Thu Le
CS 247G: Design for Play
Critical Play: Comparative Analysis
Game.
I played a version of the card game Literature, where 4+ players are divided into two teams. Literature is a classic card game that is known just by tradition. I got this version from a friend who got it from a party. Cards are dealt out, with decks hidden from others. The goal of the game is to have your team have the highest number of matched sets. A matched set is same suit (club, spade, diamond, heart) of three groups: 2-7, all 8s and all aces, 9 10 Jack Queen King. So there are 4 * 2 + 1 possible matched sets. One person starts. They can ask anyone for a card. If guessed correctly, the answeree must give it up, and the person can ask anyone again. If it fails, it is now the answeree’s turn. If a team suspects that they have all of the cards of a matched set, they can call and see if they can make a matched set. If yes, they get a point. If not, the other team gets a point. Who has the most points wins.
Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics
- Literature
- Mechanics: Ask people for cards, call set
- Dynamics: bluffing, memorization, team-play
- Aesthetics: card game-esque, poker-esque
- Our game
- Mechanics: draw ingredients, place ingredients, call recipe
- Dynamics: bluffing, memorization, sabotage
- Aesthetics: chill, food, cooking
Central Argument.
Like our game, Literature is a game that also involves matching sets (sets to our recipes). They are both social deduction games as well as pattern-matching games. However, they differ that Literature is multilateral whereas our current game is unilateral.
However, they both have a mechanic in which players should guess what matching set their opponents are looking for, as well as the elements that they do have. Literature involves keeping mental note of what cards people have, as well as what players are trying to build a set out of. In our game, you can keep track of what they are not playing down as what they don’t have and what they are playing as what they do have. Then, you can infer what recipe that they are building.
Both games have a mechanic in which people can steal what you are working on. In Literature, if you know who has the cards, you can ask and build the matching set yourself. In our game, it is possible to wait for the recipe to be almost done and then place the last piece to build it for yourself. There are common elements of deception, bluffing, and stealing.
Key differences in deception however, is that Literature has a lot more depth. As you check cards, you reveal the cards you do not have. Thus, knowing more gives away your information, so it must be done strategically. The game is more so keeping your cards safe, while deducing who has the cards: your enemies or your partner. The matching set is a result of it. In our game, we have no such mechanic to confirm the recipes other people have unless through inference. Additionally, there is publicity in what ingredients you have, as you have to roll a die to get your ingredients.
However, there is room for social communication in our game that Literature does not. By design, Literature is supposed to be completely quiet. There is a large focus on non-auditory communication and subtle communication through requests. For example, in a game you can signal to your partner that you have some of the matching set by asking (you must have a card in the matching set to ask for a card that makes up a set). You can also look at your partner and make eye-contact to signal that they have cards, or manipulate your deck of cards such that you can highlight that you have X number of cards of the matching set. In our game, there is no constraint. It is very possible to start bargaining with others and make informal alliances. This could take form as two people completing recipes for each other or setting it up so that they can help each other. Although there would be a balance of helping and not helping, as the game is unilateral in nature.
Conclusions.
I think that our game can be further improved if there was more depth to communications. The silence speaks loud in Literature, but it is very limited in interpretation and is dependent on logical alignment of partners. Our game is very open to discussion and I think that should be taken advantage of. I think that with some reiteration and redesigned mechanics, it can get quite interesting.
