Prosocial Cozy Analysis

Interdependence Score: _____/10

• Do players need each other to succeed?
• Are complementary abilities encouraged?
• Does helping others benefit the helper?
• Are win-win situations common?
• Is solo play possible but cooperative play rewarded?

Threshold: If either Safety or Interdependence < 5, prosocial behavior will be rare regardless of other factors.

ACCELERATORS (Score 0-10 each)

Belonging Score: _____/10

• Can players form persistent groups?
• Do groups have shared identity markers?
• Can players contribute to shared spaces/projects?
• Is there recognition for community contribution?
• Does the game foster "we" thinking over "me" thinking?

Trust-Building Score: _____/10

• Can players predict how others will behave?
• Are social norms reinforced by mechanics?
• Is reputation visible and meaningful?
• Do repeated interactions with same players occur?

MAINTENANCE (Score 0-10)

Toxicity Prevention Score: _____/10

• Are there moderation tools?
• Is harmful communication limited by design?
• Can players protect themselves from bad actors?
• Are negative behaviors unrewarding or costly?

Step 2: Cozy Framework Assessment

Evaluate against the three pillars of coziness:

SAFETY (Score 0-10)

• Are risks and dangers minimized or opt-in?
• Is failure low-stakes?
• Is the emotional tone secure?
• Can players feel vulnerable without risk?

ABUNDANCE (Score 0-10)

• Are basic needs easily met?
• Is there freedom from urgent pressure?
• Are resources generous rather than scarce?
• Is there no fear-of-missing-out?

SOFTNESS (Score 0-10)

• Are visuals gentle (soft colors, organic shapes)?
• Is audio calming and non-intrusive?
• Is the pace unhurried?
• Are stimuli gentle rather than intense?

Anti-Cozy Violation Check

Mark any present:

• Pop-up notifications breaking immersion
• Fear-of-missing-out mechanics (daily rewards, limited events)
• Urgent timers or appointment mechanics
• Non-consensual social demands
• Intense/startling stimuli
• Competitive pressure
• Resource scarcity creating anxiety
• Loss mechanics that punish absence

Step 3: Friendship Formation Assessment

Evaluate using the Friendship Formula:

PROXIMITY (Score 0-10)

• Do players repeatedly encounter the same individuals?
• Are there shared spaces players naturally pass through?
• Can players recognize each other across sessions?
• Is server/group size human-scale (supporting Dunbar's layers)?

SIMILARITY (Score 0-10)

• Can players form groups with shared identity?
• Are there shared contexts and goals?
• Can players express similar values/aesthetics?
• Is matchmaking skill-appropriate?

RECIPROCITY (Score 0-10)

• Are there meaningful exchange/gift systems?
• Do complementary abilities create mutual benefit?
• Is there visible acknowledgment of help?
• Can players thank or appreciate each other?

DISCLOSURE (Score 0-10)

• Are there safe ways to share personal expression?
• Can trust be built gradually?
• Are there opt-in intimacy levels?
• Can players be vulnerable without exploitation?

Step 4: Economic Health Assessment

Abundance Design (Score 0-10)

• Are resources positive-sum where possible?
• Is scarcity used sparingly and intentionally?
• Are per-player or per-group caps used to balance abundance?

Gift Economy Health (Score 0-10)

• Does giving benefit the giver?
• Are gifts meaningful but not spammable?
• Is there visible social capital formation?

Monetization Ethics (Score 0-10)

• Is monetization transparent?
• Are there hidden costs or delayed reveals?
• Does monetization avoid pay-to-win?
• Are there dark patterns (pay-to-skip, forced grinding, appointment mechanics)?

Anti-Pattern Detection

Toxicity Generators (Red Flags)

Mark any present in the design:

Economic Anti-Patterns

• Zero-sum competition for limited resources
• Power accumulation as only path to safety
• Making it expensive to help others
• Making it easy to be selfish without cost
• Scarcity driving desperate behavior

Social Anti-Patterns

• Unfiltered communication enabling harassment
• Player collision/physics enabling griefing
• Visible rankings creating shame
• Anonymous interactions without accountability
• Large populations preventing recognition

Engagement Anti-Patterns

• FOMO/loss aversion mechanics
• Daily login requirements
• Time-gated content creating obligation
• Variable reward schedules (slot machine psychology)
• Social pressure mechanics (visible activity to friends)

Monetization Anti-Patterns

• Pay-to-skip core gameplay
• Hidden/delayed cost reveals
• Gacha/lootbox randomness
• Premium advantages in competitive modes
• Energy systems limiting free play

Output Format

When analyzing a game design, provide:

1. Summary Scores

KIND VALUES
  Safety:          X/10  [MUST HAVE]
  Interdependence: X/10  [MUST HAVE]
  Belonging:       X/10  [ACCELERATOR]
  Trust-Building:  X/10  [ACCELERATOR]
  Toxicity Prev:   X/10  [MAINTENANCE]

COZY PILLARS
  Safety:    X/10
  Abundance: X/10
  Softness:  X/10

FRIENDSHIP FORMATION
  Proximity:   X/10
  Similarity:  X/10
  Reciprocity: X/10
  Disclosure:  X/10

ECONOMIC HEALTH
  Abundance Design:   X/10
  Gift Economy:       X/10
  Monetization Ethics: X/10

OVERALL PROSOCIAL SCORE: XX/130
OVERALL COZY SCORE: XX/30

2. Strengths

List 3-5 design elements that strongly support prosocial/cozy goals.

3. Red Flags

List any anti-patterns detected with severity (Minor/Moderate/Critical).

4. Recommendations

Prioritized list of changes to improve prosocial/cozy qualities:

• High Impact: Changes that would significantly improve scores
• Medium Impact: Meaningful improvements
• Low Impact/Polish: Nice-to-have refinements

5. Example Games Comparison

Compare to known prosocial/cozy exemplars:

• Sky: Children of Light (communication limits, instanced resources)
• Valheim (shared base tending, gift economy)
• Stardew Valley (abundance, soft aesthetics, opt-in social)
• Animal Crossing (cozy aesthetics, self-expression, low stakes)

Quick Evaluation Checklist

For rapid assessment, answer these 10 questions:

1. Can players help each other without cost to themselves?
2. Is griefing mechanically difficult or impossible?
3. Do players encounter the same people repeatedly?
4. Can players form persistent groups with identity?
5. Is there a gift/exchange system?
6. Are resources abundant rather than scarce?
7. Is the pace unhurried with no urgency mechanics?
8. Is communication limited to prevent harassment?
9. Is monetization transparent and non-predatory?
10. Can players feel safe being vulnerable?

Score: X/10 "Yes" answers

• 8-10: Strong prosocial/cozy foundation
• 5-7: Moderate foundation with room for improvement
• 3-4: Significant concerns requiring redesign
• 0-2: Likely to produce toxic/stressful experiences

Dunbar Layer Reference

When evaluating social scale:

Servers/groups exceeding 150 active players make repeated encounters rare, harming friendship formation.