Name of game, creator, platform
For this week’s critical play, I chose to play Quiplash by Jackbox Games on Steam.
Target audience
I would say that the target audience for Quiplash is teens and up (13+). The reasoning for this age range is that the questions/prompts in the game can be mature or require a certain level of knowledge to appreciate. However, there exists a family-friendly filter for the game which would make the game more accessible to younger audiences provided they can read and enter prompts into a device (8+).
Critical Formal elements of the game
Quiplash requires 3-8 players to play. Additional players can observe the game and vote on prompts as audience members but cannot submit answers. The game consists of three rounds with each round rewarding more points. For the first two rounds, players are given two questions/prompts. Their goal is to submit an answer to the question/prompt that they think the other players and audience members will vote on. There are two answers from different players for every question/prompt. Once all the players have submitted their answers to each question or once the response timer has run out, a question/prompt is shown along with the two answers. The players who did not submit the answer along with the audience members then vote on which answer they think is best. Points are awarded for each vote the answer gets. In the third and final round, all players are given the same prompt and must provide an answer with what they think will get the most votes. Once all the answers are in or the timer runs out, all answers are shown on the screen at the same time. Players and audience members then vote for their top three favorite answers. Similar to previous rounds, points are distributed based on the number of votes an answer gets. The player with the most points at the end of three rounds wins.
Analysis
The mechanic of providing your own answer to the question and everybody voting on answers creates a dynamic of a personalized game experience that provides a fellowship aesthetic not present in other judgement games. When I was playing Quiplash, many of my answers involved inside jokes or references to other people that I was playing with. This allowed me to connect more with my friends in comparison to games like Apple to Apples or Cards Against Humanity. Particularly, those games have set cards that don’t create as memorable experiences. I can hardly remember funny card combos in Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity but many of the answers from the game of Quiplash I have played have already become inside jokes within my friend group. Additionally, Quiplash lets everyone vote on the cards they like best. This mechanic ensures that everyone can contribute to the game, even if they are not actively competing against others, thus, creating a fellowship form of fun. The multiple judges also makes it so that answers to prompts have to appeal to everyone voting. Everyone has played with judges in Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity that judge a certain way (i.e. the one who finds the opposite of the card funny, or the one who finds the literal representation of the card the best). By introducing multiple judges, it makes it so that everyone is contributing to who wins rather than just one person. All in all, having multiple judges and inputting unique answers to prompts are distinctions between Quiplash and other judgement games that create a fellowship aesthetic.
