My team and I are designing a game, “Select”, that we’ve been describing as “Cards Against Humanity except with your camera roll” — thus for this week’s critical play I chose to analyze Cards Against Humanity. Cards Against Humanity is very similar mechanics wise to Select in the sense that they are both judging games that consist of players responding to a prompt card followed by the “judge” choosing the winning response.
Cards Against Humanity hinges on its humorous prompts and is driven by the players’ own sense of humors to create entertaining pairs of prompt and response cards. In doing so, the game embraces fellowship as a type of fun in which players discuss card prompts and thus have the opportunity to learn more about one another’s sense of humor. While the game is not explicitly a “getting to know you” game, the mechanic of the judge reading each person’s response creates an environment where players learn about one another and what they find humorous.
Another thing that Cards Against Humanity does well is simply creating an environment where humor can flourish. While my friends and I came across a few prompts that we did not quite understand, the majority of the prompts lead to entertaining response pairs. The prompts feel pretty random and range from niche to broad yet all feel pretty timeless.
Something that I find interesting is the fact that the cards’ design is extremely minimalist. There is no narrative or theme of any sort, and in fact the cards are entirely in black and white. Cards Against Humanity doesn’t rely on a complex aesthetic of any kind, resulting in a gameplay that is extremely centered around the players and their multilateral competition. This minimalist design thus reinforces fellowship as fun in which the players are what matter as opposed to outside themes or aesthetics. When considering similar games such as Apples To Apples, I think this is where Cards Against Humanity differs greatly. The minimalist theme allows players to make the game their own in a sense, as opposed to being attached to a specific narrative.
I feel as if abuse is not really an issue in Cards Against Humanity because of the ever rotating role of the judge. It’s not really possible to gang up on players and fast paced rounds create an environment where any qualms are quickly forgotten. Furthermore, because the game focuses on fellowship as fun as opposed to competition, any sort of abuse that may exist typically feels lighthearted as opposed to malicious.
In designing Select, my group and I were hoping to take the “getting to know you” and fellowship aspects from Cards Against Humanity to the next level. By instead answering prompts with photos from one’s camera roll, we are hoping that players can gain a glimpse into one another’s lives.
My team and I are designing a game, “Select”, that we’ve been describing as “Cards Against Humanity except with your camera roll” — thus for this week’s critical play I chose to analyze Cards Against Humanity. Cards Against Humanity is very similar mechanics wise to Select in the sense that they are both judging games that consist of players responding to a prompt card followed by the “judge” choosing the winning response.
Cards Against Humanity hinges on its humorous prompts and is driven by the players’ own sense of humors to create entertaining pairs of prompt and response cards. In doing so, the game embraces fellowship as a type of fun in which players discuss card prompts and thus have the opportunity to learn more about one another’s sense of humor. While the game is not explicitly a “getting to know you” game, the mechanic of the judge reading each person’s response creates an environment where players learn about one another and what they find humorous.
Another thing that Cards Against Humanity does well is simply creating an environment where humor can flourish. While my friends and I came across a few prompts that we did not quite understand, the majority of the prompts lead to entertaining response pairs. The prompts feel pretty random and range from niche to broad yet all feel pretty timeless.
Something that I find interesting is the fact that the cards’ design is extremely minimalist. There is no narrative or theme of any sort, and in fact the cards are entirely in black and white. Cards Against Humanity doesn’t rely on a complex aesthetic of any kind, resulting in a gameplay that is extremely centered around the players and their multilateral competition. This minimalist design thus reinforces fellowship as fun in which the players are what matter as opposed to outside themes or aesthetics. When considering similar games such as Apples To Apples, I think this is where Cards Against Humanity differs greatly. The minimalist theme allows players to make the game their own in a sense, as opposed to being attached to a specific narrative.
I feel as if abuse is not really an issue in Cards Against Humanity because of the ever rotating role of the judge. It’s not really possible to gang up on players and fast paced rounds create an environment where any qualms are quickly forgotten. Furthermore, because the game focuses on fellowship as fun as opposed to competition, any sort of abuse that may exist typically feels lighthearted as opposed to malicious.
In designing Select, my group and I were hoping to take the “getting to know you” and fellowship aspects from Cards Against Humanity to the next level. By instead answering prompts with photos from one’s camera roll, we are hoping that players can gain a glimpse into one another’s lives.
