First things first: I have not played Braid. I look forward to playing it soon. That being said...
On the drive to work today I was station surfing, because there is never anything good on, when I came across an NPR segment written by Heather Chaplin titled "Xbox's 'Braid' A Surprise Hit, For Surprising Reasons." I immediately thought two things: why was a video game getting media attention for anything other than violence and/or record breaking sales? And, damn I want to play Braid. So I listened. It was the usual outside perspective on video games with sound bites like, "Braid feels like a game that a grown-up can play" and "Blow [game designer] has violated one of the cardinal rules of game-making: that games have to be fun." I don't know if it was the apparent lack of respect to the video game medium as an art form, or the fact that NPR had decided to champion this game as one of the only sophisticated "grown-up" games that angered me the most. NPR, of course, was apt to point out how different this game is than others by comparing it to blood-busters like Gears of War and Halo 3. But here's the thing: Why is our definition of what can be considered an art-form in the video game medium so narrow? Apparently, a game has to be a philosophical journey to the abyss of sadness and self reflection to be labeled with the A-Bomb(you know what I mean). I guess I'm just a bit disappointed that the medium has failed to garner any serious critical praise or stricture for its content and/or sophistication. Whether it's blood-and-guts or spaceships-and-asteroids, games, like their entertainment counterparts i.e. movies, have content too. And it's about time we break out that toolbox (or maybe a different one) and start critiquing that content with the same analytical composure that we apply to other mediums. It's only fair.
NPR Article