When considering our game Corruption, I chose to compare it to Town of Salem. Town of Salem is a social deduction game developed and released digitally by BlankMediaGames. It is aimed towards all ages, from teenagers to adults, with its only limiting factor being the understanding of the roles and how they interact. Our game, Corruption, is similarly a social deduction game aimed towards the same age range. The game has similarities to Secret Hitler, with split teams of lawful and corrupt players trying to complete tasks and score points while trying to identify the affiliation of other players. Town of Salem is immensely popular, and I believe it has multiple features that could be used to improve our game. At the same time, I believe that Corruption has its own interesting mechanics and allows for unique dynamics between players that Town of Salem does not provide.
From the beginning, the setups and components of each game are noticeably different. In ToS, players are each assigned a unique role at the start of the game. Each role has an affiliation and abilities tied to it. For example, the framer role is part of the mafia and can frame another player each night. The large number of roles within the four affiliations allows players to have many unique gameplay experiences between games. However, the tie between affiliation and ability makes certain roles more desirable, and players may not have the chance to experience a certain affiliation or role due to chance, even after playing numerous games. Corruption makes a distinction between affiliation and role that allows players to experience and enjoy multiple forms of gameplay within one game. While players are split between lawful and corrupt affiliations, the roles of speaker, elector, treasurer, and vigil are rotated each round. With each role providing a unique ability to the player, this also allows each player to grasp the mechanics of the game easily and focus more on their strategy and use of these abilities. While ToS boasts a wider range of roles and dynamics between them, this can also be intimidating for new players who must learn all of these possibilities. In Corruption, players can grasp the mechanics of each role within the first round, and by the end of the game, they have experienced each role firsthand. Overall, Town of Salem is game-based, while Corruption is round-based when it comes to dynamics and how players use their given roles to advance the round in their teams’ favor.
When it comes to aspects of ToS that Corruption could benefit from, aesthetics is a point to consider. ToS is fundamentally mechanics-based and focused on the team vs team aspect of social deduction games, but still manages to have a memorable aesthetic surrounding it. From each of the roles having unique art and models to the engaging animations and sound design accompanying many of the abilities, the game is always aesthetically stimulating. This is, of course, something that digital games have an advantage in, but board games can also provide memorable aesthetics and experiences in their own way. Currently, Corruption is made up of task and affiliation cards, score counters, and a basic board to display departments and card placements. Incorporating design elements we already have present throughout iterations of cards and department labels into an aesthetically pleasing and equally functional board would greatly increase the visual appearance of the game. This would also further increase engagement of players, especially those who may be turned off by the more bland current design.
Another specific difference between ToS and Corruption is its handling of dead players. In ToS, as with many Werewolf-style games, dead players are severely limited in action and are essentially out until the next game. While this makes sense from a gameplay and mechanics perspective, this can lead to player boredom and frustration, especially when deaths occur randomly or without reason. Corruption, on the other hand, is fundamentally structured so that players not only do not get eliminated, but always have a chance to come back and win. Corruption relies on three task cards being played each round: one from the speaker, one from the elector, and one added randomly from the deck. These cards are used when scoring is done, and points are given to each team at the end of a round. If a corrupt player is found out and teamed up against by the lawful players, in most other games, they would have no chance. The third random card, however, gives a chance for the corrupt player to earn a point even if the two other cards only favor lawful players. From a design standpoint, this introduction of chance creates an aesthetic of uncertainty that players on either team must face. With this randomization in place, players must further engage and seek out the points that they can earn through skill in order to win. Ultimately, this mechanic brings fun to players in the form of score balancing and continuous play, even in the face of opposition from other players.
