Since you mention fair use specifically, it sounds like you are in the US referencing US law. (In other nations you would likely have mentioned "fair dealing" instead). If you are in another nation, please specify what nation it is.
concept that will require me to use some big games (AAA Games) references
You might consider changing your concepts.
Parody is an affirmative defense. It says "Yes, I am infringing on copyright. However, it is allowed because of a very specific exemption. If the judge disagrees and says my use is not part of the exception, then I fully admit that I am infringing."
referencing of these games will only be small and placed as a parody/satire
Satire and parody are different. Do you know the difference?
Parody is an exception, but most people who claim they are using parody are really just using either humor or satire. Neither of those are protected. Parody is often funny, but not always.
To qualify for the parody exception, among other things you must use the object itself as a social commentary about the item. Both the SCOTUS and the appeals courts have repeatedly stated several requirements. It is not enough to make fun of something, you absolutely must be making a comment about the thing being parodied.
As a good example, consider the youtube clip depicting Mario and Bowser and assorted koopas and goombas in their reverse roles. Mario was depicted as invading Bowser's kingdom, murdering thousands of innocent creatures. After the death toll was high enough, they started defending themselves with Bullet Bills and eventually airships. Princess Peach was even in the castle with King Bowser trying to negotiate reparations for Mario's destruction.
As a bad example, If you used Mario and Bowser and the rest to make a commentary about how society is bad, how wars are evil, and how states should secede from countries, that is not parody. Parody must make a commentary about the thing itself, and no matter what you may be saying about politics, the use of the Mario characters does not make a commentary about Mario or Nintendo's products.
(Yay Wikipedia for a list) Some of the specific cases that succeeded with a parody defense include "The Wind Done Gone", a parody of Gone with the Wind telling events from the opposite side, the slaves rather than the slave masters. Mattel lost to a parody defense when someone made videos of Barbie dolls being cooked in an oven and otherwise consumed as a parody to the ads and videos by Mattel depicting Barbie in the kitchen and doing positive things, instead being the victim of negative things in similar situations.
An example of a loss, someone copying a puppies photograph but using it as a commentary on society at large rather than a commentary on the original photograph is not parody. The sculpture did make a social commentary. The sculpture had its own artistic merit. But ultimately it was infringing and was not covered under the parody exemption because the sculpture made no commentary about the original artwork it was imitating.
quoting one line or even using a picture of a similar character
That's another sign that it probably isn't a real parody. If you are using Mario as an example, are you using it to make a statement about Mario or Nintendo? With just one line it is unlikely to be an actual parody. Do people hear your one line comment and think "Wow, Mario is a jerk!" or do they think something unrelated to the thing being parodied?
The parody fair use exemption is very narrow. Humor is not parody. Satire is not parody. Insults are not parody. Social commentary is not parody. Comedy is not parody. Imitation is not parody. You must keep your otherwise infringing use to a minimum, and ensure that every moment is an actual parody.
