So, I've just come across these two interviews with Jonathan Blow, the creator of Braid.
This guy seems to be the master of saying a lot without really saying anything at all. After reading this giant wall of text, I can sum up his position with "people focus too much on making games fun, without giving them meaning".
So what? Games are supposed to be fun. I know it's in vogue right now, but I really don't give a foozle's right nut whether or not the latest blockbuster from my favourite AAA developer has ethical quandaries, or veiled political commentary, or completely invents some obscure new type of gameplay. All I care about is that I enjoy my time playing it.
I haven't played Braid. I don't have a 360. When Braid is released on PC, I will at least try the demo. And I will probably like it, and buy the full version. In a similar way to the way I liked World of Goo, an indie game of comparable fame/fortune/critical acclaim. It gave me several hours of fun, and I felt like I got my money's worth. Did it change my life? No. Was it in the top 10 most enjoyable games I've ever played? No. Would I recommend it to others? Absolutely.
In summary: just because your game has meaning doesn't mean that I'm going to enjoy it, which is the primary purpose to playing a game. Just because you're an indie developer who's released one good game doesn't mean you're an expert on game design.
P.S. I don't harbor feelings of hostility towards this fellow like the title implies, it was just too good to pass up :p