You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
Sure, there are games that you and/or I consider AAA; Pushmo/Crashmo are incredibly well-designed, Kid Icarus has a ton of effort put into it, Mario 3D Land is a solid platform game. But at the same time, they all had snags to them. Download-only on a service that's still green, controls being less intuitive than they could have been, and level design that consists of shapes in a lot of cases than actual solid designs.
With Fire Emblem: Awakening, however, any snags it had are very minor. Too easy? Lunatic Classic. DLC? All optional, and cheaper in the US. On Metacritic, it's the highest-rated original 3DS release, and rates higher than all original VITA releases. Compared to the DS, it's only bested by Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars, and by only one point even. Every PSP game is trumped by it, and on GBA, the only original games that outrank it are Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, Mario Kart: Super Circuit, Advance Wars, and Metroid Fusion. For sales, it's the best-selling of its franchise in Japan, and appears to be doing very, very well for itself in the US. Everything about FE:A rings to me as the most appealing system seller the platform's ever had.
I don't think the term AAA is used well in this industry. People tend to call this to games that they know by name and sell a lot of copies, but don't worry too much about the real content of what they're getting.
Anyone would say the Transformers movies were AAA, but they are horrible. Some of the worst movies I've ever watched, and yet they were popular. Just like Call of Duty, same crap over and over with different maps (Stacy Malibu with a new hat every year effect) and they consider it AAA, even though it really hasn't changed much if at all and it's nothing more than a 4 hours long army recruitment video. As you can see, the term is mostly used for name not what it is.
The term is used too lightly these days. If we go by "name" then no, Fire Emblem isn't big enough to be a "AAA" title, but if we go merely on quality of the game and content? it should be.
I'm a ninja. (You can't see me) http://colorslive.com/author.php?page=1&id=38434
Itt AAA games can't have glaring flaws. Skyrim on ps3 is broken, but a AAA nonetheless.
But Skyrim isn't a truly AAA game. Skyrim on PC isn't as good as it could be; Skyrim on PS3 is, as you said, broken; the overworld isn't nearly as good as it could be; optional tasks prove to be huge distractions instead of entertaining side attractions.
Thinking that Skyrim is a great game is a valid opinion, but it's not objectively AAA. Whereas I think that in the case of Fire Emblem, it is AAA.
Also, starting to get posts from people who are nitpicking the use of the term AAA and are willfully ignorant of the evolution of words and how their use changes.
EDIT: Actually just ORANGE~. Don't want to be combative to the people who merely discussed the use of the term AAA.