There's a broadly held opinion among hobbyist board game people that semi-cooperative games don't work. That they're far too fragile, prone to creating degenerate game states where players are more strongly incentivized to crash the game with no survivors than push for an unlikely win.
That last point is mostly true; these games do often end with players acting as crabs in a bucket, pulling the topmost crab to their level right as the fisherman slams the lid down. To label fragility as inherently a flaw and reject it on sight is to deprive yourself of some of the most richly thematic experiences a tabletop game can offer. Glass is fragile, but it's real pretty.
Semi-cooperative games, generally speaking, are about striking a balance between self-preservation and selfishness. The former usually requires everyone to "play nice", where the latter progresses towards a personal win condition. Should players fail to achieve that balance, succumbing to their base urges and dragging each other down rather than boosting themselves up, it's deserved. Complete abject failure where no one wins, then, is an emotionally satisfying result.
Basically I'm saying that the catharsis of "oh god we're all morons" is better than a win.
