I just played Gray over on Kongregate and I was confused and disturbed enough by it to start an account here just to talk about it. Here's the narrative which I took away from playing through it once.
There's a riot going on in the city. The protagonist is opposed to the crowd's ideology, so he persuades people to switch to the opposite side of the conflict until the tide turns and a second riot with opposite ideology begins. The protagonist suddenly decides to change sides. He begins persuading rioters to return to the same side which he originally opposed. He changes the flow of the riot back and forth a couple of times, and then takes the middle ground of the argument which he's been channeling. Now nobody will listen to him. Then the game ends.
What is the message about the nature of conflict that you are trying to communicate here? That both extremes of any debate are equally false, since the protagonist is driven to oppose both riots? That the middle ground is the correct stance, since the game concludes with the protagonist in that position? That centrist arguments don't carry enough weight to convince people? I don't agree with any of those implications, and that makes me think that I've misunderstood the game.