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.

Classic Sonic's Sustainability

With this year marking the release of both Sonic Mania and Sonic Forces, a worrying trend seems to have stuck itself to new Sonic games; that of leveraging ‘classic’ imagery and sentiment as a crutch to stay relevant. This isn’t entirely new, but it is an unsustainable method that will only yield returns for so long before we get tired.

Sonic Mania looks like a wonderful throwback to a time gone past, and looks well worth playing – the reviews of the game agree with this point. But the problem is in the game’s premise rather than its execution. It is part of a growing number of ‘flashback’ titles that leverage a desire for Sonic to ‘go back to his roots’ (a cliché phrasing of modern Sonic criticism if ever there was one).

How sustainable is this idea, really? Between Sonic 4 episodes 1 and 2, Sonic Generations, Sonic Mania, Classic Sonic’s return in Sonic Forces, not to mention a huge number of re-releases on virtual console systems, how much longer can SEGA milk what’s left of gamer’s nostalgia before gamers get bored of this trend? We can only see remakes and re-releases of Green Hill Zone so many times before it will inevitably lose its charm.

The unfortunate fact is that despite major positive steps forward in the form of Sonic Colours and Generations, the series still evokes an image of Bambi on ice, with shaky foundations that look so horribly precarious it’s almost hard to watch as the series goes on.

In its struggle for an identity in modern times, Sonic’s leveraging of its classics may have been a successful experiment, with the appearance of Classic Sonic in Generations and Forces, but now the trend is quickly becoming a tired trope. It’s time for gamers’ favourite hedgehog to drop these crutches and run – after all, isn’t this what Sonic is best known for?

More than anything, SEGA needs to reinvent Sonic’s identity, perhaps by looking at current Sonic conventions and throwing them out of the window. The transition wouldn’t be painless; many fans cling dearly to their nostalgic love of the ‘classic’ Sonic series that ended in the 90’s. But it won’t be long before this love runs out and instead we groan every time we see SEGA march out Classic Sonic only to expose him to further indignity. Let Classic Sonic rest now, and perhaps nail the final coffin in Modern Sonic’s grave, and give us a true reinvention of the character and his conventions before he winds up stuck in that grave permanently. 

Control the Controller: Rebuttal

Another day, another sad media opinion piece dragging the videogame market through the mud. This time it is the turn of The Star Online, which concludes: ‘Videogames are doing many children great harm. The many children in question constitute a significant number of boys in the up-and-coming generation. For these boys to become authentic men, they need to be rescued. They are not going to rescue themselves.’

One of the better videos on the topic of videogame addiction and the surrounding media hysteria surrounding it is by Extra Credits, shown here. The video is rightfully careful to discriminate addiction from compulsion, and importantly demonstrates why videogame ‘addiction’ as it is termed by the media is largely sensationalism. I think the most important part of the video to pay attention to is that addiction refers to the alteration of brain chemistry to create biological dependence on the substance, an effect commonly seen in truly harmful addictions such as nicotine and alcohol and to a lesser extent, caffeine. Addiction carries with it a horrifying stereotypical image; a violent man with poor hygiene performing desperate acts of crime to further fund his own habits, perhaps. This imagery is often wrong and unfair to those who suffer from addiction, which in itself is one way in which the article and wider media are largely wrong. Not only does such sensationalism harm gamers but it also harms those who suffer from addictions.

On the other hand, Extra Credits reports that videogames rather use the way in which brain chemistry works to create a rewarding system for the player. This is a correct identification, and possibly the main reason that we play videogames as a whole. However, this comes with a lot of issues regarding responsible use of the tools available to videogame developers, something which has sadly been lacking. Many of the big developers instead exploit compelling design in gaming for immoral reasons, in the most cynical of ways. More needs to be done from an industry perspective to tackle immorality in game design, and more pressure from the market will eventually lead to an improvement in this area.

More immediately, however, many of the assertions of the article are downright false and damaging. The way in which the writer paints game compulsion in children is offensive and harmful and not indicative of a healthy approach. This is a tough, negative approach to a problem. Blame is placed squarely on the videogames and they are identified in this article as the singular variable that is causing so much damage. The solution to the problem is to ‘confiscate the controller, smash it, and toss the pieces in a dumpster located at least ten miles from home – and do not ever, under any circumstances, allow one of these nefarious devices back in said household.’

This is, of course, a nuclear option. The complete withdrawal of videogames from a child’s life is an extreme course of action to take. Let’s face it, we live in a time where gaming is more visible than ever, and more accessible than ever. Either through mobile gaming, or through their own social networks, a child is going to be exposed to videogames. To tackle the underlying issue which is toxic videogame playing, a nuclear option is oftentimes going to do more harm than good unless in the most extreme of cases. Granted, where gaming becomes the square, central behavioural issue, some withdrawal of gaming privileges can, in a parenting sense, be a logical move to make. However, this is definitely where the facade of the article’s bias begins to fade; look at the terminology used. Games are described as ‘nefarious’. Evil, cunning things that are out to get you. This is the definite thing that games are not. Games are tools, and it is the misuse of these tools that are causing the problems.

On the other hand, Extra Credits has a great counter-strategy in the positive sense to combat toxic, compulsive gaming in young people. It correctly identifies that in a lot of these cases where videogames have become a harmful element of people’s lives, the main problem is mismanagement. Not just of the videogame as a tool, but a chronic mismanagement of that person’s life, either through a lack of real discipline or parental engagement. This is where I particularly like EC’s approach: it identifies the use of a positive mechanism by which to tackle and encourage videogame behaviour.

Too much is placed on the negative aspect of videogames. They’re addictive, they’re violent, mind-numbing. Not enough is placed on the positive ways in which we can use them. Through a good use of scheduling and the right encouragement and parental framework, games can be just another useful tool by which to raise your child. Instead of taking away, and engaging in destructive activities that only serve to cement one’s dominion over their child, Extra Credits instead encourages positive relationships with games.

Instead of throwing out the controller, pick it up, and use it as a point to engage with your child. Talk to them about games. It’s such an important part of your child’s life, and they would be thrilled to be able to have a meaningful conversation with their role models about it. Learn about gaming and learn about the right and wrong games for your child to play. Use this knowledge to push your children from the toxic parts of gaming into the kind of games that help them grow; the Minecrafts, the Zeldas, the Don’t Starves of the world. Ultimately, I think that Extra Credits approach is a lot more involved and a lot more realistic. We live in a world where videogames exist, and they are protected as free speech and as an art form. Not only that but videogames are a valuable medium that has developed a strong economy but also is a strong learning tool and culture in and of itself. To think that we can destroy people’s engagement with the medium is naive and destructive in and of itself. Instead of treating videogames like the enemy, the public should instead treat it like a tool, just like television and books.

The Star Online’s article may be sensationalism for the sake of clicks, or it may be a genuine piece of opinion. But it most certainly is harmful and encourages exactly the wrong kind of engagement with gaming, coming from a stark misunderstanding of what a videogame is. While there are massive issues underlying the cynical exploitation of videogame mechanisms, particularly in the mobile and microtransaction space, games are a tool that I will always firmly believe is a force for good. Not only that, but I am a strong proponent of the use of positive mechanisms instead of negative, and the use of engagement and knowledge will surely be far more effective in everyday circumstance than the use of force and oppression.

However, if there is an extreme case where videogames are causing genuine harm to a child, then professional help and a measured response is needed. A knee-jerk reaction informed by a sensationalist article will help nobody. Instead, seek professional help to come up with a measured response plan. It may be the case that videogame time for your child should be reduced or limited as much as possible, but the important thing here is developing an individual, measured plan. Just throwing away videogames is an expensive and damaging thing to do and treating them like the enemy is a more harmful plan in itself. Professional help exists and will undoubtedly assist parenting, but ultimately it is down to parenting strategy to decide a child’s fate, not a videogame’s.

About Review Scoring: Should I Try It?

The main point of my video game writing is focused on features rather than reviews of videogames, but I have done a good number of reviews on my website. With that in mind, I have been wondering about something that is one of the most indispensable things about videogame reviewing; should I use a scoring system?

I have always wondered about the idea of videogame scoring. In other websites, the act of assigning a number at the end of a review is met with controversy. There’s even a whole meme about the score 7.8 out of 10. In this era of gaming where the whole quality of a piece of work is boiled ultimately down to a number on Metacritic, I have stood outside the norm by doing away with the scores.

Why have I not added a score to the bottom of my reviews in the past? Because that wasn’t the purpose of my writing. When I write about video games, my ultimate goal is to make you think differently about them and consider ideas you may not have had before about the medium. When I write about the different aspects of a game that I found effective, I am not usually doing so with the goal in mind of deciding whether a game is bad or good.

However, I have also been made to consider biting the bullet and adding scores to my reviews. While it is a controversial practice, there is a reasoning behind it. When you add a score to the end of a review you are saying something definitive about the product. If someone is reading a review, are they looking just for buying advice? I’d like to think they are looking for something more, but the original purpose of reviewing a game is to come to a buying decision. This line of thought lends itself to the idea of adding a score to the end of the review. There is an ultimate ‘verdict’ on whether the game is truly worth the money.

I think that opinions on games are subjective, and my own opinion will be also, so how can I ethically add a score to my games, knowing that someone could use the practice to try and suggest an objective measure of a game’s ‘goodness’?  On the other hand, it is up to gamers themselves to understand that any opinion about games is subjective, and that to be offended by a subjective measure that you disagree with is an exercise in futility. The idea is that when you read a review you are looking at that person’s opinion and their own conclusion about the game. So with that in mind, if they give a 5/10 to a game that you think deserves a 7/10, how does this make your own opinion any less valid?

We need to think of review scores in a new way. The onus needs to be on using reviews to inform our opinions but not treating them as objective. Part of this is down to the writers themselves, but responsibility also falls onto the gamers. Instead of getting angry at a score, try to accept that this person had a different opinion from you that you disagree with. Comment and tell them that you disagree, by all means, but let’s not get into flame wars over something like a score on a subjective interpretation of a game.

Video game reviews are subjective. They always will be. Any written piece that attempts to talk about a form of art is highly dependent on the perceiver of the art and how they would appreciate it. With that in mind, I feel more comfortable about adding a score to the end of a review. I am trying to write about a passion of mine in a way that may make someone think differently. I hope that some people enjoy my writings but I also want to be able to come to conclusions about the games I play, and understand them better using my own review scores as a tool. It is always an interesting exercise to compare and contrast between games, and scores are an easy metric by which to look at the differences between one game and the next.

With that all said, what do you think? Do you think I should start considering review scores? Do you think that it would help my own views about gaming become more ‘concrete’? Do you think it would be annoying to you as a gamer if you disagreed with me on a score that I give a game? Or that you could respectfully disagree and engage in mature conversation on what score you would give it? Please comment or reach me on Twitter. I am eager to hear your opinion.