Triple A games ... by what benchmark?
by Steve Acaster · in General Discussion · 12/20/2009 (5:17 pm) · 21 replies
Something which I've always quietly wondered about, but not found sufficient info on the web is: -
What are the benchmarks/grading system games get rated as "AAA", "AA", "A" or something else?
In the "real world", companies and even countries get ratings such as AAA for financial reliability etc, so any examples of how the grading system is applied to gmaes development?
Are 3A games just 3A because they have an enormous budget? Or is it more than just how much cash you can throw around? How many rating types is there? They're surely not official? But some sort of agreed benchmark?
Nothing fancy - Just curious...
What are the benchmarks/grading system games get rated as "AAA", "AA", "A" or something else?
In the "real world", companies and even countries get ratings such as AAA for financial reliability etc, so any examples of how the grading system is applied to gmaes development?
Are 3A games just 3A because they have an enormous budget? Or is it more than just how much cash you can throw around? How many rating types is there? They're surely not official? But some sort of agreed benchmark?
Nothing fancy - Just curious...
About the author
One Bloke ... In His Bedroom ... Making Indie Games ...
#2
But to me, I always thought of 'AAA' as being dependent on the hype just as much as the finished product... I would have considered Crysis an AAA game, just because it was big, expensive, and beautiful, and everyone was talking about it - irrespective of whether people enjoyed its gameplay or not.
12/20/2009 (6:19 pm)
Quote:high qualityHow would you qualify that? I'd specify visual fidelity, lack of bugs, and overall design achievement.
But to me, I always thought of 'AAA' as being dependent on the hype just as much as the finished product... I would have considered Crysis an AAA game, just because it was big, expensive, and beautiful, and everyone was talking about it - irrespective of whether people enjoyed its gameplay or not.
#3
AAA games are also destroying indie games, because if an indie rpg comes out on a network like XLA or Steam, a lot of people (not all) will say something like "why would I play that when I can play oblivion".
AAA games keep raising the bar, making life harder for the indie/hobby dev teams out there.
EDIT: Not that I don't love a good few hours of Oblivion, Crisis, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fable, COD, Battlefield, spore, sims, need for speed, project gotham, forza, fifa, gears of war, halo... (goes on with a few hundred more titles)
12/20/2009 (6:54 pm)
AAA is a label people give games made by massive companies. I don't actually like the term because I think it makes indies feel small :(AAA games are also destroying indie games, because if an indie rpg comes out on a network like XLA or Steam, a lot of people (not all) will say something like "why would I play that when I can play oblivion".
AAA games keep raising the bar, making life harder for the indie/hobby dev teams out there.
EDIT: Not that I don't love a good few hours of Oblivion, Crisis, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fable, COD, Battlefield, spore, sims, need for speed, project gotham, forza, fifa, gears of war, halo... (goes on with a few hundred more titles)
#4
In the games industry, however, I feel that they just borrowed the term and apply it whenever they want. Since there is no real rating system in place, the term is used far too liberally. I for one would regard World of Goo and Torchlight as AAA games. They are games which the vast majority of people would enjoy playing, yet did do not sit in the traditional AAA Game category.
It is just like any other term. If left unchecked people throw it around without any regard for what it actually means. It is also a phrase which has little-to-no meaning for me, and I suspect, most core games.
12/20/2009 (7:10 pm)
As with many industries there are rating which aid people in identifying a sound investment. In finance, a AAA investment is one which basically means that there is very little risk involved, for that you get a lower rate of return but you know you'll get your dollar back. Financial securities actually have a rating system in place, for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_ratingIn the games industry, however, I feel that they just borrowed the term and apply it whenever they want. Since there is no real rating system in place, the term is used far too liberally. I for one would regard World of Goo and Torchlight as AAA games. They are games which the vast majority of people would enjoy playing, yet did do not sit in the traditional AAA Game category.
It is just like any other term. If left unchecked people throw it around without any regard for what it actually means. It is also a phrase which has little-to-no meaning for me, and I suspect, most core games.
#5
12/20/2009 (8:43 pm)
I don't believe in this term, and I've only seen people speak of games as "AAA" or "not AAA". They usually imply AAA is something released by a large publisher, which is no guarantee of quality. *cough* Godfather II *cough* 
#6
The number of A's "AAA" or "AA" (Never heard 'A' used, but AAA and AA, yes) usually indicates the budget used to make the game. It has no implications about quality, or profitability. For example: Marble Blast Ultra made >16x the dev costs, and stayed in the top-10 arcade games for over a year. It ended up netting several million dollars more than a "AAA game" (most don't even earn back their advances), but would not be assigned any number of A's.
12/20/2009 (9:14 pm)
It's basically a "flag" term in a conversation to let you know you can mentally check-out. If someone starts talking about "AAA", just start smiling and nodding, because they have nothing to say (they may have a checkbook though, so this is why you should smile and nod instead of flipping them off).The number of A's "AAA" or "AA" (Never heard 'A' used, but AAA and AA, yes) usually indicates the budget used to make the game. It has no implications about quality, or profitability. For example: Marble Blast Ultra made >16x the dev costs, and stayed in the top-10 arcade games for over a year. It ended up netting several million dollars more than a "AAA game" (most don't even earn back their advances), but would not be assigned any number of A's.
#7
12/20/2009 (9:56 pm)
@Pat - MBG still sells like crazy our web store. What it pulls in is actually surprising and crazy at the same time. Lasting power...it's a powerful thing. 
#8
I was reading an article the other day about how the big publishers were putting considerable pressure on the developers based on the meta critic rating of the games the created.
12/21/2009 (2:58 pm)
The AAA rating is an unfair label people use, and it really has no real use. People use it to seperate a commercial big money project from a smaller budget one, not based on how many people bought and played it, and how many people like it.I was reading an article the other day about how the big publishers were putting considerable pressure on the developers based on the meta critic rating of the games the created.
#9
ie borderlands is a good game but not AAA, it's use of visual tech isn't that impressive. the cel shader is but they lack facial animation and other things considered basic by todays standards.
mass effect however is AAA, best facial animation i've seen, efective music score, new gameplay elements, thoroughly developed back story etc.
both are made using unreal3, heck borderlands is made using the later version of u3.
that is how the quality rating of the game design itself works for me, like or hate the games themselves, mass effect is a better designed game than borderlands. had gearbox not gone down the cel shaded route i doubt the game would have mustered the reception it has.
which is why mass effect and financing it's sequel is a better investment than borderlands.
and i like both games for the record. it was just a good example scenario for similar genre's using the same engine. to achieve very different results
12/21/2009 (3:46 pm)
i've always associated AAA with level of technology and polish. most current graphics tech, high qulaity sound, effective AI. etcie borderlands is a good game but not AAA, it's use of visual tech isn't that impressive. the cel shader is but they lack facial animation and other things considered basic by todays standards.
mass effect however is AAA, best facial animation i've seen, efective music score, new gameplay elements, thoroughly developed back story etc.
both are made using unreal3, heck borderlands is made using the later version of u3.
that is how the quality rating of the game design itself works for me, like or hate the games themselves, mass effect is a better designed game than borderlands. had gearbox not gone down the cel shaded route i doubt the game would have mustered the reception it has.
which is why mass effect and financing it's sequel is a better investment than borderlands.
and i like both games for the record. it was just a good example scenario for similar genre's using the same engine. to achieve very different results
#10
I'm not sure why facial animation is considered a "basic" feature, it would have added nothing to Borderlands, and would have cost the project $50k+ worth of middleware and integration time. I'm also confused why the "visual technology" is not impressive. Cel shading is more technically complex than a simple Lambertian calculation. It's an artistic design choice, not a technical showpiece.
12/21/2009 (4:59 pm)
Borderlands is a AAA game. I'm not sure why facial animation is considered a "basic" feature, it would have added nothing to Borderlands, and would have cost the project $50k+ worth of middleware and integration time. I'm also confused why the "visual technology" is not impressive. Cel shading is more technically complex than a simple Lambertian calculation. It's an artistic design choice, not a technical showpiece.
#11
borderlands lacks the human element, the interactions between story characters and the player is via textboxes. games as far back as deus ex have done far better for immersion in rpg's than text boxes. case in point, morrowind used textboxes AND dialogue options, oblivion progressed to speech. borderlands is an rpg that is behind games from even 5 years ago in most of it's technology. design choice sure, but still trailing the industry trends.
if the next elderscrolls game went back to 2d sprites, using a flash based engine it would crash spectacularly. no-one would be calling that AAA. no matter the budget, "design choices" man hours or fun. at the end of the day it would be a technological jump backwards and the fanbase wouldn't respond. and the fanbase is in the millions.
borderlands is my favourite game of this year but it is by no means a AAA release.
the same comparison can be made between unreal tournie 3 and gears of war. gears of war is a better game. better story, better art. it's not a case of which game is more fun. it's not a case of which game costs more.
it's just which is a better quality production. torque is more than capable of making AAA titles but it'll take more than a small indie team to do it.
12/21/2009 (6:02 pm)
from a design point of view mass effect is leagues ahead of borderlands. same genre (action rpg) but one features a deeply developed sci fi universe, thousands of lines of spoken dialogue, interactive dialogue tree, character developement. mass effect is a higher quality production. anything you care to point out was better developed in mass effect. borderlands lacks the human element, the interactions between story characters and the player is via textboxes. games as far back as deus ex have done far better for immersion in rpg's than text boxes. case in point, morrowind used textboxes AND dialogue options, oblivion progressed to speech. borderlands is an rpg that is behind games from even 5 years ago in most of it's technology. design choice sure, but still trailing the industry trends.
if the next elderscrolls game went back to 2d sprites, using a flash based engine it would crash spectacularly. no-one would be calling that AAA. no matter the budget, "design choices" man hours or fun. at the end of the day it would be a technological jump backwards and the fanbase wouldn't respond. and the fanbase is in the millions.
borderlands is my favourite game of this year but it is by no means a AAA release.
the same comparison can be made between unreal tournie 3 and gears of war. gears of war is a better game. better story, better art. it's not a case of which game is more fun. it's not a case of which game costs more.
it's just which is a better quality production. torque is more than capable of making AAA titles but it'll take more than a small indie team to do it.
#12
12/21/2009 (6:43 pm)
Yeah and along those same lines...which countries are second world? Raise your hand if you live in a second world country! I'd like to know where they are! We always hear about 3rd world countries but never those second world ones.
#13
12/21/2009 (7:21 pm)
Quote:Again, Scott, you are wrong. It is, in fact, 100% a case of which game costs more to make. That is all AAA means. It has no implications about quality, bugs, style, or success. Both UT3 and Gears are AAA; both Borderlands and Mass Effect are AAA. Too Human was AAA, and so was the latest Mario game.
the same comparison can be made between unreal tournie 3 and gears of war. gears of war is a better game. better story, better art. it's not a case of which game is more fun. it's not a case of which game costs more.
#14
keeping in mind it's the Publisher's press releases where most of the claims of AAA even come from. so every big budget game that ships comes with the requisite AAA claim.
but 5 years on no-one cares. games like crysis still get talked about. games like prey are forgetten
12/22/2009 (5:21 am)
i'm not going to continue with this as as you have your preconceptions and i have mine. but at the end of the day all the games i have mentioned i play frequently. from a general level of polish and quality, "flagship"style titles like mass effect and gears of war, are in a different level of quality. it's those games i would say are AAA. keeping in mind it's the Publisher's press releases where most of the claims of AAA even come from. so every big budget game that ships comes with the requisite AAA claim.
but 5 years on no-one cares. games like crysis still get talked about. games like prey are forgetten
#15
I think that's the point. The industry makes the claim of AAA for every big budget title, thus making the de facto standard a matter of budget. It's not right- there's much better things to judge a game on, but it's what they do.
Sort of like how their marketing equates graphical quality with gameplay quality...
12/22/2009 (10:18 am)
Quote:every big budget game that ships comes with the requisite AAA claim
I think that's the point. The industry makes the claim of AAA for every big budget title, thus making the de facto standard a matter of budget. It's not right- there's much better things to judge a game on, but it's what they do.
Sort of like how their marketing equates graphical quality with gameplay quality...
#16
- Of course I could be wrong about this but it just so happens that my NY'er-cynic side is correct sometimes. Sometimes. ;)
#Important:
I don't see why some of us don't have a mailing-list/OR/site-based discussion over a few months and create a system of grading. Sure it may sound frivolous at first but if put together professionally, then I am sure it could get some well-rounded attention and perhaps be instituted in the years to come. Thoughts on this ?
- I know that I would be ready to contemplate/discuss concepts of game grades especially for the future of the gaming industry. Not sure if anyone has ever thought about doing just that.. but this "AAA" nonsense has been a thorn in the side of the industry, IMO. Of course, those of you with the abhorrence for research need not apply.
- Thoughts on this ?
12/22/2009 (3:02 pm)
heh. I am almost sure that a marketing jerk-face created the term "AAA"..because WE ALL KNOW that if a developer created the term, there would have been a definition and guidelines to that specific "grading?" system. - Of course I could be wrong about this but it just so happens that my NY'er-cynic side is correct sometimes. Sometimes. ;)
#Important:
I don't see why some of us don't have a mailing-list/OR/site-based discussion over a few months and create a system of grading. Sure it may sound frivolous at first but if put together professionally, then I am sure it could get some well-rounded attention and perhaps be instituted in the years to come. Thoughts on this ?
- I know that I would be ready to contemplate/discuss concepts of game grades especially for the future of the gaming industry. Not sure if anyone has ever thought about doing just that.. but this "AAA" nonsense has been a thorn in the side of the industry, IMO. Of course, those of you with the abhorrence for research need not apply.
- Thoughts on this ?
#17
I think it's a good idea. Gaining traction with it will be a whole other animal though...
And eb, NY? Do you make it to the Game Meetups downtown?
12/23/2009 (12:30 am)
Quote:Sure it may sound frivolous at first but if put together professionally, then I am sure it could get some well-rounded attention and perhaps be instituted in the years to come. Thoughts on this ?
I think it's a good idea. Gaining traction with it will be a whole other animal though...
And eb, NY? Do you make it to the Game Meetups downtown?
#18
& I'm upstate. I rarely make it to NYC. Are you referring to the IGDA ?
12/23/2009 (4:34 am)
I agree that traction would be as such, however, I do think the personal/business networking would be worth the effort. & I'm upstate. I rarely make it to NYC. Are you referring to the IGDA ?
#19
I just go by what people I know think of the games, and reviews to some extent. I find anything with an "Ax" type rating usually doesn't appeal to the casual game market (which I prefer).
12/23/2009 (7:47 am)
I think of "AAA" as big budget games made with the top commercial 3D engines. Subjective, I know - especially since I'm not really fond of that type of game anyway. "AA" games are the "cheaper" games that are based on a movie and released at the same time (basically, every kiddie movie that comes out), although some are pretty good.I just go by what people I know think of the games, and reviews to some extent. I find anything with an "Ax" type rating usually doesn't appeal to the casual game market (which I prefer).
#20
One tactic would be to have it posted on LinkedIn from several people involved in the effort, in order to net as much varied industry interest as possible.
Them, and there is a meetup group that hits a bar on Orchard Street every month for demos and drinking.
12/23/2009 (10:18 am)
Quote:I agree that traction would be as such, however, I do think the personal/business networking would be worth the effort.
One tactic would be to have it posted on LinkedIn from several people involved in the effort, in order to net as much varied industry interest as possible.
Quote:Are you referring to the IGDA ?
Them, and there is a meetup group that hits a bar on Orchard Street every month for demos and drinking.
Employee Michael Perry
ZombieShortbus
"We're going to make a AAA game." I think that is anticipating positive reviews, because AAA seems like a great grade (A+, B, C-, F). To me, AAA is applied to big budget games with amazing artwork. Quality quality quality.
It's easy to get caught up in the AAA hype, since I'm currently in it =). At the end of the day, though, I just want to know that the game was fun. Many people saying "This is an incredibly fun game."
As far as the tiers go, this is where I get confused. Everyone knows about AAA. AA and "sub-AAA" are pretty recent terms I haven't nailed down. Never heard just "A". The applications escape me:
AAA - Amazing, high quality game that is hugely successful and receiving accolades.
AA - Really fun game, but not memorable?
A - A finished game that doesn't suck?
Notice I was able to leave budget and team size out of the grading?