At least, according to these people.
I admit, I’ve played the game, and giggled, but this review definitely gives me food for thought, especially their points about the almost reverent status it’s gained even in the board gaming community. All of this, of course, feeds into a larger debate about so-called “political incorrectness,” but I’d like to not let this particular discussion spread THAT much if at all possible.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, that article basically boils down to, “if you think this game is funny, it’s because you’re a moral coward.”
It’s a funny game, at least the first couple times you play it. After you’ve seen all the cards, it becomes less entertaining.
When you play Cards Against Humanity, pretty much card is already something gross or offensive or whatever. I prefer Apples to Apples because most of the cards are are innocuous on their own. It makes you work to come up with something offensive.
I’ve not played the game. Initially I thought I might agree with the premise of the linked piece. But most of their argument hinges on the idea that bad and painful things aren’t funny. And of course they are not. But at the same time juxtaposing painful or sad topics with incongruous ideas can be very funny.
Of course, that’s not a new idea in the least. The authors of the piece know that. So their implication that the authors or players are insensitive to these concerns, or even worse are endorsing them… that is more than a bit disingenuous. They end up sounding like humorless twits.
As for their other primary concern - that the humor comes easily, without the players having to work at at it… No fucking shit. It’s a fucking party game. If people had to work at it, it wouldn’t be a game. At least, not one that people would buy.
I can imagine these people bitching about Mad Libs. It’s easy humor, and it pulls for humor that comes from naughty ideas or potty language.
My problem with the game is it gets old fast. The group I play with likes it, but I get really sick of playing it for hours each time we get together. There are better games out there, and actually last time we got together we played something else and had far more fun.
The whole “but it’s offensive on purpose!” argument rather misses the point.
We were the first of our friends to have the game. We brought it out for parties and everyone had a great time. The game is the epitome of a shiny object, it’super interesting at first but then the road to boredom.
That said, when we first played it, we laughed. We laughed our collective asses off. It was great fun to be extremely offensive. I personally enjoy that humor from time to time.
I am in the opposite boat of those who would boycott Daniel Tosh with signs that say “RAPE IS NEVER FUNNY”. Sure it can be. Maybe not to you, but we all have different ideas of what’s funny. And that’s coming from someone who has been raped.
Maybe it’s because I grew up in a family where we would make light of the dark. I had a drunk uncle Bob who every Thanksgiving would be drunk. Gross drunk. At one point during the meal, he would slur to his wife “Good bake on the bird, Rosie” and that’d be pretty much all he’d say every year. When he died, my aunt Rosemary had him cremated and at the funeral, she was crying. She put the urn on a pedastal and her sister went up to her and said “Good bake on the Bob, Rosie.” We all cracked up, including Rosemary.
I agree that it gets old. I’ve only played it once, and I was already getting tired of it after just a few rounds.
As somebody who is very active in the board gaming community I can tell you that Cards Against Humanity does not have a reverent status. If it gets mentioned at all, it’s dismissed as a party game that real gamers wouldn’t be interested in (yes, some gamers take themselves too seriously).
There’s your dead giveaway. Any argument that uses the phrase “real gamers” in earnest can be disregarded as too fatuous and self-important to matter.
I also don’t find that it depends on dicking over minorities. Two examples from my own play:
“What White People Like” paired with “Racially Biased SAT Questions.”
“How Teach for America Volunteers Inspire Inner City Youth” paired with “Their Fabulous Wealth.”
In general, I find the game, when it leads to any sort of social commentary, leads to this sort of humor.
It’s not my favorite game, but it’s more fun than Apples to Apples.
This. Cards Against Humanity spoon-feeds sophomoric humor, which gets old fast. I can’t imagine it producing anything that gets the laughs I got in Apples to Apples by winning “Madame Curie” with “Radiant”.
An interesting middle ground between A2A and CAH is The Metagame. It’s more culturally literate than A2A, and less crudely offensive than CAH.
CAH amuses me in small doses. I wish it had more biting satire and less toilet humor.
This is not a game that you play because the game itself is awesome, but a game that you play because you want something to do while you basically kick back with a bunch of friends. No one I know takes it ‘seriously’, and the arbitrary nature of victory works to support that. The no-waiting-for-your-turn aspect means it’s easy enough to stay ‘engaged’ with.
Is it brilliant? no. Is it held in some sort of “reverent” status? Hahaha, no. Is it pretty entertaining as dumb party games go? Sure.
The game can be pretty fun, or it can be terribly stupid. It really depends on who you’re playing with. My wife and I have played with both our families. My family does really clever combos, while my wife’s family basically just plays the most offensive card they have every time. The latter gets old in a hurry.
For the kind of game like Cards Against Humanity or Apples to Apples, I much prefer Dixit. The cards have no text, just strange surreal pictures, so they are what you make of them.
The article fails to acknowledge that sensitivity is itself a disability. It’s neither a character flaw nor is it commendable.
Sensitive, or triggerable people should not play the game. That doesn’t make it a bad game any more than football is a bad game because paraplegics can’t play it. Not every game has to be everything to everybody.
They’re doing a service to minorities, the disabled, etc. by assuming they can’t find humor in the game. Some rape victims will have a bad time if rape is joked about, but others deal with their problems with humor and a game like this is one possible way to engage their past. Who the hell are these people to say whether this game is appropriate or not?
I agree with those who say that the game isn’t perfect and gets old after a while, especially in certain crowds. Again, so what?–that applies to other games as well. If you like laughing at this kind of stuff, then play it for a while, or don’t.
The authors of the article are dead wrong about the designers forgetting to make the cards combine in creative ways. I’ve sat in several sessions at PAX with them where they take audience suggestions, and they always reject suggestions where the joke is too obvious or limited. Maybe they’ve failed in some cases, but they certainly didn’t forget to do it.
I only play the game a couple times a year – we have friends who always break it out for the New Year’s Eve party and summer barbeque. So it doesn’t get old for us though I could easily see it happening if you played every weekend or something.
The article sounds like some overly sensitive killjoys to me. When we play, most of the winning answers are the ones that make the question guy say “Heh, yeah that makes sense” rather than “He said poop…” We’ve all sorts of liberals and social cause types in our group and no one’s decided to be offended yet. As mentioned, these guys sound like the type to get worked up because a Mad Libs says “Butts Washington was the first Butt of the United States of Butts.”
Protip: the game is especially fun if alcohol is involved.
I like it in the sense that I hate when that one person keeps trying to steer a party towards games and don’t always want to pay them, but this is one of the better games that people want to play.
I don’t like rules lawyering this game. Some cars are VERY hard to get rid of. Generally speaking longer text is better. Also the company is good at providing expansions and such.
Alcohol, and cheating. If people play it to win, it’s terrible, but if people are willing to throw away shitty cards or play multiple cards or be absurd tyrants when they have the black cards or grab extra cards from the deck, it’s a lot more fun. Most games are not improved by chaos; this one is.
Both of LHoD’s examples are much funnier (IMO) than yours. Madame Curie : Radiant is very solid for Apples to Apples, but CAH has a much higher floor.