This past weekend I played Quiplash with a group of six friends – three guys and three girls! Created by Jackbox Games, a Chicago-based video game company founded by Harry Gottlieb, the company specializes in many quiz-based party games. The company markets their releases via game collections known as Jackbox Party Packs, which have included popular games such as Trivia Murder Party, Quixort, Fibbage, You Don’t Know Jack, and more.
Quiplash is a question-and-answer based game where individuals answer open-ended questions; there is a lot of creative freedom in the gameplay as there isn’t a correct or incorrect answer. Each player plays from their own mobile phone (i.e., answering question prompts and casting votes), and everybody eagerly follows along on the shared TV/Monitor where the game is hosted (via Jackbox Games).
Due to insensitive or mildly mature humor, the game is for players 12+ and played in groups of 3-8 players. A deeper analysis into Jackbox’s business strategy reveals that the intended target audience in recent years seems to be younger players who are physically distant from one another, as the game is extremely remote-friendly. It is the perfect game to be played when the world is facing a pandemic, as younger individuals are at the height of craving social connection and humor with one another rather than isolation. So, how does Quiplash work?
Once players join the same virtual game room, the game gives each player two prompts to respond to from their phones such as: “The worst theme for a pinball machine” or “The hit song from the Broadway show Fart: the Musical.” The game then pits players’ responses against one another on the shared screen, and players vote between the two prompts, effectively knocking the other one out! The number of votes a prompt receives drives the number of points the writer receives, and a bonus is added if it is unanimous! The player with the most points at the end of the game wins! In the last round, all players answer the same question and everybody is given three votes to cast for the top three responses.
In Quiplash, judging is used as players vote on what is uniquely funny to them. Based on my own gameplay, since Quiplash builds on individual subjective comedic humor, players tend to first measure how vulnerable they can be based on how much their competitors/friends are willing to open up. This vulnerability ensures a lack of trust in one another, and how rambunctious one can be in their own gameplay; what are the limits of creative freedom? How weird or naughty can I get? Can I unleash the dark parts of my humor? In our gameplay, for example, players tested the limits of our humor by asking “Okay, but imagine if it was sexual” to prompt ideation amongst the group. This exploratory ideation serves as feedback and validation of the direction that players can take their humor.
It is this vulnerability that establishes trust and credibility between players, and makes the game really enjoyable. However, this level of vulnerability coupled with group dynamics can harbor two extremes. If the group champions a single players’ humor, one could feel supported and motivated. For example, in our gameplay, the group started to physically applaud the player with the most votes consistently (i.e., shaking their hands, making eye contact, patting them on the back). One even said “I’d kill for your sense of humor”. But, if the group consistently overlooks your responses, one could deem themselves as unworthy or become hurt/resentful of their fellow players, possibly straining their real-world relationship and creating rifts in what they find funny. In our gameplay, this manifested with certain players talking less coupled with annoyed looks and dismissive attitudes. Vulnerability walks a fine-line, and has both positive and negative outcomes which are amplified in group-settings.
Quiplash provides uses a cohesive narrative to allow people to discover comedic parts of one another incentivized via challenge as discussed in class. It facilitates social interaction and nurtures open-ended creative imagination, promoting self-expression for all players. However, unlike games where identities are effectively kept secret such as Fibbage XL, Quiplash easily allows vulnerability to be taken advantage of as answers can be specifically targeted towards a player because anonymity isn’t preserved. Even though the game starts with players using random anonymous names, players quickly learn of each other’s identity through mutual communication and matching everybody’s answers with the person who is likely to exhibit that sense of humor. Further, identity is compromised as players who were championed by the group are likely to take credit for that answer, allowing everybody to eventually identify one another. I propose that Quiplash should randomize the names at the start of every round instead of the game, to ensure anonymity and preserve a safe environment for vulnerability.
