LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
It doesn't need to be made by "recognized" developer.
It's just nonsense, fanboyism and uncalled for 0's and 10's. Even a certain GAF user is infamous for his trolling.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AAA is a subjective term, we need a new gaming classification system
- Thread starter Mengy
- Start date
It doesn't need to be made by "recognized" developer.
It's just nonsense, fanboyism and uncalled for 0's and 10's. Even a certain GAF user is infamous for his trolling.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I really think most people have enough brain cells to derive which possible definition of AAA we're using by context. Like, I don't think homonyms are the kind of thing that grind the world to a halt, right?
tearsintherain
Member
I'd say any game that cost $5m ($10m?) or more to make would be AAA, below that threshold you could do things like Kickstarter or 2 guys working out of a garage for years.
But then what about things like Telltale Games or No Mans Sky? I'd consider both of those AAA at this point because they also have large marketing budgets, but I think a lot of people would consider those indie.
But then what about things like Telltale Games or No Mans Sky? I'd consider both of those AAA at this point because they also have large marketing budgets, but I think a lot of people would consider those indie.
There is no specific cutoff point. It's an inherently vague term. If you find yourself wanting a more specific definition, so as to classify a given game as AAA or not, your discussion/thinking has already gone in an unproductive direction.
Both, thresholds are soft and qualitative, though. In general, when the game has to sell a few million copies to make a decent profit, and it's obvious that's what the game is aiming to do then it's considered AAA. There's also production value qualifiers as well.
Skellig Gra
Member
Why do we need any gaming classification system? AAA or not they pretty much all cost the same amount of money in stores.
The proper term for mid-budget games is AA. These games generally don't have a large marketing budget.
And it's very easy to classify games as AAA by the company that produces them. Is it from EA? Most likely a large budget game. Is it from Ubisoft, and isn't rayman or one of their tiny creative projects? It's AAA.
It's important for discussion purposes. When we get insanely high budget games being pumped out by less and less players with less and less variety to avoid risk-taking, it's clearly unsustainable.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Your cost estimations are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.
Add a couple of 0s at the end of that at least to get in the ballpark of modern AAA budgets
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
What kind of budget? Marketing or the actual game?
Games that would be considered AAA under this definition yet are never called AAA.
Dota 2 - Game was worked on for years with top talent in the industry who don't get paid pennies.
Nintendo Games - One of the biggest developers who spend their time polishing their games, that costs money. They also spend on marketing, maybe not as much as activision/ea but definitely more than most.
Disney Infinity - is up there in development costs and marketing, Ive never heard of it being considered AAA.
Game like Evolve gets constantly called AAA and that was made by a smallish studio.
So we need to decide,
Games that would be considered AAA under this definition yet are never called AAA.
Dota 2 - Game was worked on for years with top talent in the industry who don't get paid pennies.
Nintendo Games - One of the biggest developers who spend their time polishing their games, that costs money. They also spend on marketing, maybe not as much as activision/ea but definitely more than most.
Disney Infinity - is up there in development costs and marketing, Ive never heard of it being considered AAA.
Game like Evolve gets constantly called AAA and that was made by a smallish studio.
So we need to decide,
It is ambiguous, for sure.
even if we subjectively define it on our own. context and definition is important, it doesn't need to be "accurate", it just helps puts a stake in the ground. it gives us something to look back on in retrospect, from a trend analysis standpoint.
with that said, it s far more important to just trust what you like while remaining open to new ideas, regardless of budget and marketing.
anexanhume
Member
I'd rather not devs or publishers latch onto this kind of label and use it as another promotional tool.
Which is why as far as "classifiying" games go, it's about as useless as "indie".
I don't think we need a "new classification system" (wut), we never had a classification system, and will never find one that work, we just need to stop broad generalization about things to broad to be generalized.
When you wanna say "all those games suck" think about how stupid that is to put so many different games in the same bag, instead of looking for a way to label them
In fact, why ever categorize anything at all? Things are things. I don't know why things try to classify things.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
...and boom goes the dynamite.
hahaha have you ever read a thread with the word 'JRPG' in the title?
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
No, I'm not really trying to come to a definitive definition of AAA. The point I was trying to make is that it shouldn't matter to us. It shouldn't be such a point of contention that the state of AAA games is declining, or that some people only play "AAA" games, or that others only play "indie" games. Whether a game is fun or not, or whether it's worth buying or not, should be a decision made irregardless of how we label it with regards to it's financing.
I just wish we had a better way of labeling games that didn't draw a line in the sand and separate them based on things that shouldn't matter from a consumer point of view.
I literally LOL'd
CassidyIzABeast
Member
AAA = Summer tentpole franchise
indie = Fox Searchlight, Paramount Vanatge
indie = Fox Searchlight, Paramount Vanatge
Skellig Gra
Member
Ok, I see your point but what I'm saying is if they all cost the same amount of money to the consumer what does it matter to us how much they cost to make or market? That's essentially what the AAA label means. The more important things to identify a game would be things like the genre, art style, and gameplay. Level of fun had with a game doesn't correlate directly to how big the budget was.
The idea that there is no discrete delineation is not something new.
At what height does a person qualify as "Tall?" Tall compared to what?
At what size do we classify something as "Big?" Does it matter how much it weighs, or just how much space it takes up?
When we say we drank "a lot," how much do you need to drink before you have achieved "a lot" of drinking? Does it vary based on a person's size or weight?
Language is simply not that specific in most cases.
At what height does a person qualify as "Tall?" Tall compared to what?
At what size do we classify something as "Big?" Does it matter how much it weighs, or just how much space it takes up?
When we say we drank "a lot," how much do you need to drink before you have achieved "a lot" of drinking? Does it vary based on a person's size or weight?
Language is simply not that specific in most cases.
I like when developers brag about being cost efficient, like Nintendo and Ninja Theory have done. It's probably a bad idea marketing-wise, but to me it feels like they know what they're doing, and it feels less wasteful than those insanely, impossibly expensive games that are often not very high quality. Disclosing a game's budget should be the norm - not as a tool to decide which games to buy, lol, but because it'd be interesting to compare what different developers can achieve with different budgets.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Because categorizing stuff helps when you're trying to argue 'my stuff is better than your stuff'.
thebisonxrc
Member
Screw classifications based on the amount of money put into it. 'AAA' has always been a ridiculous name to classify a game. Name it after either its genre or its quality and be done with it.
Which is why as far as "classifiying" games go, it's about as useless as "indie".
I don't think we need a "new classification system" (wut), we never had a classification system, and will never find one that work, we just need to stop broad generalization about things to broad to be generalized.
When you wanna say "all those games suck" think about how stupid that is to put so many different games in the same bag, instead of looking for a way to label them
Saying "all AAA games suck" as childish as that particular statement sounds is actually saying something different than "All shooters suck". It's saying that, for that person, games with an absurdly high budget are low quality. It's a worthwhile descriptor.
And there are trends in high budget games that are obvious and worth discussing.
That is what a thing would say.
Well, if they all cost the same to the consumer but it's widely varying to the producer the SRP's
Astral Dog
Member
Nobody is going to come up with a new term that sticks, its futile, Op
Only $5 million? If there has to be a numerical cutoff point above which a game would be considered AAA, I would think it's closer to $50 million than $5 million. GTA4 cost $100 million+ (I think?). Tomb Raider (reboot) cost $100 million. Even LA Noire was a whopping $50 million. The Final Fantasy games surpassed $50 million for each of the last few entries. MMO games cost even more (World of Warcraft was supposedly $40 million back in 2004, can you imagine the cost today?), but they're technically of a different class when it comes to budgeting.
Because it affects things. Technically, a 3D platformer and an RTS could both cost 60 dollars, but people will probably appreciate our attempts to distinguish between the two. Most people's analysis of games does not consist entirely of the cost to the end user.
I definitely agree you can take classification too far, though.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
If you accept a valid definition of 'fun' as 'a fresh experience' then of course it does.
If your game costs $10 million and you only need to sell 400,000 copies to break even, you can take a few risks and try some things out, no big deal.
Especially when there are 8 or 9 other games of the same budget all coming out from the same publisher in the same year.
If your game costs $100 million and needs to sell 4 million copies to break even, and is the sole product released by that publisher this year you don't take any risks and you better not fuck it up.
I've been pushing for 'blockbuster' for years but nobody wants to type out the extra letters.
Skellig Gra
Member
The system is clearly broken. People vote with their wallets though and have been supporting these trends for quite a while.
well there are measurements and averages taken either in specific populations or universally. Universally, if the average person is 5'10 in a sea of 7 billion, that would be the normal, or average, height, for example.
We wouldnt use big, we'd use weight, and another category like body mass. that is where definitions and their uses really come into importance.
Astral Dog
Member
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Knowing what the average height is when discussing if someone is tall or not doesn't give any sort of trade advantage though.
Knowing exactly how much money R* spent to develop and market GTAV is of direct commercial benefit to anyone who wanted to compete in that space (or not, depending what those numbers tell them).
I would say your cost estimations are way off...
Uncharted 2's budget is around 20 million for example, and I think everyone consider that as an AAA game.
Pretty much.
That's a perception problem from your side, really.
When I hear "AAA", I think "broad appeal" (which in turn means the game has to work extra hard to convince me that it's not dumb).
We do. Genres. What would be the purpose of this other better way of labelling games that you imagine?
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
Yeah, seriously, and not only that, but we separate games by system, release date and all kinds of stuff. There's a unlimited amount of ways to divide objects and label them differently, and we do so daily.
The AAA discussion isn't about that at all.
clem84
Gold Member
The meaning of AAA has changed throughout the years. I've been on gaming message boards since roughly '98. Back then, there were no downloadable games. Every game, PC, handheld, console, had a retail release and pretty much every game had a decent budget behind it. Of course there were exceptions. There were bigger and smaller productions but for the most part games had a pretty sizeable budget behind them. When people were talking about AAA games, they were referring to the quality. For example, Ocarina of time and Metal Gear Solid were AAA games. Superman 64 was not.
Then at some point, the meaning changed. It became about the budget. I remember having some argument in the mid 2000s about how AAA meant quality and not budget but I was in the minority who felt that way and it became clear at some point that people's mindset had changed.
Nowadays it is about the budget no doubt, but it's also just a label and it doesn't mean a whole lot.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
It clearly wasn't. They probably spent that on marketing and promotional deals alone.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I regard AAA as a combination of budget and retail positioning.
Huge budget, big production.
Aimed at dominating retail channels as one of the top mainstream hits of its era.
Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Madden.
Huge budget, big production.
Aimed at dominating retail channels as one of the top mainstream hits of its era.
Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Madden.
Metacritic is a joke in that it trains people to only look at scores and not the nuances of a review. There is a reason why more and more publications are abandoning scores altogether, because they're an inadequate means of explaining the virtues of a game.
Userscores are even more of a joke in that they're liable to be gamed for any major release due to a variety of factors.
The rise of Metacritic has done nothing good for this industry.
And also to be clear, I agree with this. There is a balance somewhere in between the extremes of "we should use whatever category we want at any time even if it's completely vague and meaningless" and the opposite end of "labels are useless and we should just call everything 'things' because we don't want to force them in to a label more specific than that."
Labels are a useful construct when used appropriately to provide meaning. In this case, "AAA" allows us to understand the budget or scope of a project, which usually in turn indicates a variety of things. The game is likely to be safer, because high production budgets reduce willingness to take risk. It is likely aimed at the 16-35 demo, because that demo is particularly concerned with production value.
It doesn't mean that the term can be used whenever or however you want -- I completely agree with that. But it is a useful label that helps us describe a particular phenomenon sometimes.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
The purpose would be to avoid the arguments like "I only play AAA games" or "I only play indie games". The fact that so many gamers make decisions about games or judge them based on how much money was spent to make them is bad for our hobby IMHO. I suppose I'd rather see gamers uniting and discussing than dividing and arguing.
Yep, I remember those days too.
what about forming a basketball team or needing a wide receiver? it helps articulate what tall is relative to average height. Then you can add in other criteria to determine if they are exceptional for what they are.
for example, Earl Boykins when he played for the NBA could dunk, big deal, but he is 5'4, then it becomes really impressive.
Similar threads
- Locked