How did I miss that?
The Wikipedia article on all the changes.
That was my favourite game, and I was pretty darn good at it. Rather to the point where no one would play with me after a while. Though that might be because I made people play it so often. ^_^
Now, I think that the new deck is a great new twist, especially since it looks like it can be optional. Not to mention the additional difficulty of more weapons. That's awesome. I'd rebuy the game for that.
As for the bios, I always felt they were missing, and I'm glad they finally added some.
But not the ones they actually added.
Okay, I understand the idea of wanting to appeal to a new generation, but I have lots and lots of issues with that. First of all, these new things don't change gameplay at all, and when it came to boardgames as a child I found that fun games beat the hexagon out of "fun looking" games. Mouse Trap, anyone? No thank you!
I also think that if anything a child gets is dictated almost entirely by parents, it's board games. They're the market. I remember playing them with my parents and with my friends and their parents. They were something the whole family could do, not just me and my friends. In fact, since there are so few two-player board games, it's vital that these games appeal to the parents since they were almost always roped into these things during playdates.
Now, I wouldn't mind some changes and "updates" but did they have to be so . . . vapid? Couldn't they have replaced the study with a home office? WTF is up with an observatory, how does that fit in at all?
Same with the characters. I mean, I totally see Miss Scarlet as a tabloid favourite. But as for the rest of them, I don't know about the whole "No longer a professor/colonel" thing, in fact, I think that's silly. And they could have maybe made Mrs. Peacock and Mrs. White more appealing to play so the girls don't have to fight over Miss Scarlet, you know? Oh also, couldn't they have kept their original titles along with having first names in the bios?
Finally, I loved the "classic" feel of the game. Murder mysteries happen in places with billiard rooms and involve things like revolvers it's just how things work. It's the noir feel, I suppose. Not to mention while observatory (still WTFing over that) is a good word, there's still no "Mom, what's a billiard?" or "Dad, what's revolver mean?". I don't want to say "it's less educational" but it sort of is.
I was talking with a friend about how video games have taken over board games almost completely, and I think that's really sad. Video games are awesome and I love them, but the muliplayer games don't really encourage interaction the same way board games do. Nor do they really use the same kinds of mental skills. Not that they don't exercise the brain, just different parts. Like, which multiplayer video game encourages the same deductive reasoning/subtle manipulation skills as Clue? Or the same money management skills as Monopoly? I can't think of any, though I'm not saying they're not out there. I just wish there were more of a balance. Plus parents tend to not play video games with kids.
Oh, and Monopoly. If I'm not mistaken, they don't use paper money anymore, which totally changes gameplay. I haven't played it, but I doubt you can still do Free Parking (even though that's not in the real rules, it's rather widely accepted) and you can't do the psycological thing that I always used to do and hide at least $500 and then whip it out when you need it and be like "OH DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!" Can you make deals/loans anymore? I mean, I'd hate that when my brother ganged up on me with his friends, but still. Integral part! Hopefully you can still do that. Also, is it harder for the banker to cheat?
It seems like all my public entries are rants, though I think this one is at least better informed and reasoned than my others. >.>