Name: Cards Against Humanity
Target Audience: Anyone with a darker sense of humor over the age of 16, otherwise too inappropriate, or can be considered too offensive
Creator: Josh Dillon, Daniel Dranove, Eli Halpern, Ben Hantoot, David Munk, David Pinsof, Max Temkin and Eliot Weinstein
Platform: Card Game
Central Argument
“Cards Against Humanity” is undoubtedly a fun party game known for its ability to provoke laughter and shock in equal measure. Indeed the game thrives on the unpredictable reactions each card elicits from the group, primarily driven by the shock value and comedic timing inherent in the gameplay. The game’s fun factor is undeniable, as players navigate the delicate balance between humor, offensiveness, and absurdity. Each round offers a fresh opportunity for hilarity, making it an excellent tool for breaking the ice at social gatherings. The game’s mechanics also encourage strategic play as participants tailor their responses to suit the specific sense of humor of their friends. As players become more familiar with each other’s preferences and comedic tastes, I believe that this element of strategy begins to overshadow the randomness that characterizes initial playthroughs. Ultimately players can “game the system” by selecting cards that resonate more with the personal humor of the current Card Czar, rather than choosing the funniest card according to the group. This strategic layer adds depth to the game but also shifts the focus from general entertainment to a more calculated approach, where understanding your audience becomes the key to success.
Analysis
One of the game’s strengths is the anonymity with which cards are submitted. This allows players to choose responses that they might otherwise be too embarrassed or reluctant to select, fostering a more uninhibited game environment. Just so, this incentivises players to be much more comfortable aligning with the ‘norms’ of the game. Moreover the design choice to have a rotating “Card Czar” ensures that all players have a chance to influence the game’s direction, and also a chance for players to better learn the sense of humor of each czar. Personally I found playing as the Czar not as fun as the thrill of choosing an electric card for the perfect prompt. As the rounds progressed, I noticed that my friends’ choices would be very targeted based on the czar. Overall this mechanic keeps the gameplay engaging, and also more interesting than just the game at face value, as players get to learn about other senses of humor.
One critique of “Cards Against Humanity” is that it can become repetitive once players are overly familiar with the cards. This familiarity can dull the game’s initial shock value and humor. To counteract this, the designers could introduce expansion packs more frequently or develop a digital version where content can be updated or randomized more effectively. This has been addressed through Cards Against Humanity lab – which uses AI to generate new cards. Another critique is the fact that the game heavily relies on cultural references that may not be universally understood or appreciated. This can alienate players from different backgrounds or with different sensitivities. A possible improvement could be to offer localized versions of the game that cater to specific cultural contexts or provide customizable packs where players can choose themes that suit their group’s tastes and experiences.
Learning
The dynamics of “Cards Against Humanity” arise primarily from the mechanics of anonymous card submission and the rotation of the Card Czar role. This setup encourages players to understand their friends’ senses of humor and potentially their personal boundaries or cultural affinities. Therefore I feel that this game certainly encourages deeper social bonds as players may learn new things about each other such as if they have a dirty or crude sense of humor etc. For example when playing I found my friend really enjoyed jokes about tragedies that I will not mention. This was a shock to me. Therefore this game is a great game at creating the aesthetic of challenge, fellowship and expression all in one. However as shown in the screenshots below sometimes there are rounds where there aren’t really any funny cards, rendering some rounds to be doozies where the czar simply chooses the card that kinda works the best. However I think this makes the great rounds even better.
As aforementioned, the game excels at encouraging socialization by breaking down typical social barriers through humor and anonymity. The game’s design implicitly encourages players to share parts of their personality that might be less visible in other social settings, promoting a different kind of social bonding. However, the reliance on controversial humor can create situations where the social experience shifts from inclusive fun to discomfort for those who may not share the same sense of humor or cultural perspectives. I felt this playing the game at some points where the cards such as “Auschwitz” used for specific prompts toed the line between being funny and too offensive. I was comfortable but I noticed that a friend wasn’t and upon further discussion he did feel like he was sort of forced to conform with the group and laugh rather than make the situation awkward.
Overall, “Cards Against Humanity” exemplifies a bold and engaging approach to the judging game genre. Its success and the criticisms it faces both stem from its core mechanics of anonymity, rotating leadership, and edgy content, making it a distinctive and provocative game that has reshaped expectations for social card games.
Evidence: Played on Online Version
Hanjie, one of my good friends from back home wins a round with a ‘mid’ card I’d say.
Here we see a bit of a doozie round, but Cum Donor, has a pretty straightforward sense of humor and as predicted chose Scientology because it worked the best.
