Understanding and evaluating cooperative games
Abstract
Cooperative design has been an integral part of many games. With the success of games like Left4Dead, many game designers and producers are currently exploring the addition of cooperative patterns within their games. Unfortunately, very little research investigated cooperative patterns or methods to evaluate them. In this paper, we present a set of cooperative patterns identified based on analysis of fourteen cooperative games. Additionally, we propose Cooperative Performance Metrics (CPM). To evaluate the use of these CPMs, we ran a study with a total of 60 participants, grouped in 2-3 participants per session. Participants were asked to play four cooperative games (Rock Band 2, Lego Star Wars, Kameo, and Little Big Planet). Videos of the play sessions were annotated using the CPMs, which were then mapped to cooperative patterns that caused them. Results, validated through inter-rater agreement, identify several effective cooperative patterns and lessons for future cooperative game designs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Successful cooperative games must negotiate between 'enforced' and 'encouraged' cooperation.
“Seif El-Nasr et al. further note that successful cooperative games must negotiate between 'enforced' and 'encouraged' cooperation, a tension Split Fiction exploits through its mandatory two-player structure (Seif El-Nasr et al. 2010).”
From Split Fiction: Gaming, Authorship, and Corporate Extraction in the Age of AI (2025) · cites this paper as Seif El-Nasr et al. 2010
Split Fiction exploits the tension between enforced and encouraged cooperation through its mandatory two-player structure.
“Seif El-Nasr et al. further note that successful cooperative games must negotiate between 'enforced' and 'encouraged' cooperation, a tension Split Fiction exploits through its mandatory two-player structure (Seif El-Nasr et al. 2010).”
From Split Fiction: Gaming, Authorship, and Corporate Extraction in the Age of AI (2025) · cites this paper as Seif El-Nasr et al. 2010
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social gaming: A systematic review
Gonçalves, D., Pais, P., Gerling, K., Guerreiro, T., & Rodrigues, A. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107851 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Split Fiction: Gaming, Authorship, and Corporate Extraction in the Age of AI
Salter, A., & Murray, J. T. (2025) · Humanities · doi:10.3390/h15010002
- Authors
- Seif El-Nasr, M., Aghabeigi, B., Milam, D., Erfani, M., Lameman, B., Maygoli, H., & Mah, S.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- New Media Research and Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Bardel Entertianment, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- ORCID
- Erfani, Mona
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-04-10
- Pages
- 253-262
- OpenAlex
- W2154447040
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 26.87
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Mitacs
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- cooperative games, game design, player interaction, game evaluation, interobserver agreement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
