How do YOU define 'AAA' titles? What makes a title 'Triple' A to you?

[Darkfalz]

Personally, I consider games to be 'AAA' based on a simple '4 pillar' structure...

(In order of importance)

1) Critical Acclaim. Metacritic score, gamerankings.com score, awards from industry insiders, accolades of recognition, etc. This data shows that the industry and paid industry professionals have a consensus about a title being 'good'.

2) Sales. Total accumulated sales, as well as system level attach rate. This data generally indicates how well a title is received by the consumers/gamers themselves.

3) Top-in-class Gameplay. A game can be shiny, can sell great, but if the core gameplay isn't there - the game must *really* excel in other areas to make up for less-than-stellar gameplay... a big win in gameplay means better word-of-mouth among the consumers...

4) Top-in-class Graphics. If it's gorgeous, and shiny - more people will be drawn to it... graphics may not be what keeps gamers wanting more - but it can certainly be something that makes a game stand out among its peers... and to win big here, will also score big industry accolades.

So there you have it... thoughts?

[michealo]

you're missing something called "specific details".

how many sales? 1 million?
what ratings? 90% or higher?

[miDnIghtEr]

no..no.. no.. i already have a poll for this... remember guys? lol... i'm going to find it.

here you go...

What's your definition of a "Killer App" game?


ahh.. good times in that thread.

[crzyone01]

Originally Posted by michealo

you're missing something called "specific details".

how many sales? 1 million?
what ratings? 90% or higher?

Not sure about the critical scoring percentage. But sales are dependent on how many consoles are out at the time the game is released. For example, soul calibur.

[Darkfalz]

Originally Posted by miDnIghtEr

no..no.. no.. i already have a poll for this... remember guys? lol... i'm going to find it.

here you go...

What's your definition of a "Killer App" game?


ahh.. good times in that thread.

That was a 'poll' of definitions you created, though... this isn't a poll to gauge whether or not one pre-defined definition is more accurate than another, this is an open platform for participants to voice their own definition.

[BBM128]

A game should be graded on it's self-qualities, not it's sales. And even more important, it should NOT be judged on it's platform. Be it PS3 or 360, I know good games when I see em.

[grasp]

Willie Ferrell,
Nope, I don't remember, but I doubt that it was of any interest or consequence.

Fallz,
I can agree with your pillar #1 to a certain extent, but I think that a great score can be given by only one reviewer and the title could still be AAA, reviewers are just people, and all have different opinions - I remember watching Electric Playground years ago and the reviewers were often in disagreement.. Reviews are opinion of how they feel at the moment, and I don't think totally objective.


I disagree about sales - a great game is a great game independant of how it's recieved.

Gameplay is obvious, but subjective. Innovation that works is a good thing
Good writing and production is certainly helpful.

Graphics - sure, but again, totally subjective. I find motorstorm quite engaging graphically, but when you look at the materials for instance - like the metal on the vehicles, you don't really see reflection or anything too complicated, versus PGR or Forza which look shiny, but unreal VS GT which looks fairly real, but antiseptic. Another comparative there has to do with dynamics, PGR4 and Forza have damage, Motorstorm has damage and dirt, and all three are dynamic graphically, whereas GT is static, and this is a little boring compared - now, does that mean that GT is less of an interesting game than motorstorm?? Turn on the subjectivity.

In short, no answer, I would prefer to leave it up to the "professionals" If one reviewer touts something as AAA, and another says no way, let them verbally get it out until we have good reasons for saying yes or no...

[Sulaco]

We all know you have only one criteria...Is said game on the PS3 or 360?

[Darkfalz]

Originally Posted by crzyone01

Not sure about the critical scoring percentage. But sales are dependent on how many consoles are out at the time the game is released. For example, soul calibur.

Exactly.

There's no specific number listed in my definition, because I don't believe it makes sense to put a number on sales... it depends on install base, general attach rate for the console in question, as well as the specific attach rate of the title in question... the number has to be looked at relative to the time, place, console, industry, etc...

As for the critical acclaims, I didn't want to put a number on them, but how about this:

Metacritic and gamerankings score of 90% or better

Awarded with at least one GAME OF THE YEAR award

At *least* Nominated by three or more *credible sites/publications for GAME OF THE YEAR (across all platforms)

Won 5 or more awards from credible, paid professional sources

*Credible meaning publications or sites that are polled in Metacritic and/or Gamerankings.

[capnmonkey]

AAA titles is something that probably has a different definition for everyone. For me sales have no impact on triple-A status, many of my favorite games have been sales and marketing duds, Okami, Folklore, Wizardry 8, Shadow Hearts 2 all considered sales duds or at best very average. For me though they would all fall within the top 15 or so games I've ever played.

Reviews also have very little effect. Wizardry 8 for example scored average scores on most places that even bothered to review it. Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption received average/low scores, and I feel that it's a great game, probably top 20 that I've played. Meanwhile games that I have zero interest in or consider fairly average games receive fantastic scores due to franchise name or hype.

Gameplay is huge, as obviously are graphics, sound, story etc.
Honestly, what do YOU think about when you're playing a game? How awesome the characters are? How immersive the music is? How fantastic the graphics look?

Or do you think about how your personal experience is better because IGN gave it a 9.5?
Or that you're really enjoying the game because 2 million other people have bought it?

[RedRedSuit]

I find it a meaningless label.

It's much easier to just specify exactly what you mean, e.g., "sold 1 million worldwide," or "90%+ average," or "one of my favorite games ever."

[capnmonkey]

Most gamers don't care what a game scored or the number of units it sells. While it's relevant to the industry, and makes a game more likely to receive a sequel, it has no impact on the experience of the game (Save for multiplayer online quality, which is a specific case)

In the sense of a format war/fanboy discussion, sales and review scores are the only thing that matters.

In the sense of personal gaming experience, graphics/gameplay/plot/sound are the only thing that matters.

[BBM128]

Originally Posted by Darkfalz

Exactly.

There's no specific numer listed in my definition, because I don't believe it makes sense to put a number on sales... it depends on install base, general attach rate for the console in question, as well as the specific attach rate of the title in question... the number has to be looked at relative to the time, place, console, industry, etc...

As for the critical acclaims, I didn't want to put a number on them, but how about this:

Metacritic and gamerankings score of 90% or better

Awarded with at least one GAME OF THE YEAR award

At *least* Nominated by three or more *credible sites/publications for GAME OF THE YEAR (across all platforms)

Won 5 or more awards from credible, paid professional sources

*Credible meaning publications or sites that are polled in Metacritic and/or Gamerankings.

So basically you're back to "Don't doubt the metric".

[Darkfalz]

Originally Posted by BBM128

So basically you're back to "Don't doubt the metric".

No, not at all. You've misunderstood me again.

Someone asked to put metrics to the 'ratings', so I threw out a relatively arbitrary set of numbers that seemed reasonable to me.

As I've stated before, critical acclaim is only *one* aspect of what makes a game stand out among the rest.

[michealo]

then you're already accepting that it's completely and utterly arbitrary on what makes a title qualified for AAA status?

also that this classification will vary from person to person with no real established set of rules or guidelines for what is AAA and what isn't?

you're being cornered on what is opinion and what is "fact" based on your previous statements on this forum.