For my critical play, I decided to play Apples to Apples. Apples to Apples is a judging card game created by Matt Kirby that is targeted at anyone from children all the way to seniors. Mechanically, Apples to Apples is similar to our game “Game of Truth”. In both games, one person is singled out to be the judge. In Apples to Apples, the judge draws a green card and all the players have already drawn 7 red cards. The players all choose which red card they think is most similar to the judge’s green card and all the players’ cards are shuffled in a pile and given to the judge. The judge then decides which card is best and that player is awarded a green card/point. In our game, the judge starts the round by drawing a prompt card. Then all the players write down a funny answer to the prompt. An example is the prompt “What will [the judge] get cancelled for in 10 years”. Then, all the answers are shuffled and the judges have to choose the funniest one. At this point, all the players get to discuss and try to convince the judge that the funniest prompt is theirs. After that, the judge tries to match each answer to the different players.
We recognized that Apples to Apples is leaving unexplored areas for improvement. For example, the red cards being unknown is just a straightforward mechanic to prevent bias in Apples to Apples. We realized that you can gamify this mechanic by having the judge match answers and as a result increase the social interactions between the judges and players. This also forces the judges to try to get to know the players, their tendencies, and interests etc. Furthermore, in Apples to Apples, the prompts and rules of the game are super restrictive. For example, I played a round where the green card was “Cute” and the red cards were “Kitchen”, “Baby”, and “Crocodile”. The opportunity for humor and discussion here was very limited, and the game felt drawn out. Our game tries to produce an environment where social interaction and discussion are highly encouraged through outlandishness and humour. The prompts we chose are super open-ended and try to engage the players creatively. For example, prompts like “What’s the title of [the target]’s memoir?” allow the players to exercise their creative thinking and bonus points are awarded for humour. This is compounded by the fact that the judge can make comments about the answers and try to figure out who would say what.
Beyond just engaging in the creativity of the players, we also incorporated a bluffing component. By allowing the players to try to convince the judge the funniest prompt is theirs, we can involve the players throughout the round and prompt lively discussion and engagement. Apples to Apples doesn’t take advantage of this, and could easily have a component where the players try to convince the judge that the best red card is theirs. At times, Apples to Apples felt really forced to me. It felt like the game was obviously designed to kill time and that was readily apparent. It also felt like it was hard to have discussion with other players beyond the occasional, “What??? Your red card is so bad xD”. By expanding on the missed opportunities in Apples to Apples, hopefully my team and I can create a game that not only kills time, but also helps form deeper and more meaningful friendships.
