Quantcast
Locked: The term 'AAA' has nothing to do with production values or budgets

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The term 'AAA' has nothing to do with production values or budgets

vivster said:
GoOnKid said:

1) No I'm not. It's not me, it's the people out there who think that if a game was expensive it must be good.

2) Mass Effect Andromeda says hi, but I guess that's where your disclaimer kicks in. To which I say, a high budget also doesn't determine an overall experience.

3) Employee Numbers are one thing but we don't know the salary. Also, different people earn different amounts. Also, some tasks may be outsourced and we don't know how much that costs. Also, we don't know how many resources have been reused as leftovers from other games. Also, we dn't know how much tech was custom built inside the studio and how much was bought in externally. Also, we don't know how long a game has been in development.

To all of these issues we only have points of reference but no conrete facts.

The AAA classification is no exact science. It's a classification made by consumers that was adopted by companies as a a marketing tool. It is not hard to distinguish AAA games from indie games. It might be harder to distinguish when all you do is play AAA games or games made by big companies because they are all on a similar level of scope and polish.

BTW Andromeda is more polished than 99.99% of games. It is a true AAA game without any ambiguity.

The only person I've seen in here saying anything about "good" games is you. It's flawed to have a subjective label connected to an objective measure like the AAA label which can be fixed on observable facts.

Yep, "good" doesn't come into it. "Good" is a subjective term that indicates personal taste. Although I think it can be said that AAA titles are generally polished enough to meet a certain standard of expectation. You know that they are technically sound and the visuals and the sounds and such are something you can expect by today's standards. They're not going to be an awful mess by any stretch. They can be buggy in the beginning, sure, but bugs are not a representation of what is intended, it's just a symptom of rushing a product because business is business.

Take me for instance. I absolutely abhor the whole FPS genre as a whole, I don't see the appeal of those games, but I can still recognize the amount of money and production and polish that goes into them. They're a big deal, they are the blockbusters of gaming at the moment.



Around the Network
vivster said:
GoOnKid said:

1) No I'm not. It's not me, it's the people out there who think that if a game was expensive it must be good.

2) Mass Effect Andromeda says hi, but I guess that's where your disclaimer kicks in. To which I say, a high budget also doesn't determine an overall experience.

3) Employee Numbers are one thing but we don't know the salary. Also, different people earn different amounts. Also, some tasks may be outsourced and we don't know how much that costs. Also, we don't know how many resources have been reused as leftovers from other games. Also, we dn't know how much tech was custom built inside the studio and how much was bought in externally. Also, we don't know how long a game has been in development.

To all of these issues we only have points of reference but no conrete facts.

The AAA classification is no exact science. It's a classification made by consumers that was adopted by companies as a a marketing tool. It is not hard to distinguish AAA games from indie games. It might be harder to distinguish when all you do is play AAA games or games made by big companies because they are all on a similar level of scope and polish.

BTW Andromeda is more polished than 99.99% of games. It is a true AAA game without any ambiguity.

The only person I've seen in here saying anything about "good" games is you. It's flawed to have a subjective label connected to an objective measure like the AAA label which can be fixed on observable facts.

Yes, it is flawed, I admit. The point is that we as consumers can not define a game as AAA just by looking at it. We have next to no numbers on anything, we can only say that it looks 'big' and 'ambitious'. But we don't know the circumstances. Therefore we should not be the ones to categorize games.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Dante9 said:
vivster said:

The AAA classification is no exact science. It's a classification made by consumers that was adopted by companies as a a marketing tool. It is not hard to distinguish AAA games from indie games. It might be harder to distinguish when all you do is play AAA games or games made by big companies because they are all on a similar level of scope and polish.

BTW Andromeda is more polished than 99.99% of games. It is a true AAA game without any ambiguity.

The only person I've seen in here saying anything about "good" games is you. It's flawed to have a subjective label connected to an objective measure like the AAA label which can be fixed on observable facts.

Yep, "good" doesn't come into it. "Good" is a subjective term that indicates personal taste. Although I think it can be said that AAA titles are generally polished enough to meet a certain standard of expectation. You know that they are technically sound and the visuals and the sounds and such are something you can expect by today's standards. They're not going to be an awful mess by any stretch. They can be buggy in the beginning, sure, but bugs are not a representation of what is intended, it's just a symptom of rushing a product because business is business.

Take me for instance. I absolutely abhor the whole FPS genre as a whole, I don't see the appeal of those games, but I can still recognize the amount of money and production and polish that goes into them. They're a big deal, they are the blockbusters of gaming at the moment.

When a supposed AAA game needs a 80 or 90 GB day one patch, it’s kind of a strech claiming AAA will be a technically sound game. 

 

To me it just feels like AAA means that 98 % of an blotade budget went into graphics and marketing. Everything else had about the same budget as a more ambitious indie game. 

 

 

A question for everyone here: is BotW AAA or not? Lets consider it was made with about 10 % of the budget of a Assassins Creed, FarCry or GTA. 



GoOnKid said:
vivster said:

The AAA classification is no exact science. It's a classification made by consumers that was adopted by companies as a a marketing tool. It is not hard to distinguish AAA games from indie games. It might be harder to distinguish when all you do is play AAA games or games made by big companies because they are all on a similar level of scope and polish.

BTW Andromeda is more polished than 99.99% of games. It is a true AAA game without any ambiguity.

The only person I've seen in here saying anything about "good" games is you. It's flawed to have a subjective label connected to an objective measure like the AAA label which can be fixed on observable facts.

Yes, it is flawed, I admit. The point is that we as consumers can not define a game as AAA just by looking at it. We have next to no numbers on anything, we can only say that it looks 'big' and 'ambitious'. But we don't know the circumstances. Therefore we should not be the ones to categorize games.

You're too fixated on there being specific or numerical criteria when there doesn't have to be. We judge everything by appearance, and there's no reason we shouldn't classify games as AAA or not, there will be cases where not everyone agrees but it doesn't matter. AAA games is a useful term for referring to whether a game is a major title or not.



LTD: PS4 - 125m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 51m

2020: PS4 - 9m, Switch - 22.5m, XBO - 2.5m, PS5 - 4.5m, XBX - 2.8m

AAA has everything to do with with budget and production value. Content value is not what defines it, which makes lot of AAA games, even those higly acclaimed, quite mediocre.

Last edited by HoloDust - on 30 July 2018

Around the Network
Spindel said:

A question for everyone here: is BotW AAA or not? Lets consider it was made with about 10 % of the budget of a Assassins Creed, FarCry or GTA. 

No it wasn't, it was reported BOTW would need at least 2 million sales to break even back in June 2016, and from then to release it may have increased, especially as this may not include marketing costs, as they probably wouldn't know how much they'd be spending on marketing 9 months before release. As it's a first party title let's assume Nintendo receive on average $40 per copy sold, that would give BOTW a budget of $80 Million.

The budget for FarCry 5 was roughly $80-$130 million according to this article.

BOTW was an expensive game, more expensive than most games that would be considered AAA. It's not just the top 0.1% that counts.



LTD: PS4 - 125m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 51m

2020: PS4 - 9m, Switch - 22.5m, XBO - 2.5m, PS5 - 4.5m, XBX - 2.8m

No. AAA is strictly about production values and budget. That's literally the reason the term came about



Unfortunately this game is not very optimised. I love it but ill never understand why its 30 frames at 720p docked with screen tearing. Where is this game so demanding? Its a turned based JRPG.. the Switch can run Doom at similar levels.



On a consumer level, it is/should be about quality. Octopath Traveller, Mario Kart, Splatoon, etc all fall into this category.

On a development level it is about cost and Production. God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, etc all fall into this category.

However what also would fall into that category is all the crappy "AAA" products as well. Battlefront 2, Sea of Thieves, The Order 1886, etc all fall into this category.

If one looks at AAA as a measure of quality, production and cost are not a factor. As a consumer, we should care more about quality than anything else. Just because a game is expensive to make, does not make it a quality game.

This is why Tomb Raider on PS360 was called a failure with several millions of units sold. It was good, but needed to sell an insane amount of money. Breath of the Wild was also a AAA game, but only needed to sell 2 mil to break even. They are both AAA games, but one cost way more than the other.

And there lies the problem with using AAA as anything other than a measure of Quality. If cost was the only factor, Zelda would be AAA and Tomb Raider would be AAAAAAA. It does just does not make any sense.

So for that reason, I look at things on a consumer level, as I am a consumer. Quality and content mean more to the term AAA to me than how much a game costs to produce. Development teams look at it differently, and they should, as they need to deliver a AAA quality experience to justify those costs. However, that does mean that level of quality will be met in the end depending on a number of factors involved.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Shiken said:
On a consumer level, it is/should be about quality. Octopath Traveller, Mario Kart, Splatoon, etc all fall into this category.

On a development level it is about cost and Production. God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, etc all fall into this category.

However what also would fall into that category is all the crappy "AAA" products as well. Battlefront 2, Sea of Thieves, The Order 1886, etc all fall into this category.

If one looks at AAA as a measure of quality, production and cost are not a factor. As a consumer, we should care more about quality than anything else. Just because a game is expensive to make, does not make it a quality game.

This is why Tomb Raider on PS360 was called a failure with several millions of units sold. It was good, but needed to sell an insane amount of money. Breath of the Wild was also a AAA game, but only needed to sell 2 mil to break even. They are both AAA games, but one cost way more than the other.

And there lies the problem with using AAA as anything other than a measure of Quality. If cost was the only factor, Zelda would be AAA and Tomb Raider would be AAAAAAA. It does just does not make any sense.

So for that reason, I look at things on a consumer level, as I am a consumer. Quality and content mean more to the term AAA to me than how much a game costs to produce. Development teams look at it differently, and they should, as they need to deliver a AAA quality experience to justify those costs. However, that does mean that level of quality will be met in the end depending on a number of factors involved.

I consider BotW 7.5/10 game (and I'm Zelda fan) and, for example, Divinity Original Sin II 9/10 game - yet, I would never say that latter is AAA game.