Game: Wavelength
When playing wavelength, I found it to be way more revealing than I expected it to be. The game isn’t just about how I think, but also about how I communicate and position myself within a group. At first glance, the game is rather simple: one player gives a clue to guide their teammates towards a hidden point along the spectrum. Although when I got to actually play the game, there lies a surprisingly rich system that reveals habits in communication, decision-making, and group dynamics.
One of the first things that I noticed about myself while playing was my tendency to over-explain. When I took on the role of the clue giver, I felt some sort of pressure to make my clue perfect in a sense that my clue would be clear enough to guide my teammates accurately, but subtle enough to avoid being too obvious for the fun of the game. This led me to take time and carefully weigh each word, and sometimes hesitate before giving a clue as I wasn’t sure if that clue would be good enough. The structure of the game rewards precision but also ambiguity, often making me struggle to find a balance between the two. Contrastingly, my friends were much more intuitive as they offered quick, sometimes abstract clues while trusting that their team could interpret them. This difference made me realize that my communication style leans towards clarity and control, while others are more comfortable with open-ended expression.
On the other hand, as a guesser, I felt my behavior shifting. I became more analytical as I tried to decode not only the clue given but also the thought process that the clue giver might have. This meant that I would take into consideration the clue giver’s personality, humor, and even cultural background (as I played with friends that I know quite well). From this, the decision-making in Wavelength can be heavily social. This game isn’t just about logic, but it’s also about perspective-taking. Additionally, I also noticed that when playing with a group of friends, I often took on a mediating role in the discussions as I try to synthesise different interpretations and help guide the group towards a consensus, suggesting that in a familiar group setting, I tend to position myself as a bridge between the ideas rather than a dominant voice.
Personally, I felt that Wavelength greatly encouraged this with its shared objective, therefore allowing players to be more incentivized to collaborate, debate, and justify their reasoning. Additionally, the rotating roles also ensure that everyone experiences both the pressure of being understood and the challenge of understanding others. This structure allowed me to be more empathetic as a player, as then, I would become more aware of how difficult it is to communicate an idea in a way that others can interpret accurately, further highlighting how much meaning can be shaped collectively rather than individually.
From an ethical perspective, Wavelength raises interesting thoughts about social norms and inclusivity. The game implicitly depends on shared cultural knowledge and understandings since a given clue can be interpreted in varied ways based on background and life experiences. Some spectrums, for example, appropriate/inappropriate or normal/weird, can themselves reflect social and cultural norms that can vary amongst cultures, age groups, and individuals. Therefore, while Wavelength was created for socializing purposes, it could potentially lead to alienation amongst individuals with divergent viewpoints.
This means that while Wavelength is originally designed to bring people together, it can also unintentionally exclude players who don’t share the same viewpoints. In a group of close friends with similar backgrounds, the game would then be able to flow easily due to the overlapping knowledge and experiences. However, in a more diverse or unfamiliar setting, players might feel uncertain or even uncomfortable contributing (especially if worrying about getting it wrong or revealing a perspective that’s different from the majority). In this sense, the game is able to reflect and reinforce existing social dynamics as it may work best when there is already a foundation of shared viewpoints.
At the same time, this limitation seems to open up an opportunity since, with a careful approach, Wavelength has the potential to foster dialogue about why diverse understandings arise. Even moments of dispute, therefore, can lead to rich discussion on cultures, beliefs, and past lived experiences. However, this game is fundamentally only as successful as its ability to ensure these differences are viewed neutrally and with respect.
Overall, my experience playing Wavelength revealed how communication isn’t just about what we say but rather how we anticipate others to understand us. It also revealed my inclination towards careful expression and my role as a mediator when being the clue giver while also revealing the importance of shared context and the ethical responsibility required to be mindful of whose perspectives are included or excluded in that context.
