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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Official AAA games list thread! Classified by year and console.

haxxiy on 26 January 2010

On this same subject, I was pondering earlier how many AAA on metacritic titles we'll have this year.

X360 should end with 7 AAA titles this year (Bayonetta, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2, Alan Wake, B2: Bad Company, Halo: Reach and Call of Duty 7).
PS3 should end with 5 AAA titles this year (Bioshock 2, B2: Bad Company, God of War III, Gran Turismo 5 and Call of Duty 7).
Wii should end with 2 AAA titles this year (Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Zelda Wii).

Needless to mention the list is flawed hehe. I do not take into account games unsure to release this year (MGS: Rising, The Last Guardian, The Agency) nor unnanounced titles for obvious reasons.

Wild cards IMO:

  • Fallout: New Vegas
  • Dead Space 2
  • ModNation Racers
  • Dead Rising 2
  • Red Dead Redemption
  • Lost Planet 2
  • White Knight Chronicles
  • Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom
  • Metroid: Other M


 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
ChichiriMuyo on 26 January 2010

The PC version which, according to metacritic, was better than the PS3 version. Though I can't say I've been overwhelmed by game-ending bugs I sure have seen a lot of strange graphical errors. Also, the system reqs aren't exactly hard to meet or beat, as my laptop has everything listed under recommended requirements, let alone the minimums.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

Seece on 26 January 2010
kowenicki said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
disolitude said:
Wagram said:
The Orange Box
Gears of War
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 and 2
Street Fighter IV
Mass Effect 1
Halo 3
Fallout 3

Aside from a few that I have mentioned all of these games have issues, but they seemed to have been given a free pass for some reason. Now I am not saying that these games are bad because they aren't. Except for maybe the CoD games. Too me it seems reviewers are now leaning towards the favoritism for a specific genre, series, or a specific console style of reviewing.

Seriously MW2 does NOT and is no way in the firey pits of hell a 94/100 game. Am sorry just no WAY.

lol, see you are basing things on your personal opinion in games. A reviewer tends to be opinion neutral and needs to look at the game and what it offers from a critical perspective. Not all reviewers do this...but they really should. Its their job.

I for one did not like Fallout 3, but that is a AAA game if I've ever seen one. Production, innovation, visuals, sound...everything was pretty much top of the line for that genre in 2008. I am not the fan of the genre, but I see the games quailities.

Game like Halo 3 and Orange Box...these games offer more quality fun gameplay than 95% of other titles on the market. While it may not be your type of gameplay...for the gamers that like that type of game, there really was no better value for their dollar.

So you don't believe being riddled with bugs is a detractor?  Fallout 3 has a huge list of glicthes, and not just random freezes or odd graphic output but also physics-breaking issues that can cause stuff to fly that shouldn't or that can get your character stuck for no reason.  Fallout 3 is a very poor example of game programming, and if that's not call to knock it down a peg then you're basically saying whether or not it actually works as it's supposed to is irrelevant to the quality of the game.

Now I'm not saying a game should get bonus points for not having glitches, but a game shouldn't be treated as one of the best ever if it's relatively likely that a player will have their game interrupted multiple times by multiple different programming errors.

I alwayts laugh when people say a game has huge game breaking glitches....

I played fallout3, beginning to end... not one glitch... not one...  not a single one.

what did you play it on? pc/360/ps3?

I'm with chi on Fallout 3 having glitches, it's forever freezing (the only game to ever freeze on my xbox, original and goty edition, I get stuck in the landscape/rubble, the pip boy glows bright green to the point where it's unseeable, the DLC was so bad I had to reinstall it several times just to progress the main story mission.



 

disolitude on 26 January 2010
nordlead said:
kowenicki said:
itys no good saying i dont like metacritic.... live with it.

good work.

except the concept of AAA = metacritic > 90 is a relatively new concept localized to the press and for some reason this website and possibly a few others. I have plenty of reason to disagree with that concept.

here is a gamedev thread on the topic that is interesting. - http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=489423&forum_id=3&gforum_id=0

and another topic - http://www.troelsfolmann.com/blog/?p=30

and a definition - http://www.gamedev.net/dict/term.asp?TermID=1323

None of them point to critic ratings as the definition of AAA games. In fact, I think I'd be hard pressed to find a definition of AAA = Metacritic > 90 from any respectable dev/publisher.

Oh, and here is a quote from gamespot forums of all places

Typically, there's two different terms in play at the same time:

In the mentality of gamers (especially in system wars), AAA refers to a game that gets a 9 or higher as a score (namely from GS for the purposes of arguments), if I'm not mistaken.

In the terms of the actual pro game community, AAA refers to a game that essentially has a rather large budget behind it. I'll have to find out what the exact numbers are, but most likely a multi-million dollar budget would be a likely candidate to be a AAA game.

I remember reading a 1995 edition of EGM magazine and they had a review of Super Mario RPG saying something like..."As with all Sqaure RPGs these days, MArio RPG is a AAA game" 

This has been used for quite a while...but I agree that there is some fog as to what it actully stands for.

I think my credit rating is AAA...I hope that means its the best possible. :)

 



nordlead on 26 January 2010

as a note, I don't have a problem with your list, as long as you clearly define it as metacritic > 90. AAA is just too vague and generates complaints when people don't see their favorite high budget million seller on the list (for example Assassin's Creed which sold over 8m units and was a high quality game) which also qualifies as a AAA game if you listen to the older definition of the term.




If you drop a PS3 right on top of a Wii, it would definitely defeat it. Not so sure about the Xbox360. - mancandy
In the past we played games. In the future we watch games. - Forest-Spirit
11/03/09 Desposit: Mod Bribery (RolStoppable)  vg$ 500.00
06/03/09 Purchase: Moderator Privilege  vg$ -50,000.00

Nordlead Jr. Photo/Video Gallery!!! (Video Added 4/19/10)

Around the Network
ChichiriMuyo on 26 January 2010
disolitude said:
nordlead said:
kowenicki said:
itys no good saying i dont like metacritic.... live with it.

good work.

except the concept of AAA = metacritic > 90 is a relatively new concept localized to the press and for some reason this website and possibly a few others. I have plenty of reason to disagree with that concept.

here is a gamedev thread on the topic that is interesting. - http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=489423&forum_id=3&gforum_id=0

and another topic - http://www.troelsfolmann.com/blog/?p=30

and a definition - http://www.gamedev.net/dict/term.asp?TermID=1323

None of them point to critic ratings as the definition of AAA games. In fact, I think I'd be hard pressed to find a definition of AAA = Metacritic > 90 from any respectable dev/publisher.

Oh, and here is a quote from gamespot forums of all places

Typically, there's two different terms in play at the same time:

In the mentality of gamers (especially in system wars), AAA refers to a game that gets a 9 or higher as a score (namely from GS for the purposes of arguments), if I'm not mistaken.

In the terms of the actual pro game community, AAA refers to a game that essentially has a rather large budget behind it. I'll have to find out what the exact numbers are, but most likely a multi-million dollar budget would be a likely candidate to be a AAA game.

I remember reading a 1995 edition of EGM magazine and they had a review of Super Mario RPG saying something like..."As with all Sqaure RPGs these days, MArio RPG is a AAA game" 

This has been used for quite a while...but I agree that there is some fog as to what it actully stands for.

I think my credit rating is AAA...I hope that means its the best possible. :)

 

I'm not exactly an expert on the matter (just taking classes for it right now), but I don't think people are actually given letter ratings like that.  Credit scores for individuals come as a number from all of the major credit agencies.  AAA is more like something that would get associate with either large companies and governments or a financial instrument such as a bond or tranche, and it has very little meaning since the financial crisis we're in now is due to AAA rated investments going very, very bad.  AAA in finance is supposed to mean as good as money (which if you were AAA, that'd mean they believe you're going to pay them back if you say you will) but doesn't necessarily account for all potential risks.

That is, of course, another reason why I have a good deal of distaste for AAA being related to the outcome of the product.  Just like in finance, if your eggs get a high quality rating that doesn't stop them from being rotten when you buy them.  A game can have massive production values and come from a trusted development team but still fall flat.  It's the quality of the source that should really determine the rating, not how the individual product turns out.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

Strategyking92 on 26 January 2010

I do hate what metacritic does with non-scored reviews. They just simply put what they think the author would put, which is never usually accurate.
Personally, reviews are not absolute. A person's opinion can change about a game for the better or for worse over time. And when reviewers push reviews out the door so fast, their long term opinion is ignored.



And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this PS4... And this gaming PC. - The PS4 and the Gaming PC and that's all I need... And this Xbox 360. - The PS4, the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360, and that's all I need... And these PS3's. - The PS4, and these PS3's, and the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360... And this Nintendo DS. - The PS4, this Xbox 360, and the Gaming PC, and the PS3's, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The Gaming PC and PS4, and Xbox 360, and thePS3's . Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need.

Obligatory dick measuring Gaming Laptop Specs: Sager NP8270-GTX: 17.3" FULL HD (1920X1080) LED Matte LC, nVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, Intel Core i7-4700MQ, 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3, 750GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive

disolitude on 26 January 2010
nordlead said:
as a note, I don't have a problem with your list, as long as you clearly define it as metacritic > 90. AAA is just too vague and generates complaints when people don't see their favorite high budget million seller on the list (for example Assassin's Creed which sold over 8m units and was a high quality game) which also qualifies as a AAA game if you listen to the older definition of the term.

Valid complaint about the list... changed the op to reflect this.



Kenryoku_Maxis on 27 January 2010
Seece said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Catlana said:
Metacritic represents a variety of opinions. To be honest as more opinions come in, the value tends to get closer to the average value placed on a game by the gaming community.

People will get upset when their game of choice is lower rated than another one that is simply human nature. Metacritic is not perfect but Metacritic is the closest thing to the average value from the gaming community.

Its not about getting mad that a game has a lower rating.  Its about trying to use opinions as facts.  In this case, as you said, Metacritic is a guage of a grouping of opinions.  How is that any basis of guaging if a game is 'AAA' quality?  As someone else said, an AAA game can be stated as the games where a company put their most time and money into.  So let's take the example of New Super Mario Bros Wii.  It wasn't panned by Critics, but just because it doesn't have a 90 avg on metacritic, its now not an AAA game?  Yet it was clearly one of, if not the top offering from Nintendo in 2009 and hardly anyone will dispute a top quality game with AAA written all over it.

Long story short, opinions, even that of 'critics', shouldn't guage what makes a game 'the best'.  Or in this case, 'AAA' status.  It goes right back to what I was trying to say about 'AAA' status just being a major grey area.

Well, it is, and it's something you need to get over because it isn't going anywhere.

Somebody get out the stone and chisel.  We got a new word of law here!



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Wagram on 27 January 2010

I got stuck in a crate as well. Lol.