To Asymmetry and Beyond!: Improving Social Connectedness by Increasing Designed Interdependence in Cooperative Play

Social play can have numerous health benefits but research has shown that not all multiplayer games are effective at promoting social engagement. Asymmetric cooperative games have shown promise in this regard but the design and dynamics of this unique style of play is not yet well understood. To address this, we present the results of two player experience studies using our custom prototype game Beam Me 'Round, Scotty! 2: the first comparing symmetric cooperative play (e.g., where players have the same interface, goals, mechanics, etc.) to asymmetric cooperative play (e.g., where players have differing roles, abilities, interfaces, etc.) and the second comparing the effect of increasing degrees of interdependence between play partners. Our results not only indicate that asymmetric cooperative games may enhance players' perceptions of connectedness, social engagement, immersion, and comfort with a game's controls, but also demonstrate how to further improve these outcomes via deliberate mechanical design changes, such as changes in cooperative action timing and direction of dependence.

[1]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey , 2014, Entertain. Comput..

[2]  S. Gächter,et al.  Measuring the Closeness of Relationships: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the 'Inclusion of the Other in the Self' Scale , 2015, PloS one.

[3]  Robert J. Moore,et al.  "Alone together?": exploring the social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games , 2006, CHI.

[4]  Jochen Rick,et al.  Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games , 2006 .

[5]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  A Design Framework for Awareness Cues in Distributed Multiplayer Games , 2018, CHI.

[6]  Gerben S. van der Vegt,et al.  PATTERNS OF INTERDEPENDENCE IN WORK TEAMS: A TWO‐LEVEL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONS WITH JOB AND TEAM SATISFACTION , 2001 .

[7]  Ansgar E. Depping,et al.  Trust Me: Social Games are Better than Social Icebreakers at Building Trust , 2016, CHI PLAY.

[8]  Muzafer Sherif,et al.  The Robbers Cave experiment : intergroup conflict and cooperation , 1988 .

[9]  M. B. Evans,et al.  Collective goals and shared tasks: Interdependence structure and perceptions of individual sport team environments , 2015, Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

[10]  Olga De Troyer,et al.  Maze commander: a collaborative asynchronous game using the oculus rift & the sifteo cubes , 2014, CHI PLAY.

[11]  Katherine Isbister,et al.  Enabling Social Play: A Framework for Design and Evaluation , 2010, Evaluating User Experience in Games.

[12]  Stacey D. Scott,et al.  Leveraging Asymmetries in Multiplayer Games: Investigating Design Elements of Interdependent Play , 2016, CHI PLAY.

[13]  Kathrin Maria Gerling,et al.  Last tank rolling: exploring shared motion-based play to empower persons using wheelchairs , 2014, CHI PLAY.

[14]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  The individual and the group in console gaming , 2010, CSCW '10.

[15]  D. Kort,et al.  Digital Games as Social Presence Technology: Development of the Social Presence in Gaming Questionnaire (SPGQ) , 2007 .

[16]  Nick Yee,et al.  Motivations for Play in Online Games , 2006, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[17]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Designing video games for older adults and caregivers , 2014 .

[18]  Wim Lamotte,et al.  The Effect of Closely-Coupled Interaction on Player Experience in Casual Games , 2012, ICEC.

[19]  R. Ryan,et al.  Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. , 1983 .

[20]  R. Saavedra,et al.  Complex interdependence in task-performing groups , 1993 .

[21]  Jesse Schell,et al.  The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses , 2019 .

[22]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[23]  Paul A. Cairns,et al.  The Convergence of Player Experience Questionnaires , 2016, CHI PLAY.

[24]  Katharina Emmerich,et al.  The Impact of Game Patterns on Player Experience and Social Interaction in Co-Located Multiplayer Games , 2017, CHI PLAY.

[25]  M. Salminen,et al.  Social Interaction in Games , 2012 .

[26]  Jessica Hammer,et al.  A framework for cooperative communication game mechanics from grounded theory , 2014, CHI PLAY.

[27]  Ansgar E. Depping,et al.  Cooperation and Interdependence: How Multiplayer Games Increase Social Closeness , 2017, CHI PLAY.

[28]  Sultan A. Alharthi,et al.  Investigating the Impact of Annotation Interfaces on Player Performance in Distributed Multiplayer Games , 2018, CHI.

[29]  M. Csíkszentmihályi Toward a Psychology of Optimal Experience , 2014 .

[30]  Scott Bateman,et al.  Why Players use Pings and Annotations in Dota 2 , 2017, CHI.

[31]  Robert Zubek,et al.  MDA : A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research , 2004 .

[32]  Andrew K. Przybylski,et al.  The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach , 2006 .

[33]  Alistair A. Young,et al.  Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 2017, MICCAI 2017.