scottie said:
CGI-Quality said:
scottie said:
Lol, when a company refers to their own game, months/years ahead of release, I know that they are taking the "it cost a lot to make" definition of AAA, as opposed to the "it's a good game" definition.
I can safely say that this game will be like all those others, overhyped by the developers, they will release stills from the pre rendered cutscenes, everyone will think it's amazing, then it will come out and be mediocre.
tl;dr version - the developer does not get to say whether a game is AAA or not. |
Often times, games are hyped like that and do release to "AAA" status. Not that it matters, the term "AAA" is very much subjective anyway, although in this case, since it's SCE London, I'm pretty interested.
|
Indeed, it is quite possible that this game will be good. But to simply accept the developers word for it is to fall for PR at its worst. My point is, so often on this site, the PS crowd overhypes a game based on no more info than has been provided about this game, and it just leads to dissapointment in the cases when it is not a good game. This does also happen with Ninty/MS fans, but not as frequently.
Does it not make more sense to wait until we have seen gameplay of this game to even consider whether it is 'AAA' or not, regardless of what our defiinition of 'AAA' is?
|
The reason it happens more frequently out of the Sony crowd than the Nintendo/Microsoft factions could be tied to the release lists of first party titles (or third party titles with exclusive content) over the last two years and see that Sony has been developing and publishing more games from in-house developers than either of the other two companies.
Of course you can also look at the track record for the Sony London studios and see that they have potential to make something good (see my post in this thread about EyePet in Home as an example.....not really...)
