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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You would be the vast minority.  To the majority of consumers who got the game, it truly deserves every award it recieved.

Kind of like how I feel I got my money's worth with The Order 1886.  I enjoyed the gameplay, plot, and feel of the gunplay.  I took the time to get the plat and beat it a second time on the hardest difficulty.  All in all, I got about as much time as I would playing Uncharted 4 once.

However my experience alone does not measure quality, just like your experience alone does not measure quality.  We have preferences sure, and that dictates how we personally value our purchases.  Quality is different however.

Zelda for example, many people put in 100+ hours.  I personally did 165.  Horizon Zero Dawn I put in about 45 hours, got 89% of the trophies, and beat the main story.  Once the credits rolled, I had no desire to play anymore.  To me, BotW was a vastly more enjoyable experience.  However, in terms of quality, I see them as equals and love both overall.

Back to The Order 1886.  Even those who got the plat still are not guaranteed to get as much value as I did.  You do not need to play the game a second time like I did.  You can also get the plat on one playthrough, and if you did not, chapter selection makes it a quick task to complete.  Most people who played the game played for 6-8 hours and felt the game was over priced, despite the high production value.  I loved the game, but it was severely lacking in many areas.

In short, while one person can measuer their own value of what they buy, they cannot measure overall quality with their opinion alone.  You need to look at mass reception and why most people feel the way they do to get a more accurate measure of quality.  Other things must be taken into consideration as well, like wether or not a game is niche, but that is another topic entirely as none of the games I listed were part of a niche gener.