Starting from the feeling
By the time Context & Cringe began to take shape as a game, one thing was already clear: We were not starting from mechanics. We started from the outcome. What we wanted was that moment when someone looks at a scenario and immediately reacts:
“That feels… wrong.”
The question was how to design something that could reliably create that moment. We wanted to get that ‘context flip’ moment central in the game: a perfectly 'normal’ feature or innocent-looking data type that gets paired in an unexpected way and suddenly forms the most cringey app scenario.
Borrowing from familiar patterns
To make the idea more concrete, we looked at existing game formats. One of the early references was something simple and familiar: a Build-A-Bear-style concept, where elements are combined to create something new.
From there, we layered in ideas inspired by games like Cards Against Humanity and Apples to Apples, where meaning emerges from the combination of otherwise neutral pieces. At various points, we explored different directions, adjusted the structure, and simplified again where needed. Some ideas stayed, others were discarded.
At one stage, we deliberately leaned into the tone and “vibe” of games like Exploding Kittens, embracing a slightly snarky, playful style that made it easier for people to engage with potentially uncomfortable scenarios. That tone turned out to be important. It created enough detachment for people to explore the topic without feeling exposed.
Designing around the “cringe”
A key decision in the design process was defining the goal of the game.
We considered two options:
- should players try to create the most “cringey” scenario?
- or should they try to avoid it?
In the end, we decided to do both.
In the main version of the game, the objective is to create the least cringe outcome, mirroring real-world organisations, where the goal is to build something that feels acceptable and appropriate to users.
At the same time, we recognised that some people were naturally drawn to building awkward combinations. That led to a second game mode, Speed Cringe, where players are encouraged to go in the opposite direction and create the most uncomfortable combinations possible.
Both modes rely on the same underlying mechanism.
Individually, the cards may appear completely normal. But when combined, they can shift the context dramatically, turning something neutral into something that feels very different. That “flip” is where the learning happens.
Iterating through play
As the game was tested with different groups, smaller design decisions began to matter.
For example, in the initial version, players worked with a single card from each category - one App, one Data, and one Feature. This made the game very easy to understand and quick to get started, but it also limited the depth of gameplay. With only one combination per category, the experience became predictable quite quickly. Introducing multiple cards of each type expanded the possible combinations, adding variety and making each round more engaging.
We also introduced a timer. In early sessions, we noticed that some participants would spend a lot of time on the “pitch” stage, turning the experience into more of an improvisation exercise. While that was entertaining, it shifted the focus away from the core idea. Adding a time constraint helped keep the game moving and maintained the intended balance.
Another adjustment was the introduction of tokens for voting. Without them, decisions tended to be influenced by group dynamics. People would look at each other and follow the majority. Tokens allowed participants to vote more independently, which led to more honest reactions.
Each of these changes was small on its own, but together they made the experience more consistent and more effective.
Letting the design settle
At a certain point, the process became less about introducing new ideas and more about refining what was already there.
We leaned into the tone, simplified where possible, and focused on making the experience cohesive. There wasn’t a single moment where we declared the game was “finished”. Through extensive testing and nit-picking , it gradually settled from something that worked into a form that worked well. Something that is easy to get started with, that could be picked up, played, and discussed across different groups, and brings across that context-switching cringe feeling.
From concept to experience
Looking back, the most important part of the design was not any individual mechanic.
It was the combination of elements:
- interaction
- context
- discussion
- visual design (shout-out to Devika Gibbs for the amazing work!)
- snark and humour
- and that instinctive reaction
Together, they created something that could surface a type of understanding that is difficult to achieve through explanation alone. The game does not try to define privacy. It creates a space where people can safely experience it. The unserious vibe itself doesn’t diminish the topic, but allows users to jokingly engage with the seriousness of it all.
Closing the loop
What started as a way to explain a difficult concept evolved into something more engaging and powerful: a feeling of privacy.
Context & Cringe did not replace training or analysis. It added something alongside it - a way to notice, explore, and discuss the moments that often go unspoken. Because in privacy, those moments matter. They are often where understanding begins.
