pandaeskimo
Neo Member
ok ok, I guess you didn't like it. 
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Unraveling Braid
- Thread starter FartOfWar
- Start date
MrTroubleMaker
Member
nice read, I always like the way you write Shawn 
Just gonna c/p what I wrote on Shawn's blog:
I agree and disagree. The world mechanics are beautifully clever (aside from World 4 occasionally grr) both as gameplay and as metaphors for what's going on in the story. But they're still just metaphors - they mirror what's going on in the narrative, and they're parallel to them, but they're still a separate entity. Because in the end, the major objective in Braid is to solve puzzles to collect puzzle pieces, to put together the fragments of one broken man's life. In the end, the narrative is there outside of the gameplay - all we do when we get "Closure" is complete the process of putting the pieces of the story together, instead of writing the story ourselves.
That's my issue with Braid's attempt to weld form and content - I think the world mechanics are totally elegant (though I think they are aided by the game's willful ambiguity, since it's easier to come up with a story that's told in ambiguous blocks and weave in gameplay ideas than to tell a unified one and do the same), but, aside from the final stage, I still never felt like I was playing the story, but was only pushing it along, opening the pages for it to write itself.
Maybe, if we read the actions we perform in the game - the solving of the puzzles - as Tim's working out of each moment in his life (each stage in each world mirroring a side of the dilemma he faces at the different parts of his life the worlds represent), and solving these puzzles means, metaphorically, that tim has solved his issues, and that that's what allows him to SPOILERS make his castle out of the bricks of the places he's been SPOILERS then effectively, we've just played through his psychological growth, we were the ones that solved all his problems, that brought him from the trauma of loss to the idea that maybe what he has is good enough for a new beginning (assuming we're reading the story optimistically).
Still - brilliant game, massive triumph, this year's Portal, blah blah blh
Can't wait for Blow's next
I agree and disagree. The world mechanics are beautifully clever (aside from World 4 occasionally grr) both as gameplay and as metaphors for what's going on in the story. But they're still just metaphors - they mirror what's going on in the narrative, and they're parallel to them, but they're still a separate entity. Because in the end, the major objective in Braid is to solve puzzles to collect puzzle pieces, to put together the fragments of one broken man's life. In the end, the narrative is there outside of the gameplay - all we do when we get "Closure" is complete the process of putting the pieces of the story together, instead of writing the story ourselves.
That's my issue with Braid's attempt to weld form and content - I think the world mechanics are totally elegant (though I think they are aided by the game's willful ambiguity, since it's easier to come up with a story that's told in ambiguous blocks and weave in gameplay ideas than to tell a unified one and do the same), but, aside from the final stage, I still never felt like I was playing the story, but was only pushing it along, opening the pages for it to write itself.
Maybe, if we read the actions we perform in the game - the solving of the puzzles - as Tim's working out of each moment in his life (each stage in each world mirroring a side of the dilemma he faces at the different parts of his life the worlds represent), and solving these puzzles means, metaphorically, that tim has solved his issues, and that that's what allows him to SPOILERS make his castle out of the bricks of the places he's been SPOILERS then effectively, we've just played through his psychological growth, we were the ones that solved all his problems, that brought him from the trauma of loss to the idea that maybe what he has is good enough for a new beginning (assuming we're reading the story optimistically).
Still - brilliant game, massive triumph, this year's Portal, blah blah blh
Can't wait for Blow's next
great blog.
I will defiantly check out the lecture.
Yeah at times Braid did really feel like an IQ test
and the ambiguousness of the game's narrative and lack of handholding letting you learn through experience really expands what the game is.
wow, hmm..
I will defiantly check out the lecture.
Yeah at times Braid did really feel like an IQ test
it started with the Hunt world 4 stage for me
wow, hmm..
firehawk12
Subete no aware
The rllmuk poster's reading is very interesting and one of the more probably readings of the epilogue and the ending.
One thing I'd want him to touch on is the
.
Good stuff.
As for Shawn's post, I think the
furthers the metaphor of the time mechanic in the context of the game as a whole.
One thing I'd want him to touch on is the
star ending. If the end result is that even if you win, you still lose, the star ending changes all that because you can, quite literally, beat the system. What would this mean? In regards to that analysis, that the power of atomic power can be properly controlled?
Good stuff.
As for Shawn's post, I think the
star ending
â Narayan
Member
So, I bought this game -- Braid, yesterday.
I'm only on World 2. But -- I'm looking at some of this, and I have no idea how you're able to pull these interpretations from the game. I mean -- NOTHING, so far, has even implied any of this jargon.
Guess I'll have to keep playing to find out, eh?
I'm only on World 2. But -- I'm looking at some of this, and I have no idea how you're able to pull these interpretations from the game. I mean -- NOTHING, so far, has even implied any of this jargon.
Guess I'll have to keep playing to find out, eh?
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
keanerie said:
I'd argue the game sets out to make you feel like that, however upon it's conclusion you see that you have been "playing the story", it really opens your eyes to how signifcant the warping of time it.
exfixate said:
I haven't finished Braid, but the atom bomb/Oppenheimer angle worries me. There's no denying that the allusions are there. The RLLMUK poster isn't offering an interpretation so much as he is collecting evidence. Now I'd like to see someone make a case with that evidence that amounts to something more substantial than 'Braid is an A-bomb allegory' (a reading which, if anything, makes me think less of the game).
I've also encountered allusions to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein aka The Modern Prometheus (see also the J. Oppenheimer biography called American Prometheus) and the obvious conclusion is that Braid wants to compare the history of videogame development to the creation of Frankenstein's monster and atomic weapons -- matters of technical mastery with little or no concern for ethical implications. Proportion is an issue for me in this case, as is the possibility of what I read as a braid becoming a bloated mess. Like I said, I need to finish it and decide for myself.
That said, it is interesting to see so many people take the presence of allusions as a guarantee of genius. This is the Lost generation.
â Narayan
Member
Actually I didn't read anything that was spoiler-tagged. So, I think I'm good?rhino4evr said:
cultofweaver
Member
firehawk12 said:
The theory does touch upon that subject and the final event of the 'alternate' ending certainly adds to that reading.
The completion of the constellation Andromeda, otherwise known as the 'Chained Maiden' or Princess. In this instance of course the Princess being atomic power which is now in Tim's grasp.
The theory sits well with me since when I played the game through to the end I did see some of the references being made
To the creation of the Atom Bomb
FartOfWar said:
I don't take the presence of allusions as a guarantee of genius -- I actually played the game. The reasons for why I find it brilliant have absolutely nothing to do with whether the story is relating to the atomic bomb. I really don't think anyone else is in the camp you're condescendingly putting them in, either.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
keanerie said:
It's being discussed in the last few pages of the "big" Braid thread. I definitely think of it as a huge game changer when it comes to "reading" the game.
cultofweaver said:
I do agree, but as Shawn suggests, the poster is more gathering evidence than forming the argument. That said, if you read the thread, there's a poster who points out that the theory itself is potentially inconsistent with the other "books" that set up the previous worlds.
I think I'm in essay grading mode (yay undergrad English exams!), so I think it's a great close reading of the epilogue but it doesn't take into account the rest of the game as a whole.
I mean, the majority of the players will only get the
star ending
bomb
One thing someone might do is take a look at how
each star is obtained
FartOfWar said:
I think we're a generation that has been raised on pastiche, starting with Star Wars and culminating with Lost. Any obscure reference or allusion or intertext is enough to illicit some kind of positive response.
I hope Blow isn't just throwing references around like the Lost writers though. I guess the blowhard in me thinks he's trying to deploy the uncanny with his game references, at the very least.
we need some occam's razor up in this bitch.
this would be a very convoluted and pretentious way of telling the story of the atom bomb...made specifically for the people who know all those obscure details. Is the dev supposed to pat the rllmuk poster on the head and say "good boy, good boy" now? Something tells me the dev was aiming for a wider audience with the story.
Maybe he's right though. I've read crazier interpretations of games.
this would be a very convoluted and pretentious way of telling the story of the atom bomb...made specifically for the people who know all those obscure details. Is the dev supposed to pat the rllmuk poster on the head and say "good boy, good boy" now? Something tells me the dev was aiming for a wider audience with the story.
Maybe he's right though. I've read crazier interpretations of games.
MobiusPigeon
Banned
this is gonna sound odd but where the fuck is world one? :lol the game throws you in at world 2 which i finished but where's 1?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Mamesj said:
The point is that there's no such thing as a right answer.
I recently heard a story that Asimov wrote an article chastising people who misinterpreted his work, to the point where everyone who read his books was "wrong". The point being that there's no such thing as a wrong way of reading authorial intentionality into a text.
Even if Blow set out to have his game be an allegory for the creation of the bomb, there's absolutely no reason why other interpretations aren't equally valid. You just need to be able to back up an opinion with evidence.
MobiusPigeon
Banned
wtf :lolFatalT said:
firehawk12 said:
There are plenty...billions of wrong ways of reading authorial intentionality. The author had an original intention and Asimov had the authority to say "you're all wrong." And no, that shouldn't stop anyone from seeing it their own way. People can have their opinions as much as they want.
Critical interpretation is an exercise in pinning very complex tails on even more complex donkeys, without the blindfold....and for that, I reserve the right to say something sounds implausible or that it just doesn't "feel" right. There's no rule saying I have to accept this guy's interpretation, as interesting as his connections are.
firehawk12 said:
As far as the
star ending
He can touch the Princess, but she's still unattainable in the end, and you end up wasting hours of your life getting Stars if you didn't just Youtube it.
Regarding the allusions, I totally agree with you on why we're so attracted to them, and more - but I do kinda feel like Blow's just throwing shit in that makes sense metaphorically and that echoes other things he's incorporated into the game's thematic makeup, and maybe he thought that would be good enough on its own, and didn't consider people might make it into this ridiculous hunt for some grand scheme behind it all.
I like the Oppenheimer stuff as a metaphorical echo to everything else in the game, and it conflates the personal scale of Braid into something historical, as well as maybe making some sort of commentary about the nature of technology and games, but I honestly don't think there's either enough evidence in the game to hang a real argument on, and I also just believe that narrowing the game down to something as specific as that - as interesting as it may be - is kind of besides the point. I'm content with mulling over my own version of the story, going back and reconsidering it, talking it over and letting it shape itself - are people really that uncomfortable with ambiguity that they need to impose such a strict structure on the game's narrative?
Of All Trades
Member
They blinded us with SCIENCE!GhaleonQ said:
I'm in the "it's an emotional experience, stop trying to piece together a narrative" camp. The puzzles are just a way to get me to focus on the visuals/music and the juxstoposition of the "game" A/V with the "background" A/V. The world stories are lead-ins to the various level themes in order to emphasize what you're doing. I agree that part of the
epilogue
a-bomb
book passage about the experiments heavily twisted the notion that Tim was "good"
alt-text
bomb and monkey test
I think the ultimate point of the game was to present the theme of "striving for the unobtainable fantasy will lead you to sorrow" and then throw as many examples out as possible in the hopes that one of them will resonate with the player enough to hurt them, with the Worlds representing (and being) the escapism necessary to for someone to continue chasing the rainbow.
Similar threads
- Poll