Support NeoGAF

[MrNyarlathotep]

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.

I'm British and only understand about half of what you just said, but I think you missed my point; if being tall is of benefit to your sports metaphor, then telling everyone that your sports metaphor team are all average height when in fact they are all significantly taller gives you a commercial edge in that other teams will play average height players against you.

 

[Clear]

I wouldn't say it's purely about marketing budget, or else a mobile game like Game of War: Fire Age with a $40 million marketing budget would be AAA.

Production value is basically about meeting expectations for the platform/market segment.

In the final analysis AAA production values are part of the marketing angle, and you won't get the resources to create them in the first place unless a committment already exists to spend equal or more in marketing $$$ to promote them.

Marketing is king.

 

[IndoAssassin]

How about group 1=$60, 2>$30, 3<$30. Or group ABC

 

[GameMan]

AAA is a rating that reflects brand, budget, and marketing drive.

I really don't see a problem with how it'd used now. We just need to use AA and A more when describing games.

I'd consider Dying Light an A game, but it may be AA. It depends on the development budget and the marketing budget (not knowing about it until after it negative press for the preorder stuff tells me it is more likely A).


This system doesn't denote end quality. A C game can turn out just as good as a AAA title.

OMG... I think this is the kinda silliness that op is talking about. AAA, AA, A-game...how idiotic does this all sound? And we all have to cow-tow to some stupid term the industry wants to implement? Fuck em, why let them tell us how to classify our games? Why would anyone in their right mind perpetuate this divisive & completely unnecessary trend who doesn't work for pr for a gaming company is beyond me. The term needs to die, it's just stupid for gamers to be parroting this kinda stuff like its important. It ain't. It's "Blast Processing" for millennials. Dumb.

 

[LonelyGreyWolf]

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.

I spend way too much time on GAF and even I have never seen this happen, lol. I've never heard anyone judge a game based on how much money it cost to make it, and on NeoGAF I've never heard anyone say "I only play AAA games".

 

[AlphaDump]

I'm British and only understand about half of what you just said, but I think you missed my point; if being tall is of benefit to your sports metaphor, then telling everyone that your sports metaphor team are all average height when in fact they are all significantly taller gives you a commercial edge in that other teams will play average height players against you.

i really just wanted to make an Earl Boykins reference.

anyway, i am just trying to entertain the conversation. games represent themselves, not in aggregate or teams, anyway. it was kind of a bad example.

 

[Natureboy99]

I agree we need a new system. Maybe by budget, by number of devs, by price point...something. It's becoming more and more clear that there is a huge difference between one "5/5" game and the next.

 

[Patryn]

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.

Tribalism is inevitable and unfortunately in-grained in the hobby.

Witness the system wars mindset, for instance.

 

[Who]

It's kinda weird yeah. Like you would think Monster Hunter is s AAA franchise but it's really not

 

[Mr. X]

The cost to be AAA is relative, changes with time. Nowadays, its probably $50m+. If a pub says they sold 8mil copies and missed expectations, it was probably a AAA budget.

It is suppose to be and should stay as stockholder info but if they are publicly traded companies, the info is public.

 

[Nirolak]

The cost to be AAA is relative, changes with time. Nowadays, its probably $50m+. If a pub says they sold 8mil copies and missed expectations, it was probably a AAA budget.

Right, I'd say that's about right if we bundle in the marketing costs.

It's also related to both bond ratings (that's where the scale comes from) and what publishers indicate to retailers on how many copies they should order, which was almost always hand in hand with huge budgets.

These days it's very clearly a budgetary classification though.

 

[faceless007]

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.

Your problem isn't with the term "AAA," it's with the mindset of a subset of the gaming populace that developers have worked very hard to foster over the years. There are millions of gamers who probably wouldn't know what "AAA" meant if you asked them, but if you looked at their buying habits they would be almost exclusively AAA titles and stay away from anything "less" because the game industry has inculcated them to prioritize advanced graphics and "cinematic" gameplay over anything else. Even if the term "AAA" didn't exist, gamers with that mindset still would.

 

[nullref]

the game industry has inculcated them to prioritize advanced graphics and "cinematic" gameplay over anything else

"inculcated them"? lol, come on. It's 100% to be expected that a lot of people will gravitate toward these things, completely of their own accord, as they are easy to enjoy and appreciate &#8211; and also to be expected that most people won't have especially broad or sophisticated tastes.

 

[Buzzati]

"inculcated them"? lol, come on. It's 100% to be expected that a lot of people will gravitate toward these things, completely of their own accord, as they are easy to enjoy and appreciate &#8211; and also to be expected that most people won't have especially broad or sophisticated tastes.

On console gaming, they have little to no choice to diversify their buying habits. How do they develop sophisticated tastes with the current culture on consoles?

 

[Caronte]

AAA is a PR word that means high budget. It's as simple as that.

 

[Purkake4]

Just go by price point, it's not rocket science.

If your game costs $60, compare it to other $60 games.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

OMG... I think this is the kinda silliness that op is talking about. AAA, AA, A-game...how idiotic does this all sound? And we all have to cow-tow to some stupid term the industry wants to implement? Fuck em, why let them tell us how to classify our games? Why would anyone in their right mind perpetuate this divisive & completely unnecessary trend who doesn't work for pr for a gaming company is beyond me. The term needs to die, it's just stupid for gamers to be parroting this kinda stuff like its important. It ain't. It's "Blast Processing" for millennials. Dumb.

They aren't "our" games. We aren't some singular entity that determines what games should or could be. That's gamergater crap through and through.

Classification is a part of life. You have blockbuster films, art house films, indie films, direct to DVD films, TV movies, etc. It's perfectly normal to want to create categories.

We have a perfectly good system already. Just because it's too complex for you to understand doesn't mean it is silly or idiotic.

 

[nullref]

On console gaming, they have little to no choice to diversify their buying habits. How do they develop sophisticated tastes with the current culture on consoles?

How did you develop sophisticated tastes? Those that are even capable of developing them, will find a way. It's easier to play all sorts of games than it's ever been. I'm not sure it's worth lamenting the fact that most people won't develop those tastes, as that's inevitable regardless.

 

[3rdamention]

In my opinion, games are games. I dont think we need any classification system AT ALL other than genres.

 

[kmax]

AAA games are like tentpole movies.

It's the budget that defines them.

 

[Mengy]

In my opinion, games are games. I dont think we need any classification system AT ALL other than genres.

YES, that's what I was trying to say in my OP condensed into one sentence. Thanks!

 

[Zen_Arcade]

OMG... I think this is the kinda silliness that op is talking about. AAA, AA, A-game...how idiotic does this all sound? And we all have to cow-tow to some stupid term the industry wants to implement? Fuck em, why let them tell us how to classify our games? Why would anyone in their right mind perpetuate this divisive & completely unnecessary trend who doesn't work for pr for a gaming company is beyond me. The term needs to die, it's just stupid for gamers to be parroting this kinda stuff like its important. It ain't. It's "Blast Processing" for millennials. Dumb.

The term has been around for far longer then video games have been, and the only people who are confused by it are the ones that over complicate things.

AAA are the summer blockbusters of the video game industry. We all know what a summer blockbuster movie is when we see it. It's not that hard to grasp. They're the games with the highest production values that are marketed to large audiences.

 

[Metfanant]

Actually OP, there really isn't much debate as to what it means...

Large budget "blockbuster" type titles...the Call of Dutys, Battlefields, Halos, Uncharted's, Assassins Creeds, and Gran Turismos of the gaming world...

 

[GravityMan]

AAA is an objective term, with a very clear definition. Think of Hollywood blockbusters.

It's just that it's often misused by gamers. I think a lot of us overuse the term, period. AAA and other budget/bond terms shouldn't be important to anyone other than investors and people who actually work in the industry.

Classification is here to stay, it is a useful tool to help simplify matters for certain audiences. Deal with it.

 

[Caronte]

YES, that's what I was trying to say in my OP condensed into one sentence. Thanks!

Again, players did not come up with the AAA bullshit. It's a PR word.

 

[Mael]

OMG... I think this is the kinda silliness that op is talking about. AAA, AA, A-game...how idiotic does this all sound? And we all have to cow-tow to some stupid term the industry wants to implement? Fuck em, why let them tell us how to classify our games? Why would anyone in their right mind perpetuate this divisive & completely unnecessary trend who doesn't work for pr for a gaming company is beyond me. The term needs to die, it's just stupid for gamers to be parroting this kinda stuff like its important. It ain't. It's "Blast Processing" for millennials. Dumb.

Huh you do realize you're talking about the Industry's games?
I mean unless you're yourself part of the Industry, it's their games before being yours.
And if the Industry get their ways with the used market, it'll never be your games ever anyway.

 

[Buzzati]

How did you develop sophisticated tastes? Those that are even capable of developing them, will find a way. It's easier to play all sorts of games than it's ever been. I'm not sure it's worth lamenting the fact that most people won't develop those tastes, as that's inevitable regardless.

I don't really have sophisticated gaming tastes. I've been playing videogames since the 80s and it's only recently that we have reached the point where innovation and risk is no longer facilitated by technology - it's encumbered by it.

I'm more optimistic than you about people's tastes. Nobody thought RPGs would take off until Final Fantasy 7 - and that ushered in a profitable flourishing of Japanese RPGs in the mid 90s that has since stopped. Dota 2 has taken off despite the massive learning curve that you'd expect would leave it niche. People are being cheated in the current climate, and it's not enough to excuse it by saying that they're going to buy stale products, anyway.

 

[nullref]

I've been playing videogames since the 80s and it's only recently that we have reached the point where innovation and risk is no longer facilitated by technology - it's encumbered by it.

People are being cheated in the current climate

While this is a popular sentiment, I'm not sure this is the reality &#8211; or a least, it's a pessimistic perspective on the reality.

As games get ever more advanced, it's to be expected that games that want to push the limits (in all ways &#8211; production values, scale, even mechanics) will usually require ever-increasing capital and team sizes to get made. As this happens, it's also to be expected that the business infrastructure required to support this development will get more rarefied and risk-averse &#8211; fewer organizations will be able to afford it, there will be an awful lot riding on each project for those that can. The downside is that we'll tend to get fewer, safer games at this technological pinnacle, but the upside is that if/when these projects succeed in the right ways, we might get games that are beyond anything we've seen before.

The other upside is that as the limits of game development technology get pushed, the range of possible projects beneath the pinnacle gets broader &#8211; games that would have required max budgets in the past can be accomplished more cheaply, and digital marketplaces help this broad range to find an audience. You can see this kind of thing happening in the PC market, it's already happening to some degree on consoles, and it will likely continue to do so in the future.

So while there are certainly downsides to progress as I've described it, it's also probably inevitable and ultimately even healthy overall.

 

[WolvenOne]

Big budget, mid budget, low budget, indie.

You're welcome.

 

[3rdamention]

YES, that's what I was trying to say in my OP condensed into one sentence. Thanks!

Then I agree with you 100% brother!

 

[Steel]

Big budget, mid budget, low budget, indie.

You're welcome.

Or AAA, AA, Indie. Less letters, people already use it, and most people don't overthink it too much.

 

[GameMan]

They aren't "our" games. We aren't some singular entity that determines what games should or could be. That's gamergater crap through and through.

Classification is a part of life. You have blockbuster films, art house films, indie films, direct to DVD films, TV movies, etc. It's perfectly normal to want to create categories.

We have a perfectly good system already. Just because it's too complex for you to understand doesn't mean it is silly or idiotic.

Lol, no. They are our games once they are released and available for us to purchase & own & play. This is exceedingly simple to understand & see. And I'm not going to have some pr department tell me what "AAA" is, I will decide that in my own. To use a term like AAA is to buy in to pr, & sorry, but just because you like categories for everything, doesn't mean those of us who like to think for ourselves & have no use for your categories need to adopt them, because that is now what the game companies want us to do. When you state something like "WE have a perfectly good system already", it's showing ignorance of the reality, which is that it ISN'T "our" system, but one we have been told to follow, & it's idiotic to say "okay" & do that. It is far from being "too complex to understand", rather it is so simplistic it's impossible not to see through! Hey, if people need to regurgitate what their told by pr, feel free to, I'm just saying it's nuts to let these dumb pr buzzwords become part of our lexicon, & some kind of "standard". I thought more gamers could see though the smoke & mirrors, I apparently stand corrected. We are an easily led group it seems.

 

[GameMan]

Huh you do realize you're talking about the Industry's games?
I mean unless you're yourself part of the Industry, it's their games before being yours.
And if the Industry get their ways with the used market, it'll never be your games ever anyway.

My games are MY games, & I will classify them how I like, not how a pr firm tells me to.

 

[Mael]

My games are MY games, & I will classify them how I like, not how a pr firm tells me to.

And how do you think devs and publishers who make and foot the bill for the making of these games feel?
They're classifying their products however the shit they want and it's not you going to them and telling them "Nuhuh" that's going to change it.

Oh and btw you only own a license to play the games (that you can resell, lend and wipe your ass if you so feel like).
You have no right of distribution for example.
So really it's their games first.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Big budget, mid budget, low budget, indie.

You're welcome.

Indies also have varying budgets so what now?

 

[Laconic]

AAA games are the ones I cannot play without a CPP.

 

[lensoftruth]

AAA games are the ones I cannot play without a CPP.

haha

 

[TheChocolateWar]

That is why I have a serious problem with the perversion of the phrase AAA. Back in the early 2000s the number of A's merely denoted review score, not how much money a developer wasted on the title. AAA was above ninety, AA was above eighty, so on.

 

[patapuf]

That is why I have a serious problem with the perversion of the phrase AAA. Back in the early 2000s the number of A's merely denoted review score, not how much money a developer wasted on the title. AAA was above ninety, AA was above eighty, so on.

The term always meant budget/marketing.

The difference to today is that:

- an average AAA budget nowadays is 5-10x higher than in the early 2000's.

-a higher budget alone does not offer the advantage it used to. The smaller guys have become more competitive in terms of gameplay quality.

 

[davepoobond]

AAA is not a subjective term. That's like saying AAA batteries and AA batteries are subjective batteries.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

The term always meant budget/marketing.

The difference to today is that:

- an average AAA budget nowadays is 5-10x higher than in the early 2000's.

-a higher budget alone does not offer the advantage it used to. The smaller guys have become more competitive in terms of gameplay quality.

No, there are elaborate graphs that denizens of system wars back in the day used to use to show how many games would have received certain ratings. It was a way of showing cross platform comparative quality. How many games above eighty did the platform have? In other words, how many AA games did it have? Perhaps it meant something different in this gaming circle, but that's what it meant in system wars land.

 

[Viper3]

It means budget, and it CLEARLY doesn't mean Quality.

Yeah, pretty much this.

 

[Mindlog]

AAA refers to the number of times journalists are invited for a hands on sneak peak.

 

[Viper3]

AAA is an objective term, with a very clear definition. Think of Hollywood blockbusters.

It's just that it's often misused by gamers. I think a lot of us overuse the term, period. AAA and other budget/bond terms shouldn't be important to anyone other than investors and people who actually work in the industry.

Classification is here to stay, it is a useful tool to help simplify matters for certain audiences. Deal with it.

Deal with what? Basically what you're saying is that if a PR department of publisher X decides all their games, no matter the budget, no matter the quality, are AAA, then that's a fact then, is it?

 

[patapuf]

Deal with what? Basically what you're saying is that if a PR department of publisher X decides all their games, no matter the budget, no matter the quality, are AAA, then that's a fact then, is it?

They would be for that company (it's a relative term, "AAA" means something different for a 10 man company than it would for say, EA).

As an outsider (f.e. a retailer) you have a bit of a different perspective. If the heavy hitters/blockbusters from Activision, EA, Ubi etc. cost 50 million on average or have x amounts of marketing budget, that's AAA, because those game own the vast majority of the market share.

For consumers AAA is pretty meaningless.

 

[AlphaDump]

It means budget, and it CLEARLY doesn't mean Quality.

perhaps at one point it did, and we are just now hitting the realization of just how influential the press and publishers have been to distort that definition over time.

 

[Armaros]

perhaps at one point it did, and we are just now hitting the realization of just how influential the press and publishers have been to distort that definition over time.

"The Term which has been used in just about every other industry to mean budget or quality of return on investment of a particular project has been distorted by games media instead of quality, because Video games are special"

 

[TheChocolateWar]

perhaps at one point it did, and we are just now hitting the realization of just how influential the press and publishers have been to distort that definition over time.

It did, circa 2002 through 2010:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/pc-vs-consoles-26835240/

 

[That Wont Fit In There]

Lol AAA defines that their is a huge budget behind the game.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Does excitement for a game peak before it's launched? AAA game
after? not a AAA game

AAA just means the size of the marketing budget