According to Polygon, this year’s Game Awards Best RPG category features five fundamentally different games competing for the same prize. The nominees include Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from French studio Sandfall Entertainment, Obsidian’s Avowed and The Outer Worlds 2, Warhorse Studios’ Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, and Monster Hunter Wilds. These titles represent completely opposite design philosophies – from scripted, linear JRPG-style experiences to open-world Western RPGs emphasizing player freedom. The category has always been controversial since The Game Awards began in 2014, when Dragon Age: Inquisition beat games as different as Dark Souls and South Park: The Stick of Truth. With Clair Obscur currently favored to win, the fundamental problem of comparing apples to oranges is more apparent than ever.
The JRPG vs WRPG divide
Here’s the thing – we’re basically talking about two different genres pretending to be one. Clair Obscur represents the classic JRPG school where you’re an “active spectator” following a predetermined story with fixed characters. Meanwhile, the Obsidian games and Kingdom Come give you actual role-playing freedom – creating characters, making meaningful choices, solving problems your way. Both approaches are valid RPG experiences, but they’re aiming for completely different things.
And that’s before we even get to Monster Hunter Wilds, which honestly feels like it‘s in the wrong room entirely. Its narrative is practically nonexistent compared to the other nominees. Yet its combat system has more in common with tabletop RPG math than any action game. So what makes an RPG, anyway? Is it story? Character progression? Combat systems? The answer seems to be “all of the above,” which is why this category has become such a mess.
Why this matters beyond awards
This isn’t just about who gets a trophy. For developers, being nominated can mean massive exposure and sales. But when your carefully crafted narrative RPG loses to an open-world sandbox, what message does that send? It’s like judging a marathon runner against a sprinter – they’re both athletes, but the criteria for excellence are completely different.
For players, these categories serve as discovery tools. Someone who loves the character-driven storytelling of Trails in the Sky might bounce hard off Monster Hunter’s grind-heavy gameplay. Meanwhile, fans of complex action systems might find Clair Obscur’s turn-based combat too restrictive. By lumping everything together, The Game Awards misses the chance to help players find new RPGs they’ll actually enjoy based on what they value in the genre.
Time for a category split
Look, other award shows have multiple acting categories – why can’t we do the same for RPGs? The solution seems obvious: split Best RPG into Best JRPG and Best WRPG, with maybe a Best Action RPG thrown in. This isn’t about creating separate-but-equal categories – it’s about recognizing that these design philosophies are fundamentally different.
Clair Obscur should be competing against games like other turn-based RPGs, not open-world games where player agency is the entire point. Monster Hunter belongs in action RPG territory. And the Obsidian games would have a much fairer fight against other Western RPGs emphasizing player choice. Everyone wins when we compare like with like.
The bigger picture
Basically, the RPG genre has evolved into several distinct subgenres, and our award categories haven’t kept up. We’re trying to fit square pegs, round pegs, and triangular pegs into one “best peg” hole. It doesn’t work for anyone – not the developers, not the players, and certainly not the credibility of the awards themselves.
So here’s hoping The Game Awards takes note. Because right now, declaring one game the “best RPG” when they’re all pursuing completely different goals feels increasingly meaningless. And in an industry with such diverse creative visions, that’s a shame for everyone involved.
