GhostQlyph: Brink. It got a bad rap for a poor start
Yeah I can't see why people hated it for its many defects on launch... including deleting your character/progress.
KavazovAngel: Define AAA title first. :p
Starcraft 2, lots of people around here would disagree I guess. :p
SC2, really? What about it is so different from SC?
Navagon: Unless the major innovation is the business model of how they successfully carbon copied the original then split it into three full price segments I'm not seeing it. Now yeah, sure the business model does indeed plumb new depths of exploitation and could be considered innovative by suit-wearing, bollocks-taking business types, I suppose.
PoSSeSSeDCoW: It's amazing how people remain misinformed about this even a year after Starcraft 2 came out. Heart of the Swarm and the Protoss stories are both expansions (you know, those things that have generally been replaced by DLC and most people want back?) and yet still people ignorantly attack the games because they're by Blizzard.
Maybe they should have said that when they first announced it. Expacs would have been well received (most folks liked Broodwar, for example). Are these "expacs" actually lower priced than the original?
And now that I've complained about half the thread, here's mine:
Enslaved: Odyssey to the West (for its amazing story and acting)
and
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (for its combat mechanics)
Those were 2010. Honorable mention goes to Red Dead Redemption for packing an insane amount of single player and multiplayer fun into the same game.
For 2011, er, dunno yet. I'll give it another few months. So far I'll say Trenched managed a really cohesive and amazing atmosphere but I wouldn't call it AAA.
Either some folks in this thread have a lot of nostalgia or they are exceedingly difficult to please. Games from 1998 were not the last innovative games.