Ben-DutkaWhat is a "AAA game?" Well, according to Just Cause developer Avalanche Studios, it's more about overall quality rather than the amount of resources dedicated to a particular project.
And while many are saying that big-budget games are in danger of disappearing, Avalanche director Stefan Ljunqvist told Gamasutra that while there may be fewer big-budget titles, that's maybe not a bad thing:
"I don't think big-budget games are going away. There's going to be less of them. But that's a good thing, because maybe we don't need 40 first-person shooters. I don't want to play them all [laughs], but maybe we need one, two or three."
Ljunqvist went on to say that he sees the "AAA" label as a stamp of quality, and they "don't have to hire more people or have bigger teams" in order to simply create better games. He admits that as a publisher, "AAA" is viewed as a big-budget project with huge risks, but that's not how Avalanche sees it. The team is working on Just Cause 3 (there's plenty of evidence to support that idea), and if that's going to be considered a "AAA" game, it had best be darn good. That's their definition, so…
I disagree.
Gaming can have dozens of FPS if they are all GOOD.
I disagree. In fact, I think this is part of the problem with the industry nowadays: Too many GOOD games to play.
They're not all necessarily -great-, but I think the average quality of titles have gone up over the years, to the point where it's hard to tell at a glance what's crap and what's something you'll like. When games aren't cheap (actually the cheapest they've ever been, but that's another story) and you have too many choices, it can result in a type of paralysis where you can't buy or play everything you want, so you stick with the few titles/series you know.
After all, even if you can afford to buy every game you want to play, odds are you won't have time to actually play them all. Sure, some players will just buy and keep a backlog, but after a while, you have to reach a point where you say "I want to play that, but I'm not going to buy it now because I have 15 other games that I'm not playing that I need to get to first". When enough players reach that stage, the entire game industry will be in trouble, if it isn't already.
I loved Just Cause 2, it was silly and ridiculous but outright one of the most fun games of this generation. Can't wait for this one.
I'm actually replaying this game on my PC these days, I got it for three euro on Steam. And it's better than I remembered it to be! Not to mention it looks a *lot* better than I remembered it.
It's a great game indeed.
I've thought about buying it on steam even though I have the ps3 version, it would have better graphics and it's so cheap now, why not right?
defiantly should get it on PC, the graphics are so much better and theres oh my god so many mods for it!
theres a few trainers too allowing you to unlock things like unlimited ammo, unlimited health, give all weapons, ect, ect.
even mods for the grapple hook, things that extend its range, or even give you 3 so you can hook on to 3 things at once.
What the gaming industry needs is VARIETY of AAA titles, not just a better shooter. Having 40 games involving blowing people's heads off, a few sports games, and maybe 2 where you do anything non-violent does not make for a healthy artistic medium. Shooting people with X weapon is the easiest and most uncreative type of game you can possibly make, like a prat-fall, pie-in-face type of film. Gaming needs to outgrow its infancy, and right now there is a gaping Grand Canyon-sized gulf between the explosion-laden AAA industry and small hyper-art indie games. That gulf needs to be filled.
Last edited by ProfPlayStation on 4/4/2013 12:53:42 PM
You don't need 40 FPS but 1 or 2 quality ones is great. Same with third person shooters, alot of them play very much alike. This is where JC2 was different.
Just Cause 2 is just soo much fun. The story was lame but the sheer amount of stuff to do is awesome. Can't wait for Just Cause 3.
FPS is all i play, but i do take breaks when ND drops a new Uncharted.
see, and that was the problem with JC2.
one of the funnest games out there, but it was spoilled a bit because of its cheap feel and cheesieness.
best way to put it is like a B grade movie.
allot of them can be really good, but they disappoint and feel they could of been so much better if they had a bigger budget.
JC2 was the same, it was the funnest game ive played in years!
but if it had a bigger budget, better polished, less cheesy and repetitive, then that would of made it just that little bit better!
wrong, AAA does not mean quality.
it means big budget AND quality!
JC2 is not a AAA game, simply because it feels like it was built on a budget.
thats not AAA, for a game to be AAA it needs to feel like there was no budget, money was no object the developers were flying free!
bioshock infinite, tomb raider, now there AAA games!
both lots of fun, yes repetitive, but still fun.
and oozing big budgets!
kingdom of amalour reckoning another perfect example.
a really fun game, but it feels like it was made by a bunch of school kids for a extra curricular activity!
NOT by a bunch of professional game developers with decades of experience and a budget the game deserves and demands!
exactly why im amazed and dumbfounded by the legal issues there having, going bankrupt when they were given all this money.
the game certainly does not feel like a high budget game, but apparently it was VERY expensive!
so where did all the money go?
40 FPSs? No, thank you.
40 JRPGs? Yes, please!