The core problem here is that the understanding of “edgy” held by people like John Garvin hasn’t actually been edgy for three decades if not more - and that the core idea is to reach “good game” through “edgy game”, as the fiction of the gameworld and the gameplay possible within that world are intrinsically tied together. The game is, at least in part, generic and tedious precisely because they’ve created a world in which the enactment of a “whoa, zombies are cool, dude” version of hyper-stereotypical gruff biker masculinity is afforded.
This failure of recognition of the world changing fundamentally precludes them from making the game good, as they think already think that’s what they’re doing. The fundamentally reactionary boringness of the game’s fiction makes it impossible for the game to surpass the level of ‘meh’ - even if gameplay was more fun and less mediocre (which would be very difficult given the ludonarrative framing of the game) there’d always be the nagging feeling of things just being off (unless you live in the 1960s like Garvin apparently does). On the other hand, actually being edgy isn’t necessarily enough for the game to be good either - but at least that might make it interesting, and would lend the game a contrast between edgy fiction/worldbuilding and mediocre gameplay rather than just being all-round meh.
