The game I played was Among Us, a social deduction indie game developed by Innersloth. I played on my iPad, though Among Us is also available on a smartphone, PC (not on Mac!), and Switch. The mobile version is the only platform that was accessible to me, and so my experience of playing on an iPad versus my iPhone undeniably impacted my enjoyment of the game. With the large tablet screen, I’m able to easily complete tasks with buttons being larger (Fitts’ law), see a greater amount of detail across the screen, and most importantly, I have an easier time typing with my iPad’s large keyboard. Communication is vital, and with my iPad I feel as if I have a greater ability to deliver my arguments.
The target audience is geared toward casual players, especially friends looking for a low-barrier social deduction experience, though there is also the option to play with strangers globally. The first thing new players are greeted with is an unexitable “friend code” mechanic- to enter the game, you must have a method to have friends find you. The default mechanics intend for there to be a limit of 15 players (minimum of 4), with in-game communication done through text.
I played 4 rounds with 14 strangers, then another 3 rounds with 5 friends. My experience with Among Us highlights how my communication style shifts depending on social context, especially between strangers and friends. The game’s mechanics create a different set of norms/habits between different groups under pressure, and for me, it brought out how quickly I switch between silence, persuasion, and deflection depending on who I’m playing with.
Among Us is almost unplayable as intended with strangers.
The game devolves into illogical rounds with one-word accusations, with the trend being that whoever says the first color decides who gets killed. Voting goes by in seconds. For example, in the time it took me to type between saying where the body was and saying that a shapeshifter killed (about 4 seconds), almost all of the lobby had already voted. Just the action of me reporting and saying where the body was got me 10/15 of the lobby votes. The act of simply speaking, attempting to play the game as intended, made me suspicious, and I was ejected without any discussion. I found that after this, ironically, silence was a more effective survival strategy.
With strangers, I learned not to speak and let them kill each other off, as no logic was ever involved. If I ever found a body, I would walk past. This way, I would not be accused of self-reporting. If I were an impostor and ever got caught killing someone, I would just be the first to say a color, and everyone would follow to vote for whoever that color was. This way, I won as the impostor. Bluffing is not required in Among Us with strangers, just silence and speed of the first accusation.
The dynamics of this game are not enjoyable with strangers, as there is minimal opportunity for bluffing. However, playing with friends brought the game’s potential to life. The six of us played in person, ignoring the in-game text mechanic and instead speaking aloud during meeting times for more effective communication.
We were able to process tone, body language, and facial expressions, and most importantly, were finally able to communicate information before anyone voted. Suddenly, bluffing became real. I could call someone out for nervously laughing or hesitating. We defended ourselves with full explanations, and players weren’t voted out before speaking. This shift from text to voice chat completely changed the dynamic, deception became a social performance, not a chatbox race. The game finally rewarded thoughtful persuasion and real-time deduction, which encouraged me to be more assertive, playful, and expressive.
From a design perspective, Among Us functions on the formal element of hidden roles and a mechanic of limited, structured communication. The game’s dynamic changes based on the platform and context, playing with strangers introduces a chaotic procedural loop of accusation without evidence, while playing with friends creates a performative, emotionally rich bluffing space, speaking to the aesthetics of challenge and fellowship. We see how the game subtly tests how different player relationships shape the meaning of each mechanic. This experience highlights how I adapt my communication style based on the salient norms/dynamics of a space between friends and strangers, learning to navigate these social dynamics through persuasion, deflection, and silence.
Ethics
Among Us is intended to have lying and deception as its central dynamics, but does that make the lying unethical? In my experience, it didn’t feel morally wrong, even when I manipulated others. This may be because everyone consents to a shared fiction when entering the “magic circle” of the game. Within that space, betrayal is not personal but performative, and deception becomes part of the fun.
However, the ethical tension doesn’t disappear- it just shifts. In stranger lobbies, speed matters more than logic, which can disadvantage slower typers, non-native English speakers, or players with disabilities. When bluffing becomes about chat speed rather than actual deception, the game’s core mechanic loses meaning and risks excluding players.
When playing with friends, the ethical question becomes more emotional. Why is it fun to lie to people you care about? For me, the answer again lies in consent. Everyone opts into the social contract of the game, a space where lying is expected and, honestly, wanted. The game would be boring if, at the start of every round, imposters revealed who they were. It’s a safe zone for moral experimentation. But even here, not everyone may feel comfortable. Some players, especially those with social anxiety or a strong sense of fairness, may struggle with being distrusted or targeted. It can sting when you’re telling the truth and no one believes you, especially in a group of friends. As a result, dynamics outside of the magic circle may change to accommodate what counts as consensual between friends (e.g., no ‘meta-gaming,’ no personal/character attacks, etc.). This is where I believe certain strategies can become unethical, not because lying in the game is inherently wrong, but if they breach the consent of an established social contract set by the group.
