Dvader said:Foolz said:They were both hyped as triple A. Both scored well below triple A. Therefore both are flops. Whether they're any good or not is irrelevant. I’d go with Destiny automatically because Watch Dogs had a shitty development and shitty press from almost the beginning, so you could see it wasn’t going to get triple A reviews and everyone loved Destiny’s BETA. But...Bungie made their idiotic statement about reviews, so they both ultimately ruined the surprise.
I dont like seeing flop used in games like that, in movies which is where the term is used most it refers to how much money a movie makes, has nothing to do with quality. Both games sold like mad so neither are flops. Flop = bad sales. Both did get lower reviews than expected.
I think they are both great, Watch Dogs is the better game I feel.
Both games flopped. Deal with it. Also, metacritic matters in games (according to idiot publishers anyway) unlike films.
Dvader said:Foolz said:They were both hyped as triple A. Both scored well below triple A. Therefore both are flops. Whether they're any good or not is irrelevant. I’d go with Destiny automatically because Watch Dogs had a shitty development and shitty press from almost the beginning, so you could see it wasn’t going to get triple A reviews and everyone loved Destiny’s BETA. But...Bungie made their idiotic statement about reviews, so they both ultimately ruined the surprise.
I dont like seeing flop used in games like that, in movies which is where the term is used most it refers to how much money a movie makes, has nothing to do with quality. Both games sold like mad so neither are flops. Flop = bad sales. Both did get lower reviews than expected.
I think they are both great, Watch Dogs is the better game I feel.
Dvader said:gamingeek said:I remember the days when AAA was measured in reviews. If it wasn't a 9/10 it was a flop. Now everyone has switched to out of 10 values and 10/10s are a regular occurance.
Yep, a weird switch happened last gen when major companies decided to use that term for big budget games. It has nothing to do with reviews anymore, so strange. It just kind of happened.
Wat.
travo said:I always remember it being about the score.
Yeah it was about the score. I guess it depends on how much of GS System wars you read. It was clear on that board that any game under a 9.0 was a "flop" and AAA games were about over 9.0 games.
gamingeek said:travo said:I always remember it being about the score.
Yeah it was about the score. I guess it depends on how much of GS System wars you read. It was clear on that board that any game under a 9.0 was a "flop" and AAA games were about over 9.0 games.
This, though later on you could hype something as AA for instance, and it wouldn't be a flop unless it scored under 8.
Foolz said:gamingeek said:travo said:I always remember it being about the score.
Yeah it was about the score. I guess it depends on how much of GS System wars you read. It was clear on that board that any game under a 9.0 was a "flop" and AAA games were about over 9.0 games.
This, though later on you could hype something as AA for instance, and it wouldn't be a flop unless it scored under 8.
I've never heard of AA but I like it. 
A=7
AA=8
AAA=9
Ignorance must be bliss. 
Crane!
Raid is up, this game is now officially an MMO, it’s exactly the same. So most people will never play this, at level 26 it is nearly impossible and you need 6 of them, who are all friends, how can all meet up to beat this over a week. One team has been at it for 14 hours.
It does seem cool but it uses all the MMO tricks. Enemies have all kinds of buffs and some enemies can only be killed with certain kinds of elemental bullets. Some bosses break the team up where one is fighting against a debuff that blinds your screen while the other team tries to summon you back, when the team returns they are buffed so they can do super damage to the boss.
The boss has an enrage timer meaning you have to beat it in a certain amount of time or it destroys you. This means there are gear checks. A gear check is basically a timer at a certain spot that makes sure your team can cause enough damage in a certain amount of time to move on.
Everything I learned in FFXIV seems to be here. Right now the teams are figuring out how to beat this. Give it a few weeks and there will be a set strategy that everyone follows and if you don’t follow it you will be yelled at and shit on by others. Welcome to MMOs. I'm exited to try it, one day.
All smart MMOs use the smaller dungeons to teach players strategies used in the main raids. Piece by piece they introduce concerts. Strike missions should have been that for destiny, each strike should have added some new element to it. Everyone in raid is lost cause there is so much new stuff to learn. Terrible job by bungie, it would have helped strikes be much less boring too if they went the correct route.
Archangel3371 said:Ignorance must be bliss.
The budget thing came after the score thing. 
Foolz said:Archangel3371 said:Ignorance must be bliss.
The budget thing came after the score thing.
No it didn't and it's still not about score but about bbudget. Look it up.
Dvader said:Raid is up, this game is now officially an MMO, it’s exactly the same. So most people will never play this, at level 26 it is nearly impossible and you need 6 of them, who are all friends, how can all meet up to beat this over a week. One team has been at it for 14 hours.
It does seem cool but it uses all the MMO tricks. Enemies have all kinds of buffs and some enemies can only be killed with certain kinds of elemental bullets. Some bosses break the team up where one is fighting against a debuff that blinds your screen while the other team tries to summon you back, when the team returns they are buffed so they can do super damage to the boss.The boss has an enrage timer meaning you have to beat it in a certain amount of time or it destroys you. This means there are gear checks. A gear check is basically a timer at a certain spot that makes sure your team can cause enough damage in a certain amount of time to move on.
Everything I learned in FFXIV seems to be here. Right now the teams are figuring out how to beat this. Give it a few weeks and there will be a set strategy that everyone follows and if you don’t follow it you will be yelled at and shit on by others. Welcome to MMOs. I'm exited to try it, one day.
Yeah I was watching some people do a raid on twitch, it was crazy intense. They finally beat it. I'm currently at level 24 so I'm not yet reay to challenge it.
Archangel3371 said:Foolz said:Archangel3371 said:Ignorance must be bliss.
The budget thing came after the score thing.
No it didn't and it's still not about score but about bbudget. Look it up.
Why look it up when you could simply provide evidence if it can be looked up?
Finally got to play a little today, felt so good. Man this game is addicting. I reached level 20, I still have loads of story missions to do. I played a few PvP matches got a blue rare from a match so I felt I made some nice progress today. I feel there is a lot to do, granted since I have yet to see all content I say that.
I think I love the game, I love the gameplay for sure but even though there is a bunch wrong with it playing it is so damn enjoyable. This is like AC1, concept is super cool and it excuses the very basic game content.
Dvader said:Everything I learned in FFXIV seems to be here. Right now the teams are figuring out how to beat this. Give it a few weeks and there will be a set strategy that everyone follows and if you don’t follow it you will be yelled at and shit on by others. Welcome to MMOs. I'm exited to try it, one day.
I was contemplating getting this on PC whenever it hits, but I sure as hell am not going to put up with stuff like that.
phantom_leo said:
Crane!
I had a Sarens boy in my class when I was in highschool. Useless kind of twat. Probably has some cozy snug job somewhere deep in the bowels of the Sarens company now, with not a care in the world.
Foolz said:Archangel3371 said:Foolz said:Archangel3371 said:Ignorance must be bliss.
The budget thing came after the score thing.
No it didn't and it's still not about score but about bbudget. Look it up.
Why look it up when you could simply provide evidence if it can be looked up?
Wikipedia actually does claim that AAA was always about budget....but who really cares what any kind of definition says? Seems they are just going by the popular opinion of the current way of looking at it to explain what it has always meant.
Really, AAA was always about budget and quality going hand in hand. I've said this before. Because really, back in the day most AAA games WERE the games with the big teams and big (for the time) dollars put into them. Its only natural that a game with talented people working on it and lots of money behind it is going to be an incredible game right?
Sadly, nowadays the term IS used just to describe the budget and nothing else. AAA does not mean quality anymore...it basically just stands for "expensive game" now. And many of today's expensive games aren't even 9+ games to begin with. Hell, they might not even be 8+ games.
I still consider AAA to be games that are the elite of their time, the 9+ games that really blow you away. Don't care how anyone else looks at it.
BTW...there's too many games scoring 9+ these days too. Games that don't really deserve it. If a game doesn't totally blow you away, does it really deserve a 9+ score?
edgecrusher said:Foolz said:Archangel3371 said:Foolz said:Archangel3371 said:Ignorance must be bliss.
The budget thing came after the score thing.
No it didn't and it's still not about score but about bbudget. Look it up.
Why look it up when you could simply provide evidence if it can be looked up?
Wikipedia actually does claim that AAA was always about budget....but who really cares what any kind of definition says? Seems they are just going by the popular opinion of the current way of looking at it to explain what it has always meant.
Really, AAA was always about budget and quality going hand in hand. I've said this before. Because really, back in the day most AAA games WERE the games with the big teams and big (for the time) dollars put into them. Its only natural that a game with talented people working on it and lots of money behind it is going to be an incredible game right?
Sadly, nowadays the term IS used just to describe the budget and nothing else. AAA does not mean quality anymore...it basically just stands for "expensive game" now. And many of today's expensive games aren't even 9+ games to begin with. Hell, they might not even be 8+ games.
I still consider AAA to be games that are the elite of their time, the 9+ games that really blow you away. Don't care how anyone else looks at it.
BTW...there's too many games scoring 9+ these days too. Games that don't really deserve it. If a game doesn't totally blow you away, does it really deserve a 9+ score?
Nailed it.
Wikipedia also simultaneously claims it is and isn't an acronym.
I don't have a link but just go and look in wikipedia under AAA game industtry or google it.