skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300239acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Honorable Mention

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

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

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.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn6671.m4v

m4v

38.6 MB

paper009p.mp4

mp4

1.8 MB

References

  1. Sultan A Alharthi, Ruth C Torres, Ahmed S Khalaf, Zachary O Toups, Igor Dolgov, and Lennart E Nacke. 2018. Investigating the Impact of Annotation Interfaces on Player Performance in Distributed Multiplayer Games. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Logic Artists. 2015. Clandestine. Game {PC}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Entertainment Software Association. 2017. Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved August 10, 2018 from http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/EF2017_ Design_FinalDigital.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Anastasiia Beznosyk,Peter Quax,Wim Lamotte,and Karin Coninx. 2012. The effect of closely-coupled interaction on player experience in casual games. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 7522 LNCS (2012), 243--255. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2014. Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 209--226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alena Denisova, A. Imran Nordin, and Paul Cairns. 2016. The Convergence of Player Experience Questionnaires. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ansgar E. Depping and Regan L. Mandryk. 2017. Cooperation and Interdependence: How Multiplayer Games Increase Social Closeness. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 449--461. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ansgar E. Depping, Regan L. Mandryk, Colby Johanson, Jason T. Bowey, and Shelby C. Thomson. 2016. Trust Me: Social Games Are Better Than Social Icebreakers at Building Trust. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 116--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Nicolas Ducheneaut, Nicholas Yee, Eric Nickell, and Robert J. Moore. 2006. "Alone Together?": Exploring the Social Dynamics of Massively Multiplayer Online Games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 407--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Katharina Emmerich and Maic Masuch. 2017. The Impact of Game Patterns on Player Experience and Social Interaction in Co-Located Multiplayer Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 411--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Blizzard Entertainment. 2004. World of Warcraft. Game {PC}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. B. Evans and M. a. Eys. 2015. Collective goals and shared tasks: Interdependence structure and perceptions of individual sport team environments. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 25 (2015), e139--e148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. FromSoftware. 2011. Dark Souls. Game {PlayStation3}. Tokyo, Japan. Last played March 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Simon Gachter, Chris Starmer, and Fabio Tufano. 2015. Measuring the closeness of relationships: A comprehensive evaluation of the 'inclusion of the other in the self' scale. PLoS ONE 10, 6 (2015), e0129478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Nintendo EPD & Platinum Games. 2016. Star Fox Zero. Game {Nintendo Wii U}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. SteelCrateGames.2015. KeepTalkingandNobodyExplodes. Game{PC}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kathrin Gerling and Laura Buttrick. 2014. Last Tank Rolling: Exploring Shared Motion-based Play to Empower Persons Using Wheelchairs. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 415--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kathrin Gerling and Regan Mandryk. 2014. Designing Video Games for Older Adults and Caregivers. In Meaningful Play 2014. SAGE, East Lansing, MI, USA, 24 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. John Harris, Mark Hancock, and Stacey D. Scott. 2016. Leveraging Asymmetries in Multiplayer Games: Investigating Design Elements of Interdependent Play. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 350--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Workshop on Challenges in Game AI 1 (2004), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Katherine Isbister. 2010. Enabling Social Play: A Framework for Design and Evaluation. Springer London, London, 11--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Yvonne a W De Kort, Karolien Poels, and Wijnand Ijsselsteijn. 2007. Digital Games as Social Presence Technology : Development of the Social Presence in Gaming Questionnaire ( SPGQ ). Digital Games as Social Presence Technology _ PRESENCE 2007 195203 (2007), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lennart E. Nacke, Chris Bateman, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2014. BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertainment Computing 5, 1 (2014), 55--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Alexey Pajitnov. 1984. Tetris. Game {PC}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Gene Roddenberry. 1966. Star Trek. Television Series. Retrieved September 15, 2018 from http://www.startrek.com/database_article/ star-trek-the-original-series-synopsisGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Richard M Ryan, Valerie Mims, and Richard Koestner. 1983. Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 45, 4 (1983), 736.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Richard M Ryan, C Scott Rigby, and Andrew Przybylski. 2006. The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion 30, 4 (2006), 344--360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Richard Saavedra, P Christopher Earley, and Linn Van Dyne. 1993. Complexinterdependenceintask-performinggroups. JournalofAppliedPsychology 78, 1 (1993), 61--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Pejman Sajjadi, Edgar Omar Cebolledo Gutierrez, Sandra Trullemans, and Olga De Troyer. 2014. Maze Commander: A Collaborative Asynchronous Game Using the Oculus Rift & the Sifteo Cubes. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 227--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jesse Schell. 2014. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. AK Peters/CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Muzafer Sherif. 1961. The Robbers Cave experiment intergroup conflict and cooperation. Vol. 10. University Book Exchange Norman, OK, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 229 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Zachary O Toups, Jessica Hammer, William A Hamilton, Ahmad Jarrah, William Graves, and Oliver Garretson. 2014. A framework for cooperative communication game mechanics from grounded theory. In Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computerhuman interaction in play. ACM, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 257--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. G. S. van der Vegt, Ben J. M. Emans, and Evert van de Vliert. 2001. Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology 54 (2001), 51--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Amy Voida, Sheelagh Carpendale, and Saul Greenberg. 2010. The IndividualandtheGroupinConsoleGaming.InProceedingsofthe2010ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 371--380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jason Wuertz, Sultan A Alharthi, William A Hamilton, Scott Bateman, Carl Gutwin, Anthony Tang, Zachary Toups, and Jessica Hammer. 2018. A Design Framework for Awareness Cues in Distributed Multiplayer Games. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jason Wuertz, Scott Bateman, and Anthony Tang. 2017. Why Players Use Pings and Annotations in Dota 2. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1978--2018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Nick Yee. 2006. Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & behavior 9, 6 (2006), 772--775.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. José P Zagal, Jochen Rick, and Idris Hsi. 2006. Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation & Gaming 37, 1 (2006), 24--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

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

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 2019
        9077 pages
        ISBN:9781450359702
        DOI:10.1145/3290605

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 2 May 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate703of2,958submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format