Mad-a-critic
The divide between critical opinion and fan opinion on Mad Max has been really interesting to watch as it continues to unfurl, and I think it hints at the so-called “hidden origins” of G*merG*te much clearly than anything else we’ve witnessed in a while. Contrary to what many people might be saying, I refuse to believe there’s a feminist ideology at play here on part of the critics, because it’s categorically ridiculous to rate down a game called Mad MAX on basis of the fact that it doesn’t feature a female protag. Frankly, I don’t think anyone possesses enough lack of self-awareness to trumpet this kind of standard in reviewing a game.
But as always, I have a few thoughts on this matter.
They are as follows:
It seems like a majority of the positive fan reception is coming from Steam users, who have been burned enough times in the past with terrible PC ports, that the mere fact that this game runs buttery-smooth on even older rigs feels like a gratis favor to PC gamers. I wonder what the reception would’ve been like if it run sub-optimally with a 30fps lock?
Critics have played enough open-world games to form an opinion on what constitutes a good open-world game versus a bad one. Watch Dogs was an okay open-world game; Shadow of Mordor was a stellar open-world game. Critics and game journos don’t play games in a vacuum; while their opinions aren’t necessarily more valid than that of gamers, their opinions are nevertheless more informed, not on a mechanical level, but on a market and industry level. To them, when compared to recent offerings like MGSV and Batman Arkham Knight, this game may very well be just okay... hence, the 71 average score (which actually means “above average game,” right?). Doesn’t make their opinion right, but all opinions have to come from somewhere.
It is next to impossible to offer an “objective” review. Full stop. Any angry fan clamoring for an “objective” review basically means, “write a review I agree with.” However, it is entirely possible to give an entirely subjective review backed up by facts and observations about the game, and I think this is where some fans are mad about the whole thing. I’ve read some good reviews, as well as some not-so-good reviews. The Ars Technica review, for example, was a particularly bad piece of critical opinion, as it was (judging by the comments section) stymied by what appears to be a complete misread of the game’s systems and “openness” of the mechanics.
Sidenote: Don’t mean to dredge up the “reviewers should be good at games” argument, and definitely don’t mean to dredge up the comparison to movies, but I can imagine the backlash if a critic panned a Wes Anderson movie for having too many centered shots and an over-reliance on wry, witty dialogue. At that point, any review that relied on those justifications would read like there was an axe to grind. I don’t think I’m being overly dramatic when I say a critic like that is not fit to perform their duty in a professional manner.
So, about that whole “feminist ideology” thing. Again, I don’t think there is an ideology or agenda at play here. Not this time, at least. However, I can see where the PERCEPTION might arise. To use KiA’s favorite whipping [insert non-gendered pronoun here] Polygon as an example, this is a site that wrote no less than 7 or 8 favorable articles and thinkpieces on Mad Max: Fury Road (even more if you include the Buzzfeed-like linkfests pertaining to the movie), with many of said pieces exhibiting a very pro-feminist slant in regards to the portrayal and seemingly central focus on Charlize Theron’s character. Then, when the game, unrelated to the film, mind you, shows up, the site gives it a 5 out of 10, which seems pretty harsh. Or is it? Other than that head-scratchingly low Bayonetta 2 review score they published, Polygon’s writers have always been able to back up their justifications for review scores in a manner I’ve found satisfactory. Yes, that includes that The Last of Us review. I didn’t always agree with them, but I always appreciated them in that they made me think about the games I adored from a completely different perspective. Being able to accept and address opposing viewpoints is a very valuable trait to have, and I wish I learned this earlier on in my life instead of giving into the welcoming throes of knee-jerk rage. Once again, I don’t think there was an agenda at play here, but in my humble opinion, there is a PERCEPTION of agenda-mongering amidst this hubbub. Surely critics could address the PERCEPTION a bit more even-handedly through means other than snarky sub-tweets? Then again, even if they did, it probably wouldn’t be good enough for some folks. Ugh.
At the end of the day, I think it’s safe to say that critics and fans all want different things, maybe more so than before. Call it lazy writing, or call it fan-obsessive and PC Mustard Race elitism, call it whatever you want. But disagreement isn’t unethical. Really, this back-and-forth between journos and gamers is tiresome and immature and totally understandable, if I’m being honest. It’s gotten to the point where the fans, acting as ombudsman to a supposedly voiceless games industry, lash out angrily against journalists, some of whom may or may not possess an “agenda”, and then the journalists respond in turn. It’s all a formality at this point, nothing is ever good enough for each “side,” and fucking hell, it is mentally exhausting to watch.
Me? I’m too busy playing Metal Gear on PC to offer anything else than this cursory post. Maybe I’ll pick Mad Max up when the next Steam sale rolls around. I’m sure it’ll be great--or a piece of shit, depending on who I listen to--but either way, I’m too busy having fun and playing games to worry about that right now.











