SofiaUnplugged

My first impressions of Codenames: Pictures (2016) was “I think I have seen this game before on a family holiday, but I have no idea how to play it”, clearly it did not make a very impactful first impression…. As a variation of the original Codenames, it belongs to the word-association and deduction genre, but replaces words with abstract, surreal images. The game is played in teams so at our table of four, we split into two groups. From looking at the box my initial thoughts were that it looks relatively simple, which was confirmed by the ‘ages 10+’ on the box. 

Learning Codenames: Pictures was relatively straightforward in terms of rules, but more complex in practice. The core mechanic is simple: one player (the “spymaster”) gives a one-word clue that links multiple images on the table, while teammates attempt to guess the correct ones without selecting the opposing team’s cards or the “assassin.” 

While the rules themselves were easy to understand through explanation and demonstration, the challenge came from learning how to think creatively. I found it especially challenging as I didn’t really know my teammate, so we didn’t understand each other’s thought train. 

The abstract nature of the illustrations made interpretation more way more challenging than I anticipated increasing the difficulty of both giving and receiving clues. What seemed like an obvious connection to one player could be completely unclear to another, leading to unpredictability making the experience complex. I think it is safe to say that 10-year-old Sofia would have struggled with the abstract nature of the images.  

As the spymaster, my creativity was definitely challenged! Trying to create a clue that successfully links multiple images under timed pressure required not only pattern recognition but also an understanding of how teammates think. This produced a unique balancing of risk with reward. 

The mechanics of giving one-word clues and limiting guesses reinforce the idea of coded communication, reiterating the name ‘Codenames’. Despite the ambiguity of the illustrations, it strengthens gameplay allowing for a wider range of interpretations and creative connections.  

Ultimately, the theme acts more as a loose framework rather than a deeply immersive narrative. The game prioritises player interaction and cognitive challenge over storytelling, which suits its role as a party game. 

The second game I played in our week 2 tutorial was Sushi Go! (2013). A light, fast-paced card drafting game designed by Phil Walker-Harding, illustrated by Nan Rangsima, and published by Gamewright. As a party-style tabletop game, it falls under the card drafting umbrella, where players select cards from a hand and pass the remainder to others, aiming to build the most valuable combinations. The game requires 2-5 players and says it takes around 15 minutes to play (I didn’t time our play however as it was our first time playing, I’m assuming we took a little bit longer to play). The bright colours and cartoon style icons reinforce that it is for ages 8+, placing it as a light-hearted, accessible game to casual and family players.  

After playing the slightly more complex game ‘Codenames’, I felt that Sushi Go was a bit easier to understand from just looking at the packaging. The minimal rules: choose one card, reveal it, and pass the rest along meant that I learned mostly during active play rather than lengthy rule explanations included in the pack. Additionally, the ludic nature of the game made it reasonably easy to understand and straightforward. Walker-Harding emphasises creating games where players can “learn quickly and dive right into it,” allowing strategy to emerge through play rather than through complex instructions. While the game is simple, it involves constant decision-making: choosing between immediate points and long-term set collection, while also anticipating opponents’ moves. We played the game a couple of times as the first round was more just to get a feel for the game. The first time playing, I didn’t take into consideration the later effects of my decision making and chose cards which probably weren’t very effective if I wanted to win. The drafting mechanic creates indirect interaction, as players must consider not only what they want, but what they are passing to others. Overall, my experience was shaped by anticipation and tension by urgent decision making and passing on the cards to the next player, often without full information. 

Importantly, the game’s cute aesthetic softens these competitive tensions. The playful design reduces the emotional weight of losing, making the experience feel social rather than confrontational. This balance between competition and light-hearted presentation is a key strength of the design. 

During week 3, I played Pandemic (2008) which stood out as the most complex of the three games that I played. It is advertised as a cooperative strategy board game which was evident throughout gameplay, designed by Matt Leacock and published by Z-Man Games. Unlike competitive games, Pandemic belongs to the cooperative strategy / crisis-management genre, where players work together rather than against each other. I found this aspect quite unique and challenging to understand as I am so used to playing competitive board games. The game is designed for 2–4 players and is recommended for ages 10+. The board features a global map, disease markers, and role cards, all contributing to a serious, urgent tone that reflects the game’s theme of global health crises. 

Learning Pandemic was more challenging compared to lighter games like Sushi Go! or Codenames: Pictures. While the basic goal is to stop the spread of diseases and find cures is easy to understand, the rules involve multiple interconnected systems: player actions, infection phases, outbreak chains, and role-specific abilities. 

When I first opened the box, I found all the elements a bit overwhelming as there were multiple decks of cards and different icons all over the board. As we were all unknowledged players of this game, it took us a while to set up however with the help of a YouTube video we eventually got there. The design encourages learning through doing, as players begin to understand the consequences of their decisions over time, particularly how quickly situations can escalate if not managed carefully. 

The game created a strong sense of urgency through its mechanics: diseases spread rapidly, outbreaks can cascade, and resources are limited. This leads to moments of panic when multiple crises occur simultaneously. The game can also produce frustration, particularly when plans are disrupted by random events. The “epidemic” cards, which intensified the spread of disease, often undermine carefully constructed strategies. 

Initially, we had no idea what the roles assigned to players (such as Medic or Scientist) meant, as each has unique abilities that reflect real-world expertise. The limited number of actions per turn creates meaningful constraints, forcing players to prioritise and make difficult decisions. 

Pandemic created a very strong narrative through gameplay. Each session feels like a story of rising tension, near-failure, and (sometimes) last-minute success or defeat. The mechanics do not just support the theme they actively generate the experience of it.