hi, my previous ramblings on the triple-i initiative have materialized into an actual, if short, article
But the linked definition for triple-iii made me retch.
"We have fewer issues with the traditional definition for [triple-i] than for AAA as it’s based on quality, something each person can judge for themselves without having to sleuth through investment calls and press releases. However, it’s still a little imprecise, so let’s try and amend that too.
“As with AAA, our criteria for [triple-i] is based on a point system. In order to count as [triple-i] a game needs to score 7 or more points out of a possible 10."
All of the problems of gamer consumerism are on full display here - 'quality is an objective measure that we can all easily agree on', 'quality equates to fidelity and hours of play', and 'numeric scores are a good way of evaluating art'. I hate this so much that my respect for the studios involved has dropped significantly.
Previously I didn't have a huge problem with the nebulous term triple-I, which I've used myself to describe an indie studio with a bigger budget than most, but now I want to kill it with fire.
