1 hour ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

I has seen only 3 games since millenium, that can pretend to be called "AAA blockbuster".

The quality of a game is largely subjective, but the term you're discussing here is actually quite well defined.  Regardless of your opinions of recent game releases, there have been many more than three "AAA blockbuster" games in that timeframe.

To have a reasonable discussion, you can't just use your own definitions of terms that are well understood to mean something else.

You may not like other AAA releases, and may even have logical arguments as to why you think they aren't great games.  Regardless, many of them have made millions of dollars in profit.  They are considered a success, and there are a great many people who do like them.

38 minutes ago, jbadams said:

there have been many more than three "AAA blockbuster" games in that timeframe

I guess to be called AAA blokbuster game have to outclass preveous blockbaster by intrasting of gameplay and globality of world modeling. Clone by gameplay of specrum river-rider can not be a AAA game now, regardless of graphics improvement level. It why I call garbage for example a  Metro trilogy that has been produced by same studio as S.T.A.L.K.E.R with next-gen level of graphic.

38 minutes ago, jbadams said:

Regardless, many of them have made millions of dollars in profit.  They are considered a success, and there are a great many people who do like them.

Compare a profitablity factor, numbers of funs and especially "length of love" of game cottadge make by Valve or Cry   for example, with game make using industrial lifecycle by industrial-level engineers. For example S.T.A.L.K.E.R that has been originally released on 2007 have a huge global mods-making society until now. IL-2 Shturmovik originally released on 2001 has still on sales with price up to $70 per copy until War Thander MMO made on improved IL-2 engine has been released on 2016. And so on. By the way SCRUM/AGILE e.t.c garbage methodologies usualy contributed into companies that unable to hire engineers to solve engineering tasks. 

7 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

I guess to be called AAA blokbuster game have to outclass preveous blockbaster

Actually, the term "AAA " is well understood to refer to large, high-budget developers, and "blockbuster" is well understood simply to mean entertainment that is highly popular and financially successful.  So the combination of those is a popular game from a large, high-budget developer that is financially successful.  Outclassing previous titles has nothing to do with it.  Interesting gameplay, good world building, accurate simulation all have nothing to do with it.  Originality has nothing to do with it.

So those things you're talking about are fine reasons to personally dislike many modern games, but if you expect to have meaningful conversations with other people, those things don't mean those games weren't "AAA blockbusters".  Regardless of your personal opinions, there have been many "AAA blockbusters" in recent years.  

1 minute ago, jbadams said:

Actually, the term "AAA " is well understood to refer to large, high-budget developers,

Actually "AAA" mean a top quality product. But top quality product require to involve a top developers and top level metodologies and tools, regardlless of its budget. Also as comrade Gaits say "Than higher salary software engineer have, than chiper it cost for company". Just becouse software engineering require a deep knowledge of field. For example single software engineer with knowledge of practical airdynamics and understanding of mathematical modeling background able to produce a top quality air simulator engine, by making all required analitics and code implementation himself shortly, and physical part of engine after it will require improvements only after airdinamycs science will significant change - really lile bit rarely then never. Even 10000 midle-level or scholl level developers able to produse same quality engine litle bit rarely than never too.

19 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

Actually "AAA" mean a top quality product. But top quality product require to involve a top developers and top level metodologies and tools, regardlless of its budget.

Sorry, but your personal definition just doesn't match that used by the overwhelming majority of other people.

(Thanks @Tom Sloper for splitting us off from the other discussion where we were getting off topic. )

So the term AAA is analogous or even equivalent to the term blockbuster? Are you interested in making money or making something great? The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

You can argue about what quality coding is, and yes, you need top notch coding. But ultimately, you need top quality people at the helm. And that doesn't mean suits.

When I say top quality people at the helm, you need people with a vision, a very good vision, and are able to, and do get their hands dirty. All the time.

It is like filmmaking. Separate the auteurs from the studios. The former can beat the latter at one tenth the price.

And back to the original topic, if I have gone off track. Sales don't define whether something is good. Blockbuster means sales. But there's other good stuff that have one tenth or less sales.

Or maybe the game market is so immature currently, that digital effects and bigness dominate. That's kind of sad, and somewhat true, but that doesn't really define goodness.

3 minutes ago, jbadams said:

Sorry, but your personal definition just doesn't match that used by the overwhelming majority of other people.

Majority assumes biggest budget == better quality, so majority is wrong into this case, it just called "extensive way". By the way Soviet government has made same mistake, but into global economical scale. Results is known. To win a competition you have to make better quality for cheaper price. It is also called "to drive progress", but it can be done for cost of depper knowledge of field only. Really some black magicians, also known as software engineers involved into development, able to teach computers to make 99% of works sortly, so significantly decreases budgets with better quality (for example realism level and tweaking automation  related to gaming) results.

15 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

Majority assumes biggest budget == better quality, so majority is wrong into this case

Look, I agree with this point.  I think intelligent solutions that produce a high-quality product with a lower budget are to be applauded.  I think people should place a higher value on production value than just on budget or revenue.  I think that being more impressed with the budget of something than its quality is largely foolish.

But, what I'm saying here, is that if you're going to use a term like "AAA" or "blockbuster" and expect to be understood, you have to use the same definitions as other people.  When you say you only believe there have been three AAA games recently, that doesn't fit with the definition that basically everyone else is using.

You can argue that many recent AAA titles aren't good games, are of poor quality for various reasons, wasted money in production, etc.  But you can't say that they aren't AAA games because of that.  That's like saying that a two-wheeled, pedal propelled vehicle is not a bicycle, because you believe that all bicycles have six wheels.  That's giving a word that everyone understands to mean a particular thing your own definition, and if you do that they won't know what you're talking about.

That's what I've been trying to communicate - does that make sense?

@bishop_pass hit the nail on the head - you're talking about a different thing.  You're interested in making a good quality product efficiently, without wasting resources.  That's not the same as "AAA" or "blockbuster".

And to be clear, I prefer well made indie games and haven't played a AAA title in years.  I agree that quality should be valued over just being the big flashy high budget blockbuster.

But the point I was trying to make isn't about that, it was about unclear communication - about taking a word that has a well-understood meaning, and using it to try to describe something completely different.

21 minutes ago, jbadams said:

That's not the same as "AAA" or "blockbuster".

Wiki is journal "Murzilka" (Soviet pictures journal for unerschool kids ) as called here. Really AAA comes from A,B,C quality grades like bank ratings, e.t.c, something like a "top category" into "top categoty ,I category, II category and III category" of product quality grades used here. It is first time when someone mean a "big budgetes", not a "top category" under AAA term.

AAA has little to do with quality. Unfortunately, sometimes. That's how it's understood by the people in the industry. AAA means high budgets, giant teams and big projects. Not necessarily "great" projects, although that's highly desirable.

I disagree with @Fulcrum.013, it isn't the first time when someone means "big budgets" under the AAA term. It has ALWAYS meant that.

I've been in the industry for 8 years and remember it well before that and nothing's changed with this understanding. We aren't talking what we wish it'd mean but how it's understood generally.