Look at WoW and Maplestory Top P2P and Top F2P both have dated graphics but what makes people stay is the gameplay... the features... gaming companies should stop spending so much money on this new gfx engine and that and actually think about the game they are creating and what it does diffrent/better.
Originally posted by Trionicus The smart people's already said it. AAA just means big money, a side effect is that the budget allows for better everything including graphics.
Yeah, it's not even the studio that's doing it...
... if Blizzard makes a flash game, it's not an AAA flash game, it's just a damn flash game (Unless they sink a couple million into it, I guess... best flash game ever?). :P
AAA is the budget, that's always been what that terminology is referring to.
Creativity and not following the flow, but creating a trend, is where the secret lies. Also, this can be put in the graphic category too. I mean, Derp is getting way better for some people to read than marvel comics.
Originally posted by Trionicus The smart people's already said it. AAA just means big money, a side effect is that the budget allows for better everything including graphics.
From my experience it usually means better graphics, worse eveything else.
How about a design team that thinks outside the box and is not interested in making another WoW clone and a publisher willing to not plau it safe with yet another fail WoW clone.
WoW, we are on a roll with the Captain Obvious stuff.
Though, a 'good game' is a bit more relative than 'AAA'. I'd say, most AAA games are good games. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean that they aren't good games. I'm not about to quanitfy what a 'good game' is though, I really don't care enough.
AAA just means they spent ALOT of money on it. As we've all seen over the last several years that doesn't mean a quality game. Big budgets mean alot of pressure for the devs and alot of outside forces making demands on time spent in development which usually means games rushed to launch.
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
I thought the only real component to an AAA game was budget. That it's just a reference to the scale of the project, really. Even if they choose to spend very little on graphics, it can still be an AAA game, for the millions of dollars poured into some other aspect?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I thought the only real component to an AAA game was budget. That it's just a reference to the scale of the project, really. Even if they choose to spend very little on graphics, it can still be an AAA game, for the millions of dollars poured into some other aspect?
That's what I thought. AAA games are defined by budget.
But I do think that graphics (details, world, animations, art, rendering etc) is the most expensive factor in developement...well unless you hire 700 actors to do voice overs.
That's what I thought. AAA games are defined by budget.
But I do think that graphics (details, world, animations, art, rendering etc) is the most expensive factor in developement...well unless you hire 700 actors to do voice overs.
..but who in their right mind would do that, I know
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
WoW, we are on a roll with the Captain Obvious stuff.
Though, a 'good game' is a bit more relative than 'AAA'. I'd say, most AAA games are good games. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean that they aren't good games. I'm not about to quanitfy what a 'good game' is though, I really don't care enough.
I gotta agree with your thinking here.
Who am I to say a EVE is a bad game? I dont enjoy that type of game, but it is obvious a number of folks do. Same thing with a CoD, or a pure fighter like a Marvel vs Capcom.....again "thats not my bag baby yeah".
I think when a game hits a certain threshold you gotta respect they have done something right for customers into that type of thing. A MMO doing less than 300k for 6 months for a AAA title.....I would call that junk. Well at least for public perception, as those into it know better what they are looking for.
Then again, when so many dont deem to play, despite the company having spent AAA money, someone obviously screwed up. Games like EQ2, or LoTRO I would call quality.....both carried 300k + for many months. A SWG, WAR, or STO, I would call junk. AAA titles that didnt have the numbers to show that they were good. They sold good, yet hit rock bottom in no time.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Not sure I agree. It's possible for games with bad graphics to do well, but if you go look at most games that do really well, I think we would find that they tend to have "above average graphics". Just my thought.
Comments
/disagree
Yeah, it's not even the studio that's doing it...
... if Blizzard makes a flash game, it's not an AAA flash game, it's just a damn flash game (Unless they sink a couple million into it, I guess... best flash game ever?). :P
AAA is the budget, that's always been what that terminology is referring to.
Creativity and not following the flow, but creating a trend, is where the secret lies. Also, this can be put in the graphic category too. I mean, Derp is getting way better for some people to read than marvel comics.
One title - league of legends:)
From my experience it usually means better graphics, worse eveything else.
How about a design team that thinks outside the box and is not interested in making another WoW clone and a publisher willing to not plau it safe with yet another fail WoW clone.
FAIL...all EU accounts getting hacked today. Check out the PC gaming sites for the article.
So it means that Valve, Sony, Bioware or Codemasters fail too, right? And I am really sorry but I think its off-topic
WoW, we are on a roll with the Captain Obvious stuff.
Though, a 'good game' is a bit more relative than 'AAA'. I'd say, most AAA games are good games. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean that they aren't good games. I'm not about to quanitfy what a 'good game' is though, I really don't care enough.
AAA just means they spent ALOT of money on it. As we've all seen over the last several years that doesn't mean a quality game. Big budgets mean alot of pressure for the devs and alot of outside forces making demands on time spent in development which usually means games rushed to launch.
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson
I thought the only real component to an AAA game was budget. That it's just a reference to the scale of the project, really. Even if they choose to spend very little on graphics, it can still be an AAA game, for the millions of dollars poured into some other aspect?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
That's what I thought. AAA games are defined by budget.
But I do think that graphics (details, world, animations, art, rendering etc) is the most expensive factor in developement...well unless you hire 700 actors to do voice overs.
..but who in their right mind would do that, I know
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I gotta agree with your thinking here.
Who am I to say a EVE is a bad game? I dont enjoy that type of game, but it is obvious a number of folks do. Same thing with a CoD, or a pure fighter like a Marvel vs Capcom.....again "thats not my bag baby yeah".
I think when a game hits a certain threshold you gotta respect they have done something right for customers into that type of thing. A MMO doing less than 300k for 6 months for a AAA title.....I would call that junk. Well at least for public perception, as those into it know better what they are looking for.
Then again, when so many dont deem to play, despite the company having spent AAA money, someone obviously screwed up. Games like EQ2, or LoTRO I would call quality.....both carried 300k + for many months. A SWG, WAR, or STO, I would call junk. AAA titles that didnt have the numbers to show that they were good. They sold good, yet hit rock bottom in no time.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Not sure I agree. It's possible for games with bad graphics to do well, but if you go look at most games that do really well, I think we would find that they tend to have "above average graphics". Just my thought.