Would You Consider Persona to be a "AAA Series"?

You mean like every console game?

I feel that the games are AAA quality, they're some of the best JRPGs to come out in recent years. But in terms of AAA by definition, no way. They're not huge companies spending millions on the latest tech to appeal to the most wide of audiences. They're making a specialized product with the budget given to them and are aces at doing so.

Even though I don't tend to buy them I have always considered them high tier purchases due to their quality (that I have observed). For me that is what "AAA" implies. I know that "AAA" is actually a business term used by suits to mean something that costs a ton to make and therefore is sold in larger quantities than the "others" (basically blockbusters of games I guess), but I prefer to see it more as games I consider to be consistent in high quality. Franchises I trust, I guess. I take a shitty term and make it my own by doing this I suppose. haha

Before it's asked (just in case it is)- I don't buy them because I don't have the time for them. It's not because I don't think they are worth it.

@egg:

You consider the first two persona games to be poor because they had random encounters? Please tell me I have misinterpreted your post because it sounds like you just dismissed virtually all traditional JRPG's with a wave of your hand because in your own opinion you consider random encounters to be "anti-exploration."

Back on topic, I think I must have missed the transition of wherever the term "AAA" started to be used to refer to major big budget games. I remember the term being used in the gamespot days as AAA games being scored 9.0 and up, AA games being 8.0 to 8.9, and A games being 7.0 to 7.9. From a standpoint of "AAA equals quality" then certainly.

I mean why even judge games based on budgets, when you could just judge them by pure quality alone. Having said that I'm not the biggest fan of the persona series, played some but never finished them. But I do remember clearly thinking they were damn good games.

Mind you I am still on the fence on playing Persona 3 and 4 and might do so in the future, but I'll let you know that the reasons why I probably won't are quite rational and something I have thought carefully about, thank you very much!

Look at this way: Are Persona 1 and 2 labelled to let you know they contain randomly triggered encounters? Likewise are Persona 3 and 4 labelled to advertise that they don't have randomly triggered encounters? Is there a bullet point on the box, even? It's blatantly clear the Persona games are expressly not for people who enjoy their games to be playable. But since I am such a person, I have no business playing them and must retreat to franchises where it isn't made to be a problem. ("it is your loss" Oh, believe me. I'll live.)

After all, who's to say Persona 5 and 6 won't have randomly triggered encounters? We know Atlus is capable of it, and if it happens I would have played Persona 3 and 4 for absolutely nothing. Atlus would have stolen my money and use it to oppress me. I'd have helped them make Persona 5/6 the biggest, best, and most beloved random encounter torture instrument yet!! You may say the odds of it happening are slim, but the point is that it's possible. We know Atlus is capable of it. Persona games have and are being sold with randomly triggered encounters. Ergo, I must not buy Persona games. When the series died and burns and from the ashes rises a new IP with no connection or history to randomly triggered encounters whatsoever, then maybe I will play it. Or maybe I will not because Atlus evidently doesn't need me.

Why don't you simply ignore games with random encounters and let those of us who do enjoy games with random encounters continue to enjoy them? Everything you've said in this thread is completely irrational. Raving mad, I might say. There isn't anybody with a gun to your head, making you play games full of random encounters. Just like what you like and let others like what they like, it's no big deal.

Persona is not a AAA series. AAA means a game that has an outrageous budget and tons of very visible public marketing. AAA games are expected to sale millions of copies, while Persona 4 was doing well to make 400,000. The best you can say about it is that it is very successful in its own niche.

"You consider the first two persona games to be poor because they had random encounters?" <-- No, I don't consider them to be poor. I consider them to be unplayable. There's a difference.

"Please tell me I have misinterpreted your post because it sounds like you just dismissed virtually all traditional JRPG's with a wave of your hand because in your own opinion you consider random encounters to be "anti-exploration."" <-- No, that's not it. The problem with random encounters isn't that they're anti-exploration. (although they certainly are anti-exploration, and just another example of how they are fundamentally poisonous to a game) The problem with random encounters is that they are an inexcusable game flaw. It is akin to putting a cockroach in a burger. No matter how good the burger is or how small the cockroach is, it would be even better without the cockroach at all, but the chefs (the game makers) are so stubborn and delusional that they fight this plainly obvious fact to the bitter end on some deeply misguided value of "tradition".

edit: If you wore a shock collar around your neck and it zapped you every time you tried to explore, would that not be considered anti-exploration? There is something called negative reinforcement.

"Why don't you simply ignore games with random encounters"

But this means ignoring all traditional JRPGs. Because to do otherwise would mean I'd have to be wallowing the mine field and very generously purchasing the praising the games without random encounters while carefully tiptoeing around the ones that do. I'd basically be hand-picking my experience with the genre for the express purpose of having my experience be something which doesn't reflect reality. It would be like going to a restaurant only on the days where the food is not infested with maggots, and only because I just so happen to know which days those are. What's the damn point? Why would I be so generous to that restaurant? Can I really like the food that much?

"There isn't anybody with a gun to your head, making you play games full of random encounters. Just like what you like and let others like what they like, it's no big deal."

It's sort of about inclusiveness. Games like Persona are made for a certain segment of gamers, and I do not fall into that segment because I reject random encounters. (even though Persona 3 and 4 don't have random encounters themselves) Even if I get Persona 3 or 4 and like it, it's purely accidental--Persona 3 and Persona 4 are probably not the result of a concerted or intelligence effort to make a great game but rather the result of causality, much like random encounters are the result of causality, much like business malpractice and political corruption are the result of causality, much like anti-semitism in early 20th century Germany is the result of causality, and much like AIDs and cancer are the result of causality. What's the point of liking something based on luck? Random encounters are the result of luck, whereas me hating them is not the result of luck but the result of having standards. To have standards and to play JRPGs that just so happen to not have random encounters (gee, how nice) is something that cannot be reconciled in my mind.

Granted the same could be said of all games/genres. The popularity of FPS and the mass copying of ideas from Halo (e.g. regenerating health) followed by CoD is blatantly a display of causality. But whereas on one hand you have game genres, on the other hand you have game genres with fucking random encounters, bleh.

It's the most triple of A in my heart dammit.

It's triple S.

Seriously, I think triple A is a stupid name for big budget games. I never heard of A or double A or B games but they always use triple A. It has no meaning at all.

And there is plently of lower budget games that I love. The Atelier games for example.

@egg: The solution is to research the games you want (as in, watch videos of them on Youtube, Google information about them, ask if the JRPG's you are interested in have random encounters) and if they have random encounters, don't buy them. You treat them as something malicious, but they aren't. If you don't like games involving random encounters, do not buy them. It's that simple. If you like the general JRPG aesthetic so much that you must play them, then you'll have to put up with random encounters in a lot of the genre's most celebrated games. If it isn't worth putting up with random encounters for the other parts of JRPG's that you like, then unfortunately the genre isn't for you and you'll have to find something else to do with your time.

Because this is off-topic, I've spoiled the next part of my post. It's just a bunch of suggestions for JRPG's that do something different with this whole random encounter mess that you dislike so much. There are places to look for JRPG's that do not put you in random encounters.

"The solution is to research the games you want (as in, watch videos of them on Youtube, Google information about them, ask if the JRPG's you are interested in have random encounters) and if they have random encounters, don't buy them." <--- That's the obvious solution and what I was going to do. (and what I actually was doing at least for a while) But as I've explained, this is basically me giving the game companies a helping hand, and is putting myself through a bunch of hoops just to make sure the game I'm getting is playable.

"You treat them as something malicious, but they aren't." <-- I agree. Random encounters aren't malicious. They are merely the result of causality. Same with cancer and AIDs. Come to think of it, this reminds me of a video I saw somewhere where a guy argues that zombies aren't evil.

As you said, this requires a lot of research and sidestepping that other people don't have to put up with. If I was so smart, I should be able to tell when I'm not wanted, and not play JRPG's at all. To answer the thread, however, Persona as a series when taken as a whole, contains randomly triggered encounters, and that simply could not count as AAA in this day and age. Random encounters say a lot about a series, and among them the fact it is not AAA, but an abortion and something strictly for the niche audience. You will never have a CoD or Halo game send you to the same room over and over every single time an enemy appears solely to ration the processing power / memory of the system. "what a great idea this is"

Wait. Random encounters in JRPGs are like cancer, AIDS, and abortion?

...

I would think the fact that Jeff (a guy who really doesn't seem to like RPG's in general much less JRPG's) actually ended up liking Persona 4 and thinking it was okay says a lot about how good a game it is. That said. No. It doesn't have random encounters. At all.

Persona series is one of my absolute favorites, and I would take it any day over a Call of Duty, but... it does not fit the standard definition of AAA, which is mainly about money thrown at it for marketing and development. In that case it comes nowhere near the games actually considered AAA.

1. If it's that big a deal you can just Google "does (whatever game) have random encounters," it's hardly putting yourself through a bunch of hoops, and it's well below the level of effort that I would put into any purchasing decision in terms of games.

2. This... I... Um...

3. AAA, as others has pointed out, refers to budget not quality. It's a silly term, but nothing about random encounters prevents a game from falling under it. As for the second part, does appearing in a different room matter all that much? Your previous comments seemed to criticize them for disincentivizing exploration, but can't the same be said of CoD/Halo? The environments you explore in those games are filled with people trying to murder you.

I would probably like the game too, but it is on intellectual grounds that I object to playing the game.

Here's the way I see it, random encounters are the result of causality. But if games aren't meant be good, (and obviously they aren't or else there wouldnt be randomly triggered encounters) and instead are merely the result of causality, then why bother playing games? They are just a waste product. It creates an existentialist crisis for me as a player/consumer. Admiring Persona 3 would be like admiring a rock.

Sorry dude, but you're the only person investing emotional energy into this. Oh, and I make about 35k a year, so maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about people based on practically no information. Asshole.