My stance when it comes to critique is that I'm conveying my experience. If a game absolutely blows me away, I don't think it's out of the question to be enthusiastic. I agree that there are a lot of writers out there who are quick to throw out "perfect," "awe-inspiring," and the tried-and-tired "innovative," but really, the biggest problem with the press is that it's categorically young. The very first game-centered publication, Electronic Games, only came out about 25 years ago.
As the game industry matures, so will the press. The vast majority of coverage is coming from people who don't posses degrees in journalism or related fields - instead, they're hobbyists who stuck around long enough to get tagged by a corporate office. And I'm not looking down on those guys at all - many of these people are friends of mine and take their jobs incredibly seriously - but game critique is simply new and hasn't really found its footing yet.
A year or two ago, we had that whole discussion when some Rolling Stone jerkoff asked who the "Lester Bangs of video game journalism" was, and used his supposition (that there wasn't one) as proof that critics aren't up to snuff. The fact of the matter is, if you took a look at Rolling Stone back in the late '60s and early '70s, it was incredibly driven by fangasms and glorification. But the magazine stood the test of time because it matured as music criticism continued. Well, to a point. It should be noted that they recently put Guitar Hero vs. Rock Band on their cover.
Getting back to Braid, I think it's been championed and hyped simply because it's trying to do something different with the platforming genre. Not necessarily gameplay-wise, but definitely thematically. I don't agree with Edge's 9 or Eurogamer's 10, but I'd definitely commend the game for trying to carve out its own niche in a genre that's been largely stagnant aside from Mario.