next »

[GohmaDameon]

I am almost tempted to post in the "I may have missed the point" thread because I am not quite sure about my impression of the game, but it is a clear interpretation so here goes anyway:
I felt that the protagonist was arguing against the rioters in an attempt to stop the riot itself. When he had convinced some but not all of the rioters to switch sides the ones who were the same color as him were standing there helping instead of rioting. The problem was that once he had stopped the initial riot completely, a new one for the opposite side had started, so he switched sides in an attempt to stop the new riot.
Eventually he realizes that if he just keeps switching sides the riot will just keep going, so he begins to argue using his moderate, "gray" views, but those views are not strong enough to convince anyone which is probably why he wasn't using them to begin with.

[matheus]

And then, after the persona realizes the endless struggle that is to try to understand things by categorization, by giving names to things... what happens?

Does not get overrun by the crowd.
Does not militate about ideas.
But still exist, still act.

Think about that and gives us a Gray 2

[MagicKirby]

While I most likely will mess up and confuse myself writing this.
I will try to say what I think this means.

The Point I see is that you believe that you are right about a certain topic and try to get others on your side.But in the process of convincing everyone you start getting confused about what is right and switch and repeat what you did.But after a while of doing this you realize that neither side is fully right and that the middle is right,a combination of both ideas and become gray.Problem is society is not ready to see the gray side of the problem and ignore the gray.
But this also makes me think.Grays may try to convince others grays because one gray may have a different version of their gray.
Thus the cycle repeats itself.
(This is a complete mesh up of every idea I found here mainly and my starting idea...thus another gray is born)

[Junin]

I wanted to let people know about my own interpretation(s) of this and maybe expand the "shades of grey". Plainly speaking, I browse newgrounds regularly trying out new flash games quiet often; Playing, voting and moving on. I read the comments from the author(s) regularly and stopped when I got to Aeiowu and Fucrates. I decided to be open minded as I believe I often am.

I found the shapes used were very appropriate for being open to interpretation, like blank canvas peoples. While enjoying the artwork and design I became quick to realize the supposed "intent" of the game, going back and forth between White & Black, convincing the opposition to join you. From a gamer perspective it was enjoyable and well balanced to not become tedious but to be so mundane and only withdraw an entertainment value is gladly not the case.

Surely people will connect to this game in a multitude of ways, some being similar with minute difference and others vastly unrelated. That's what made me start to think. Maybe not so much on the game but more so on the individuals experience from it.

 What drew my attention were the noises, the background static and the dull coloring. The noise of blank two way radios (walkie-talkie) caused me to distance myself when I was grey. It dramatized the alienation caused by being an individual gone unnoticed. Every time your character clutched their skull and flipflop sides I felt a tug of remorse come from the screen. Seeing the pros and cons of both ends, swaying back and forth, you come to a middle ground. A place where you cannot voice yourself because of the masses so set in their ways they don't understand. I also felt the white noise background had representation because its a mix of black, white and grey and also because No one can hear you over static.


I thought that when my character stopped and changed to grey for a moment; He was looking at me.

[hayden]

This may be one of my favorite games ever made, due to its ability to make one think, and then keep one thinking about it. 

When I first started, I was like... 'wow, this might be the stupidest game I've ever played', but then I realized what it was trying to show, as I kept playing, and finished the game.  You definitely implement the 'A Person is smart, but people are stupid' factor into the game, and really showed it.  I'm also glad that 'Greg' on Kongregate put it as one of his picks, otherwise I never would have found it.  Hopefully it starts to grow in popularity, and more can get the true message out of the game.

5/5 / kudos / etc.

[Ribilla]

I think that, generally speaking people have effectively summed up my point of view in previous posts, and that there is little point me writing the same message in a different guise. However there maybe some worth in some analogies (though admittedly mine are fairly rubbish).

1. This may seem off topic, but take filling a bath, initially its cold (white) so, logically you fill it with hot water (black), but, alas, now its way too hot. So again with the cold water, and again with the hot; the cycle repeats itself. So the logical conclusion? Well I want the water to be warm, so I will just add warm water (grey). No matter how much warm you add to hot all cold, it will always be too hot or too cold, never 'just right'. In short, you can only oppose polarised views with the opposite ones, never the neutral opinion.

"I hate monkeys because...." could be countered with "I love monkeys because..." but neither opinion will be changed by "Hey guys, I think your both right!"

2. Feudal Japan is split into many different mini-states, which originally spilt apart because they were upset with too much centralised power. Some 'hero', I don't know, we'll call him Joe, for argument's sake, and because its quick to type and easy to spell. Well Joe successfully reunites Japan's states and centralises the power getting rid of infighting and the general chaos. But oh, bureaucracy seeps from the capital and Joe leads the revelution of his tiny state, splitting off and decentralising power once again. You see the cycle, the point being that in uniting everyone to a common cause you have created the very problem which you were fighting in the first place, so noone an ever be agreed and no state of stability can ever be reached.

Kudos for the game, I expect something else equally thought provoking about this time next week 

[aeiowu]

This may be one of my favorite games ever made, due to its ability to make one think, and then keep one thinking about it. 

When I first started, I was like... 'wow, this might be the stupidest game I've ever played', but then I realized what it was trying to show, as I kept playing, and finished the game.  You definitely implement the 'A Person is smart, but people are stupid' factor into the game, and really showed it.  I'm also glad that 'Greg' on Kongregate put it as one of his picks, otherwise I never would have found it.  Hopefully it starts to grow in popularity, and more can get the true message out of the game.

5/5 / kudos / etc.

Wow thanks Hayden, I'm glad you enjoyed it so much. =D

I think that, generally speaking people have effectively summed up my point of view in previous posts, and that there is little point me writing the same message in a different guise. However there maybe some worth in some analogies (though admittedly mine are fairly rubbish).

1. This may seem off topic, but take filling a bath, initially its cold (white) so, logically you fill it with hot water (black), but, alas, now its way too hot. So again with the cold water, and again with the hot; the cycle repeats itself. So the logical conclusion? Well I want the water to be warm, so I will just add warm water (grey). No matter how much warm you add to hot all cold, it will always be too hot or too cold, never 'just right'. In short, you can only oppose polarised views with the opposite ones, never the neutral opinion.

"I hate monkeys because...." could be countered with "I love monkeys because..." but neither opinion will be changed by "Hey guys, I think your both right!"

2. Feudal Japan is split into many different mini-states, which originally spilt apart because they were upset with too much centralised power. Some 'hero', I don't know, we'll call him Joe, for argument's sake, and because its quick to type and easy to spell. Well Joe successfully reunites Japan's states and centralises the power getting rid of infighting and the general chaos. But oh, bureaucracy seeps from the capital and Joe leads the revelution of his tiny state, splitting off and decentralising power once again. You see the cycle, the point being that in uniting everyone to a common cause you have created the very problem which you were fighting in the first place, so noone an ever be agreed and no state of stability can ever be reached.

Kudos for the game, I expect something else equally thought provoking about this time next week 

Haha, yep, we'll whip that right up for you, have it on your desk by Monday

Cool way to break it down, I dig your interpretation.

[Cykosurge]

So here's side White and there's side Black, both followers extreme in their views on the situation. And our guy goes around trying to cool the situation by reasoning to them what's not right in their views in order to stop the rioting.

But, in doing so he starts a chain reaction. We can notice that there is an increase in the particular type of follower we are sided with.

Instead of calming the situation, the converted people are now rioting against their former, shall I say, ideology. Which our guy is trying to avoid.

Our guy then reasons to them that there are things that are good in what they were formerly believing in. They abandoned their new ideology with even more strength in their belief.

This goes on until our guy reasons to himself, that there are alway the good the bad and the ugly in each view and decides compromise is the only solution.

He tries to reason to each side with no to avail, as each side sees only the right in themselves and only evil in their opponents. Deeper, it's the fact of living next door with someone who loves what they hate, and hate what they love is what is making compromise unacceptable and unthinkable to both sides.

Meanwhile our guy is seen as a bastard of society, who is neither black or white, and is seen as an outcast by both sides. They will no longer listen to him and both side gears up to fight. Uhh, or more so.

Well thats was what I wrote on newgrounds. I started thinking and replayed the game and there were things that I missed.

1.The people we directly convert follow the guy. They stand behind him, the guy facing the opposite of the opposing crowd's direction.

2.It takes two additional guys in the first round to make non following people to appear, I'm sensing mob mentality here.

3.The border when speaking corresponds to the person's border and the border disappears at the grey area, I think it symbolises common ground. When grey there is no border at all. So no common ground is reached.

4.It takes less people to in each round to make more of your own color appear. This results in less followers behind the guy. I think it means people are having less confidence in the guy as a leader.

5.The guy can only talk to people who has a border. I think it means that the person is willing to listen to the guy. And the guy also willing to talk to the rioters. Maybe its empathy

6.Our guy when grey goes around with his hands waving. Desperation maybe. Or moment of truth.

What I can draw is that the guy first genuinely believes in what he is saying, Which is Black. He goes around telling how White is bad and Black is good by reaching a common ground or through weakness in Whiter's argument. While gathering people who are genuinely believing him, onlooking rioters notices Black is growing in strength and so some riot in favour of Black, without firstly understanding what is Black.

After converting enough people, the whole crowd turn into Blackers and goes on rioting. Our guy realise that there are people who don't really understand the cause of Black. So he uses White's arguments which he has heard from former Whiters and understands some of their merits. The mob is even quicker to change sides as they were formerly Whiters. Our guy has less followers than before and has to use more arguments to convince them.

Over the course of the riot, the effects of our guy's action exponentially increase. He has even less genuine followers, and has more difficulty to convince them. He too, starts realising the merits of both Black's and White's argument and sees that a compromise could just be the solution.

He starts going around to convince people about the compromise but, he fails, because (1) they have lost confidence in him,(2) Grey is too radical an idea - most people are afraid of new ideas or more accurately uncertainty - Black and White are establised ideas, whereas Grey is unproven,(3) Both Whiters and Blackers have too much hate towards each other, a compromise in hate is near impossible.

So thats my revised opinion on the situation depicted in the game.

As for the game's intention, I guess it's to provoke thought on the matter.

[Kevindubrow]

Mine is similar to other ideas already posted.

The character you have is at first firmly rooted in his own ideology. He feels such passion for his beliefs that he tries to rally everyone to his cause. Fortunately, he’s a smooth talker, and converts everyone to his side. After he does that, he has no one to argue with. The first message is that debate is mostly proving that you’re the smartest, that you can win, instead of proving that your idea is better. With no one to “beat” at debate, he allows himself to see the other point of view.

Since he finally opens his mind to the other side, he tries to get everyone to join him. His mad talking skills allow him to do so. The same thing happens, except the other way around; he’s back where he started. After doing this a few times, he’s opened his minds to both arguments, and after reviewing them, he realizes that both have good points and takes the best parts of each into a middle ground, i.e gray. Once he’s gray, no one listens to him. The second message is that people take a one sided stand on issues, either black or white. When you try to compromise, no one listens to you.

The third message is a mix of the first two: that people focus on how people argue their ideas, not on the arguments themselves. They allow themselves to switch between sides because they don’t think about the best one, unlike the character you play, but whichever is argued to them better.

Obviously, I took a cynical approach to this.

[1amayzingman]

My interpretation:

The Protagonist is a person of indecision and no principal belief.  He is only on a certain side because the other side is winning.  When the side he's on is winning, he changes sides.  He's flip-flopping on his own core beliefs so often that he doesn't know what he believes in.  He can't keep this up without consequence, however, as he finds out when he turns gray.  Since he has taken no side, he has no argument, and can't do anything to convince anyone about anything.  He becomes inconsequential, the person who could control mobs of people simply by changing his principles now can't do a thing.

To me, it's a warning that if you change your principles to gain power, sooner or later you're going to become an unimportant, forgotten man.

That's just one interpretation, of course, and not the only correct one.

[mattryan866]

  i think that if everybody who reads this sent an email to all their contacts with a link to the game, and requested that once they finished if this game made them think about this kind of thing everyone is posting about, that they do the same, then this game would be amazingly popular, and everyone would have an opinion. i also think that this game is unique, in that it is a game that forces you to think. ithink that this is a really great game.   :)

[Trerro]

I think the idea is that society operates on an Us vs. Them, black and white mentality - you're with us or with the enemy. You convince people to turn to your side, only to see what happens when an extreme - either extreme - wins. As you become a better and better debater, you find you can singlehandedly manipulate giant crowds by talking to only a few people, but more importantly, you realize that all the back and forth in the world can never reach a real solution. What's needed is a middle ground, and that needs cooperation, not conflict.

With that flash of insight, you become Grey in a Black and White argument, and you try to apply your now honed speaking skills to your new message... only to find them utterly and totally fail. You fade into the crowd and ultimately leave it. You've gained wisdom, but it's a wisdom that simply cannot be imparted on a society based purely on conflict.

With that, you realize a fundamental truth - most people aren't truly interested in analyzing issues, they just want a few talking points and a team. Those who understand the value of Grey understand how to truly fix many of society's problems... but are powerless to do so. They would have to win a conflict with a message of "don't let it be a conflict". The only way it will ever truly happen is if Grey becomes a far, far more common position - but you can't argue grey, as it's not an argument at all, but a general philosophy.

[aeiowu]

I think the idea is that society operates on an Us vs. Them, black and white mentality - you're with us or with the enemy. You convince people to turn to your side, only to see what happens when an extreme - either extreme - wins. As you become a better and better debater, you find you can singlehandedly manipulate giant crowds by talking to only a few people, but more importantly, you realize that all the back and forth in the world can never reach a real solution. What's needed is a middle ground, and that needs cooperation, not conflict.

With that flash of insight, you become Grey in a Black and White argument, and you try to apply your now honed speaking skills to your new message... only to find them utterly and totally fail. You fade into the crowd and ultimately leave it. You've gained wisdom, but it's a wisdom that simply cannot be imparted on a society based purely on conflict.

With that, you realize a fundamental truth - most people aren't truly interested in analyzing issues, they just want a few talking points and a team. Those who understand the value of Grey understand how to truly fix many of society's problems... but are powerless to do so. They would have to win a conflict with a message of "don't let it be a conflict". The only way it will ever truly happen is if Grey becomes a far, far more common position - but you can't argue grey, as it's not an argument at all, but a general philosophy.

Great interpretation. The "US v. them" point reminds me of this video I watched recently on the topic. I think it fits in quite well with what you're talking about.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

[godatplay]

Eloquently written, Trerro. Nice job.

[b-3]

"The function of grey matter is to route sensory or motor stimulus to interneurons of the CNS in order to create a response to the stimulus through chemical synapse activity."
Copy-pasted from Wikipedia. To be honest, I have no idea what that means.

I wonder why this group of lefties start to send a massive wave of people to unsuspecting right. Is it because they want to avenge their defeat on Grey version 0.8 beta? Or is it just for the lulz?

Anyway, I really enjoy playing the game. Making people confront each other by initiating conversations that would eventually change their way of thinking, that is, if done at correct timing. Don't really care which side they are. To hell with morality, this is just a game damn it, an addictive game.
The only problem is when those people realized that they have the option to simply ignore. When that time comes, it would be the end for this supposedly never ending game of joy.

The way I see it, the real game starts when player finished playing Gray.
Have fun!