Editorial: Are AAA Games Losing Their Relevence?

Well, apparently "no one" was excited for Call Of Duty Black Ops 2.

^ I was more excited for Halo 4. And I wasn't disappointed in that game.

I think it's more a case of people are starting to hold back on what is meant to be a can't miss game. When Duke Nukem Forever came out a lot of us were all geared up to finally play it, but when we did it was Rogue Warrior quality and you could buy it new for twenty bucks a month later. On a personal note when the WWE games were still Smackdown vs Raw the last one was I felt little disappointing. Same for Saints Row The Third, it's still a great game that I was upset about when it stopped working on PC enough to buy the Xbox version, but the second was much better. Even what may be the biggest can't miss game of all time in Mass Effect 3 was, endings aside, good but the second was better. My experience has been having been bitten a few times I hold off and see if the game really is worth the hype. Batman Arkham City certainly lived up to how much it was promoted, as does Resident Evil 4, with the fifth game still being great but more 4.5, and after that it went a bit pear shaped. So I think fans are not just going out and buying the games on release, they are holding off to see if it's worth their time and money.

Handheld games aren't triple-A because publishers don't bring their A-game to them! Hahahahahaha I'm sorry.

Nintendo games aren't entirely triple-A in that they don't have upwards of several hundred people working on them simultaneously. They do have the advertising. Sometimes. Kid Icarus I'd say is a game of triple-A quality without the triple-A costs, Nintendo being one of the few companies who do treat handhelds as worthy platforms.

edited 6th Mar '13 5:06:52 PM by Watashiwa

To be honest, a part of that would be because during the 5th and 6th Generations, when Nintendo was coiming in second place and second last respectively, the Handheld market (where the old warhorse was still strong) was probably raking in the most money for them.

I wonder when word-of-mouth advertising will catch on in a big enough way to conclusively smash a Prime Time spot for the same given product.

How was ME 3 the "biggest can't miss game of all time"?

Guys, AAA "quality" isn't an actual thing. It's a marketing term; the video-game equivalent of a blockbuster. Something that has absurd amounts of cash pumped into it with the intent of appealing to the mass market and making all the money.

edited 7th Mar '13 1:04:40 AM by JotunofBoredom

Here's my simple view on the matter.

I don't care if you had employed 10,000 people to make the game for five years, or if you had only employed 10 people to make the game for just one year. If I think the gameplay looks meh/bad/samey, I won't buy it. If I think the gameplay looks fun/good/interesting, I will buy it.

How was ME 3 the "biggest can't miss game of all time"?

The first game was considered one of the best of all time. The second game was considered one of the best of all time. So it would make sense for the third to be right up there in terms of quality.

where is this "of all time" coming from exactly?

Sales.

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250066/mass-effect-a-sales-history/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect_2#Reception

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/04/22/mass-effect-sales-top-7-million/

And reviews.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/12/10/mass-effect-ps3-review

http://www.gamesradar.com/mass-effect-review/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-06-mass-effect-3-citadel-review

Ignoring that game releases being big events are not really a factor of quality(which isn't to say that the ME series isn't good); reviewing well and selling a few millions isn't an anomaly for AAA games.

Hell, Mario Galaxy sold 10 million + on its own(note: the 7 million sale from that article you linked is for the entire Mass Effect series combined) and reviewed better on average than any of the ME games.

If anything SMG 2 was the biggest can't miss game of all time. It wasn't.

edited 7th Mar '13 3:13:00 AM by JotunofBoredom

The point I'm trying to make is you have a look at the biggest sure fire games of the last ten years. Red Dead Redemption. GTA IV. Call of Duty. Arkham City. Splinter Cell. Metal Gear Solid. You take all those names and you would think the next one is going to be better. Out of all those games I felt Mass Effect 3 was the one game out of all of them that would most live up to the hype. So when even a game that big falls short and you see games like Skate 3, Wet, Mirrors Edge, titles that the fate of the games industry does not seem to rest on, then yes the big name AAA games do lose some of their punch.

Honestly, I hate the fact that "AAA games" has become a term consumers use. Or marketers, for that matter - Everything it means should have no importance to consumers, and marketers are just consumers who want to sell stuff. (Well, only in a binary world where "non-consumers" consist entirely of the people who make and/or finance games)

Hey, I think some AAA games are awesome. :C I'm a big fan of Bethesda.

In before terminology failure....

And I don't think budget directly means quality, and sales doesn't mean enjoyability. So yeah, I fail to understand how triple A games were relevant to begin with.

edited 7th Mar '13 5:25:24 AM by Culminus

If anything, the fact no one can agree on what "AAA" actually means probably shows that the term, at least, is losing relevance.

@Jonah: expecting anyone on a internet board like this to be super-psyched for Co D is unlikely. We're ubernerds. We tend to get psyched by more niche titles

^ I like COD but I don't get all uber psyched as "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER!". No I save that for Halo games.

edited 7th Mar '13 9:07:41 AM by MajorTom

yeah. I liked Black Ops 2's innovative ideas. But it wasn't something I was personally invested in.

^ On some things it had innovative ideas. The story however, not as much as it was hyped. (There's a ton of Fridge Logic surrounding several levels when you start picking apart the backgrounds and events going on.)

edited 7th Mar '13 9:14:01 AM by MajorTom

...How isn't MGR AAA? If you've got the cash to wallpaper London in ads for it, it's probably AAA. And towards the question: nope.

Revengeance is definitely a triple a title in Britain. The adverts for it are never off the television.

Despite its quality and whatever advertising it got, MGR's actual production budget seemed relatively middle of the road. Certainly not a GOW or DMC level cash dump.

Not to mention, it was made in a pretty short time-frame.

Big budgeted event releases always attract attention and hype. More attention means more sales.

edited 7th Mar '13 3:21:26 PM by JotunofBoredom

Honestly, the way I always saw it. AAA is to games what Summer Blockbusters are to movies; big budgets and massive marketing.

I don't think AAA's are so much dying as they have finally starting to hit the glass ceiling. Honestly, I think people have finally started to get sick of the short campaigns and DLC out the whazoo.

edited 7th Mar '13 4:12:50 PM by Lionheart0