Nowadays every game gets classified in one of a few categories, but why is that so-called "Triple A" games receive most of the hype and praise? What makes a game Triple A? Is it the developers, and amount of work put into the game? Or is it entirely based on hype?

Modern Warfare 2 is by far the most anticipated release of the fall, so much so that it has scared away all of the competition straight into next year. The game has high production values, mass amounts of hype, is a sequel to another popular FPS game, and has a crazy collector's edition to boot. Modern Warfare 2 is pretty much the definition of "What is Triple A". However, for a game to be successful, does it have to be labelled as Triple A?

Some people believe that being Triple A means that the game is very high quality, but I can tell you for a fact, that there are many lower profile games that are just as good, or even better than the latest FPS. A recent release that comes to mind is Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box for the Nintendo DS. I imagine that there are already a few people who haven't even heard of this game, and that is because it received a fairly low profile release. This game is the sequel to Professor Layton and the Curious Village, released back in early 2008. The gameplay is entirely comprised of puzzles, and is a text based adventure. Just that description alone removes it from being Triple A.

A Triple A game needs to have a broad appeal, that reaches over all ages, or at least the highest consuming ages. What I mean by this, is it's better to reach a slightly smaller audience who will go out and buy your game on day 1, than having your consumers spread over a 30 or 40 year demographic who might not be willing to spend their money right away.

Professor Layton will most likely have a mediocre release, in terms of sales, but has already received critically acclaim. This alone proves that you don't have to be Triple A to be successful. In terms of a grading scale, Professor Layton is probably a C or D (not in terms of quality) because not many people know about, yet Nintendo and Level 5 have achieved their goal. They have created a successful game, and will sell it to the large install base on the Nintendo DS. Sure it won't sell like Modern Warfare 2, and it didn't have any sort of crazy pre-order bonus, but it is still a quality game, and that in my eyes makes a game successful.

Another thing some people forget about Triple A games is that a lot of money is poured into them. Millions of dollars are pumped into making a Triple A game the best it can be. The unfortunate thing about this is that with all of this money invested, the game needs to sell a lot more copies than a B or C release. When a game is labelled as Triple A it doesn't always mean it will be successful.

The newest Turok game relied too heavily on the past installments' acclaim and hype, and ultimately failed. Another game that comes to mind is GRIN's remake of Bionic Commando. The game never found it's audience and ended up being a flop.

With all this money put into a game, the investors are looking for their payout. Unfortunately, if the game flops, especially in our current economic times, it can be enough to bring a developer under. The stakes are very high when a game is Triple A, so much so that the failed release of Bionic Commando (with a couple other poorly received games) led developer GRIN, to recently close it's doors.

Being a Triple A game can be both a blessing and a curse. It can sky rocket your game to high sales figures, and critically acclaimed success, or it can ultimately be what brings the downfall of a company. However, games with a slightly lower profile release can sometimes do better than a Triple A game. Their sales tend to be mediocre at launch, but prove to be long term sellers which, over a year or two, can actually be a bigger pay off.

What do you think makes a Triple A game? Leave a comment below.