The witcher 3 budget

[GuyNwah]

True but irrelevant. Just because you find the designation useless in determining whether you will enjoy a game does not mean it is useless for any number of other purposes.

Nobody said "AAA" or any other designation means that it is likely to be a game you enjoy, just as nobody said spending $200 million or more on a movie means that it is likely to be a movie you enjoy.

The designation "AAA" refers to games that have certain production values. Vivaxardas explained it very well: the scale, complexity, and technical content of game features and resources will be consistent with those production values. Other games that nobody would call "AAA" may be more enjoyable to you or others, but it is the production values and their costs, not your enjoyment of the game, that confer the "AAA" designation.

This is of importance in, for example, determining whether certain comparisons between games are justified. It's also a figure of merit for a studio: "can studio XYZ produce an AAA title?" and as such it figures heavily in who is going to be willing to work there and who is going to be willing to fund the studio's work.

But it does not mean what you want it to mean, I will agree with you only that far.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Any amount of money spent on promotion and visuals won't make it better as an end product, if for example the end result is dull and boring and etc.

Let's acknowledge that "better", "dull", and "boring" are subjective terms. A lot of people like AAA games because they find those games better, interesting, and exciting relative to other games.

But it doesn't really describe many other aspects which are valuable for players.

All players don't value the same things.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Let's acknowledge that "better", "dull", and "boring" are subjective terms. A lot of people like AAA games because they find those games better, interesting, and exciting relative to other games.


All players don't value the same things.

Any perception of artistic creation is always subjective. Be it a game, a book, a film or music or other type of art. It's not the AAA that is a criteria of something you enjoy. That's my point. As Guy N'wah said above, AAA can be useful for other purposes and evaluations, and I actually pointed it several times above. Those purposes refer to the available resources. That's all there is in it.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

It's not the AAA that is a criteria of something you enjoy. That's my point.

Actually, the AAA-ness is exactly the criteria that people enjoy in such games because, like vivaxardas mentioned, a AAA game has better graphics, can have a more nuanced and complex world design, and can provide a more defined soundtrack, to name a few things, and they do this most likely because of access to better technology.

People can have different standards of "good" and "enjoyable", but they can't have different standards of math; if some technology is inherently better at the same tasks, under the same criteria, than another kind because of its nature, then that's not a subjective quality.

I think some AAA game makers should work on getting their games more soul because that's the only aspect where some AAA games are lacking, other than that these types of games are quite enjoyable to experience.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

We'll just have to disagree. For example Dwarf Fortress is by no means AAA or anything with a huge budget. Neither it utilizes any super duper expensive technology. It doesn't even have any sophisticated graphics - it on purpose uses very inferior graphics! It still can be an enjoyable game. I find the notion of AAA being a prerequisite for a good game or other artistic creation simply wrong.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

AAA is not a prerequisite of being a good game, just an expectation of it being good.

Just how it is.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Yeah, any sort of extreme statement is easy to pick apart, but notice that nobody has said that you absolutely require AAA standards to express creativity.

What I am saying, however, is that we can't ignore that it's impossible to recreate the gaming experience of a AAA game without the inherent AAA-ness of a game.

Regardless both types of games, AAA and non-AAA, are equally capable of artistry and of allowing creative expression, what matters is how their respective tools are utilized.

While I think it's improper for anyone to define what tools should or should not be utilized for creative expression, we should have enough understanding of a medium to distinguish between a deliberate creative choice and poor utilization of game technology.

It's the difference between painting anything and calling it an impressionist painting, for example; you can't just call anything an impressionist work- everything has some definition, some set of standards.

 

[Sirnaq]

Guys, let's not make the devs sit together in an emergency worrying if their finances are arranged well enough!

Joke aside: What defines Triple A anyway. If I spend 20 million on making a game, am I automatically considered triple A? Or does it stand for quality? If the latter is the case I have doubts with some games they call triple A. It's pretty misleading then.

Triple A has nothing to do with quality. It's only measure of how much people should be hyped for a game and how much money the company could earn from a project.

 

[adridu59]

The main idea is not really the exact amount (saw that on a news site) but the ratio development/communication, i just think putting too much money on communication is a strange choice because i dont really understand how they're going to use this money to promote this game ( reviews on the internet and youtubers now do the most part of the jobs for many games).

I was just worry about the main current tendance of games to come out unfinished or unstable on PC or on consoles considering the amount of money people who run the company have. Thats all it is about.

Witcher 2 wasn't Skyrim, people need to get more interest in the series.

 

[guiguins]

interesting fact that you mention skyrim because witcher 3 will directly step on bethesda's kind of games ( fallout, tes..). I dont say it is a bad thing but the amount of work needed to keep interesting a vaste open world is very hard. Keeping realistic weather/land changes (if you played skyrim when you enter a zone suddenly it begin to snow), and realistic lighting (like in battefield 3 where you play a soldier more injured by light than bullets) without exagerating is hard work, not mentionning quest system harder to set up in open world than in a game like witcher 2.
Anyway if the witcher 3 keep the same mentality and dark storyline than they previously said (wich i really like), Cdprojekt is trying to do something than nobody before tried on a rpg:
-VAste and interesting open world like tes skyrim (even bigger by 20% but correct me if im wrong..)
-Strong storyline dark and mature like the witcher 2
-Quests dark humor, serious and very well made.

Anyway the witcher 3 if it really follow the 2's spirit and dark storyline will not aim at the same persons and unfortunatly wont be as successful this is a reality. Skyrim was successful because it aims at everybody, young or older.
The witcher is clearly destined to mature people and i hope they will stick in that direction. After all skyrim was too 18+ but everyone know they were clearly aiming at the masses and counting on parents ignorance (same thing for COD or BF3 )

 

[Demut]

Kotaku.... Also youtubers, bloggers etc... can't do anything really about advertising the game before it releases.

Who do you think creates hype?

(though I personally never liked any indi game I tried, they all looked like student exercises to me)

To be honest, that says more about you than about indie games.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

To be honest, that says more about you than about indie games.

Actually, it says as much about me as about indie games, because it is about a relational property. I stand in a relation to indie games - relation of not liking them. To put it simply, I do not like them, period. I do not like quite a few AAA games as well and I also do not like ballet. So what? I do not claim that all of indie games are bad, or without any artistic merit. Do you have a problem with my taste, or something, to bring it up?

 

[Cs__sz__r]

Who do you think creates hype?

The videos, gameplay, teasers, etc... That developers/publishers put out that the aforementioned people grab onto to boost their views and/or page hits so they can boost their own popularity.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Actually, it says as much about me as about indie games, because it is about a relational property. I stand in a relation to indie games - relation of not liking them. To put it simply, I do not like them, period. I do not like quite a few AAA games as well and I also do not like ballet. So what? I do not claim that all of indie games are bad, or without any artistic merit. Do you have a problem with my taste, or something, to bring it up?

This is a public forum. You could have kept your personal opinion to yourself but instead decided to post it. Deal with the consequences.

Yours is a sweeping statement. Indie games is such a heterogeneous category in terms of genre, style, even production values that your remark sounds more like a bias than an assessment. Having said that, I obviously don't care which games you choose to play.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

This is a public forum. You could have kept your personal opinion to yourself but instead decided to post it. Deal with the consequences.

Yours is a sweeping statement. Indie games is such a heterogeneous category in terms of genre, style, even production values that your remark sounds more like a bias than an assessment. Having said that, I obviously don't care which games you choose to play.

What??? On any forum we post our personal opinions. Here is what I posted "There are good low budget or indie games (though I personally never liked any indi game I tried, they all looked like student exercises to me), but they are good despite being simplistic, or having sub par tech, and not because of it. "
How a hell is it a sweeping statement? What is so frigging sweeping - that there are good indi games (I judge by other people's attitudes, some of my friends like them) or a statement about my personal attitude, which I actually know better than even God Almighty, because it is MY attitude?. Do you guys even read before you post your replies??? Or you do not like that my opinion is different from yours, or that I shouldn't state my opinions?

 

[GuyNwah]

Moderator: We are not going to continue that discussion in that tone. Do not even think of making any statement that could be thought of as personally critical of another poster.

By way of example, statements such as

"To be honest, that says more about you than about indie games."

"You could have kept your personal opinion to yourself but instead decided to post it. Deal with the consequences."

and

"Do you guys even read before you post your replies??? Or you do not like that my opinion is different from yours, or that I shouldn't state my opinions?"

are personally critical and forbidden by this direction.

 

[Agent_Blue]

What??? On any forum we post our personal opinions. Here is what I posted "There are good low budget or indie games (though I personally never liked any indi game I tried, they all looked like student exercises to me), but they are good despite being simplistic, or having sub par tech, and not because of it. "
How a hell is it a sweeping statement? What is so frigging sweeping - that there are good indi games (I judge by other people's attitudes, some of my friends like them) or a statement about my personal attitude, which I actually know better then even God Almighty, because it is MY attitude?. Do you guys even read before you post your replies??? Or you do not like that my opinion is different from yours, or that I shouldn't state my opinions?

No no no.

I am specifically referring to this

(though I personally never liked any indi game I tried, they all looked like student exercises to me)

You have got every right to feel the way you do about indie games. You have got every right to post your opinion about them. But if, instead of keeping your opinion to yourself, and to the extent you decide to publicly express it then you should extend the very same freedom to others and be prepared for their reactions. If you do not wish your opinion to be remarked upon, why would you post it in the first place? That's what I'm saying. Obviously, I wouldn't dream of denying your right to post whenever and about whatever you feel like. Just deal with the consequences, which is what we all have to do from the moment we post anything. I'm sure you realize that.

Perhaps you haven't tried that many indie games or perhaps not varied enough - I wouldn't know. But to the extent you didn't care to elucidate that, your opinion sure sounds like a sweeping statement to me.

I'm sure you realize there's absolutely nothing personal about my remark.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Well, if it is a sweeping statement, it is only about my attitude. I admit that at least some indi games can be and, as far as I know from talking to others, are good. But I have to qualify this, because they are something I personally do not like. I do not see a contradiction in saying, for example - GTA4 is a great game, but I do not like it - because as far as I am concerned, beauty and greatness are not always in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Well, if it is a sweeping statement, it is only about my attitude. I admit that at least some indi games can be and, as far as I know from talking to others, are good. But I have to qualify this, because they are something I personally do not like. I do not see a contradiction in saying, for example - GTA4 is a great game, but I do not like it - because as far as I am concerned, beauty and greatness are not always in the eye of the beholder.

Sure I can understand that. I wish you had been that clear a few post ago.

I wouldn't dream of telling you what to enjoy and to what extent. But wouldn't you agree Indie games is such a broad vague category? There simply is not much in common. So to suggest there'ss some unifying flaw to them aside from size of the developer seems a statement that needs to be challenged.

Didn't you like Limbo? I understand some have labelled it intellectual and it might fall under the category you describe as students projects. It's such a wonderful game, I think.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

No, I have an aversion to black and white. But it is one of the games my friends really like, and, from an artistic perspective, Limbo, as they explained, is quite terrific. It is obviously low tech (as concerning our AAA games discussion), but people who created it were real artists.

Oh, I do like the indi game called White Noise. It is where you walk abound in the dark with a flash light and look for tape recorders, while monsters chaise you. It is again low tech, and looks like a student project (I would give it an "A"), but it is quite involving. They made the entire series out of it, all for 99 cents, and I dutifully play them.