..... "AAA, A, and B level games have nothing to do with how good the game is. If you wrote the worlds greatest space invaders clone today and even if it had great graphics, great sound, and was totally rock solid, it would still be a B class game."
Do we really need to think about this? As far as "AAA" goes, the only people who even use it on this website have their own preconceived definition in their head anyway.
This logic will do them no good.
This, like many other terms are thrown around this site way to often.
Hyping alot of their games that arent even good such as well I guess I wouldnt need to name them all and oh lets not forget that journalist and reviewers hype them as well and than they make alot of the XBox 360 fans excited.
No matter the good intentions, still a Blogpost from Friday, January 07, 2005 does not qualify as "news" as far as i am concerned. Nevertheless it is a good read, thx.
The general concept of AAA titles should not change no matter how old the article is. AAA Titles and what makes them so should be set in stone anyway and should not change on a whim due to whatever games are out at the moment. IMHO, the article should be a worthy read no matter the year. He/She makes some good points in the post.
AAAs are reserved for the MS bribing system games :D
"If you wrote the worlds greatest space invaders clone today and even if it had great graphics, great sound, and was totally rock solid, it would still be a B class game."
And there is the flaw in this story:
At that time, there was less competition. Everything was new. Thus it is an AAA game.
Same with music. These days there are too much bands. Would bands that got earth famous in the 60's become as famous today? No. Were they still freakin great back then? Yeah.
Thus. Average reviews rated over 90% is stated and known as AAA games.
The rating is written in that specific time, made up on graphics, gameplay, online etc etc
A 10 out of 10 today can be given. Even if next year games have evolved. A 10 out of 10 then means just: good in that specific time. And ofcourse afterwards new things are always better compared to older stuff. So what
PONG IS AAA! (back then at least :P)
You clearly missed his argument. The AAA title is based on budget not quality of game. Obviously your definition is different then the one stated in the article from 1998.
The question is if the industry today (not fanboys) has adapted a different definition than the 1998 version?
So by this logic, Final Fantasy VI advance is a AAA title, not because it cost a lot to produce or market, even considering that this is a remake for the GBA, it averaged a score of 91% (in 2007).
About the space invaders thing...he meant that it WAS a AAA title back then, but TODAY even with updated graphics and such, it would be a B title, because it would be cheap to develop. Just like FF VI Advance.
Can a game really be only A at 89.9% and AAA at 99.0%? Nonsense, reviews are just opinions that vary way too much to be anything but a way for gamers to vaguely have an idea of what to expect.
AAA is all about production values, not metascores, you moron. Nobody believes you except Xcowboys and Xbots. That's why LAIR, Killzone, Metal Gear Solid, Heavenly sword, folklore, resistance and so on have more reasons to be called AAA than Halo 3. In fact... everything that fits on DVD9 could pretty much cease to be called AAA, since a new standard has been set.
By the way, Warhawk wouldn't classify as AAA, since it can be downloaded and it's multiplayer only.
While you are out calling people morons, save one for yourself! What TheMart said does have some validity. Using the logic used in the article, this would make AAA titles relevant to their era. A game that costs a bunch of money to make in 1998 and thus acheived the category of triple-A, would not be considered AAA today, because the same amount of production and marketing money used then would not go as far today.
Besides, that theory is how producers and publishers classify AAA titles. The way gamers classify AAA titles are how well they are accepted by the general public and how they are rated by the professional reviewers. With that being said, MGS4 and KILLZONE are not out yet so you don't know if they are AAA or not, you're just being an ignorant fanboy. As for the other titles, I will only respond with the following "YOU WISH!".
HALO3 fit the criteria of both the past and present AAA requirements, it also meets the criteria for the gerneral public, and professional reviewers. So, for you to say HALO3 is not tripple-A would be purely based on hate (Since you are obviously ignoring the facts and the numbers.)
With the exception of bioshock, gears, and oblivion, not much else has received the ratings of Halo3. We don't even need to get into the halo3 sells area do we?
Did the author actually use the words "more funner?"
Just because anyone should can have a blog doesn't mean anyone should have a blog.
dont try and defend ur own perceptions! Reviews do not make a game AAA. Its the amount it sells and the budget that was used to make it.
Reviews are opinions. Sales and budget are hard facts!
i myself have always thought AAA meant sales. Thats why i always find the AAA talking piont stupid.
So i guess RFOM is AAA but it took them most of the year to reach that 1mil sold. if this game had come out when the PS3 was 2 years old and had a install base of 15mil i think it might have matched what Halo has done. Maybe not in its first week on the market but in 4 months it would have sold 4-5million
Nice crystal ballin'!
I think in our time they've created the "C" game otherwise known as the Wiimake *angry grumbling*
AAA title - Excellent game. Nothing released on the PS3 thus far. See (Bioshock, Halo3)
Yea those are AAA because of sales and budget! Just like HS is AAA because of production value (budget) and when ppl start buying the 40GB PS3 it will reach a million in sales in no time if it hastn already....
After reading the article I get the feeling that only 5% visitors here know what Total Annihilation is.
Resistance Fall of Man hit 1 million a lot quicker than the first Halo:Combat Evolved did...I think. I may be wrong on that.
But anyway, the definition of an AAA game for me is if I perceive the game to be AAA. Keyword is "I". It doesnt matter what any review says, if I'm massively entertained by this game then it goes into the upper echleon of my review. Therefore it's AAA. No magazine or website can make that decision for me.
Example: Even though some reviewers will disagree, I think Shenmue was an AAA game for the Dreamcast and Shenmue II being AAA for XBox. Went out and purchased an Xbox for that one game so it was a system seller for ME.
But if I had to rate shenmue, I would say it's a AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA+ game. lol.
I agree... what makes a game AAA is personal preference. It's only fanboys that take pleasure in set in stone definitions of what makes a game AAA or D.
I think the AAA titles are groundbreaking in some way, or the franchise is so dominant in their genre that each release is enthusiastically received, even if the groundbreaking game was only the initial one.
Individual titles which I perceive as AAA are R:FOM, Heavenly Sword, Gears of War, Assassins Creed
Franchises are Tomb Raider, Halo, Call of Duty, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear, Prince of Persia, Ninja Gaiden
Then there are the games which can become AAA even with a poor first release, such as Killzone 2
I think that the reviewers have become lazy regarding AAA titles and the PR machine just uses the term to raise awareness and push sales, because many buyers simply by the games by walking into Game (Gamestop) and reading the back of the game case, rather than read reviews (then again, Halo 3 getting 10's across the board is just nonsense, so maybe they have the right idea)
i think TheMART is just to stupid to realize what AAA means.
he lives in his fantasy-world where all Xbox 360 games are AAA and everything for the PS3 is ZZZ
I wouldn't be too quick to judge TheMART.
After viewing a few of your more recent posts you made you and TheMART arn't that very different. Different consoles of choice but both show blind fanboyism.
I always felt "AAA" referred simply to a particular game's budget. Someone made a post yesterday listing off a bunch of PS3 games as "AAA titles", implying that the Wii had none, and I just thought to myself, "Well duh. Wii-game development is far less expensive than PS3/360 development. 'AAA titles' aren't necessarily good and in fact, many have been shown to be just average."
Regardless, "AAA" and "next-gen" are the most subjective and ill-defined buzzwords tossed around this generation.
AAA Games list
Eye of Judgement
Tekken 5 Online
Gran Turismo HD(AAA and FREE)
Gran Turismo 5
White Knight Story
Final Fantasy XIII
Metal Gear Solid IV
Untitled Rockstar Exclusive
Ratchet & Clank
Untitled Syphon Filter Project
Little Big Planet
Super Stardust HD
All AAA games that no one cna dispute.
LOL, I am looking for a specific theme that ties those games together...I just can't put my finger on it.
hmmm....is this list supposed to be comprehensive? or just single-minded? cuz you nailed one of those. ;)
c'mon, i love a lot of those games, but a bunch of them haven't even been released yet! or given titles.
@syko: it must be that they're all AAA.
That's my favorite one lol.
For real kid stop using drugs, it's affecting your brain.
It will be great if they have EXACT parameters that define AAA. Like if a game cost X amount to make and sold Y amount of units. That will bury any doubt.
theMart's verbal diahrrea about how "AAA this" and "AAA that" has just gone down the toilet. I've been saying it always, AAA means high production values (which are directly related with BUDGET), not with how good a title is.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.