Playing games with your partner: what the research actually says
The call reaches the familiar point. You've both described your day, neither of you has much news, and somebody asks what you should do now. A game is an easy answer. Whether it actually helps you feel closer is a harder question.
In our first article, we looked at the ordinary things couples do together across a distance. Then we checked which word games can survive a time difference. This time we went to the research: studies of couples, experiments with multiplayer games, and work on shared activities. We wanted to know what supports the idea, and how far that support goes.
The evidence gives us reasons to take shared play seriously. It also leaves some obvious questions open. These studies don't establish how many minutes you should play each day, or show that installing a particular couples app improves a relationship.
Choose a game you both want a second round of.
What couples actually get from playing
A 2025 study of 13 long-distance couples is unusually close to this question. Researchers collected diaries, interviewed the partners, and asked them to imagine their ideal game. Couples described shared goals, a sense of their partner being present, and small ways to show affection through play: helping, protecting, or giving something in the game.
Their preferences differed. Some strongly favoured cooperation, some mixed cooperation and competition, and others enjoyed competing and expressing themselves through it. All were already regular players. This was a small, mainly American sample, describing an existing hobby; it cannot tell us what happens when a reluctant partner starts gaming.
Imagine the difference between a call where you're searching for another topic and a call where you're both trying to draw a cat riding a bicycle. Suddenly there's something to react to. You can disagree about the wheels, defend the whiskers, or decide the cat has had a difficult day. The drawing supplies the subject, and the conversation becomes yours.
A little novelty has some evidence behind it
One often-cited piece of research is Arthur Aron and colleagues' 2000 study of shared activities. Across three laboratory experiments, couples who completed a novel, exciting seven-minute task showed larger immediate increases in reported relationship quality than couples doing a more mundane task. One experiment also included a group doing no activity.
Those were physical tasks in a laboratory, not mobile games, and the measurements were taken around the activity. Seven minutes is the experimental task's length, not a scientifically established daily dose of couple time. The useful idea is narrower: doing something unfamiliar together can change how a couple feels in the moment.
Our practical take is to leave room for surprise. Try a different drawing prompt, swap who gets the first guess, or choose a track neither of you knows. You don't need to arrange an elaborate date every time the evening feels flat. Sometimes a small change gives you enough to be curious about.
Working together gives you something to talk about
Depping and Mandryk's 2017 experiment used four versions of an online game to separate two mechanics: cooperating toward a shared goal, and needing the other player to succeed. Both improved the play experience and social bonds. The researchers linked the closeness associated with interdependence to more conversational turns between players.
The players were strangers paired online, so this doesn't settle which mode is best for an established couple. It does suggest something useful to look for: a game where you each have a reason to contribute.
A shared puzzle can lose that quality if the faster player supplies every answer. You might still win, but one of you has spent the round watching. Try taking turns proposing a guess, or letting each person explain their thinking before choosing. Having different ideas is part of the game. There is no need to turn the slower guess into a lesson.
And competing can simply be fun
We wouldn't prescribe cooperative mode to every couple. A friendly rematch, a surprise win, or a spectacularly bad drawing can be a good evening too. You can judge that together: does the teasing make both of you laugh, and does the person who loses still want to play?
Laughter has its own relevant research. Kurtz and Algoe studied 71 romantic couples talking about how they first met. Laughing at the same time was associated with greater relationship quality, closeness, and social support. They observed a conversation; they didn't assign couples a funny game or demonstrate that laughter caused those outcomes.
So we would treat the laugh as a good thing to notice, without trying to manufacture a quota of it. If you're still joking about a drawing the next morning, the round has already given you something worth keeping.
When one of you is only playing to be nice
The less enthusiastic person's experience deserves attention. A 2012 survey of 349 married couples examined online role-playing games. Among couples where both partners played, satisfaction with gaming for the partner who played less was associated with marital satisfaction for both. Arguments about gaming and less often going to bed together were associated with lower marital satisfaction.
These were survey associations, not proof of cause, and the setting was often hours of MMORPG play. That is quite different from a short word puzzle. Still, the paper is a useful check on the idea that any time spent gaming together is automatically good time. Both people being logged in tells you very little about whether both are enjoying themselves.
If one person likes a race and the other dreads the controls, try a different game. If they're tired, leave it for another evening. An invitation should make it easy to say yes and equally easy to say "tomorrow".
Being in different time zones changes the practical answer
Shared play can also mean leaving something for your partner to open later. That might be a drawing, a challenge, or a result with a small message attached. It gives the next conversation a starting point even when you couldn't find a shared evening.
The closest research here is about communication rather than games. A 2021 survey of 647 young adults found that more frequent and responsive texting was associated with higher relationship satisfaction among those in long-distance relationships. The survey asked people how responsive their partner seemed. The authors discuss responsiveness in terms of understanding, validation, and warmth.
Applying that to a game is our interpretation, not a result tested in the study. A response to something your partner made seems more promising than another automatic reminder. "Why does your cat have six legs?" gives them something to answer. A notification saying a turn is waiting only gets you to the door.
Four things we'd try
These are practical suggestions from reading the studies, rather than a programme the researchers tested. Start with whichever fits your evening.
Let each person pick sometimes
Alternate between the game you would each choose. Someone who doesn't usually play may prefer drawing to a race, or a shared puzzle to a timed competition. Their choice tells you more than a generic list of games for couples can.
Make the first round easy to start
Choose something with rules you can explain in a sentence. Leave the longer game for a time when you're both interested in learning it. Finishing a short round also gives you a natural place to decide whether to play another.
React to the person, as well as the score
Ask how they found that word. Notice the tiny detail in their drawing. Enjoy the unlikely comeback. The result gives you a reason to talk, and you get to choose what happens after it appears.
Keep an easy stopping point
A missed day doesn't need catching up. A streak can be a nice record, but it shouldn't turn a hobby into an obligation. Stop while you still like the idea of playing again.
After a round, the useful question is simple: did we enjoy each other's company while we played? Keep the games where you both say yes. That is enough reason for a rematch.
A note on sources: we checked the original papers and research abstracts linked above in October 2026. They cover different people, activities, and time spans. We've kept experimental findings separate from survey associations and participants' own accounts. The examples and practical suggestions are ours; none of these studies evaluated Londy.