3 ms·
Adding to the list of related games at the end of the article, I recently played "Poetry for Neanderthals" and thought it was quite fun, although really once yo
by ralferoo 2y ago
Adding to the list of related games at the end of the article, I recently played "Poetry for Neanderthals" and thought it was quite fun, although really once you've figured out how to trick your brain into thinking with grunts, it becomes easy quite quickly because then you tap into the primal part of your brain that prefers single syllables. But bashing people with the rubber hammer kept it amusing for longer than it probably should.
- quuxplusone 2y agoI played "Poetry for Neaderthals" once a few months ago, and concluded that its enjoyability must really depend on the group. My wife and I were playing at a meetup with a couple of party-game guys who maybe weren't the brightest bulbs in the box (they were the ones who brought the game, but they'd never played it before either). This made it no trouble at all when either of us was the "master," but excruciatingly painful when either of them was. Like, suppose the word is WINDOW. They'd be like, "Um... house. [long pause] Grass, sky. Glass! Um... [long pause] see? Eye look at?" And I'd be like, "This is a thing in the wall of a house. You can see through it. It's made out of glass. Um... it has panes, and a sill. It might have drapes next to it. You go to it when you want to see out of the house, but it's not the door. A thief might come in through it," etc. etc. Once you realize you can just say whatever you like (as long as it's in words of one syllable), it seems like the whole game is "cooked." Even with a group of uniformly competent players, I feel like it would just devolve into listening very carefully to a rapid-fire stream of words to try to detect any slips — i.e. real-time proofreading — which to me doesn't count as an enjoyable way to spend a game night.