Definition of Terms

I work in the game industry and it seems like there are a few terms that go poorly defined or understood by gamers, the games media, and even developers.  Mainly it has to do with categorizing games and trying to talk about types of games with broad generalizations.  I figure I'd throw a few definitions I'd been thinking about into the ring and see what people thought.  I'd like to point out that this is just my take on this stuff and isn't meant to be any kind of authority. It's just a talking point in a larger discussion.

AAA or Triple A: This term is meant to define a game that's in the "big leagues" of gaming.  Generally it is an indication of a game's budget.  In the sixth console generation this budget was somewhere between one and ten million dollars.  It was a rare game that cost ten million dollars to develop.  In the seventh console generation, AAA probably starts somewhere around twenty million and can go up to two hundred million dollars.

So what does all this money buy you?  Generally it ends up creating a higher fidelity experience with some degree of higher production values.  More money can be spent on art for larger and possibly more intricate locales, more iterations can be paid for in level design, more money can be spent on voice talent and sound recording.  Frequently more money is spent on marketing and the game gets more exposure.  This all means the game is expected to sell way more copies in order to turn a profit. This also means that these games tend to be somewhat risk-averse and frequently are meant to be built into multi game franchises to ensure multiple years of high revenue.

Towards the end of the seventh generation, and beyond, Triple A games almost always contain some form of long tail, usually in the form of a multiplayer component.  And nearly always in the form of downloadable content used to generate more revenue to try to eke even more profit out of these expensive behemoths.

Indie:  This refers to a small scale developer or a small production team's game.  Similar to film, it can be somewhat tough to define.  Few would consider Bungie to be an indie developer, though the company isn't owned by a larger company.  Generally this term is used to describe games that live more on their ideas than their production quality.  Some particular part of the game is meant to be taken to a superlative level, or there is some innovation that isn't generally seen in AAA games.  Mainly indie games can tend to take more risks because they have much smaller budgets.  Usually the teams are smaller and self funded.  That's not to say that there aren't a ton of experienced developers in indie games, it's just that there is generally lower or no salary so they don't attract the same kind of talent.   Not to say they have less talented developers, but they definitely have a different style of developer overall, I've found that independent games tent to be more quirky and rely more heavily on mechanics than production value.  I have also found that more is forgiven from indie games due to their lack of a huge budget.

Core Games: This is where I'm going to get really controversial.  For me, a core game is a high fidelity immersive narrative experience.  This immediately discounts games such as Madden and FIFA, and to some degree Call of Duty.  I wouldn't necessarily rule those games out as not being core games, I just think they're sort of exceptions to the rule, and generally fit into some (possibly very large) niche.  Generally core games are trying to present some large narrative experience, some big story.  Usually they try to use immersion to tell said story. 

Core games aren't necessarily AAA, I've found most indie games are honestly trying to target core gamers.  These are the games for people that over the past 20 years or so would identify as "gamers" or more specifically "video game players".  Generally video games are one of the main interests of people who fit into this group, either as a hobby or an overall form of entertainment.  I won't go into made-up demographic information, but developers expect this group to spend significant amounts of time with games in their lives.

Casual Games: These games tend to focus on small repeatable puzzles or mechanics that can be played for short periods of time.  Frequently they have some sort of progression hook to create a sense of investment.  The cost of entry for casual games is generally very low or free.  They rely on progression hooks or low barrier to entry for revenue.  Rarely is there a notion of an immersive story, and a minimum satisfying play session is generally only a few minutes.  Contrast that with a core game where it is difficult to get a satisfying game session that lasts less than an hour.  Casual games generally reside in places with the absolute lowest barrier to entry, so either in an app store on a mobile device, or on a web page or linked through Facebook.  Generally they want to avoid an installer for PC, and rarely do they really take off on consoles because the barrier to even starting to use a console has traditionally been so high (having to go into the living room, turn on the TV, switch it to console mode, etc etc...).  These games rely on absolutely huge numbers of players, but they tend to make very little money from each player.

These definitions are broad guidelines with which to try to sort games, they're not any sort of hard and fast rule.  Don't think of the categories as buckets but more like a spectrum, some games are between AAA and indie, and some games are between core and casual, a good example of that is something like Plants vs. Zombies, which requires a fair time investment to play, but has still managed to reach a huge audience through easy accessibility.  Anyway, I'd love to hear what anyone thinks about this stuff, I think it's a really interesting discussion.