Best Action/Adventure Game of 2015 - Article

I think it might be under the RPG category?

Pretty sure it's mostly Action Adventure. Moreso than Monster Hunter, anyway. Monster Hunter is just an action game, there's hardly an adventure aspect to it (coming from a massive Monster Hunter fan).

Bloodborne is in the RPG category as it contains clear RPG systems. Monster Hunter is here because it does not.

Monster Hunter might not feature leveling up, but outside of that it has a ton more RPG-ish aspects than Bloodborne does. Next you'll be telling me that Call of Duty will be listed under RPG as well.

levelling up your character's basic stats through the procurement of experience gained by defeating enemies is the essence of what defines the RPG genre. Monster Hunter does not have it, and is therefore not in our RPG nominees. What aspects do you believe Monster Hunter has that make it more of an RPG than Bloodborne?

In Bloodborne, you increase the stats of your character and customize your weapon. In MH, you increase the stats on your armor, upgrade your weapon, increase combination success rates, and add or increase skills on armors and weapons while also maintaining a threshold to negate negative effects. If your loose definition of RPG is what qualifies Bloodborne but not Monster Hunter, then it would also include many games like Call of Duty and some Tomb Raiders.

Well you can upgrade the stats on your armor in Bloodborne as well, and I don't think having a synthesis system is a requirement for an RPG. MH is an action game with a cool and very intricate item synthesis system, but your character does not have base stats and you cannot level up those stats by gaining experience. Therefore it is missing the most key system that differentiates what is and is not an RPG.

So in CoD and Tomb Raider you can level up your character using experience from killing enemies and see that increase in their base stats? If they don't have base stats that you can look at or at least infer then those are games with RPG systems, but they are not RPGs.

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/256891/analyzing-the-rpg-genre/ Here's a link to an article I wrote that goes into more detail about the qualities I use to define an RPG from a game with a couple RPG-like systems or settings. Given that of the two of us I'm the editor-in-chief with the most to say about the genre it has basically become our site's definition to my knowledge. If there are games that fit into those categories but you would disagree with them being called RPGs I would be interested to see them.

Right, so that makes Call of Duty an FPSRPG. Being the editor in chief doesn't automatically make you correct, either. It just makes it even more disconcerting that you don't understand that games can have elements of one genre while belonging to another.

So you don't want a real discussion on this matter? Fair enough, but I'm not going to take your view point seriously if you aren't willing to defend it with an actual debate.

To your own points:

I do not bring up my being editor-in-chief to say that I am right, I gave you an article on my own view point of what defines an RPG and then informed you that you can pretty much assume that's how the site at large defines it because of my position. Doesn't mean I'm right, just means that the article I linked does pertain to your question of why Bloodborne would be under RPG for this site's awards.

I asked how the examples you mention would hurt my definition and you just list them again. This isn't helpful to a discussion. Tell me how Call of Duty fits the definition and I will let you know whether or not it is an accurate issue with my definition of the genre.

And if you read the article I linked you would see that I do mention games that have elements of other genres.

Seriously, if you don't start actually discussing this I'm just going to write you off as an internet irritant. If that was your goal that's great, but if you wanted to actually affect some change of some sort you need to stop being so shitty at getting your point across.

Not a real discussion? Not going to take me seriously? I'm not the one that disqualified a game because it vaguely matches one genre while more deeply steeping itself in another.

Okay, except you just contradicted yourself. "I'm not right because I'm editor in chief, my definitions are right in relation to this website because I'm editor in chief. Making me right." As far as Bloodborne being an RPG is concerned, one of the biggest complaints about it was that it was too much action adventure and not enough RPG. Listing it as an RPG instead of an action adventure is in direct contrast with the leading complaint about the game.

Monster Hunter, on the other hand, substitutes the Player's stats for the armors' stats. And the weapons' stats. And skills, and sharpness. It's not just a matter of replacing with better gear is upgrading that gear where you would normally upgrade your player. The "leveling" system in MH is hundreds of times more complex and RPG than anything in Bloodborne. But since you're narrowly keeping the definition to the player character instead of including all aspects that define the player character, no. I guess because you don't click on the player and level him or her up, it's not an RPG. It's just a game that includes RPG elements for your armor, weapons, allies, and settlements. Which is the entire game.

Meanwhile, several versions of Call of Duty allow you to build and level up skills to use in multiplayer. You level those skills and stats up, so by your narrow definition that makes it an RPG. Call of Duty, the layman's shooter, is more RPG by your definition than Monster Hunter.

And if you're really editor in chief, how about a bit more tact? Or professionalism? Between "not a real discussion", "not take you seriously", "Internet irritant", and "shitty at getting your point across", I thought I was talking to one of those users that signs up just to Internet-tough-guy their opinion one time and leave. You seem to be making this too personal.

The site isn't necessarily right. One last try, I am telling you that my views on RPGs are that of the site. Convince me and you'll affect some real change and I'll rework the categories next year.

Yes, I have made a strict definition because anything else is meaningless. For a definition to be meaningful it needs to put lines between things that are and aren't contained within it. I agree that MH takes the players stats and puts them on the armor, but you don't upgrade them through experience, you upgrade them through random drops. So I'm still of the mind that it doesn't make the RPG definition.

Call of Duty on the other hand does not have base stats such as strength and agility which are used to define the qualities of your character like health and damage output with different weapon types. It's a great example of a game with RPG aspects, but is not an RPG by my definition.

I'm perfectly happy with how I posted. I don't have the time to go back and forth without getting anywhere. Your above post has made me reconsider the definition again and rethink things, your previous posts did nothing of the sort. I'm still happy with our current definition, but I'll be curious to see if any games next year start to stride the line of my definition and require a redefinition.

Monster Hunter's experience is replaced by money and materials instead, and your Felynes level through a combination of experience and materials. This means experience does exist in the game, but it's not something the player deals with. There's a point where you have to realize that just because a game doesn't hit the first marker for "I'm an RPG", doesn't mean it isn't... Especially when it hits almost every marker after. Monster Hunter has more RPG elements than most RPGs do. And by this same definition, Souls games are inherently not RPGs. In no Souls game do you ever attain any experience points, you gain Souls/Echoes. This isn't experience, this is currency. You're not leveling up, you're buying stats.

If Call of Duty is out based on that, that does rule out most of my arguments. I would argue that more, but I would prefer Call of Duty not be called an RPG anyway. But Souls' leveling system already calls for some special classification. Otherwise, it's just an Action/Adventure.

experience exists for the side character, but not the main character, which makes it difficult to envision as an RPG. I understand you view this as an arbitrary line to draw in the sand, but it does the best I've seen at keeping things I would consider RPGs on one side and keeping things I wouldn't on the other. I would argue that there are no markers for the RPG genre beyond the two rules set in the linked article, so hitting further markers doesn't really affect what a game is defined under.

I can understand why you would view Souls leveling as buying levels with a currency, but that is just a change to how the experience system works. The best indicator that Bloodborne is an RPG is that you have a character with base stats and you can use some kind of currency to increase those base stats which then has an effect on the overall properties of your character. This is something that MH misses which leaves it out of the genre even if it has a lot of systems that are in other RPGs.

That's where we disagree. There are a number of RPG elements that are linked to the genre, and missing two big ones doesn't mean it isn't an RPG. And Monster Hunter characters have base resistances and defense that are increased through armor and skills. Otherwise a naked character would have zero stats.

And this is where we start to find the inconsistencies in your ruling. Souls/Echoes are clearly a currency in their games. You use it to purchase stats and items, and even find caches of these currencies in game (something more commonly consistent with currency, not experience. You can even sell items for more Souls/Echoes. By your definition now any game where you can purchase stat buffs are RPGs, since it would imply a base stat to begin with.

Couldn't really keep up with everything here But I couldn't help but think of Pokemon which, I've always considered an RPG... But it seems that by the rules here, Since you don't actually level the Main character but instead level the various monsters that you collect it would be considered more of an Adventure game than an RPG based on VGCZs interpretation of the genre... Is that correct?

Well the "monster catching" RPG subgenre is long recognized. It's an usual fom of RPG but it still is one.

Pretty sure Meta Gear Solid is an iconic series too.

A lot of us TR fans, haven't played the game yet. We're waiting until next year on the PS4.

Tomb raider more iconic? lel.. if you dont know MG goes way back to NES... I have both, because i like'em both, but there is no way TR will be bigger than a MGS game...

MGS is more iconic than Tomb Raider, and TR may as well not even be out right now since most of its fans don't own XB1s. The real release is next year.