Word-association team party
BGG · boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/178900
Codenames is a very light game (weight 1/10). Despite the modest rules footprint, the decision space is deep (4/10) — the kind of game that rewards a dozen plays. Decisions come at a steady pace (5/10) — engaged without being exhausting. Interaction is maxed (9/10) — every turn shapes what your opponents can do. Direct attacks are minimal (3/10) — the friction comes from contention, not aggression. Some negotiation matters (negotiation 5/10).
Of every game in our catalog, Codenames is closest to Wavelength (94% profile match) but scores higher on depth (4 vs. 3).
Every score is on a 0–10 scale. The rubric and methodology behind these numbers is documented in the README.
Codenames is a very light game (weight 1/10). Despite the modest rules footprint, the decision space is deep (4/10) — the kind of game that rewards a dozen plays. Decisions come at a steady pace (5/10) — engaged without being exhausting.
Interaction is maxed (9/10) — every turn shapes what your opponents can do. Direct attacks are minimal (3/10) — the friction comes from contention, not aggression. Some negotiation matters (negotiation 5/10).
Most variance is input randomness (7/10): luck arrives before your decision and you plan around it. Catch-up is moderate (4/10).
The theme is pasted on (1/10) — you're really there for the systems. Tempo is steady (engine 0/10) — no big-payoff combo turns.
Most variance is input randomness (7/10): luck arrives before your decision and you plan around it. Catch-up is moderate (4/10).
The theme is pasted on (1/10) — you're really there for the systems. Tempo is steady (engine 0/10) — no big-payoff combo turns.
Ranked by weighted Euclidean distance across the 12-axis profile, using the default research-weighted lens. Click any game to see its full profile.
Answers derived directly from Codenames's 12-axis profile.
Want to overlay Codenames against a candidate game and see exactly where they diverge? Open it in the lens →