I do think good video game design is more subjective than good information design. As I mentioned to someone recently, set two designers down with the same set of game mechanics and you’re likely to get two, if not three, very different, and quite likely good, games.

As far as “you” statements go, I think it’s quite possible to incorporate the Receiver’s statements (another form of output, no?) that were made outside a work that’s being critiqued, and to do so without breaking this rule. Which of these sounds like a stronger critique statement for Mike Miller’s output?

“You market your studios in a really juvenile way. You’re hurting the industry with your blatant sexism.”

“Your marketing traditionally is filled with juvenile humor and thinly veiled innuendo. I worry that this is not the most constructive approach to take in an industry that’s attempting to mature and reach new audiences.”

I would like to comment on two points you’ve mentioned:

“Don’t Tell Them How To Do It” - I really think this depends on who is doing the critique and to what purpose. For example, Edward Tufte quite quite often criticizes different pieces of information design by re-designing them according to certain rules. Comparing the original and re-design not only helps to prove his point, it also helps his audience to gain an understanding for the principles of information design.
Now, obviously information design is not quite art but games aren’t quite art either. (oops, I hope that won’t spawn another discussion)

“Avoid “You” Statements” - This one is quite often difficult. In many cases, the artist choses to stage a kind of act around his work and his persona becomes part of this work. Kinda like in the move “The Prestige”. I speaking of guys like Tomonobu_Itagaki or Mike Wilson.
Or to give a less extreme example: In your recent comment on Braid you did mention some of the things Jonathan Blow said OUTSIDE of his game. The relationship between Braid and Jonathan’s other works - or generally his identity - has significance for evaluating Braid.
The reputation of an author is also important even in the scientific community, where an objective review seems more possible.

Frankly, this makes little to no sense having played the game. Your critique is that this game…isn’t like another game that you want, or expected? I guess? I don’t know.

These are puzzles. They require logic and thought and patience. You do not appear to have the proper amount of these. Or perhaps you simply don’t like the frustration and resulting satisfaction of solving puzzles. Or maybe you haven’t articulated your thoughts in a way that I find very persuasive.

This isn’t really a platformer either, another point in your complaint. Yes, you run and jump on platforms, but Mario Bros. require far more skill than Braid. And this has been remarked in reviews, if you’re trying to do some crazy jump and not making it, you’re doing it wrong. If that cloud is just too far away for you to jump to, then there’s something you haven’t figured out yet.

Though not every puzzle is superbly designed, they absolutely do not require you crawl into the designers brain. The puzzles are simple and genius and immensely satisfying. There are frequently multiple ways to solve a puzzle as well, something you may not have picked up. And we haven’t even discussed the story, particularly the ending, which was devastatingly awesome.

And we haven’t quite got to the story, which you seem to dislike because it’s not as integrated into the gameplay as you want I think? I can’t tell if your overthinking Braid or not thinking about it enough. I look forward to a clarifying post.

This may be an artifact of genre preferences.

3rd person. I did play Oblivion & Morrowind in first person without trouble, perhaps because of pacing, but I find that:

- lack of peripheral vision isn’t compensated for in most games
- in first person shooters & the like, I over-immerse: serious adrenaline response, heart rate out of control, …

@Alex If your intention is to only produce work that means something to yourself, then there is no need for the critique process. A critique implies you’re interested in a conversation, in communicating something. I’d say that a critique can help you become more clear, rather than “better.” A critique is a mirror that reflects how your work appears–in that particular person’s eyes.

now of course this has to be treated carefully, ’cause someone could use it as a blanket rejection of all criticism, but i think it’s important to point out how meaning is hijacked/dictated in our everday lives in ways that we don’t realize (i immediately admit guilt) by ourselves. in a way, telling someone a painting needs more red in it, can be someone imposing communist ideology on another without either person knowing it. i particularly like how you focus on the audience-artist dialectic, because in the end we’re not trying to make something “better,” but “______ for a certain audience”