Okay, the initial results are in! I sampled 100 games at random on Boardgamegeek, recording the average rating (of all games that I found with at least 5 ratings) and assigned a salicousness score from 0 (no females depicted) to 5 (practically softcore pornography) based on the cover art/photo (nb: if there was no cover art/photo, I omitted that game).
I found games from 2017, games from pretty much all decades since the 1940s, some classic games (like monopoly), and even some games from my childhood that I had forgotten about (I’m talking about you, Chopper Strike!).
Here are the results:
Is there a correlation between game rating and salacious rating?
Game rating: score on BGG 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)
Salacious rating: score from 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
Hypothesis: the higher the Salacious rating, the lower the Game rating.
RESULTS (from n=100, simple random sampling)
The trend line is clearly a negative relationship: then greater the Salcious rating, the lower the BGG rating. However, there are a number of issues.
- There are not many cases where Salcious > 0.
- There is not a single case where Salacious > 2.
- There is a single case with both a low BGG and Salacious = 1 that might be driving the estimate.
What to do? Well, for my next analysis I am going to use cluster sampling. I already have enough cases where Salacious = 0. I will need to look at batches of possible cases and sample only those with Salacious > 0. This will give me enough cases in the sub-groups to run a more robust analysis.
The small sample (n=100) seems to imply that the hypothesis has some credibility. However, a larger sample with more cases of salacious marketing on covers needs to be done.
Next Time: The Inver Rile of Gaming: Part IV–The Final Results