By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The true difference between AAA and AA

windbane said:
The_vagabond7 said:

That is very interesting. I find is especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players (suck on that one for a while, Kojima). But I can completely relate to that, because games like Half life or COD4 that keep you in the action at all times I feel are far more intense, immersive and engaging than games that have frequent cut scenes.

Also fascinating is how important pacing is. I've felt for a long time that pacing in a game is a far overlooked aspect to a game's quality. It takes alot of level design and fore thought to create an effective experience. Slower down times followed by big battles or intense fights. Lure you into security, give you a minute to come down off your high and then throw you right back up there into something crazy. Or gradually build up the pace into a climactic crescendo, and have the expected reward system of it coming down into something of a breather after the high is hit. Pacing is incredibly important to a satisfying experience.

 

Every Kojima game is AAA.  CoD4 has cutscenes and is also a great game.

 

Did you even read the article or understand what I was talking about, or was Kojima's bush obstructing your vision?

 

It's a shame that such a great and insightful article is going to be completely passed up by people who just saw a keyphrase like "AAA" and decided to throw in their two cents.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network

@windbane

cutscenes are fine but the developers have to be very careful to do it in a way that keeps the players engaged in the game. please read the article before commenting, its very insightful



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

AAA are slightly shorter and thinner, and thus don't last as long as AA... but they both have the same 1.5V output.



AAA and AA doesn't mean anything and has absolutely nothing to do with that article.



How many cups of darkness have I drank over the years? Even I don't know...

 

The_vagabond7 said:
windbane said:
The_vagabond7 said:

That is very interesting. I find is especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players (suck on that one for a while, Kojima). But I can completely relate to that, because games like Half life or COD4 that keep you in the action at all times I feel are far more intense, immersive and engaging than games that have frequent cut scenes.

Also fascinating is how important pacing is. I've felt for a long time that pacing in a game is a far overlooked aspect to a game's quality. It takes alot of level design and fore thought to create an effective experience. Slower down times followed by big battles or intense fights. Lure you into security, give you a minute to come down off your high and then throw you right back up there into something crazy. Or gradually build up the pace into a climactic crescendo, and have the expected reward system of it coming down into something of a breather after the high is hit. Pacing is incredibly important to a satisfying experience.

 

Every Kojima game is AAA. CoD4 has cutscenes and is also a great game.

 

Did you even read the article or understand what I was talking about, or was Kojima's bush obstructing your vision?

 

It's a shame that such a great and insightful article is going to be completely passed up by people who just saw a keyphrase like "AAA" and decided to throw in their two cents.

 

Indeed, I did read the article. Did you? It's interesting that you take a jab at Kojima even though nothing in the article indicates that his method is bad. In fact, you have a blantant untruth in the 2nd sentence of your post: " I find it especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players" That's not what the article said at all.

"

What Went Right

1. Cutscenes with overarching emotional themes.

Uncovering the "perfect" cutscene, in terms of power of physiological emotional response, proved to have no formula. Just like their cinematic movie counterparts, game cutscenes have no single creative blueprint. As you can imagine, a horror film evokes a different set of emotions than a comedy, but both may be powerful and effective pieces of art.

What we did find is that games like Gears of War, F.E.A.R., and Call of Duty 3 consistently engage players by specializing in a particular thematic emotion."

They then give 3 examples of games they studied and how the cutscenes were beneficial. About Gears of War they said of the cutscenes: "Together, over 80 percent of players reacted with one of the 10 most intense engagement responses of the game, no small feat for a title with bloody chainsaws and huge courtyard battles." Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Their examples of bad cutscenes are briefings in GRAW2 and the info on battles in Resistance. Well, duh. Those aren't very exciting cutscenes.

Where they should have given more credit to Resistance is under the section about novelty weapons, because I felt Resistance had great weapons.

Their conclusion also contradicts your claim:

"Clients (and family members) always ask us if there's a single formula to compelling, engaging media, whether it's a video game, advertisement, or a movie. The truth is, there isn't.

But there are definite trends in what makes engaging and successful gameplay. At the end of the day, each of these successful games relies on superior execution and creativity to craft a uniquely engaging experience. Our big surprise is just how important the little things, like throwing a grenade, can be -- even more engaging than that epic and highly-scripted plot events.

Little things add up to more enjoyable experiences, higher Metacritic scores, and higher sales. In short, more fun. As we've seen, there are definitely some "rules of fun" that hold across these titles, and in some cases, across games in general. More interestingly, though, we're looking forward to seeing how future titles innovate and break these rules. As players expect more and more from their game experience, smart risk-taking in game design may be the only way to truly stand out in the crowd."

Your example of CoD4 is false because it does have cutscenes. That's why I mentioned that in my response.

Also, most reviews mention the pacing of games if they are good. That's not a new concept. I happen to love all the little things, great combat, great cutscenes, and great pacing of MGS games, so pardon me if I defend a guy that you had no justification to attack based on this article that really presents no new information other than telling us that some Xbox games did a good job.



Around the Network
Mendicate Bias said:

It seems to me that games that try to encompass too big a world in a poorly structured manner end up making the player feel disengaged from the experience (resistance is used as an example) where as games that focus on pockets of tight knit heavy recurring action like GoW allow the player to truely engage themselves and have fun.

Any thoughts?

 

I don't understand this comparison because Resistance jumps around from location to location just like Gears does.  Once you get there, sure the environments are bigger but you are often in close battles just like Gears.  In Gears, you are often taking cover from far away so both games have both.

I didn't think the story of Gears was any better than Resistance.  I thought the weapons in Resistance were better.  And yet, the article hates on Resistance and loves Gears.  Oh well.



Godot said:
AAA and AA doesn't mean anything and has absolutely nothing to do with that article.

 

Did you read it before you commented? It has everything to do with that article, their trying to find what makes some games good (AA) and other games great (AAA). What is the difference between shooter A and B that makes you go back to A over and over again. The terms AAA and AA is being used in terms of quality, what would you like me to say instead?



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

I read the article, but didn't see any AAA/AA related things in there.

As for what it actually had there, it didn't surprise me. Throw a cat at a guy, mild excitement. Throw a Predator at the guy, wet pants.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

@windbane

I honestly have never played Resistance so I cant comment on the gameplay mechanics however I don't think your interpreting the article correctly. Their not saying Resistance is a bad game but just compared to classics like Half-Life 2 it doesn't shine as brightly. That's the whole point of this article, to distinguish between what makes a game good and great.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

You might want to add an addendum

"the difference between AAA and AA shooters"

A game can be AAA without having any danger in it at all, it's just that not many of them do get over 90 because reviewers are for the most part frat boys who weren't let into the army because of their dark and violent tendencies