Table of Contents
Academic references for this work (drawing on data not yet publicly available) can be cited from the following papers:
- Heron, M. J., Belford, P., Reid, H., Crabb, M. (2018). Eighteen Months of Meeple Like Us. An Exploration into the State of Board Game Accessibility. The Computer Games Journal, 7(2), 1-21.
- Heron, M. J., Belford, P., Reid, H., Crabb, M. (2018). Meeple Centred Design – a Heuristic Toolkit for Evaluating the Accessibility of Tabletop Games. The Computer Games Journal, 7(2), 1-18.
The results shown here may not match with the results reported above for several reasons.
- The papers represent figures available from the games available eighteen months into the project.
- Even if a similar number of games are sampled in the paper, they may be different games due to the way publication of teardowns work. There are some written teardowns that are a year old and haven’t been published yet.
- The papers will become increasingly inaccurate as more games make it from ‘draft’ format to published format for the blog. There are currently around twenty-five games that have been analysed but not posted.
The sets of data are not the same for these contexts, in other words. This is a real time analysis then of the data that has been published to this site. Results are generated using the Meeple Like Us BoardGameGeek plugin. If you want to see some scorecards by publisher, we have those too.
These graphs and statistics are provided under a CC-BY 4.0 license. If you are making use of them in academic work, please cite one of the papers shown above in addition to this page. Thank you!
Notes on these graphs
Individual analyses are bespoke, but a consistent technique is applied when it comes to analysing games. This is to break down (or teardown, in the context of the jargon of Meeple Like Us) accessibility issues through a set of categorical lenses:
Category | Description |
|---|---|
Colour blindness | Relating to issues where colour is used as the sole channel of information for game state, and how the palette chosen works for that |
Visual accessibility | Relating to issues of visual impairment, primarily where there is some degree of ability to differentiate visual information. Total blindness is considered in these sections, but it is not the primary focus. Later work for the project is planned to address this |
Physical accessibility | Relating to issues of fine-grained or gross motor control. Issues here include elements of dexterity, precision, and the extent to which a game facilitates play with verbal instruction |
Cognitive accessibility | Relating to issues of fluid intelligence and crystalised intelligence. Game complexity is an issue here, but it is not necessarily a predictor of the accessibility of the game in the end. Even very simple games may be cognitively inaccessible. Also included in this category are issues of expected literacy as well as implicit and explicit numeracy |
Emotional accessibility | Related to issues of anger and despair, and how they might manifest through score disparities, bullying through game mechanisms, and the extent to which the game requires players to deal with stress or upset |
Communication accessibility | Related to issues of articulation and perception of communication. Literacy is discussed here too as are the patterns of communication. In this section we work on the assumption that a group of players has some means by which they can communicate in day to day life, so we address only those elements specific to the game itself |
Socioeconomic accessibility | Related to issues of representation, diversity, and inclusion. Also covered in this section are costs and business models including when games have collectible elements or whether they work on the assumption of expansion |
Intersectional accessibility | Related to the accessibility issues that might arise particularly through the intersection of other categories above |
Each game receives a full discussion of issues relevant to each category, and a recommendation is given in standard alphabetic grading. These correspond to the following:
Grade | Numerical value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
A | 14 | Strongly recommended—likely suitable for anyone with accessibility concerns in this category |
B | 11 | Recommended—likely suitable for anyone with accessibility concerns in this category, but there may be some issues that need resolved |
C | 8 | Tentatively recommended—can likely be made playable although there are substantive concerns in particular cases |
D | 5 | Not recommended—can possibly be made playable but only with extensive modifications or impact on game enjoyment |
E | 3 | Strongly not recommended—it is unlikely this game will be enjoyable by anyone impacted by issues in this category |
F | 0 | Stay away—it is believed this game is fundamentally incompatible with issues that emerge in this category |
Numerical values are used to calculate averages and standard deviations, and standard plus and minus modifiers are used within each letter grade to provide a small degree of nuance. For the purposes of analysis, these have all been collapsed into the descriptive grades used in the charts presented below
Current coverage of BGG
| Coverage | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Top Ten | 30.00% |
| Top One Hundred | 28.00% |
| Top Two Hundred and Fifty | 28.40% |
| Top Five Hundred | 24.20% |
| Top Thousand | 16.70% |
Colour Blindness Statistics
Average for Category is B
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 10.87, Median of ratings = 11, Std Dev of ratings = 3.39
Visual Accessibility Statistics
Average for Category is C-
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 7.17, Median of ratings = 7, Std Dev of ratings = 3.28
Fluid Intelligence Statistics
Average for Category is C-
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 6.82, Median of ratings = 5, Std Dev of ratings = 3.53
Memory Statistics
Average for Category is C
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 8.37, Median of ratings = 8, Std Dev of ratings = 3.66
Physical Accessibility Statistics
Average for Category is C+
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 9.36, Median of ratings = 10, Std Dev of ratings = 3.08
Emotional Accessibility Statistics
Average for Category is C+
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 9.15, Median of ratings = 10, Std Dev of ratings = 3.24
Socioeconomic Accessibility Statistics
Average for Category is B-
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 10.43, Median of ratings = 11, Std Dev of ratings = 3.15
Communication Statistics
Average for Category is B
N=216, drived only from public results on the Meeple Like Us list of reviews.
Mean of ratings = 11.08, Median of ratings = 11, Std Dev of ratings = 3.00