Author Topic: Looks like Capcom still hates money. (Read 80137 times)

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #250 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:33:39 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
On the issue of Zelda difficulty, I agree with alot of what segagamer12 said. If the people that complain about Twilight Princess would go back and replay the older ones they'd see that the older Zelda's were just as easy and some even easier. The only reason Twilight Princess seems easier to alot of people is because they've already mastered playing 3d Zelda's so of course Twilight Princess is going to be easy since you know how things work and what to do.

Bull. I've played OOT after Wind Waker and still found it MUCH more difficult. TP is much easier than OOT.

Let's see I beat OOT in about 20 hrs give or take a couple of hours, and I am close to the end of TP (I am saving the last two dungeons) and am on track to beat it in less than 40 hrs. From what I can remember I died rarely in OOT besides the Twin Rova boss, and Ganon. Besides those two bosses there was rarely much fear of dieing. In regards to TP bosses, I have a died a couple of times (I forget which ones), but on the flip side I've enjoyed more of the boss battles in TP. Probably my favorite boss fights in OOT were limited to Dodongo, Phantom Ganon and Ganon. In TP so far the only boss I didn't care much for was the boss of the forest temple, the rest I loved (especially the skull boss and the eel).

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #251 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:34:55 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
This whole AAA label is ridiculous. End of story.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

I know what you mean, I honestly don't know anymore what game would be AAA if TP isn't.

segagamer12 · « **Reply #252 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:43:01 AM »

I think it all started with Pros post saying TP was too easy or something.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #253 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:45:03 AM »

Quote
Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.

That is what started it, talking about Killer 7.

segagamer12 · « **Reply #254 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:50:08 AM »

thats right, I forgot Killer 7 was Capcom.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #255 on:** February 20, 2007, 06:07:31 PM »

"and I am close to the end of TP"

HOLD THE EFF UP.

You haven't beaten it?

Don't come back until you have.

Your NWR priviledges have been revoked. Get the blue form to the right to re-apply.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #256 on:** February 21, 2007, 06:05:10 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix I know what you mean, I honestly don't know anymore what game would be AAA if TP isn't.

For me, Mario 64 was AAA for two primary reasons:

1. It completely reinvented the genre.

2. It was an EXCELLENT, fun and enduring game.

OoT gets those props as well, but every Zelda after that is basically building on the same formula as OoT and the amount of innovation in each title is reduced each time.

I give AAA to RE4 because the game reinvented 3rd person shooters and was likewise an insanely good game with tons of excellent gameplay ideas, and even some classic clichés redone into the RE4 world, like the "elevator ride while enemies jump on" and "mine cart ride while enemies jump on" clichés, which were awesome.

TP was an EXCELLENT game, but I blew through it, puzzles and bosses alike, largely because it was the same formula which I've seen in all previous Zelda games, and it's a SOLID formula, just not one which can wow and re-wow me every time another game is released.

It's like I said, the NEXT Zelda game on the Wii will very likely hold AAA status in my book because I expect it to completely reinvent the franchise, just like OoT, Mario 64 and RE4 did.

Furthermore, I'm not asking you to share my opinion on the subject, but in my mind, a AAA title should include a fair amount of innovation if not a complete reinvention of the franchise or genre which works so insanely well that you can't help but love it.

As I said previously, it's an impossible argument to make because we all have different ideas of what "AAA" denotes. It's fundamentally wrong to ask anyone to adhere to my opinion on the subject.

hudsonhawk · « **Reply #257 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:18:57 AM »

Frankly though, SB, your definition of "AAA Title" is waaaaaaay more restrictive than anyone else's. You seem to have decided that means "Timeless classic", whereas most everyone else thinks it means "a blockbuster game" or "a game of high production values that will sell systems". It's an impossible argument because it becomes one of semantics, since you're defining it so differently than, well, anyone who I've ever seen use that term.

“My personal definition of a AAA title is driven by these factors even if I don’t want it to be. It’s the equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster, basically–and much as we would like to think that it means a great game, it doesn’t necessarily mean that.” -Ralph Koster

segagamer12 · « **Reply #258 on:** February 22, 2007, 07:12:59 AM »

Sonic Adventure was AAA game.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #259 on:** February 22, 2007, 07:46:58 AM »

AAA design goal, B result.

Ages · « **Reply #260 on:** February 22, 2007, 07:49:16 AM »

C+ result

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #261 on:** February 22, 2007, 08:15:43 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
Frankly though, SB, your definition of "AAA Title" is waaaaaaay more restrictive than anyone else's.

Excellent. I would like nothing more than to be known as the toughest critic when it comes to these kinds of things.

Furthermore, if I start doling AAA ratings out to games like Madden, then I need to start using the AAAA rating for games like RE4 and OoT.

For me, AAA is TOP OF THE LADDER, the best of the best, no ranking above, period.

I ain't gonna hand that rating out to a game because it sold copies or lots of people liked it: I hand it out to games which change the way I see gaming and what gaming can do to my mind.

NWR_pap64 · « **Reply #262 on:** February 22, 2007, 08:23:57 AM »

Restrictive? It's confusing as hell!

Let me see if I understand what SB is trying to say.

The triple A rating is give to games that:
- Reinvent gaming or the franchise in general
- Is excellently designed
- Is very polished in nearly every area

So for example...GTA III, in theory, is a triple A title since it was the first of its kind back in the day and it was good, while Vice City and San Andreas are mainly extensions of that...

I'm still confused...What confuses me is what if the game is excellently designed and presented, but has a few problems. Would it still be considered triple A?

hudsonhawk · « **Reply #263 on:** February 22, 2007, 08:38:51 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

For me, AAA is TOP OF THE LADDER, the best of the best, no ranking above, period.

I ain't gonna hand that rating out to a game because it sold copies or lots of people liked it: I hand it out to games which change the way I see gaming and what gaming can do to my mind.

You're missing the point. AAA is an industry term for a high-budget game with lots of marketing muscle. It's not necessarily a statement of quality, although games with those quality have a tendency to be high quality. In fact in some circles each A correlates to how many millions of copies of that game they expect to sell. B games sell under a million, A games a million, AA games 2 million, and so on.

There's a term for what you're describing, and it isn't "AAA Game". It's "a great game" or "a timeless classic".

In closing, here is a short play to illustrate what you're doing.

Some dude: Hey, nice shoes. I really like those.
Some other dude: Thanks, I got them at Foot Lo-
Smash_Brother: What!?! Dude, those aren't even shoes!
Some other dude: Huh? They go on my feet, and I tie them, and -
Smash_Brother: No, no, no. See, to me, shoes are those things with four wheels that people drive around in. And those, sir, are not shoes!
Some dude: You mean... a car?
Smash_Brother: No, a shoe.

THE END

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #264 on:** February 22, 2007, 08:40:56 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Restrictive? It's confusing as hell!

Let me see if I understand what SB is trying to say.

The triple A rating is give to games that:
- Reinvent gaming or the franchise in general
- Is excellently designed
- Is very polished in nearly every area

So for example...GTA III, in theory, is a triple A title since it was the first of its kind back in the day and it was good, while Vice City and San Andreas are mainly extensions of that...

I'm still confused...What confuses me is what if the game is excellently designed and presented, but has a few problems. Would it still be considered triple A?

I still would consider TP one of the top games of all times, the only thing it didn't do was completely reinvent the Zelda series (which I do NOT want to see). Not sure I would include Resident Evil 4 though by your definition Smash, it kind of built off the more arcadey nature of RE3, and really was not the most innovative game around either.

NWR_pap64 · « **Reply #265 on:** February 22, 2007, 08:57:47 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Restrictive? It's confusing as hell!

Let me see if I understand what SB is trying to say.

The triple A rating is give to games that:
- Reinvent gaming or the franchise in general
- Is excellently designed
- Is very polished in nearly every area

So for example...GTA III, in theory, is a triple A title since it was the first of its kind back in the day and it was good, while Vice City and San Andreas are mainly extensions of that...

I'm still confused...What confuses me is what if the game is excellently designed and presented, but has a few problems. Would it still be considered triple A?

I still would consider TP one of the top games of all times, the only thing it didn't do was completely reinvent the Zelda series (which I do NOT want to see). Not sure I would include Resident Evil 4 though by your definition Smash, it kind of built off the more arcadey nature of RE3, and really was not the most innovative game around either.

To him, I think, RE 4 re-invented the franchise since...
- It fixed the clunky controls from the earlier games
- Used the GC's graphical powers to its maximum potential
- It was cinematic without sacrificing gameplay
- It was challenging and even nerve wrecking at times
- It was a brand new perspective on the RE universe

In short, RE 4 did many, MANY things right and to SB, that's triple AAA right there.

vudu · « **Reply #266 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:07:43 AM »

RE4 is AAA.

Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Metroid are not.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #267 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:07:57 AM »

It's subjective. It's ALL subjective.

A game which is AAA to one person may not even be considered decent by another.

Let's just leave it at that and allow it to die, please. This discussion could go on until the end of time and nothing would change or be accomplished.

It is not possible to argue opinion. It just does NOT work.

hudsonhawk · « **Reply #268 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:14:38 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It's subjective. It's ALL subjective.

A game which is AAA to one person may not even be considered decent by another.

Let's just leave it at that and allow it to die, please.

But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.

You're coopting a term used to describe one thing and using it to describe another.

NWR_pap64 · « **Reply #269 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:14:49 AM »

...Now you did it guys. S_B's all upset. Hope you are happy!

*Goes off to console S_B

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #270 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:22:14 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk

But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.

According to who, and more importantly, why should I care?

This is what I consider the term "AAA" to mean. It is, simply, the "highest possible rating". In DDR, AAA is the highest rating one can receive on a song (without using the marvelous step).

That's all it is, and I don't know what else I can say to convince you that what OTHER PEOPLE define as "AAA" has absolutely no bearing on what I define as "AAA". I run a podcast and its entire focus is trying to get people to wake up and realize that "adhering to popular standards" is the worst possible way to live your life because decisions like the ones people routinely allow popular standards to make for them are too important to not be making themselves.

This is what "AAA" means in my book, and someone doesn't like that, they're just going to have to learn to DEAL with the fact that not everyone sees the world the same way they do.

vudu · « **Reply #271 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:30:38 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk

But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.

According to who, and more importantly, why should I care?

According to Wikipedia.

Quote
The term AAA is sometimes used to refer to a video game reviewer's score of 9 through 9.9.

oohhboy · « **Reply #272 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:32:38 AM »

So what happens when you 10? Is it like a speed of light thing?

NWR_pap64 · « **Reply #273 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:33:02 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk

But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.

According to who, and more importantly, why should I care?
According to Wikipedia.
Quote
The term AAA is sometimes used to refer to a video game reviewer's score of 9 through 9.9.

The keyword being SOMETIMES.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #274 on:** February 22, 2007, 09:35:17 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu The term AAA is sometimes used to refer to a video game reviewer's score of 9 through 9.9.

So Wiki doesn't define it as "a game with a big budget, high sales, etc.". Wiki defines it "a game which people give high reviews."

Imagine that: I'm not the only entity who feels the term is subjective.

Not that I truly care, but since you, Hudson, seem hellbent upon bending others to the "definition" of AAA, you should probably note that Wiki's definition is far closer to mine than your own.

Out of curiosity, where did you get the "high budget, high sales, etc." definition for the term, anyway?

News:

Author Topic: Looks like Capcom still hates money. (Read 80137 times)