Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, the D’Antoni effect, sexy triplets, or roast pork vs. BBQ pork, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
Gamers, writers, publishers, and developers frequently use the term “triple-A game,” but what does that really mean? It’s such a nebulous classification that means different things to different people, but it’s used so frequently that an outsider would think that is has a standardized definition. How do you define triple-A games? What factor or factors do you consider when labeling a game “triple-A?”
Do triple-A games require a certain budget? If so, what is the minimum amount of money? Do triple-A games need to be of a certain quality? If that’s the case, at what point would you know if a game is triple-A or not and who judges the quality? With all of that in mind, a game like Medal of Honor: Warfighter is terribly interesting. It was relatively expensive to make. The publisher thought it was a high-quality game prior to release. Critics and fans thought it was crap. I’m guessing that most people wouldn’t consider Warfighter a triple-A game, but I also imagine people supporting that choice with flimsy logic.
You guys and gals are better than most people (duh!), so I want to hear how you define triple-A games and what factors go into your definition of the term. Fire away in the comments section (please!).
Solid coding for either multiplayer or single player. Bugs and bad net code can ruin a seemingly AAA game.
The rest is relative though. I like story over visuals for single player.
For multiplayer I’d consider LoL AAA even though it is free.
I always thought it was a marketing term people took too seriously.
I figure a AAA game is a game that the publisher throws alot of money into for development and advertising. In order for any publisher (or anyone about anything) to throw around that kind of cash, they have to believe it will pay off. They decide whether they want to do that with a game or not, and then hope the public agrees.
They set the bar, and we prove them right or wrong.
I totally agree with you. The term has grown to have a life of its own. It’s weird — I don’t mind when a developer uses it, but when a publisher uses it there’s a sense of BS.
In some ways, it reminds me of pound-for-pound lists in boxing. There’s no official definition and they’re entirely opinion, but many fans take the lists too seriously.
Simply from context (as a knee-jerk reaction) I’ve taken “AAA Game” to mean a game that costs millions and millions of dollars to make and market. To me, it doesn’t have any bearing on the quality, although, that’s probably what the suits want you to think.
When people say “Oh, that’s a AAA game!” I think they equate it to mean a “top-tier” game, but “top-tier” is highly subjective.
So, yeah, I’m all in favor of defining “AAA Game” to mean a game that has cost “X” amount of dollars (you can set the number so we call all agree). Where “X” is expressed in millions of dollars that are associated with the creation, publishing and marketing of a game.
-M
I also thought of this as a marketing term more than anything else, but I sort of think of it as a franchise game as well. The game doesn’t require a certain budget or anything, but the game has to be part of a franchise series. Medal of Honor: WarFighter would be a AAA game then by that definition, as part of the Medal of Honor series. The first Medal of Honor game, or CoD, or Halo, etc. wouldn’t have been considered AAA games, but they would have attained that title only after the later games had come along and continued to make the series well known. This doesn’t require any specific budget for the game, or even a well defined quality; it just means that the games have been deemed “good enough” in the long run, which is also subjective. Somewhere along the line enough people (whether they be publishers, developers, or consumers) have deemed a series good enough that it is worth it for more games in the series to be made, meaning more attention gets paid to the continuing series rather than a new indie game or something from a smaller developer.
At least this is more how I’ve felt about what the term “AAA game” implies.
I’ve always considered “triple-A” to mean several things. First, as a term to quantify a game’s quality, or potential. Secondly, in a situation where greatness is expected, or if there has already been a precedent set, such as in sequels to high end games, which I enjoyed, those would also qualify as being triple-A IMO. Lastly, if a specific developer whom I have come to expect greatness from releases a new IP, such as Quantic Dream or Team ICO, I would have no problem classifying those titles as triple-A, sight unseen. A good example of this would be The Last of Us. I know virtually nothing about it, only that this year’s E3 gameplay looked amazing, and that it is published by Naughty Dog. That’s enough. Same for The Last Guardian.
The Last of Us is being published by Sony. Naughty Dog is the developer.
Okay, so apparently I know less than “virtually nothing” about the game.