night.
Now,
the weapon. Put yourself back to the moment of discovering Boddy's, er,
body. If the guests are able to discern that he's been murdered, then
there should be a clear indication of that fact on his person --- after
all, if Boddy was just found dead without a mark on him, the natural
guess would be that he'd suffered a stroke or heart attack or something.
Murder most foul wouldn't be the first conclusion. If you're able to
identify that Boddy has been killed, then the weapon itself should be
guessed at fairly easily. Like I said, poison isn't an option so we
don't need too complex here. No ligature marks on his neck? Couldn't
have been the rope. No gunshot wound? Couldn't have been the revolver.
No stab wound? Couldn't have been the knife. No big ol' bump on the
head? Couldn't have been the wrench, lead pipe or candlestick. This
seems to be a bit of a plot hole....unless Boddy was found with ALL of
these marks on him. Like, he was found hanging from a noose with a stab
wound, a bullet hole and three separate gaping dints in his head. This
would explain the question over how he died, though one might also
assume that the actual method of murder wouldn't be weighing so heavily
on the minds of the guests. If this poor Boddy was found butchered like
Rasputin or
Vigo the Carpathian,
then it doesn't really matter WHAT method killed him, just that he's
dead at all. If he was found shot, then one could think, "Hmm, Colonel
Mustard is an expert marksman, he is the natural suspect" but if Boddy
has all of these wounds on him and you don't have a CSI kit handy to
determine the cause of death, then it's kind of a moot point.
And,
finally, while it's an inevitable problem of the character process,
it's always struck me as odd that one player can identify themselves as
the murderer. Like, the person playing Ms. White is free to accuse Ms.
White in the library with the rope or whatnot. Within the game story,
are we to assume that Ms. White's guilty conscience overcame her and she
just interrupted the entire investigation to admit her crime? Maybe it
was meant as a lesson for the kids who might play the game --- sometimes
it's best to just come out and admit it when you've done wrong,
children. No matter whether it's taking the last cookie from the kitchen
jar or savagely murdering a millionaire in his country manor, it's best
to just admit guilt and take your punishment. Clearly, Clue has no
respect for the criminal defense system.
Most useless
game pieces ever, by the way, were the actual murder weapon game pieces
in Clue. You know, when you accused someone in one of the rooms, you
also had the cute little metal candlestick there, just to really bring
the scene to life. (Some poor sweatshop worker has been cranking out
little metal revolvers for years, which is bound to create some
psychological issues.) There's another narrative gimmick that made no
sense; why do you need the weapon present to accuse someone? "You
stabbed Mr. Boddy with THIS knife, Mr. Green!" Why are you moving the
evidence around? Don't you know not to touch anything before the police
arrive? Mr. Green just got off on murder charges since the evidence
was tampered with, you idiot.
Posts
