4Game

As much as I love Among Us I can't help but notice an aspect of the game that the creators goofed.

For those of you who know the game Werewolves, you might remember that if the number of surviving werewolves ever matches the number of surviving villagers, the game immediately ends and the werewolves win. The Among Us developers applied that same rule to their own game. If the number of surviving crewmates is less than or equal to the number of surviving impostors, the game immediately ends and the impostors win. In Werewolves, this game mechanic makes sense! In Among Us, it doesn't.

The great thing about Among Us is there is another way to win besides finding out who the bad guys are. Tasks! The ratio of crewmates to impostors doesn't matter as long as the crewmates still have a chance to complete their tasks. So, the whole "let's end the game early because the good guys don't have enough survivors to vote out the bad guys" logic doesn't apply here.

For example, let's say there is one impostor and they have killed all but one crewmate. That crewmate might only have one task left to do, and perhaps even a chance to do it before the killer's cooldown runs out. And what if that's the last task of the game? Voila! The game is won. It's unfair to assume the crew has absolutely ZERO chance of winning just because it's 1v1, and to end the game early because of it. And frankly, if the crewmates are so efficient that they've only got one or two tasks standing between them and victory before the impostor has killed them all, give them that chance to win. They deserve it.

I hope at least one person reading this understands where I'm coming from. Letting impostors win when there are still one or two surviving crewmates makes about as much sense as letting crewmates win on tasks when they still have five tasks left. Don't let players assume victory early, make them actually achieve it.

tl;dr The impostor(s) should need to actually kill every last crewmate in order to win the game.