Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

2058 Posts in 165 Topics- by 669 Members - Latest Member: harrietpreston

August 21, 2014, 01:59:35 PM
Intuition Games ForumGamesGrayI may have missed the point.
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: I may have missed the point.  (Read 20619 times)
rocket
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« on: April 24, 2009, 06:09:10 PM »

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.
Logged
rempresent
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 02:09:47 AM »

I would be interested to hear the developer's thoughts on this also.

So, I can feel strongly about white, convince other people to be white and they change to white.  But then in a riot of all whites, I have a feeling of some sort (something that isn't communicated that well in the game, I guess it is up to the players to determine why they think they switch to the other side) and go back to black.  After I am black, I start convincing others about my story until they eventually all go black.

My question would be, are you saying that most people do this back and forth for long enough to know that instead of picking a side, that they should accept both, become grey and get no one to be a follower because to them it is all about black or white?  I still am having a hard time wondering why the game went that way and why all the people just went to that color and there was no greys or just a couple whites/blacks rather than the entire riot be a color.  Seems strange to me, but I will sleep on it and probably come up with a few more insights.
Logged
aeiowu
Administrator
Dinoteen
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 138



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2009, 05:31:18 PM »

Thanks for your feedback guys.

I don't think that you can really misunderstand the game, if it's abhorrent for some reason, well how come? I'd like to hear your opinions about the message you got out of it, since there's no real right and wrong answer here. just different ways of looking at it.

sorry for being purposely obtuse, but there really is no one thing we want people to come away with, the fact that you guys came away with anything at all makes us feel like our experiment was worthwhile in some way.
Logged
jamesdesilva
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2009, 10:44:32 PM »

Wow. I took away something completely different from this game.  I took it to mean that you could stand on either side of an issue, and you would be able to persuade people to join your cause.  But once you stood in the middleground, you lost the ability to persuade people to join your cause.  You can look around and see that there are animal rights activists, and there are groups that test on animals, but you'll never find a "It Doesn't Really Matter What Happens to Animals, We're All Going to Die Anyway," firstly because that title is horrendously long and the acronym doesn't work at all, and secondly because once you stand on the middle ground, you lose the ability to persuade people to your side, because you don't really have a side. You are indifferent, and no one from either side is going to be convinced that indifference is the way to go, because they have already decided on their morals. Their morals may shift, but they'll never truly go away.
Logged
JLrep
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2009, 09:58:35 AM »

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.

Well, if the game DOES have a point, and it's a political one, then it follows that not everyone will agree with it.

I took the game to imply that in a given situation where there are radicals on one side of the issue, Whites, who are opposed by radicals of the opposite extreme, Black, then not only is it more likely that if these people change their views, they will change very radically (to the other side of the spectrum)), but that true wisdom, which lies (as is usually the case) between the two extremes, has a much weaker power to convince because people want an ideology that allows them to mob left or to mob right.

Which seems right to me.
Logged
godatplay
Chairman of Markerboard Doodling
Administrator
Dinosaur
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


Indie game developer, life-changer, entrepreneur


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2009, 10:41:41 AM »

It's great to see everyone's interpretations here.  Here's mine:

People are irrational.  Many times, because of their heightened emotions and feelings about a particular subject, they appear like a mob.  You can try to communicate with them in a way they understand, which usually involves exaggerating to the opposite side.  If you're good at it, you can get them to see the other side, but that'll just get them acting irrationally the other way.

If you keep doing that, you eventually see both sides equally and have a hard time exaggerating anymore.  At that point, you're pretty balanced with your communication, which makes it hard to communicate with irrational people, and then it just seems pointless.

But maybe this is my interpretation because I have a hard time taking one side on a lot of issues. Tongue
Logged

/////////////////////////
God at play -- part of Intuition
http://www.godatplay.com
http://twitter.com/godatplay
/////////////////////////
misterbrett
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 02:23:48 AM »

I think we can all agree the overall theme of the game is about opposition. The author even states this. This game offers something other games lack and that is a meaning we relate to and a process we go through on a daily (hourly for those of us that have WWIII going on inside of our heads) basis. So here is my... Opinion and I MUST SAY, I want you  to listen close to me.. take notes and i will hold a town hall style meeting after so any holdouts or opposition to my opinion can be 'corrected' (taken from the shining)

OK my opinion is based on the title of the game. Gray. You the player of this game start off white. You then debate and challenge those with opposition to your ideology. Eventually you find yourself with none to argue with... as you ponder all this new information you gained by communicating with your opposition you begin to shift your views and find yourself going back and forth. Suddenly you have a clear understanding of your beliefs and are somewhere in the middle. As you debate others they simply are not ready to settle down in the middle. You are now gray. The game ends. But your character is not. As you finish the game you realize there may be a message to the game and you start to make up your own opinion. It starts off with a racial overtone but you then remember the peace thing and then play once more to see if you missed something. You now see picket signs and arrows that seem to represent something. You are now almost certain of your views but you decide to read the message board to discover others POV. You are blown away by the creative response and slowly form your new improved POV. You decide to share it with others and explain how Addy234 is wrong in her views that the gray person is in line with your views.... Thus the game goes on.... we become the game.

OK now that I am done i would like to remind those of you who liked what i had to say to spread our belief to others and sway them to think as we do. To those that are still in opposition remember we will have a town hall meeting with plenty of handouts for you to read. Thank you!
Logged
aeiowu
Administrator
Dinoteen
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 138



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2009, 12:55:34 PM »

Thanks for that.

I eagerly await your townhall meeting, haha.
Logged
Lord Kalvin
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2009, 09:02:55 PM »

I found this game to be a phenomenal form of expression.  I've never seen a game tackle such mature issues in such an abstract, artful way...  It was so open to interpretation... like a painting you'd see in a museum.  I've seen "artsy" games before... but never have I seen one with such a meaningful, relevant subject matter.  I think you all may start an artistic revolution of interactive art.  This piece touched me so, that I had to join and find out more about your artists, and the Ideas you all were communicating. I see now that there are no direct messages you all intended to incite, so I will share what I took from this experience.

My interpretation is a simple one I believe.  I feel like the game expresses the fickle nature of people, and the problem with their Black/white, right/wrong, left/right moral extremities, and their inability to grasp that no issue is ever truly BLACK or WHITE, but there are always gray areas, and room to compromise.

Anyway, the game is fantastic, and I just wanted to personally let the artists know that I truly appreciate them sharing a piece of their soul with us.  It's so nice to see someone use the "game" format for something thought-provoking... something more than just senseless violence.  fantastic work.
Logged

Vimeo.com/LordKalvin
primussucks
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2009, 04:43:57 AM »

The way I saw it, it wasn't necessarily that every time you switched from black to white or white to black you were changing your own views, but that the character was just changing from a person in one party to one in the opposing party. I mean, how often does a regular person go from strongly pro-life to ardently pro-choice?

I do have one question about the social commentary. What exactly is the solution to the problem?
Ignorance is just human nature.
Logged
aeiowu
Administrator
Dinoteen
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 138



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2009, 12:00:50 PM »

Anyway, the game is fantastic, and I just wanted to personally let the artists know that I truly appreciate them sharing a piece of their soul with us.  It's so nice to see someone use the "game" format for something thought-provoking... something more than just senseless violence.  fantastic work.
Thanks so much, I'm really glad you enjoyed it. We've been floored by the response so far as we weren't sure how people would receive this. Comments like yours have made it all worth it.

I do have one question about the social commentary. What exactly is the solution to the problem?
Good question, I don't have an answer though... :-/
Logged
KBF
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2009, 03:56:04 PM »

I noticed that when you make the mob mostly one sided, they begin to talk to one another, but not the few remaining other color. Just an observation.

When you approach the people in the crowd that are willing to have a conversation, that show tendencies of the other side (the outline) the main character is able to communicate with them. By reaching a middle ground in the argument, we show them the strong points of the other side. They grow confused, and in their confusion, change it radically from one side to the other. When you talk to so many people on the other side, even though you converted them, you begin to see the other side also, and you too grow confused and dramatically change sides.
Or maybe, you aren't on either side at all to begin with. Maybe you only wanted to be different and convince people you are right. When you succeed, the cycle repeats.
When you've been each side repeatedly, you begin to realize that the answer isn't either. It's somewhere in-between. It's the middle ground you've been arguing all along. Maybe not a perfect middle ground, but the same middle ground you've been using to show them the strong point of the other side. Your tool of conversion that you've been using to show people your false answer, in itself, was the true answer. However, without the conviction of the other side, you can no longer reach that middle ground. Without an opposing argument, you can't sway people.
Or maybe you're just untrustworthy. You realize what you truly are, just a rebel from popular opinion. You realize that you don't care, you lose your conviction, and thus, become invisible.


I also thought this review on Newgrounds had a unique viewpoint.

Quote from: linguistman
I got a great message out of this. I interpreted the mob running one way or the other and their colors representing their opinions on a topic. It was a good idea for you to be vague about it, because we could imagine it being about literally anything we want. Without any names or actual faces to speak of, we can fill in the blanks to relate it to ourselves.

Anyways, playing this game and thinking that the colors represented their opinions, I experienced a lot of frustration. First off, I was angry that everybody else was running in the same direction, going with the flow. No-one was running the opposite direction nor was anyone just standing there. This crowd of people lacked individuality and I hated them for it.

But my guy was guilty too! He disagreed with them and I had to get them all to go the other way. But when I got them all going the other way, he changed colors! And this happened many times and I got furious with him! "Why can't you make up your mind!?" I wanted to yell at him. I hated him because his color and opinion was never the same. I couldn't trust him. I wanted him to be either white or black(or, as I interpreted it, for or against an issue) or maybe even gray(neutral towards an issue). It was as if he didn't really have an opinion at all.

The ending was very fitting and it made me happy, because after changing his mind so many times and being generally unreliable, the guy was gray and invisible and no-one would listen to him. That made me happy because, finally nobody was listening to this guy who couldn't make up his mind and was confusing me.

The message I got was that you should stick to your opinions on a topic that you're talking about, and if you just constantly change your mind and not make any sense at all, no-one will listen to you, and rightfully so, because who in the world can trust someone who has no real opinion about something at all?
Logged
Someguy
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2009, 05:04:49 PM »

I've read the author's comments on the game, and I think I understand the point of the game. I don't believe that the author had a specific idea that he wanted to convey. I think that this a social experiment of sorts: if a person tells you that there is hidden meaning in a portrait, you will look until you believe you have found it. On the other hand, if a person tells you that there is no point to the portrait, you will dismiss it and move on with your life.

The author wanted to see your reactions to the game. He had a decent game idea, and gave it a form that could be seen in many different ways.

Granted, the general theme seems obvious to someone who studies this type of stuff all the time (Nature of conflict, all been said before.), but the game I saw was gray, murky, vague, pointless.

People have expressed their points of view in games far better than the people who made this game did. They used all of the tools they could. The developers of this? They neglected, completely, some of the tools they had. If they had a point, they would have needed to use them.
Logged
godatplay
Chairman of Markerboard Doodling
Administrator
Dinosaur
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


Indie game developer, life-changer, entrepreneur


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2009, 06:05:27 PM »

It's nice to see such a different point of view.  Kudos for sticking your neck out Smiley
Logged

/////////////////////////
God at play -- part of Intuition
http://www.godatplay.com
http://twitter.com/godatplay
/////////////////////////
Geash
Egg
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2009, 01:16:44 PM »

I think this game is a think tank. It is very practical because it molds every possible action, point of view, thought, into colors, and applies them. Even slight nuances in the game.

For instance, when you speak to a rioter, you have to wait for HIS wave thing before proposing yours, and your wave thing must come to a compromise itself with black and white in the conversation to be able to shift the rioter to your views.
I also noticed the rioters you convince yourself follow you around, as if they follow your ideas, but when you shift ideas, they all leave, either because they reject you, or dont agree with you anymore, which is ironic seeing they were of the color you are now.

It just resumes everything and nothing in just a practical act.
"I LIKE APPLES" "TRY PEARS DAMNIT" "OK" "NOW I LIKE APPLES" "GO AWAY IM INTO PEARS NOW" "YOU SHOULD TRY APPLES" "OK".
and when it goes "I LIKE BOTH" other people are 'so what?', perhaps because they feel you do not stand with them, or against them, so you're useless, which leaves you alone. I need to look more into things. Awesome game, makes my brain work.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic