Interesting that the groups that get to define what makes an "AAA" game are the groups that can afford making such games as defined. Gamers need to get away from the AAA quality labeling as it means next to nothing these days. For instance, what's an A or AA game? Seems to me these days the number of A's only suggests the retail price but not the quality of the game.
Personally, I would put Super Meatboy or Mark of the Ninja up against any of these so-called AAA blockbuster games any time.
That's the general consensus, yeah. AAA gets lots of press, but it is not a direct reflection of quality: as has been mentioned, the large budget also includes marketing $$$.
AAA also refers sometimes to overall production values, which tends to mean amount of features and coverage of areas of experience: story, cinematics, voiceover, variety, realism, etc. Without a AAA budget you can't afford all of that and must focus on doing one or two things right and ignore the rest. This plethora of features can sometimes be mistaken for 'quality'.
I think this makes my point in more/better detail than I managed to do. This is more or less what I mean by wishing gamers would get away from using AAA as some kind of symbol of quality.
Personally, I would put Super Meatboy or Mark of the Ninja up against any of these so-called AAA blockbuster games any time.