• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

In the traditional sense, is Nintendo really "AAA"?

Jubenhimer

Member
Of the major game publishers in the market today, Nintendo especially in recent years, has always been the biggest anomaly, even compared to the likes of Sony or Microsoft. In 2006, they shocked the console market by eschewing competitive next gen HD specs, in favor of an enhanced GameCube with motion controls known as the Wii. Even today, Nintendo distances itself from competitive console hardware, in favor of simpler, cheaper specs with a unique concept that can be sold for profit, while still being affordable.

This is a philosophy that extends to even their software, which is where Nintendo really sticks out. Nintendo's AAA is generally nothing like the AAA games of most other major publishers. While most AAA studios are focused on Open-world titles or multi-year GaaS multiplayer games, Nintendo primarily makes smaller scale titles like 2D platformers and Kart racers. Their games generally don't push the limits of their hardware, featuring relatively simple textures and modest resolutions. And instead of massive online communities, Nintendo instead chooses to focus on classical local play, with a big selling point of its Switch platform, being that you can split the controller up to play with a friend.

The closest thing to a modern AAA game Nintendo has made recently is The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. It has the polish and simplicity you expect from Nintendo, but with the ambition and scale that could rival the likes of most conventional modern open world titles. However, BotW is an exception to the rule for Nintendo generally.

Nintendo, even moreso now than ever, is much closer IMO to a high quality mid-tier developer than a conventional AAA publisher. That's not necessarily a bad thing however. A lower threshold for AAA standard can mean a larger line of games, and more unique titles vs the rest of your contemporaries, while still maintaining quality. This is honsetly the secret to how Nintendo puts out so many games each year.

Nintendo is a stubborn company who, more often than not, sticks to their guns, sometimes more than they should. But I've always respected that about them. They make it very clear that they don't try to be like Sony or Microsoft, or any other major publisher. They know their place in the industry, and are happy to keep sticking to that, instead of trying to directly compete in an area where they likely wouldn't stand a chance.
 

Vawn

Banned
Traditionally speaking, yes.
Technically speaking, yes.
Historically speaking, yes.

What's next? Will some yahoo try saying Resident Evil 2 Remake isn't AAA?
 

Maguro

Member
What is even the purpose of asking that? AAA doesn't stand for quality in any way. Quite the opposite. Someone whos ever seen a Jim sterling video knows how shady and bad the AAA market is. Putting a lot of money into the marketing and microtransactions doesn't make a good game.
 
Last edited:

Gavin Stevens

Formerly 'o'dium'
A game being AAA or not has no bearing on its quality.

Indeed. But I hate all this talk about Nintendo not being able to compete or put out good games just because it’s a weaker system. Damn things got more classics under it’s belt than the Xbox in a much shorter space of time. I hardly think they are shit tier like some here suggest.
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Indeed. But I hate all this talk about Nintendo not being able to compete or put out good games just because it’s a weaker system. Damn things got more classics under it’s belt than the Xbox in a much shorter space of time. I hardly think they are shit tier like some here suggest.

Nobody said, Nintendo didn't make great games. But it's clear they take a very different approach vs. the rest of the mainstream AAA industry.
 

shark sandwich

tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
Definitely not AAA.

If, say, Anthem had the same graphical fidelity and production values as Zelda: Breath of the Wild, it would’ve been a huge laughing stock.

Nintendo makes some kickass games but certainly in terms of production values and budget they are not AAA
 
Nobody said, Nintendo didn't make great games. But it's clear they take a very different approach vs. the rest of the mainstream AAA industry.
They have absolutely made many top tier AAA games. Most of their series only have one entry per console, with many having 5+ years of development time. They just don't invest all of their effort into spectacle and graphics only. They also spend a ton of that time on polishing level design, and gameplay.

People don't hesitate to call a game AAA despite it having tons of jenk, shit animations, barely functional menus, extensive bugs and glitches, underdeveloped content padded away for DLC, and generally subpar gameplay as long as it has impressive graphics. Well Nintendo rarely does that. They have virtually zero bugs and everything is thought through and polished.

In addition to that, they do make lots of heavily impressive games in terms of scope as well. BotW has virtually no major bugs and it's absolutely huge, with tons of impressive tech underneath the hood, interconnected world systems, and a ton of physics implementation (and it's a portable game!). Xenoblade X is 5x the size of Fallout 4 (let that sink in), and it has zero load times unless you fast travel, and it was on the Wii U running on 2 screens!

Also, most of their games avoid large day 1 patches, and are some of the most extensively QA tested and polished games to be released from any publisher. And they hit top tier quality in virtually every genre out there, including many genres that most AAA publishers don't even make anymore! Some people now literally only think that open world games can be AAA now, because most other developers are so incredibly homogenized and release almost the exact same kinds of games, over and over and over again.

All that said, not every single game Nintendo makes is AAA and that is actually one of their strengths. Kirby games are usually a comfortable mid-tier that also has excessive polish and quality; the type of game that can be made and sell 1 million units and be highly profitable for them. More than Sony or MS, they also have a robust mid-tier games list which also encourages them to be experimental and fun with weird niche series like Rhythm Heaven, Elite Beat Agents, WarioWare, Sushi Striker, and lots of other experimental games. It's the best of both worlds. Sony would do well to have a few quirky mid-tier games sprinkled in among all the last of us clones. More experimental stuff like Gravity Rush, Puppeteer and more.
 
Last edited:

Mr Hyde

Member
I think Nintendos strategy of not going toe to toe with Sony and MS in the tech race is gonna pay off in the long run. Scaling down instead of scaling up will result in Nintendo earning more cash on their hardware and software, and since their IPs sells in such ridiculous numbers the money flow must be like the river Nile. You hear doomsday scenarios about the AAA-industry and it´s growing costs, with studios and devs walking the tightrope for fear of shutting down. Nintendo can just sit comfortably and watch the whole fucking industry burn down while they are trotting along at the sidewalk, still pumping out quality games for their audience, with their own hardware created by their own rules.

Nintendo has found an admirable niche with their first party titles, in that they don´t require hyper realistic graphics to look great. Instead they create visually striking artstyles that look fresh and beautiful in this modern day and age, while it also ages like fine wine. Top that off with superior gameplay and their output stands the test of time more than any other games in history. A game from Nintendo is as good as it was in the 80s as it is now. That is fucking incredible. And they do it without having the latest tech at disposal.

I myself has also somewhat bowed out of the tech race. New generations is not that exciting anymore. Nintendo doesn´t care about generational leaps and frankly me neither. It´s just a pointless race between Sony and MS nowadays, two companies that are doing almost the same thing. Outstanding graphics today is not a big seller for me anymore like it was 10 or 20 years ago. Games look so good today anyways. Instead I´m going backwards, with my radar focused on smaller titles and the AA-space, along with the occasionally big AAA-title twice a year. And that is where Switch is filling out my needs. Nintendo knows this and for that, they are gonna succeed in the long run.
 

Vawn

Banned
Indeed. But I hate all this talk about Nintendo not being able to compete or put out good games just because it’s a weaker system. Damn things got more classics under it’s belt than the Xbox in a much shorter space of time. I hardly think they are shit tier like some here suggest.

Agreed. Nintendo makes games that are both AAA and high quality. They also make Kirby.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Definitely not AAA.

If, say, Anthem had the same graphical fidelity and production values as Zelda: Breath of the Wild, it would’ve been a huge laughing stock.

Nintendo makes some kickass games but certainly in terms of production values and budget they are not AAA
Well your own example shows it is AAA... last Zelda has over $100 million production value and budget.
 

120v

Member
they release AAA games with AA trappings.

it's not a bad thing (for the most part) but they tend to have an insular development process. unlikely you'll ever see their "answer" to stuff like RDR2, asscreed Odyssey, ect
 
Last edited:
You know nothing when you say their games don't push their hardware. Also the whole concept of AAA is just games journalist nonsense / marketing.

No seriously, if you think Pikmin 3, Mk8 or Mario odyssey are anything but highly impressive for their platform please share why.
 

Jubenhimer

Member
No seriously, if you think Pikmin 3, Mk8 or Mario odyssey are anything but highly impressive for their platform please share why.

A lot of what makes those games look good, is down to art direction. If given PS4 Pro level power, you could make these games look even better. But even still, Mario Odyssey, and MK8 still look good, mainly due to the art style and attention to detail as opposed to just raw graphical fidelity.
 

Scopa

The Tribe Has Spoken
No, Nintendo games are AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
I came to say: If anything, Nintendo games are AAAAAAAAAA+. It’s one of the only companies I can buy a game from blind and I know exactly what kind of top quality I will be getting. 100+ years of experience in making games. Trying to compare them to any other games company is futile.
 
I like the story about BOTW, regarding how much money they had blown just experimenting. $40 million before they realized 'oh shit, we better make a game now' and they did. And a further $80 million later it was wonderful.

Nintendo mainline games are huge scope. Typically 5 years of development, 100+ devs, in the $60-$100 million range. If that's not AAA, then nothing is. And all their core resources go toward mechanics and game play systems and VARIETY. So little is wasted on unecessary artists.
 
Last edited:

Scopa

The Tribe Has Spoken
I like the story about BOTW, regarding how much money they had blown just experimenting. $40 million before they realized 'oh shit, we better make a game now' and they did. And a further $80 million later it was wonderful.

Nintendo mainline games are huge scope. Typically 5 years of development, in the $60-$100 million range. If that's not AAA, then nothing is.
According to Wikipedia (lol), AAA is analogous with “blockbuster” movies. Looking at it that way, I’d say the release of a new Zelda/Mario/Pokemon/Metroid/Smash etc is very much a blockbuster release.
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Nintendo mainline games are huge scope. Typically 5 years of development, 100+ devs, in the $60-$100 million range. If that's not AAA, then nothing is. And all their core resources go toward mechanics and game play systems and VARIETY. So little is wasted on unecessary artists.

If you're talking about a big mainline Mario and Zelda, then yeah, that's usually the case. But I'd say those are more the exceptions to the rule for Nintendo. While BotW may have had a lengthy and expensive development process, most of Nintendo's other projects generally do not. Splatoon for example, was conceived and developed in just 20 months, same is likely true for a game like ARMS as well.
 

Fbh

Member
Yes and No.
Games like Smash, Breath of the Wild or Mario Odyssey feel absolutely AAA to me.
Stuff like Splatoon, Arms, what we have seen of Pokemon, Fire Emblem, etc don't IMO.

Doesn't really matter as long as they are fun, though personally I'd love if at least some of them dropped in price at a more comparable rate to the rest of the industry.

I still don't understand any of this AAAAAAA stuff.
I'm not sure if there even is any right definition because no one outside of gaming boards really gives a shit about this, but it's basically:

AAA is a high budget "Blockbuster" type of game: Breath of the Wild, God of War, Red Dead 2, Assassins Creed, etc. Games that cost a lot to make and generally have high sales expectations too
AA is basically mid tier, games you can generally tell had a lower budget: Yakuza, Nier Automata, Tales Of (at least after Vesperia), etc. Since they didn't cost as much they aren't expected to sell multiple millions to be profitable

And most people will refer to everything else as "indie" regardless of it actually being independently made or not
 
Last edited:
A lot of what makes those games look good, is down to art direction. If given PS4 Pro level power, you could make these games look even better. But even still, Mario Odyssey, and MK8 still look good, mainly due to the art style and attention to detail as opposed to just raw graphical fidelity.
You're not a programmer /environment artist and you know nothing. I asked for technical reasons and you gave me none.

For Wii U, pikmin 3 is highly technically impressive. No need to mention ps4 - you said nintendo doesn't push their own hardware.
 
Yes and No.
Games like Smash, Breath of the Wild or Mario Odyssey feel absolutely AAA to me.
Stuff like Splatoon, Arms, what we have seen of Pokemon, Fire Emblem, etc don't IMO.

Doesn't really matter as long as they are fun, though personally I'd love if at least some of them dropped in price at a more comparable rate to the rest of the industry.


I'm not sure if there even is any right definition because no one outside of gaming boards really gives a shit about this, but it's basically:

AAA is a high budget "Blockbuster" type of game: Breath of the Wild, God of War, Red Dead 2, Assassins Creed, etc. Games that cost a lot to make and generally have high sales expectations too
AA is basically mid tier, games you can generally tell had a lower budget: Yakuza, Nier Automata, Tales Of (at least after Vesperia), etc. Since they didn't cost as much they aren't expected to sell multiple millions to be profitable

And most people will refer to everything else as "indie" regardless of it actually being independently made or I don'tnot

I don't like these categories. In no way is Nier automata not more impressive than some jank fest AC odyssey just because it's lower budget. All this A' labelling is pure nonsense
 

Fbh

Member
I don't like these categories. In no way is Nier automata not more impressive than some jank fest AC odyssey just because it's lower budget. All this A' labelling is pure nonsense

At what point did I say anything about more or less impressive?
As a game I liked Nier Automata more than almost everything else this gen. But you are crazy if you think it was anywhere close something like Odyssey in terms of budget.

The Raid has better action scenes than the entire MCU. Doesn't change the fact that Captian Marvel or Age of Ultron cost dozens or probably hundreds of times more to make
 
Last edited:

jadedm17

Member
No other console or library of games has made me feel such child-like joy and wonder as the Switch.

Yes, Nintendo is top tier. Period.
 

TLZ

Member
Yes and No.
Games like Smash, Breath of the Wild or Mario Odyssey feel absolutely AAA to me.
Stuff like Splatoon, Arms, what we have seen of Pokemon, Fire Emblem, etc don't IMO.

Doesn't really matter as long as they are fun, though personally I'd love if at least some of them dropped in price at a more comparable rate to the rest of the industry.


I'm not sure if there even is any right definition because no one outside of gaming boards really gives a shit about this, but it's basically:

AAA is a high budget "Blockbuster" type of game: Breath of the Wild, God of War, Red Dead 2, Assassins Creed, etc. Games that cost a lot to make and generally have high sales expectations too
AA is basically mid tier, games you can generally tell had a lower budget: Yakuza, Nier Automata, Tales Of (at least after Vesperia), etc. Since they didn't cost as much they aren't expected to sell multiple millions to be profitable

And most people will refer to everything else as "indie" regardless of it actually being independently made or not
Thanks. I'll still be confused months later again though 😅

I thought Yakuza was one of the big games. So what's a game like Resident Evil? Actually you know what, this proves that I don't care. All I care about is whether I like it or not. I'll just keep it that way.

Nevertheless, thanks for taking the time to explain. Appreciate it. Next time I see AAAAAAA I'll just think very expensive games. Not that it makes any difference to me, but just so I try get what people are saying.
 
At what point did I say anything about more or less impressive?
As a game I liked Nier Automata more than almost everything else this gen. But you are crazy if you think it was anywhere close something like Odyssey in terms of budget.

The Raid has better action scenes that the entire MCU. Doesn't change the fact that Captian Marvel or Age of Ultron cost dozens or probably hundreds of times more to make
That's my point. If all AAA means is budget who gives a shit? When you can absolutely get better results with less money, in terms of technical composition and polish as well as game design

AAA is nonsense even in terms of referencing budget - At what arbitrary $ amount is something AAA anyways?

I'm sorry but the way this industry markets its products is esp. dumb, compared to other media
 
Last edited:

Shifty

Member
I still don't understand any of this AAAAAAA stuff.
It's the sound you make when the industry insists on making up dumb qualifiers to validate their mahoosive budgets.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
 

GrayFoxRJ

Banned
Let me help you guys:

All Ubi games are AAA games theoretically, but we are given visually crap games, repetitive formulas within templates, yearly releases in some of them, and they all have "budgets" AAA. So quality has nothing to do with being AAA, right? Can we throw "Marketing expenses" on this?
 
That's my point. If all AAA means is budget who gives a shit? When you can absolutely get better results with less money, in terms of technical composition and polish as well as game design

AAA is nonsense even in terms of referencing budget - At what arbitrary $ amount is something AAA anyways?

I'm sorry but the way this industry markets its products is esp. dumb, compared to other media

aaa is not just budget its also scope.
 
Let me illustrate the absurdity of the marketing term 'AAA'.

Michael Bay's Transformers = $200 million budget, huge scope, thousands of people involved in production and marketing (AAA)

The Godfather = $3 million budget, small scope, tens of people involved in production and marketing (not AAA)

kek, MUH NIPPLE A

LEt's get even more relevant;

Anthem: Took years to make, $100+ million production and marketing, hundreds of people involved, scope consists of shooting things in a bunch of levels, piece of shit game = Nipple A

Prison Architect: Took years to make, 1 person involved, production budget in the thousands of dollars, scope consists of simulating an entire, player crafted prison complex, amazing game = Not Nipple A.
 
Last edited:
Why would it matter? Their games are of high quality and are very popular. Even better if you sell a lot without investing as much in a single game as EA, Ubi, Activision
 
NO ./


To be an AAA game you have to make all aspects of the game top notch. Story, gameplay, visuals, voice acting etc etc it's not just how much you spend making a game or how many devs making one game. Often Nintendo exclusives while having good gameplay lacking 2 or more aspects therefor they're only AA games.
 
The AAA meaning is very western orientated and is used for stating how much the game costs in marketing and budgets. (Iikely sales too)

Nintendo is "AAA" but I woukd rather say that they are a high quality, premium branded company that sell their games that are easy to learn but hard to master.

Their budgets are nowhere near the Western Studios yet their games carry more heart, polish and longevity than any CoD, AssCreed and Fortnite combined.

I wish the AAA Term died as it doesn't give tiers to games correctly. Nothing wrong liking a Mid-Tier game that we sadly never see now.
 
Last edited:

iconmaster

Banned
No, not in the sense EA or Ubisoft (or Google) would intend by that.

Nintendo are something else. They're not AAA; they're above that, on a level where that's not a meaningful question.
 

Barakov

Member
Quality-wise and sales-wise more often than not they're at the very least they're AAA and some times they reach all-time classic status. In fact, I can't think of many other publishers, first party or otherwise, that have that many all-time classics under their belt. The Switch already has several 1st party titles that that have sold 1 million+, so I definitely think Nintendo is AAA.
 
Top Bottom