On 23 March 2018, it was proposed that this article be moved from AAA (video game industry) to AAA game. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The Nintendo seal of quality was always intended to mean that each title had gone through a Quality Assurance (bug testing) process. I.e. the game wouldn't break or glitch out or crash midway through a level. Nowadays it's standard for every platform holder (sony, nintendo, etc.) to have a QA and platform standards process that first and third party developers have to go through each time in order to release a title. The seal of quality didn't necesserily say anything about the game's artistic or creative quality, its budget, or anything else -- just that Nintendo vetted games for technical bugs. The seal of quality is absolutely unrelated to the term "AAA game".
"AAA" is not a mark of quality given by any sort of organisation. It's a game industry buzzword used to denote "blockbuster" titles with huge multi-million budgets, typically publisher-backed, with wide audience reach, and cutting edge production values. Game industry executives might refer to something like Call of Duty as AAA (big team, big budget, big target audience, and high aims for its technical and visual effects) but wouldn't say so of, say, Minecraft (relatively smaller team, low-fi graphics, and while it was obviously hugely succesful it wasn't designed with blockbuster aspirations in mind from the start).
"For a title to remain AAA post-launch, it must be both commercially and critically successful." I don't know where this comes from. It's not true. Take Assassin's Creed Unity for instance: it was a critical failure, and it underperformed commercially, but it's still referred to as AAA due to its clear blockbuster ambitions.
Not to sound too harsh here (this entry seems to have been written by a well-meaning person), but I suggest scrapping this article and starting over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.225.80 ( talk) 23:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Who on earth is responsible for assigning these "grades" to games? Is there some specific organisation? Is it still active? Who came up with the ratings and how are they made objective? They seem extremely subjective to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason021388 ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
This is indeed very subjective, but nonetheless part of gaming culture, the existence and usage of this unquantifiable scale is well registered, and although which games are deserving of the title is more a matter of perfoonal opinion, the common qualifying characteritics aren't. --
187.64.176.142 (
talk) 23:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That said, who on earth thought Minecraft is anywhere near AAA? It's neither high-budget, long development, or large content (randomly generated maps don't count, or would tetris have large content?) -- 187.64.176.142 ( talk) 23:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Find the person who wrote this and send him back to third grade. -- 63.88.62.157 ( talk) 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The article could include a section with an overview of games that have been called (classified as) AAA. In my opinion, each entry would need at least two reliable, third-party sources. I will list here what I've been able to find. Note that, for various reasons, this is not yet usable for the article. Among other things, some of the quotes are from the creators of the games themselves. But it's a start and maybe if other editors reply with additional (entries and) references, we'll be able to include some examples of triple-A games in the article at some point in the future. So far, only Tomb Raider has two references.
References
-- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
While this article addresses the origin and original usage of "AAA" within the industry, in popular usage it merely refers to any big-budget, major-studio game, regardless of quality—in other words an antonym of "indie." Would this be relevant to bring up in the article? 64.85.243.248 ( talk) 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Should there be mention of the fact that many old arcade machines had high scores held by a person named aaa because they would just select the first letter when asked to input their name? Benjamin ( talk) 05:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Don't see general agreement either to rename this article or what to name it instead. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may strengthen their arguments and make another attempt in a few weeks to garner consensus for the highest and best title/disambiguator for this page. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! ( closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth put'r there 18:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
AAA (video game industry) → AAA game – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL this makes sense as a better title that would not require parenthetical disambiguation. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The section under AAA+ mentioning "hyperbolic marketing ploy" feels blatantly incorrect. Points:
So in summary, The Witcher 3 being the example probably needs to change. I'm not sure it should be fully eliminated as there are probably good examples of that, but this example feels patently incorrect and somewhat hostile towards CD Projekt Red.
I feel this topic should include retail prices of the bigger successful games per region and or currency as I'm trying to find information regarding the price difference of games in general over the past two decades. 2601:194:827E:6980:201D:A989:F9B1:388C ( talk) 06:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It just doesn't make sense. It was made by 4 people in 8 months. It's the most indie game ever made. And the 1 source doesn't even justify a reason behind it. Liderangel ( talk) 02:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 23 March 2018, it was proposed that this article be moved from AAA (video game industry) to AAA game. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The Nintendo seal of quality was always intended to mean that each title had gone through a Quality Assurance (bug testing) process. I.e. the game wouldn't break or glitch out or crash midway through a level. Nowadays it's standard for every platform holder (sony, nintendo, etc.) to have a QA and platform standards process that first and third party developers have to go through each time in order to release a title. The seal of quality didn't necesserily say anything about the game's artistic or creative quality, its budget, or anything else -- just that Nintendo vetted games for technical bugs. The seal of quality is absolutely unrelated to the term "AAA game".
"AAA" is not a mark of quality given by any sort of organisation. It's a game industry buzzword used to denote "blockbuster" titles with huge multi-million budgets, typically publisher-backed, with wide audience reach, and cutting edge production values. Game industry executives might refer to something like Call of Duty as AAA (big team, big budget, big target audience, and high aims for its technical and visual effects) but wouldn't say so of, say, Minecraft (relatively smaller team, low-fi graphics, and while it was obviously hugely succesful it wasn't designed with blockbuster aspirations in mind from the start).
"For a title to remain AAA post-launch, it must be both commercially and critically successful." I don't know where this comes from. It's not true. Take Assassin's Creed Unity for instance: it was a critical failure, and it underperformed commercially, but it's still referred to as AAA due to its clear blockbuster ambitions.
Not to sound too harsh here (this entry seems to have been written by a well-meaning person), but I suggest scrapping this article and starting over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.225.80 ( talk) 23:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Who on earth is responsible for assigning these "grades" to games? Is there some specific organisation? Is it still active? Who came up with the ratings and how are they made objective? They seem extremely subjective to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason021388 ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
This is indeed very subjective, but nonetheless part of gaming culture, the existence and usage of this unquantifiable scale is well registered, and although which games are deserving of the title is more a matter of perfoonal opinion, the common qualifying characteritics aren't. --
187.64.176.142 (
talk) 23:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That said, who on earth thought Minecraft is anywhere near AAA? It's neither high-budget, long development, or large content (randomly generated maps don't count, or would tetris have large content?) -- 187.64.176.142 ( talk) 23:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Find the person who wrote this and send him back to third grade. -- 63.88.62.157 ( talk) 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The article could include a section with an overview of games that have been called (classified as) AAA. In my opinion, each entry would need at least two reliable, third-party sources. I will list here what I've been able to find. Note that, for various reasons, this is not yet usable for the article. Among other things, some of the quotes are from the creators of the games themselves. But it's a start and maybe if other editors reply with additional (entries and) references, we'll be able to include some examples of triple-A games in the article at some point in the future. So far, only Tomb Raider has two references.
References
-- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
While this article addresses the origin and original usage of "AAA" within the industry, in popular usage it merely refers to any big-budget, major-studio game, regardless of quality—in other words an antonym of "indie." Would this be relevant to bring up in the article? 64.85.243.248 ( talk) 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Should there be mention of the fact that many old arcade machines had high scores held by a person named aaa because they would just select the first letter when asked to input their name? Benjamin ( talk) 05:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Don't see general agreement either to rename this article or what to name it instead. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may strengthen their arguments and make another attempt in a few weeks to garner consensus for the highest and best title/disambiguator for this page. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! ( closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth put'r there 18:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
AAA (video game industry) → AAA game – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL this makes sense as a better title that would not require parenthetical disambiguation. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The section under AAA+ mentioning "hyperbolic marketing ploy" feels blatantly incorrect. Points:
So in summary, The Witcher 3 being the example probably needs to change. I'm not sure it should be fully eliminated as there are probably good examples of that, but this example feels patently incorrect and somewhat hostile towards CD Projekt Red.
I feel this topic should include retail prices of the bigger successful games per region and or currency as I'm trying to find information regarding the price difference of games in general over the past two decades. 2601:194:827E:6980:201D:A989:F9B1:388C ( talk) 06:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It just doesn't make sense. It was made by 4 people in 8 months. It's the most indie game ever made. And the 1 source doesn't even justify a reason behind it. Liderangel ( talk) 02:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)