Actually the terminology probably originated with gamers, and was later adopted by companies. Which as companies are apt to do corrupted the meaning. I remember using the designation in gaming chat rooms twenty years ago long before I ever heard a company refer to its product as AAA. The most basic definition would be Score, Budget, and Popularity. The game should be critically acclaimed, have a large budget which makes it a big game, and should be front and center in the minds of the gaming public. Obviously what makes a certain game AAA can be disputed if say you don't personally think that a game was big enough, or didn't score well enough.
That said if we just accept that a game is AAA, because a developer says so. Then we should just stop using the term, because at that point it just becomes meaningless jargon. We should never allow any developer to determine for us what is in fact good. Which is something that AAA used to be synonymous for. Not just something that is good, but a game that is straight up awesome, and something you should really think about playing.
Even if the original posters definition were the valid one. It shouldn't be the one we as gamers should ever accept, and we most certainly aren't obligated to do so. Developers would like nothing better then to create the impression that their own game already has a stamp of high approval. Without ever having to prove that out in the market place. I reject that just on principle alone. Success must be earned, and not just conjured up by hitting a button three times.
A developer can get one A for the time and effort they put into the game, but those other two letters belong firmly with us the gamers. We decide if it is a high quality game, and we decide if it is going to sell well or not. I reject the original posters definition, and the source for that definition also. The term AAA means something, and it isn't a bunch of mindless advertising bullshit. They don't just get the title. It is something they should have to earn.







