On Critique (and Metroid Prime 4)

Metroid Prime 4 has recently stirred controversy in its promotion and marketing involving two general sides: one side criticizes the inclusion of side characters, particularly one side character named Myles MacKenzie; and the other side criticizes the game’s critics. I have thoughts on which side I agree with more, but more broadly I have thoughts on prevalent views of criticism or critique. For starters, it seems views liken critique to nagging.

Critique is an expression of disapproval based on perceived faults, and is typically more analytical and expansive than criticism (but I’ll be using both words interchangeably here). Critique itself can have faults. Why is critique a thing, and why critique? It stands to reason that there be a method to assessing the merits and demerits of certain things, and maximizing the potential for positive qualities over negative qualities is inherently beneficial (“positive” being a term which here means conducive to gratification, happiness, and survival). If you’re served food that tastes rancid, it would be unpleasant as well as potentially damaging to your health to keep eating it without complaint. So, empirically, critique has a necessary function that makes sense. Back to the point that critique can have faults, it wouldn’t be necessary to make your complaints known as a toddler would, nor would it be productive to criticize faults that weren’t actually faults. This particular form of faulty critique I’d regard as nagging and would be deserving of its own critique in turn.

All that said, it’s silly to dismiss all forms of critique as “nagging” or dismiss the critic as a “killjoy” or use another type of ad hominem argument to try to delegitimize the critique itself without addressing it. That the core of the argument critics have about Metroid Prime 4 is sound, that Myles MacKenzie is a noticeably poorly written character, makes me side with the critics. The other side, as far as I’ve noticed, ignores or avoids addressing this point and does what I described above: they label critics as not “true” Metroid fans, criticize the character of critics rather than their argued points, and, oddly, express pride and enjoyment in the faults critics have with the game. I’m not sure why problems are a point of pride, beyond the superficial thrill of contrarianism, seeing as it behooves the game (and everyone who would play it) to try to address the problems and garner people who want to play the game and who actually play the game. Even if the criticism is annoying, it’s better to address problems than ignore or lie about them (see above graph). But, I’m getting a bit ahead of myself. Why is the critique of Myles MacKenzie sound?

Don’t let that image fool you: Myles MacKenzie doesn’t just look like a schlub, he is one. A quirk chungus, to be more accurate. There is a time and place for such a character, and many have already remarked that that place is typically Reddit or the 2010s. In an atmospheric, lone survival exploration game, an unattractive man who quips while tagging along and guiding you doesn’t really fit, at least in my opinion. I, myself have not played any game in the Metroid series, but I’m inclined to take the word of fans of the games, the consensus of people who’ve played the games, and the way the games have been largely marketed to form my own opinion on what would be expected of a Metroid game. Further, I’m inclined to recognize the opinion of one who has played Metroid Prime 4 in advance of its release that the character of Myles MacKenzie poses problems. For the sake of argument, let’s say fans, general gamer consensus, marketing, and the person who played Metroid Prime 4 are all wrong about what makes Metroid a Metroid game and Myles MacKenzie is not out of place. Even then, his character is poorly written. As a writer, I believe I’m informed enough to recognize bad writing. For those who haven’t seen clips, here is some of that writing (the context for this quote is him talking to himself):

“You’re alone, on a planet, with no hope of survival. But, you’re also not sitting next to Phil anymore in a cubicle, so… win?”

This kind of writing, how Myles MacKenzie talks and what he says, is bad due to it being highly recognizable and predictable, which subsequently makes it insipid and mildly irritating. Not only that, this type of writing that utilizes meta narration and meta comedy breaks immersion, which I imagine is a problem for a medium regarded for providing a means of escapism. But, that it’s bad writing does not preclude it from appealing to people—if this writing seemingly plucked from the zeitgeist of the early 21st century featuring self-references, awkwardness, and quirkiness doesn’t put you off, good for you, I hear Marvel is still making movies.

A final, less-discussed feature of critique about Myles MacKenzie is what I mentioned earlier: he is unattractive. I don’t mean attractive only in the romantic sense, he is generally unattractive. There are complaints about people being superficial for wanting attractive characters in their games and movies, but there is a reason characters are generally attractive in games and movies. It’s because attractive characters are appealing (this is obvious, but obvious things sometimes need to be said). Samus herself is attractive, both with and without her space suit (the former being a cool kind of attractive, the latter being both a cool and pretty kind of attractive). I think the design of Myles MacKenzie’s suit with his mask on is actually pretty attractive (in a cool way). That they show his face and his face being the way it is is unfortunate.

Pic added to demonstrate attractiveness in a non-romantic sense.

That critique of these problems in Metroid Prime 4 is sound doesn’t mean the critics aren’t overreacting themselves, or at least some of them. I don’t know whether Myles MacKenzie or related and similar problems will “ruin” the game. Of what I’ve seen of this controversy, I don’t think anyone has really argued that; people may be blowing these problems out of proportion, but, to be honest, I think they’re entitled to their reaction. I’ve experienced what it’s like having a personal favorite franchise tarnished by bad decisions that led to the franchise becoming a pitiful husk of what once made it great. Many others, such as fans of Star Wars, I imagine, know the feeling. A problem may not define the overall product, but it sure as heck diminishes what makes it positive. If critiquing softly, politely doesn’t work, I think it’s fair to do it loudly and impolitely. Critique isn’t just the killjoy’s tool; it’s a tool that defends and guides us toward what’s positive. So, defend and pursue what you love, I say, and rage against that which kills your light.