What do you think the term "AAA Game" means?


AAA Gaming definition  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. AAA Game/ing means:

    • A game with a massive budget, large crew, and a big publisher or distributor behind it. (GTA V, Fallout 4, the annual shooty-shooty bang-bang fps, The Witcher, etc.)
    • A game that enjoys a lot of marketing and advertising support from a large distributor or publisher. The size, reputation, or pedigree of the developer is irrelevant to the game's ability to be labelled AAA.
    • A game which the developers offer their assurance is bug-free and immediately playable. (à la Nintendo's Seal of Approval)
    • A game which earns public and critical praise. GOTY, high metascore ratings, etc.
    • It used to mean something, but now it is just a useless buzzword.
    • LOL. Get real, it never meant anything.
    • Other. Enlighten us in the comment section.


Recommended Posts

I seen some people arguing about No Man's Sky being or not being triple A. Some argue it is indie because it has a small team, although I don't know if that makes it indie. So argued that it has Sony as a distributor and marketer so it is AAA.

 

Then I thought "I hear AAA all the time but I have never stopped to think what that means". What is your definition?

The line is kinda blurring, since smaller developers do not need to look for a specific publisher/distributor and multiple engines are available for use... so AAA means less.

 

I do kinda chuckle when people complain about "buggy pre-release access"... back in the day, people would pay a lot to get into a beta test.

3 hours ago, techbeck said:

AAA is a motor club in the US.  Every time I see AAA mentioned,  I always think of that.

 

I know, but I specifically put "AAA game" in the topic title.

 

2 hours ago, LostCat said:

I voted Other because the poll is annoying.

 

I don't understand, What is annoying about it? Those are common ways people have described AAA games.

 

2 hours ago, LostCat said:

 

Indie, small-medium team, reasonable budget would more likely say AA to me, not AAA.

 

Last I heard Stardock is kinda in the AA market, but I admit I haven't looked into the definitions.

 

There is no such thing as AA or A games.

1 hour ago, LostCat said:

Whatever works.

 

This discussion is pretty meaningless. 

 

Then leave. You're not contributing, you're being rude and patronising. No one is forcing you to participate in a discussion you have no interest in.

 

1 hour ago, LostCat said:

 Here's the accepted definition:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry)

 

 

 

I already read the Wiki page. It's laughable you think because it has a Wiki page it is "accepted". The way games' journalism, gamers, and the industry in general uses the term is completely arbitrary to the point it seems to mean nothing.

 

1 hour ago, LostCat said:

 

 

(And to answer your question, because of how you phrased the 'answers.')

 

Still don't understand. Do you feel I used too many words for you or something?

 

31 minutes ago, compl3x said:

I already read the Wiki page. It's laughable you think because it has a Wiki page it is "accepted". The way games' journalism, gamers, and the industry in general uses the term is completely arbitrary to the point it seems to mean nothing.

If you've already decided the answer why ask the question?  It's the accepted definition by most people who've answered it in print or elsewhere.  That it has a wiki page was simply letting me point out that that definition has not been disputed by anyone.

 

Personally I'd say any of the top three potentially qualify, but I have no idea what the Nintendo seal goes on.

Edited by LostCat
Quote

What do you think the term "AAA Game" means?

 

Anything that's been made by Blizzard obviously.

 

It's a scale adopted from the financial ratings agencies on the grades of investments. (Fitch, Moody's, S&P)

Quote

In the video game industry, AAA (pronounced "triple A") or Triple-A is a classification term used forgames with the highest development budgets and levels of promotion. A title considered to be AAA is therefore expected to be a high quality game or to be among the year's bestsellers.

Source. If I think about it, that sums it up for me. Although these days the quality bit can be questionable.

On 8/13/2016 at 7:19 AM, compl3x said:

The way games' journalism, gamers, and the industry in general uses the term is completely arbitrary to the point it seems to mean nothing.

Like the similarly arbitrary and meaningly assertation that you made that A and AA do not exist? AAA didn't exist either until somebody made it up. It's something somebody said that caught on. By definition, for Triple-Something to exist (in this case Triple-A or AAA), then the Something has to exist too (ie. A). By extension that means Double-Something should also exist.

12 hours ago, Ryster said:

Like the similarly arbitrary and meaningly assertation that you made that A and AA do not exist? AAA didn't exist either until somebody made it up. It's something somebody said that caught on. By definition, for Triple-Something to exist (in this case Triple-A or AAA), then the Something has to exist too (ie. A). By extension that means Double-Something should also exist.

 

Huh? Show me where any game has been referred to as an "A game" or a "Double A game". It doesn't exist anywhere. These aren't bond credit ratings.

 

You assuming that games were once called "A games", then an upgraded version of "Double A" was introduced, and then finally the "Triple A" labelled was developed. They were not, as far as I know. I have been gaming for 20+ years and I have never heard of A or AA.

 

13 hours ago, Nick H. said:

Source. If I think about it, that sums it up for me. Although these days the quality bit can be questionable.

 

Right. As I mentioned earlier, I did read the Wiki page. If you read the first couple of sentences you see that one of the early examples of distinguishing quality was Nintendo's approval seal which denoted that the game was well tested. Is functionality/testing still a part of the modern AAA label or is that no longer relevant?

 

If triple A is just big budget, fine, but big budget has nothing to do with quality, functionality, ratings and review scores.

It is a combination of the first 2 choices.

 

"A game with a massive budget, large crew, and a big publisher or distributor behind it. A game that enjoys a lot of marketing and advertising support from a large distributor or publisher."

 

Most of these titles are perceived by many to fall short because of the amount of hype that is generated around them. Happiness is a function of expectations.

 

I would also add that specific console exclusive AAA titles are expected to sell that console hardware and thus heavily promoted by Sony/MS/Nintendo. I.E. Uncharted & God of War, Halo & Gears of War, Mario & Zelda.

AAA mostly refer to the quality of a game.  An AAA game is a great game that is technically superior, fun, popular and without much bugs. A game able to win awards at the end of the year and a game that is a best seller.

 

The budget part came later. Big publisher thought that to make AAA games you just had to invest lot of money and they did not bother about the quality of them anymore. About 10-15 years ago we reached a point were big publishers felt that to be AAA a game needed to have a very bug budget only and nothing else. Most of them were sequels filled with bugs cause the big publishers did not have the guts to invest such money on a  new IP and enforced strict impossible deadlines. But this is not what AAA games were at first. They became that because of the stupidity of big publishers.

 

Now with the advent of indie studios and small studios publishing their own games the budget part should be removed from the AAA grade again as alone it's not a guarantee of superior quality. An AAA game is simply a popular game and well received game with a technical level of quality superior than the average. Now of course i'm not saying games like Braid or Rogue Legacy are AAA. I don't think their technical qualities are good enough. But some of those small titles are more popular than some big budget titles. The popularity of some of those games did put pressure on big publishers like Ubisoft. A big budget alone is not a guarantee of success anymore. Lot of gamers like me would rather spend their money on a well made original B-title instead of a big budget sequel filled with bugs. To be popular these days a game can't just have a big budget.

 

So no big budget sequels filled with bugs are not AAA simply because the budget was big. I think the industry is past this point. To be AAA a game need to be technically superior but also popular and well received by people who play it. AAA ultimately refers to superior quality. While it's almost impossible to achieve without a big budget having a big budget doesn't mean a game is necessarily of superior quality.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!