Game: Among Us
Creators: Innersloth
Platform: PC, Mobile, Console
Target Audience: Users of all ages, recommended ages 9+
For my Critical Play I played Among Us, which was a lot of fun since I’ve played it before, but it’s been a while since the last time I played it during COVID lockdown. This time around, I played the game through a different lens, being more intentional and observant of my actions, offering me a clearer view into how I adapt (or fail to adapt) my communication strategies throughout the course of the game. I’ve played many social deduction games in the past, such as Mafia, Werewolf, Secret Hitler, etc., but the digital nature of this being a video game rather than an in-person social game allowed for more affordances that made the experience more complex by manipulating others through not just words, but also actions and timing.
The game is structured around two teams: Crewmates, who complete tasks and aim to vote out the Impostors, and Impostors, who secretly eliminate Crewmates while pretending to help. Communication only happens during emergency meetings, where I set up a Discord call with friends so we could speak freely rather than relying on in-game chat. This made the experience more natural and fluid but isn’t necessarily the way everyone plays.
As a Crewmate, I was more vocal and confident because I knew I had nothing to hide. However, I typically only contributed when I had real evidence, like seeing someone fake a task or finding a body. I spent most of my time gathering information: observing who spoke, what they said, and recalling player movements to try to develop a holistic understanding of the situation. Still, I noticed that silence was often interpreted as suspicious. In high-pressure group discussions, people expect input, even without certainty. That tension made me aware of how my real-world habit of listening first and speaking second might sometimes read as disengaged or passive, even when I’m being intentional.
As an Impostor, my experience was VERY different, as I constantly felt like I was being targeted. I’ve never been comfortable lying, so trying to deceive others, even in a game, felt strange. But I started adapting by mapping believable walking paths, watching the taskbar to time tasks, and carefully choosing when to speak. Over time, I got better at deflecting blame and pretending to be helpful. It felt like performing a role, and I think the digital format made it easier. Upon reflection, getting away with lying felt oddly satisfying, which I WILL NOT bring to the real world, but still a reminder that games allow us to safely explore behaviors we wouldn’t normally try.
What makes Among Us stand out compared to analog games like Mafia or Secret Hitler is how deception operates on multiple levels. To win as an impostor, you have to deceive through movement, timing, and actions in addition to words. Using the MDA framework, the game’s mechanics (completing tasks, emergency meetings, sabotage) combine with dynamics (accusation, alliance, groupthink) to create aesthetics of tension, mistrust, and surprise. What was cool was that although there are teams, the experience feels like a free-for-all, where nobody can be fully trusted.
That said, I had some gripes with the game. Players who are eliminated early often lose interest, especially Crewmates who can’t influence the outcome. Ghosts can finish tasks, but without any social involvement, many players just check out, including me. I think giving ghosts limited ways to observe or affect deduction could help, which I’ve seen in mods to the game. All in all, playing the game was an amazing experience of manipulation and cooperation, packaged in an addictive and enjoyable experience.
Ethical Reflection:
The ethics of lying in games like Among Us are really fascinating. In real life, lying is generally seen as morally wrong; maybe a case can be made for white lies, but overall, unethical. But, in the context of a social deception game, it becomes not just allowed, but expected. What I think makes this acceptable in this case is the consensual nature that all players know that lying is part of the game. It’s not deception with real-world consequences but role-based strategy. Therefore, I don’t think it’s a wrong action at all, as games operate in a “magic circle” where the rules of the real world don’t apply and these behaviors operate more like tools rather than transgressions. I think this is what makes social deception games really fun: the freedom to try behaviors we’d avoid outside the game. Lying in order to win turns into a shared performance to celebrate, not a breach of trust. Now, if there were skills picked up to facilitate more lying and manipulation in the real world, I think that’s unethical, but that is clearly not the designers goal, and I think it’s completely fine for games to operate with deception as it’s key.
