Higher Or Liar: Trivia Quizzes

Writing for clarity, confidence, and decision-making under pressure

Snapshot

Product: Higher or Liar
Platform: iOS
Role: Founder & Product Writer
Focus: Game instructions, solo vs party mode language, failure states, results framing

Higher or Liar is a trivia game built around fast decisions and social tension. Players must quickly judge whether they can name more items than a given number, choosing to be “Higher” or admitting defeat as the “Liar.”

As the product writer, my role was to make sure players always understood what was being asked of them, even when the game intentionally introduced pressure.

The challenge wasn’t excitement. It was clarity.

The Problem

Early versions of Higher or Liar surfaced a common issue in fast-paced games: players felt rushed before they fully understood the rules.
- Confusion showed up in moments like:
  - “What does ‘Higher’ actually mean?”
  - “Am I guessing before or after the timer?”
  - “Did I lose because I was wrong, or because time ran out?”
In a game built on confidence, uncertainty breaks momentum.
The problem wasn’t difficulty, but it was instructional ambiguity.

Design Constraints

Before rewriting copy, I defined key constraints:
- Instructions must be understood in under 3 seconds
- Language must hold up in both solo and social settings
- Copy should reinforce confidence, not second-guessing
- Failure language must feel fair, not embarrassing
- Tone should be energetic but never chaotic

These constraints helped balance fun with fairness.

Writing Exploration

The central concept, Higher or Liar, needed to be immediately clear.
Explored options:
- ❌ “Can you name more?”
  - Vague, missing stakes
- ❌ “Guess the number”
  - Too abstract
- ✅ “In 60 seconds?”
  - Feels challenging
  - Daring
  - I can do anything in 60 seconds (almost)

This phrasing anchored the entire game loop.

Solo vs Party Mode Framing

Solo mode needed to feel challenging without the social pressure of embarrassment. Party mode needed to feel playful, not punitive.
- Solo mode framing:
  - “Try it on your own”
  - “Beat your own expectations”
- Party mode framing:
  - “Put your guess to the test”
  - “Let’s see who’s Higher, and who’s the Liar”

The same mechanics, written with different emotional stakes.

Timer & Pressure Language

Time pressure was intentional, confusion was not.
- Avoided framing:
  - “Hurry!”
  - “Time’s almost up!”
- Used framing:
  - “As many as you can”
  - “You’re still in it”

This kept urgency without panic.

Failure & Results Screens

Failure language is where tone can easily tip into shame, especially in group play.
- Explored options:
  - ❌ “You failed”
    - Too harsh
  - ❌ “Wrong answer”
    - Blames the player
  - ✅ “LIAR”
    - Became the game's ethos... it's funny
Results screens emphasized:
- effort
- humor
- replayability

Winning felt validating; losing felt survivable.

Final Copy in Context

Final Copy in Context
- Across Higher or Liar, language acts as a stabilizer:
- Instructions prioritize clarity over cleverness
- Pressure is introduced gradually and intentionally
- Results celebrate participation, not perfection
- Players always know why an outcome happened
The copy supports confidence, even when the answer is “liar.”

Impact

Clearer instructional language reduced early friction and made the game easier to enjoy in both solo and social settings.
More importantly, it supported:
- Faster onboarding
- Fewer “what just happened?” moments
- Stronger replay motivation after loss
Language made pressure feel playful instead of punishing.

Outcome & Learning:

Higher or Liar reinforced how crucial language is when users must act quickly. Under pressure, even small ambiguities feel large.
This project sharpened my approach to instructional writing: clarity first, tone second, cleverness last.
When the stakes are high and the timer is running, words need to work immediately.

What This Demonstrates:

Writing clear instructions under time pressure
Adapting tone for solo vs social experiences
Designing fair, confidence-preserving failure states
Supporting decision-making through language