I dont include bg3, elden ring and totk in the AAA category. AAA no longer means high quality and fun, it means made by huge companies with more money than balls. CoD is a AAA game. And its shit. For example.
I dont include bg3, elden ring and totk in the AAA category. AAA no longer means high quality and fun, it means made by huge companies with more money than balls. CoD is a AAA game. And its shit. For example.
In no way is BG3 a AA game. It is firmly in the AAA category. The rough numbers I’ve seen indicate a team of 300+ people working on it, not including all third-parties that were involved.
As of 2022 game publishers and studios that are currently considered to be AA include Devolver Digital, Warhorse Studios, Obsidian Entertainment, Hazelight Studios, and PlatinumGames. Source
Not AAA, not even Obsidian is considered that, and it being AAA is dependent on having a AAA developer.
That’s not really a source, that still just one person’s opinion on what constitutes AA vs AAA. and companies like Platinum Games are really stretching.
Larian is definitely bigger than those companies either way, and if Baldur’s Gate 3 is a AA game, then I guess so is Starfield. The companies are pretty similar in size at this point. And games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 would definitely be AA games as well.
I was simplifying my reasoning because its rant territory.
Essentially, companies like activosion dont take risks, they cater to a mass audience and produce the same games over and over. There hasnt been a unique or good version of cod since mw2 and blackops 2 days. Evidenced by them remaking both mw1 and 2 recently, because they know they have nothing new to offer and cod warzone could have ended the franchise. Since nostalgia sells games as well as popularity they just opted for cashcow remakes preying on players nostalgia and taking advantage of the disillusioned.
They call it AAA but ithe term has become ubiquitous with just popular games made by big profiteering entities like activision.
Its not nonsensical, its just not very well represented by my initial statement.
They call it AAA but ithe term has become ubiquitous with just popular games made by big profiteering entities like activision.
The term AAA has always just meant games made by larger developers/publishers to distinguish from games made by smaller ones. That’s really it. Large vs small budget would be another way to think of it.
It’s never implied anything about innovation or risk-taking, or uniqueness or mass-appeal.
AAA games originally meant games with massive budgets that innovated. They gave rise to story driven games with high quality gameplay elements . One of the first AAA games was final fantasy 7.
From wiki
One of the first video games to be produced at a blockbuster or AAA scale was Squaresoft’s Final Fantasy VII (1997),[4] which cost an estimated $40–45 million (inflation adjusted $73–82 million) to develop,[5][6] making it the most expensive video game ever produced up until then, with its unprecedented cinematic CGI production values, movie-like presentation, orchestral music, and innovative blend of gameplay with dynamic cinematic camerawork.[7] Its expensive advertisement campaign was also unprecedented for a video game,[8] with a combined production and marketing budget estimated to be $80–145 million (inflation adjusted $129–234 million as of 2020).[9][6] Its production budget record was later surpassed by Sega AM2’s Shenmue (1999), estimated to have cost $47–70 million (inflation adjusted $73–109 million as of 2020).[10]
As opposed to
At around the period of transition from seventh to eighth generation of consoles, the cost of AAA development was considered by some to be a threat to the stability of the industry.[16] Staffing and costs for eighth generation games increased; at Ubisoft, AAA game development involved 400 to 600 persons for open world games, split across multiple locations and countries.[17] The failure of a single game to meet production costs could lead to the failure of a studio – Radical Entertainment was closed by parent Activision despite selling an estimated one million units on console in a short period after release.[18][unreliable source][19][unreliable source] Triple-A games also began to lose uniqueness and novelty; a common trend were a range of “grey brown” first-person shooters that drew on the popularity of the Medal of Honor and Call of Duty series but did little to advance gameplay improvements.[20][21] Ubisoft game director Alex Hutchinson described the AAA franchise model as potentially harmful, stating he thought it led to either focus group-tested products aimed at maximizing profit, and/or a push towards ever higher graphics fidelity and impact at a cost of depth or gameplay.[22]
The limited risk-taking in the AAA arena and stagnation of new gameplay concepts led to the rise of indie games in the early 2010s, which were seen as more experimental. This also led to the creation of the “AA” market in the industry, larger studios that were not at the scale of AAA developers but had more experience, funding, and other factors to make them distinct from the smaller teams usually associated with indie studios.[21]
So like i said. AAA used to mean high quality but has lost that meaning as time has passed and game companies stopped taking risks.
All those quotes (none of which I could I actually find working references to support, I even have a copy of the “High Score!” book referenced in the article, at least the 2nd edition) are focused on budget and production value. Any expectation of quality is just based around bigger budgets leading to higher expectations.
AAA just refers to production scale/marketing budget. While it can often be conflated with high quality, that’s not what the term refers to. Similarly, Indie does not mean low quality, high quality, or a particular level of risk
Madden, as a famous example, has always been AAA, but has rarely innovated much.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
I dont include bg3, elden ring and totk in the AAA category. AAA no longer means high quality and fun, it means made by huge companies with more money than balls. CoD is a AAA game. And its shit. For example.
This line of reasoning is nonsensical.
For what it’s worth BG3 is two AA’s not three AAA.
In no way is BG3 a AA game. It is firmly in the AAA category. The rough numbers I’ve seen indicate a team of 300+ people working on it, not including all third-parties that were involved.
BG3 is a AAA game.
As of 2022 game publishers and studios that are currently considered to be AA include Devolver Digital, Warhorse Studios, Obsidian Entertainment, Hazelight Studios, and PlatinumGames. Source
Not AAA, not even Obsidian is considered that, and it being AAA is dependent on having a AAA developer.
That’s not really a source, that still just one person’s opinion on what constitutes AA vs AAA. and companies like Platinum Games are really stretching.
Larian is definitely bigger than those companies either way, and if Baldur’s Gate 3 is a AA game, then I guess so is Starfield. The companies are pretty similar in size at this point. And games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 would definitely be AA games as well.
Please provide sources on the companies being the same size, or any of your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Game_Studios
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larian_Studios
Both articles have references to where that number comes from. If you have sources that indicate otherwise that would be good to know.
I was simplifying my reasoning because its rant territory.
Essentially, companies like activosion dont take risks, they cater to a mass audience and produce the same games over and over. There hasnt been a unique or good version of cod since mw2 and blackops 2 days. Evidenced by them remaking both mw1 and 2 recently, because they know they have nothing new to offer and cod warzone could have ended the franchise. Since nostalgia sells games as well as popularity they just opted for cashcow remakes preying on players nostalgia and taking advantage of the disillusioned.
They call it AAA but ithe term has become ubiquitous with just popular games made by big profiteering entities like activision.
Its not nonsensical, its just not very well represented by my initial statement.
The term AAA has always just meant games made by larger developers/publishers to distinguish from games made by smaller ones. That’s really it. Large vs small budget would be another way to think of it.
It’s never implied anything about innovation or risk-taking, or uniqueness or mass-appeal.
AAA games originally meant games with massive budgets that innovated. They gave rise to story driven games with high quality gameplay elements . One of the first AAA games was final fantasy 7.
From wiki
As opposed to
So like i said. AAA used to mean high quality but has lost that meaning as time has passed and game companies stopped taking risks.
All those quotes (none of which I could I actually find working references to support, I even have a copy of the “High Score!” book referenced in the article, at least the 2nd edition) are focused on budget and production value. Any expectation of quality is just based around bigger budgets leading to higher expectations.
AAA just refers to production scale/marketing budget. While it can often be conflated with high quality, that’s not what the term refers to. Similarly, Indie does not mean low quality, high quality, or a particular level of risk
Madden, as a famous example, has always been AAA, but has rarely innovated much.
I refer you to my other response.
https://lemmy.world/comment/5213678
Fair play. I’ll absolutely concede that your position makes sense. It’s not quite how I envision it, nor understand it, but that’s fine lol