One year of blogging: a personal and heartfelt note from Stev3L

On the 20^th of February, 2017, while in despair at my previous job, I decided to make a gaming blog. I was worried at first about how it would go; I knew that the market for videogame writers was vastly saturated. In the end, however, my need for an outlet won the day and I made my first post in earnest; a messy little article geeking out about how Resident Evil 7 brought back a sense of horror authenticity to its franchise.

Starting my blog was the best decision I ever made. As I wrote more I quickly found a passion in what I was doing and though the click count was low, my blog quickly became a much-needed source of pride and hope.

It wasn’t until I started my Twitter account, however, that I began to experience just how great the gaming community as. While growing my own presence, I quickly fell in love with how friendly and welcoming the gaming community was. I really love using Twitter to catch up with the little circles in which I’ve found myself, and I get to enjoy so much more about what I do. I realised that I didn’t just want to write, but I wanted to become a part of this great community and engage with it as much as I could. 

I met the excellent editor of Pressquit, another gaming site that I found inspiring and fun to read, and even wrote a couple of my own articles on the site. I am most proud of my Aven Colony review on Pressquit, as it gave me a taste not just of writing for an audience, but also with getting demo copies of games for review. I felt immensely proud as it felt like a seal of approval on my work that I could write articles that got developer attention.

While I went quiet in the latter end of 2017, as I had a holiday with my fiancée and also needed to concentrate on my new job which became increasingly busy around the festive period, I got back to working on the blog as soon as I felt the writing bug take me again. One of my proudest moments came from previewing It Lurks Below, an inspired survival game built by the industry legend that had a big hand in creating Diablo. Again, it felt like a seal of approval to get attention from such an important developer. 

My proudest moment, however, was in writing my charity article for PixelGirl. This amazing streamer was one of my earliest inspirations as I joined the gaming community. Her infectiously friendly and kindhearted nature made Twitteran uplifting experience every time I saw her post something. To have the privilege of collaborating with such an influential advocate was one of the greatest moments of my blog, even more so that it was for a worthy cause. 

Today, my blog is in the middle of being tweaked for compatibility with my future plans. What started out as Stev3LGaming is going to become XYZGaming, as my focus continues to shift on the gaming community. The most important thing to my online identity is that sense of community that I found; the networks of people I have met along the way have been inspirational. If I can be half the person that these people are, I would be a very happy man indeed.

I wrote this blog post with a sense of newfound pride; XYZGaming is more than just a blog for me now. It’s my gateway to an awesome community, and a much needed creative outlet. My little hobby is now an achievement I can look upon with no small amount of pride. 

I’ve seen some amazing things this last year and met even more amazing people, but what has been the most humbling part of all of this has been the people that make the gaming community what it is. Whether developers, streamers, fans, other bloggers or Let’s Players, the game community has been an absolute inspiration to join and I thank you for being so welcoming to me. I find myself humbled by how the gaming community has shown what it’s truly capable of, and now that I’ve seen a glimpse of this greatness I am filled with elation and pride that I get to be a part of that. So from the bottom of my heart, to every single visitor to this little corner of the internet:

 

Thank you.

-Stev3L, editor and writer of XYZ/Stev3LGaming.

The frustrating potential of mobile gaming

In-app purchases, cheap cash-in microtransaction farming games, Candy Crush Saga, touch screen controls. The list of frustrations that I have with mobile phone gaming is a long, aggravating one. But do I think that mobile gaming will never be a legitimate platform? Controversially, I would say no. Mobile gaming has the potential to be a fully-featured and satisfying game platform in the future.

This may shock some of the more ‘hardcore’ gamers out there, many of whom will have looked upon the mobile gaming landscape with scorn and mockery. The word ‘casual’ is thrown around a lot when discussing mobile gaming. There is a kind of stigma in the topic where gamers feel that some genres are more legitimate pursuits than others. In terms of simple, ‘time waster’ games that are only made to entertain during short commutes, perhaps this criticism is somewhat valid. However, when talking about mobile gaming’s potential, there is certainly a possibility of more worthwhile gaming pursuits. 

In terms of raw power, the mobile phone market is more capable than it’s given credit for. Razer, a brand famous for PC gaming products, have even found value in the mobile gaming market. The Razer Phone carries 8GB of RAM on top of a state-of-the-art Snapdragon processor that matches rival flagship brands. The result is a mobile powerhouse that can output 120Hz gameplay, a standard not to be sniffed at by any means. 

Even the games themselves are quickly starting to catch up; the surreal experience of playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on a mobile phone is testament to that fact. The humble smartphone is more than capable of handling complex 3D gameplay and graphics. The presence of Minecraft, Don’t Starve, and a growing indie market show that there is more than just Candy Crush available. With mobile’s signature portability, versatility and multi-tasking capabilities, it’s arguable that the platform could even become a preferred medium for the right kind of gamers if the technology is there. The Nintendo Switch is evidence of the fact that there is a desire to play fully featured, low-compromise games in a portable form, and undoubtedly it won’t be long at all until mobile processors come within grasping distance of Nintendo’s highly-successful machine. 

So what are the problems with mobile gaming? Firstly, it has to be said that those gamers who scoff at Candy Crush have a point. The install base of lifestyle users, as well as the barriers of simplistic touch-screen controls, make it difficult to see any real, quality entries in the smartphone space. Why would anybody create a relatively high-price, complex and rewarding phone game? It will make practically nothing in the face of massive, saturated competition that churns out exploitative low-price, free-to-play games that can capture the lifestyle market easily. Gamers on mobile are less tolerant of any game that has a price tag of more than a couple of pounds, so there is a massive culture change required from gamers on mobile expecting everything for free.

On top of that, touch screen controls just suck. To relate back to San Andreas, attempting to play the game on anything but a controller is an infuriating, painful experience. There is no kind of tactile feedback to help your hands know what to do and all you can do is vaguely rub the screen hoping it can catch some semblance of what you want to do. Not only that, but this control scheme means there are great finger-sized areas of screen being entirely blocked out from view. To play any kind of game that’s more complex than swiping at fruit, a controller is most definitely the way forward.

What mobile gaming needs is a unifying standard of controller. Much like how the Xbox 360 wired controller for Windows became the de-facto controller mapping for games on PC that needed joypads over keyboards, there needs to be a brand or product on mobile that universally becomes adopted and imitated as ‘the’ standard for controller maps. If we can decide on how to control the games, then we can start to see more complex games on the market as gamers become adaptable to the playstyles of mobile. I feel that we’re almost there, in fact, as gamepads on mobile start to look to console controllers for inspiration. My own controller for mobile is actually a modified 360 gamepad with a frame for attaching the phone, which is connected to the joypad by Bluetooth. The result is a much more satisfying experience than touch-screen controls, and it works with a wide variety of apps.

Ultimately, the key to solving the problem with the mobile market’s saturation of terrible games is simpler in theory than it is in practice. It requires a wider adoption by more core gamers, and voting by our wallets. If it is proven that there is a profitable market for more satisfying, premium games on mobile, then you can be guaranteed that there will be development. If there is one area where mobile excels it is in quickly and dramatically adopting a profitable idea. 

Until this happens though, gamers will continue to view the mobile market with scorn and righteous mockery, which makes the mobile market one of the more frustrating problems facing gamers today. Unfortunately with its widespread adoption by non-gaming users, its Candy Crush saturation, and its lack of a unified control scheme, it is difficult to see mobile gaming, for all its great potential, become the legitimate and vastly enjoyable platform that I know it can be. But solve those problems, and mobile gaming stands a real chance of being a lovable gaming platform, where the real benefits of smartphones in their growing power and versatility can shine through in a gaming context.

Why Shadow of War's Loot Crates are not okay

I was initially very excited for the new Middle-Earth: Shadow of War game coming out. I loved Shadow of Mordor, especially its Nemesis system and its fluid, Arkham Asylum-styled combat. I loved the idea that a sequel was going to come out and that it would iterate on the system in a way that delivered on the initial promise. I can’t wait to fully experience a fleshed out enemy system where I can manipulate an army’s loyalties for my own bidding.

But then I heard about the micro-transactions that will be soiling the game, and I decided that for a full-priced retail product, I’m just not going to buy it. This is because Micro-transactions overall sully the experience and are an anti-consumer practice that ultimately shows the flawed value of AAA videogames.

Firstly, there’s the issue that having micro-transactions, even ones as tiny as cosmetic upgrades or those not required to beat the game, imprint a psychological barrier into the mind of anyone that’s playing the game. Gamers aren’t getting the ‘full experience’, they’re getting something where content was taken out to be sold back to them. Even if they are there purely for cosmetic reasons, micro-transactions have a reputation for being linked with shadier practices. On some level, I will always associate micro-transactions with poor-quality mobile phone games, because this is where the practice was born.

The use of any kind of micro-transaction in a game came from a need for smaller developers to make money out of something where the initial outlay was nowhere near enough to recoup cost, and while this worked for many developers there is no denying that the use of the practice has become synonymous with a kind of ‘dirty’ experience. Any kind of in-game purchase carries with it the weight of Candy Crush.

Then there is the statement that companies are making when they use micro-transactions. When implementing such systems in Shadow of War, WB Games are ultimately saying that as a gamer, your £42 is not enough. That in some way you aren’t paying enough for the privilege of playing their game. They are saying that they value gamers so little that they will ask them to pay for something that should be free. This shows the kind of psyche behind these anti-consumer decisions; ultimately each customer is nothing but a collection of transactions to be exploited and mined through any means necessary, and even if it’s not, if the company tries to convince you that this is not the case because such items are only an added bonus, that they’re not needed, then why at all should you ever consider paying the outlay for a microtransaction if they’re not needed? If they were as small as an added bonus, surely it would be easy to implement cheat codes as a sign of goodwill toward gamers, but no, they’re selling it.

Such a practice may be justified by some by looking to other companies, such as Overwatch. But let me be clear here; just because another game did it does not make the practice okay. I hate that Overwatch, as a full-retail priced game, still has micro-transactions and loot crates. It never was okay in the first place, no matter how great the underlying game is.

All of this would be bad enough, if it was not for the nature of the micro-transactions themselves. When loot crates are implemented with randomised loot, you aren’t paying for an item. You’re paying for a chance at an item. This means that you may not even get what you want from the purchase at all. This means that as a practice it ultimately is no better than gambling. Don’t tell me that any kind of value mindset was considered when this was implemented in Shadow of War, because if it was, we’d have full-sized DLC, and not the shitty consumer practices implemented in the product as it is.

It is scant justification that Shadow of War is too expensive a project to be paid for by full retail price; if so, it is WB that should suffer the punishment for being overzealous on production value, not the consumer. Make better, more efficient decisions. Not only that, but are we really saying that such a massive, hyped and clearly in-demand product that benefits from the huge license power of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth and the gamer goodwill that came from Shadow of Mordor won’t generate enough revenue to meet cost? If not, then it is clearly a failing of the corporation’s production and not in the pricing.

As an aside, does this show that AAA gaming is quickly becoming unsustainable in the modern market? Clearly, the drive for bigger and bigger blockbuster games is top-heavy and expensive and if a company can’t make a profit on a AAA title with any kind of reasonable pricing system in place, then that is surely a problem with the typical practice used in developing AAA games. Perhaps this is a sign that the gaming industry at large, at least the blockbuster one, is showing some fatigue.

Ultimately, when any company makes the decision to engage with microtransactions in their product, they are making a judgement call on how much they value their audience, and how much they value the nature of their product. If they believe that their product is not good enough to stand on its own without a shady, anti-consumer practice powering the gears, then why should we, as gamers, believe that such a product is worth our full retail bucks? If the full RRP of a game isn’t enough, either raise the RRP or look at the costings before passing on shady practices to the customers.

Here, instead WB Games has decided to say that their customers aren’t good enough, and are sullying the name of their franchise to do so. Not only this, they are also lowering the perception of their product and creating a poor brand image. Saying that such transactions are optional only begs the question of why they are included at all, and why should consumers foot the bill by continuing to put up with the shitty practices of a top-heavy industry that is showing signs of bloat and fatigue?

Do consoles have a place in a world with PC gaming?

Every gamer knows the old meme of the PC gaming master race. For years, PC Gaming’s most vocal defenders have shouted to all who would listen about the seemingly endless benefits of gaming’s most powerful platform. Those gamers that still squabbled over their preference of Playstation or Xbox were regarded as lowly console peasants. This argument is one of the many controversial issues debated among the gaming community, spawning many debates of its own surrounding framerates, resolutions and the relevance of plug and play convenience.

My personal view is that yes, playing on the PC is the most premier experience available to gamers today. If you want the very, very best way to play a videogame, chances are that outside of console exclusives, you will want to play it on the PC. This issue sums up to basic logic; simply put, playing on a PC lets you play at the highest resolutions and framerates with the highest graphics settings possible, if your computer can handle it.

However, that last qualifier is the sticker in this debate; for many gamers the sheer level of cost and research needed to play the latest games at such a great level is a prohibitive point. Many PC builds can range into the thousands of pounds and there are many pitfalls with compatibilities that can brick such machines. Imagine buying a thousand-pound machine only to inadvertently make one fatal mistake, and break the machine rendering all that cash a waste. It’s intimidating, to say the least.

The value proposition is handily debated about between PC and console gamers; the former insist that affordable builds can match, if not exceed the performance of the latest consoles at a lower price, while many console gamers have found that the small outlay for their black boxes offers the best possible value. It seems quite obvious at first; £250 for a PS4 today vs £1200 for a good, future-proof PC. From the level of investment, it looks like consoles come out winning.

However, PC gamers are quick to counter here; a PS4 costs £250, which gives you a machine that can do nothing but game (and some multimedia features). On the other hand, a PC gives you access to basically everything; fully-featured internet browsers, productivity software and an indispensable level of general functionality combine with best-in-class gaming performance for those with big enough wallets.

In addition, there are the infamous Steam sales, many of which represent huge savings that can more than decimate the cost of a game. Then there are other avenues; from the resurgent indie scene that offers a glut of excellent experimental games at tiny price points, to the widespread and much-championed modding community. PC gaming offers something for just about everyone.

In my opinion, on the value level there is a purpose for consoles. Quite simply, consoles remain the most accessible way to get into gaming at a moderate-to-hardcore level. To play the latest, most important games, the average person can just pick up a black box for £250, plug it in, download a patch or two and they’re away.

With a PC there are many differing and intimidating levels of access. To get into PC gaming there is a lot of research required from graphics cards to processor clocks. It’s hard to gauge the right amount of investment required to give you the best experience. But again, for the customisability and range the PC remains triumphant; if a gamer is so aligned, they can still play even on a low-budget machine with no graphics capability to speak of. There are a massive amount of Indie and Flash games that can cater for these exact needs. What is still up for debate, however, is how much value this actually offers. Sure, playing Flash games is one thing, but they’re a far cry from the latest and greatest AAA experiences out there. There may be many levels at which a player can game on a low-budget PC, but how much of this is worth playing when at around the same cost for a PC with such low-capability one can buy a PS4 and open themselves up to playing the latest Doom, or Resident Evil 7? This may be a controversial point, but who can honestly say they can find a £250 PC that will reasonably run those titles?

As a gamer that has recently bought a gaming PC, simply because I want to experience the very best way to play games for once, I have to say that I am not as devout a follower of the PC Master Race doctrine as many others are. The main conclusion here is that PCs are great value if you want to experience the very best way to play, but there is a place in the market for consoles. Like them or loathe them, the world will not be a better place if the consoles just failed. As I have stated before, more competition is, in general, usually a better thing for both consumers and for companies in the gaming space. As a proud owner of a new, proper gaming PC, I want to make clear that I love gaming in all its forms, and this includes consoles. This whole argument that pitches consoles and PCs against one another is just one way in which the gaming community is breeding toxicity, and I hope that this article has gone some way in showing why that makes little sense. Quite simply, there is a place in the market for the consoles and for the PCs and if the gaming economy is going to continue to grow we need to be more accepting of people’s purchasing choices.