To start off, I like the look of this game. It looks like a relaxing, exercise in exploring how the puzzle environment reacts to your actions that I can play at night to get pissed at my T.V. trying to figure out what the hell I need to do. However, the way that antichamber was described to me through all the media I've read about it up to this quick-look described it as "non-euclidean" and "4th-dimensional". I didn't see either. What I now see looking back at the reports on this game and the quicklook is people using words they think sound obscure, arcane, and befuddling without knowing their meanings. It is the equivalent of a child being asked to describe the color of things they saw on their walk over to school and them replying "rotund" or "non-magenta".
Non-euclidean: "non-traditional geomentry". where curved lines can be parallel. Geometry regarding the transeveral of a sphere. I only saw boxes and flat surfaces in the quicklook and motion/structures following paths and patterns described in euclidean geometry. Non-euclidean rooms would have me moving in what appears to be a straight flat path, but in reality, it would be a curved, 3 dimensional movement.
4th dimensional: Assuming it is the spatial 4th dimension, one property that this would exhibit is being able to see both the front and back of an opaque object at the same time while looking at it. While this is literally impossible to convey, at least certain features of the front and back and top and bottom of the objects should be seen by the observer at the same time. This was not present in the quick look.
All this makes me think that video game sites should look up what the words they use mean so that they don't accidentally oversell the accomplishments of the media.
TLDR; of all this topological-nazi rambling: Antichamber may be a good game but it is not what it was described as in the media. Or do I just give too much of a crap about stuff I am interested in?