Once in a while, we come across a game that is more than a game; more like an experience, something that hits you deeper and offers a message more profound than your average coffee break pastime can supply. Take Gray, by Intuition Games (Effing Hail, Dinowaurs), a very curious entry, but a potentially enlightening one as well.
There's not much to the gameplay. You are a white or black androgynous person in the midst of a rioting mob, filled with people of the opposite shade. Your goal is to "talk" to the people who are highlighted and attempt to convert them to your point of view.
This conversation mode provides Gray's only actual gameplay. When you stop one of the rioters, an interface opens up. No, you will not be convincing this person using well-crafted arguments or a firm command of facts and figures. Instead, you simply wait for their signal to head your way, and you hit the [space bar] to send your own signal to meet it. Ideally they will meet in the middle, and if you get enough signals to meet, you will convert this person.
You keep doing this until you have converted the entire mob, at which point you change to the opposite color and start right back from the beginning. After a bit, a twist will be thrown your way. This twist is essentially what the game is all about, and so I won't ruin it for you.
What you take away from the final revelation is up to you and will probably rely upon your own life experiences. One of our staff thought the game was broken. Me personally, having spent four years in political blogging before coming here (off topic, working at Jay is Games is way better than political writing, hands down!) I was absolutely floored by what I saw, and amazed at how accurately such a simple little game could hold a mirror up to modern political discourse.
But don't let my own political take on things scare you away, or even shade your interpretation of what happens. Since first playing Gray I have thought of many ways that the final twist is analogous to different facets of life. Could it be making a statement about popularity? Fads? Gullibility? It's up to you to decide.
Thanks for the suggestion, Thezeu!
I not sure about ending. If there was other options when I become gray. Maybe I was not need to talk to anyone.
But I played this only cuz of review. It was boring or something. I just wanted to see what's the ending. The happening didn't impress me at all.
Was it something really conceptual? Maybe. but more like just a trance effect. Nothing really meaningful.
I dunno, I enjoyed it...but I'm easy to please.
I guess I'll be the first person to admit that I'm not, in fact, jaded, and am still a naive dolt, because
I had a "whoa" moment that hit pretty hard.
At first, I was thinking "okay, this is an interesting mechanic I guess. Not very complex, but good for a short game" But then as the character kept changing his mind, I started thinkin "Come on, little dude! Make up your flippin mind! This isn't going to go on forever is it?"
So it sort of devolves, abstractly, from carefully-constructed argument into political rhetoric and the like. Dogma, really. Arguing by way of quantity, rather than quality.
And then, BOOM
It successfully depressed me, and I think part of that comes from my own personal experiences which have shown this phenomenon to, in most situations, often be the case. Maybe if you've never known circumstances of group-think or mob rule, you won't get what's going on here, it may or may not fly over your head...or perhaps you're in the middle of or support that kind of philosophy, in which case you'll find the game vaguely insulting perhaps. Whichever the case, I can assure you, the game very much does have a point. And a heavy one, at that.
I don't even know if spoilers are warranted for a game this mechanically simple, but I figured I'd be nice to the users who are foolish enough to read comments before playing. :p
Can you reveal the ending? I played long enough to switch once and then a while after that and got bored.
I don't know, I thought the message was rather obvious and cliched. But I am a social scientist so... :-)
@joe,
only the first "switch" takes a lot of time, the latter ones are easier. Also, the post above yours actually gave up an ending. But if you want to have it summarized:
Simple, yet pretty deep. I liked it.
Heh heh, the little white guys look pathetic when 99% of the population is against him and he is still running around protesting.
I know I'm going to catch some flak for this, but I really can't stand these games that were written with the sole purpose of making you think about life or any of its social/cultural aspects. I play games to free my mind of realistic thought, not be drawn to it. I mean it's different if it is, well, actually a game. In other words if there is some challenge to overcome or puzzle to solve; give me a reason to play other than that I'll come to an obvious conclusion after, in this case, pressing the space bar over and over.
This game has nothing much except for that one heck of a logo. Otherwise, it's just scurrying about and tapping the spacebar talking to everyone around you.
Here's my take on the game (since it's always fun to read someone else's interpretation and disagree wholeheartedly!):
ahh... the ancient dilemma of binary thinking. No one wants the middle path, they just run from side to side because thats what currently seems like the best alternative.
I loved this short little game, and how it generated so many thoughtful responses.
My take on the ending was
It was fascinating seeing how other people saw it.
Uber long comment, so I'm using spoilers for courtesy.
About general opinions of interactive art and games with morals, etc.
My take.
Awesome review Kyle, it's always really gratifying to know people appreciate our work!
Oh, the twist was better than I expected. Going into it I was convinced it was going to turn out the game was all the conversation wave in an enormous peson's head, but it was much more interesting.
My take on the ending was a bit different to what it seems most people have gone for:
I think it's fine for games to be art. Why wouldn't it be?
@judacris: Isn't that logo great? I love it. Honestly, I sort of feel as if that logo (well, title page) was just as effective in getting a thoughtful message across as the "game" itself. And a lot more concise. Nice idea, though.
This game reminded me of ones like Mondo Medicals, mainly due to its graphical style and obscurity of purpose. Gray is less about playing the game and more about the point it makes, which probably will bore people who want playing the game to be more interesting than thinking about it afterwards.
I couldn't help but feel that no actual point was intended in Gray's creation, but was made with "black and white points of view" as a theme to get people to interpret it as if it was a freshman English Lit lecture. For that idea, here's where I can take it:
Whatever it's about, even now it's causing the very kind of debate that takes place within it. Let's just look at each others' reviews so it won't get too one-sided, okay?
I too really enjoyed this "game" and wanted to see it live beyond the thrashing that Kongregate users were giving it. And as judacris said, one heck of a logo.
@Sonicscrewdriver:
Oh right! I didn't even think about anything like that! It can all add up to that, but I thought the, let's call it "avoidance", was on the part of the main character, not everyone else!
I thoroughly enjoyed this little commentary, and as a "communication arts and sciences" major (basically rhetoric), I second everything that zbeeblebrox said. another way to put it,
I think this is a beautifully made game.
While as I agree with most of the commentary posted, I think there are some deeper sentiments.
I feel that the waves/messages meeting at the middle, rather than just trying to get to the other sides adds another depth to the ideas of argumentation and biases: by having them meet, the author seems to be emphasizing not a sense of quantified arguments (many arguments made), but rather strategically qualified arguments. In other words, by having the waves meet the author shows that it is not the arguments, but rather the argument (the act of arguing) that shifts beliefs.
This game actually made me think a lot about the concept of dialectics. I had several teachers in college who spent an inordinate amount of time trying to explain dialectics. It's a fairly complicated concept especially when you get into its various applications.
@steve: I disagree that this is a game with any single 'message'. Already there are a number of different ideas being presented. The game leaves things open to interpretation on the players part.
My suspicion is that as a 'social scientist' you looked at the game through a particular lens. Try using a different critical approach and you might see something different and a little less cliched.
A very interesting game. The ending is very subtle yet effective, and it doesn't state the meaning and hammer it into your head (unlike some pieces of interactive art I can think of)
As Ax said, I don't think there is one 'message'. The fact that the ending is so ambiguous shows that anyone could interpret anything from it. The first thing I thought when I played it was that the people were fleeing from an earthquake.
But here's my take, if anyone's remotely interested:
I find it interesting that JIGuest's and sonicscrewdriver's interpretation - of the player character as
Quite a game, to be able to sprout so many divergent thoughts.
I still have trouble identifying with the negative response, though most of it is off-site. I guess I'm too eager to find motivation and purpose behind things to understand why a gut reaction would be to criticize that very element. I can respect a desire for thoughtless entertainment, indeed I like that sort of thing too, but the idea that the two can't or shouldn't coexist, well...that sort of goes back to my interpretation of this game, doesn't it?
First: My personal experience, etc.
Second: My interpretation
I'm really loving reading this conversation...
Now, a divergent theory.
But, like I say, I'm loving the conversation. There's another game we've got coming up soon that I think you guys will also appreciate along similar lines.
Used to see this game on FGL. Unfortunately I only took a quick glance, felt it was repetitive, and never know that 'converting' process gradually need less people to talk with and what is this game about.
It is good that game discussions exist, so I found from people posts that this game isn't about fun, but about meaning. I regret though I don't know it earlier.
Good job, IntuitionGames!
Hey everyone, I just wanted to give a big thank you to all of you for your thoughtful interpretations as well as to Kyle for writing the article. These kinds of responses are exactly what we were hoping for.
<3
I thought this game was a simple, but fantastic way of going deeper into the theories behind communication and "converting", if you will.
Though I must say...
All in all, though, this game was neat and it made me think. I definitely enjoyed it. :)
I played this game twice, because, honestly, the first time I've played this, I was "What the ****?" So I read the comments on the forum, and I read the comments here, and played it again. And this time, I saw things in a different light.
My thoughts are based on one instruction that the game gives out:
So here goes:
Good thoughtful game, all in all.
My grayt experience:
brilliant game<3
and great interpretation anon
I thought the message in this game was interesting, if hardly novel, and it's really fascinating to see everyone's differing interpretations of it. Clearly, this game has succeeded in it's aim, encouraging discussion and debate.
My opinion on the game is condensed into spoiler tags, not really because it's a spoiler, but to avoid spamming up the comments. :)
I have a gray oppinion on this game, so nobody will listen to me.
Xixen: It often seems to me like where the "arty" games tend to fail is in their gameplay. It's not up to the standard of the message they're trying to express. Sometimes this could be intentional, though. Grey is, I think, meant to be a kind of vignette - the online game equivalent of a short story, if you like? But longer games, like, say, Closure, got pretty painful.
I really didn't know what to think about this game, so I went on the forum for it and looked at the thread "I may have missed the point." I wasn't sure what message this game was trying to convey, so I figured this would tell me. Then I found out that, according to one of the admins, there was no specific message.
You can't just make a game like this without a message. Because then the game becomes pretentious and meaningless, like Gray has to me. Maybe I could forgive it for the gameplay, but as it was relying completely on its uniqueness or whatever it was supposed to have, that's not happening.
Skoodge80: That's a touch unfair, don't you think? I mean, say you don't get it, that's fine, say you don't like it, fair enough.
But to call the game pretentious just because it doesn't have a set message I think is a little much. Indeed, some of the best works, from music to fiction, don't have a set message, but instead provide a kind of mirror, or a template from which the viewer creates their own message.
That's what this conversation has been about. Not what we think the developer meant, necessarily, but instead what it means to us, how it affects us. At the heart, Gray holds a mirror to what is often complex and passionate facets of life, facets we may not necessarily take the time to stop and analyze. But through this medium, the developer gives us the opportunity to observe life through a slightly different lens, one that may provide some clarity.
But I mean, think of the greats. To Kill a Mocking Bird, Of Mice and Men, that kind of thing. The author doesn't just come out and say, "This is what the book is about, this is what I want you to take from it, and this is why." If they wanted to do that, they would have written essays instead of novels. And through those novels we get to glimpse ourselves.
To me, that's not pretentious. Pretentious is making something with no discernable depth but then acting as though you have created the most profane thing in the world. Here, I think the developers wanted to create something that would spark conversation and thought, and presented it as such.
I've just realised that this game is about
This may be why it's so easy to sway people at the end.
@skoodge80
Kyle flatters us with the comparison to TKaMb and the like, but I think therein lies the power of interactive experience over other media. With player agency, certain games/systems can open up a wide variety of emergent interpretations based on the player's experience, history and viewpoint/personality. Though I think books are somewhat similar as I believe those to be interactive in terms of personal imagination and experience.
Nonetheless, when we set out to make Gray we did have a solid foundational message/motive to go from. If we hadn't had a concise concept to adhere to while developing it, the game would be much more indecipherable.
Thanks again everyone for playing and sharing their experiences. This is the most constructive conversation I've ever witnessed on the internet. =D
What I want to add, it's important what you see in it, get in it.
I mean, I remember from my literature class, there was always the question "what wants the author to express"? And I always though phooey on this question. When the author wanted to say something, s/he should just have done that in a simple and clear meaning.
I hate the author created as a imaginitative entitity, that got it right and it's our task to decipher the message. No, it's our task to get what we can see.
The key difference is as author, once you put out your work, it's no longer "yours" to decide it's "true meaning".
As a popular counter example of an author doing it wrong is for JKR, when she after the sales of the last volume, opens up character details (about Albus, but I won't go into details) as "truthness" that she didn't dare to even hint about in the books, when money was still on the stake.... Also once she gets the work out, it's not longer hers to decide what the orientation of Albus "really" was, when she did not even hint it.
Long text, shorter meaning, I think we should be open, and not closed to find the "one true" message in the game, and btw, seeing the authors messages of this game in his forum, he does it the right way. He wants to see what people see in it, and not wants the "right message" to be just "decoded".
Oh I just read the blog, aeiowu, "A person is smart, but people are stupid. ", thats a philosophical very classic statement and there is a new group that just argues thats its proven to be just plain wrong.
Surowiecki, James tries to make in his popular(ly written) book "The wisdom of crowds" exactly this point in great breath.
And honestly I tend to agree with him.
Spoiler tag for my thoughts:
I'm all for games that do a little more than entertain - especially when it's done in such a subtle, unpreachy way that makes it possible to draw many different conclusions on what's it all about, depending on ones own previous views, way of thinking and preconceptions.
I posted a fairly lengthy defense of my position and a discussion of games/art that are subject to multiple interpretations but apparently the moderators did not like it because it never appeared. Ah well, this is not my cup of tea but I am glad many posters found value in it.
[Edit: I just checked and there are no other pending comments, nor any in the 'spam' bucket, from you. Perhaps there was a problem or internet hiccup when you submitted comment? If so, I apologize for the inconvenience. -Jay]
I like the concept here, but IMO a game that wants to make a social statement of some kind needs to succeed as a *game* first.
And this one really doesn't, like most of its ilk.
@Bob Montgomery: I do not entirely agree, even though you certainly have a point.
I see this little piece as more of a piece of interactive commentary - or even art, if you will - that just happens to use the means games offer as a medium. That's why I think it works - just like "Passage", I believe it's not primarily meant as fun and entertaining, but rather as thought-provoking.
It's really just the same as in the visual arts - on the one hand, you have pictures that are pretty to look at, on the other hand, there are pieces that aren't beautiful, but challenge you to think.
I won't argue that there aren't pieces of art that succeed on both levels, but that doesn't make those that don't any less valid.
I'd be interested to know, by the way, which games of Grey's "ilk" you think succeed as games, too - sounds like something I'd like to play.
Mechane:
I would check out Jonas Kyratzes' works, particularly The Strange and Somewhat Sinister Tale of the House at Desert Bridge (search Desert Bridge here and that should do it).
If you like traditional shadowgate style point and click adventures, it's a very fun game, but it definitely gets WAY deep too.
@ aeiowu -
"A person is smart, but people are stupid."
Hey! Wasn't that a line from Men In Black? :D
@ Martha
Another thing the game could mean. Your character is a confusing hypocrite. Eventually, he wants to stop and becomes grey.
I'd be interested to know, by the way, which games of Grey's "ilk" you think succeed as games, too - sounds like something I'd like to play.
A few games featured here that (a) succeeded as games and (b) tried to make some kind of deeper statement about life:
Bars of Black and White
Super Energy Apocalypse Recycled
Achievement Unlocked
A few that kinda almost I can't decide just maybe succeed just as games:
The Linear RPG
Don't Look Back
The Majesty of Colors
One that just doesn't succeed as a game (IMO):
You Have to Burn the Rope
What a great game to have generated by far the best discussions in the JIG comments page.
Have donated $10 to them for that pleasure.
Oh, and Bob Montg - great list of those games, I am such a fan of them and haven't seen a couple you mentioned so shall check them out!
I'm actually trying to compile a referential list as a result of far too many pub converations reacting to..
"games? what like Tomb Raider? Nah, they're all stupid"
The list is sided to a less deep level than yours but it's so nice to find more!
My view on the meaning of this game? Basically, that if you try to make a game with Deep Meaning (as opposed to Deep Hurting, which requires robots and bad movies), then 99 times out 100 you end up with something that's just a boring mess.
More games for your list, jim, if you haven't seen them yet:
Aether
Closure
Coil
and Jason Nelson's work, although he's definitely working more from the direction of art than game.
You might also take a look at Interaction Artist, which is a website full of mini-games that experiment with various levels of philosophy and expression. Some of the bits and bobs there have a lot in common with Gray.
@Montgomery, Kyle, Psychotronic: Thanks for the game tips!
I already played most of them, but I'll definitely have a look at those I didn't know.
Another point I want to add to the 'successful as a game' discussion: What usually impresses me a lot is a message told (or at least supported) by the game mechanics themselves. Gray (I apologize for the previous misspelling, by the way ;)), Passage, Closure do it, Jason Nelson, Bars of Black and White (which I liked nevertheless) don't really.
Majesty of Colours doesn't, either, but there it's the superb, touching writing that makes it.
Even more interesting comments!
@zbeeblebrox:
@Anon:
@Xixen
And if you're looking for other games that include social comment, I recommend:
Metro Rules of Conduct (by Mazapan)
It's about how we try to avoid eye contact with other people. This one really made me see the world differently for a few days.
Well, as to gameplay, it's a bit short (sequel maybe?), but I played it again once I got that it isn't only the quantity but the timing. The first time I quit, the second I played through and "got the message" really well, and this time I just enjoyed the converting -- I felt like some puppetmaster, with the power to control minds...ugh, that's so evil of me. Maybe next time I'll get the message again?
Just some thoughts about the whole 'good gameplay' argument. It seems to me that there are many kinds of gameplay. I think sometimes we get caught up or confused by the word 'game', which conjures up the idea of a set of rules designed to entertain.
However, something like Grey has a set of rules designed to make you think. Take for example the fact that you can spam the space bar (which, oddly enough--I didn't do). This is actually pretty clearly a part of the theme of the game.
When you broaden the definition of game to include something like 'Gray' I think you have to accept that the only bad gameplay is gameplay that works against the theme of the game.
If the world of literature has room for everything from Stephen King to Kant then surely the world of video games should make room for stuff like Gray.
I'm glad that there are people out there who can play a game for more than addiction or wannabe-1337s, just people who aren't brainwashed into thinking a certain way, the people who aren't the people, they are the individuals, the unique who can change the world.
This game is amazing, the message is so deep. and no matter who you ask about the message, you'll most likely get a diffrent answer from each person.
I saw the message as...
very interesting. Simple but deep. I didn't understand the game till I read people's comments.
i think it's sort of like a traditional game. you start of easy, go against everything you know, again, again. then you reach an impossible point because of a cheap trick. then, ragequit.
Wow...
I greatly enjoyed reading the examinations people have presented on the implication of this game and I greatly take pleasure in the game itself.
It's actually a good game for me to engage in since I am colourblind (pretty much entirely) and so it has significant meaning even from that observation.
I apologize now for the lengthy epistles I present.
View 1 (colour deficiency):
Another view I have revolves around a highly sensitive subject that I have switched sides on many times until recently when I finally did become the true gray.
View 2 (Animal activism):
Sorry for switching topics in the end. I have severe ADD and it is very difficult for my mind to remain on one topic and it usually switches to something that is only slightly relevant to the aforementioned topic.
Again I do sincerely apologize for the exceptionally extensive commentary. I do hope you enjoyed my appliance of the game's connotation at the end of my insufferable rant.
Please feel free to respond via email if you deem my comment fit to do so.
Thank you for your time.
- Valenco
Oh. My. Jellybeans. That game ROCKED MY SOCKS OFF. Love the message, now I will provide a spoilered ramble on my interpretation, blablabla.
Thanks, later pplz!! =D
i think its supposed to mean that ppl will always be fighting/arguing about something. even if some ppl are smart and dont want it.
Anyone notice that near the end, there are only two or three people to argue with? I mean just before you reach the "twist".
I noticed that when the protagonist turneds gray, he sort of turned... transparent, instead of really becoming gray. He shifted with his surroundings, and he had simply become... invisible... to the people around him, because both sides wanted something other than the morally right answer, and both sides wanted the other to convert, so when there is a third party, that is the only time they agree-to crush the third opinion in the masses (sort of like the US election-independents that run get almost NO publicity).
Gray, to me, is the greatest interactive art ever created. When I played it I felt like someone finally understood my view on the world.
I felt less alone.
To be fair, it's not much a *game*. It's more like an opinion piece that you might find in Time or ESPN magazine. One better said in a game than with words.
When people say "You can use games to share a message", Gray is the pinnacle. I wish more people played it. Of those that played it, I wish more people understood it.
Thanks Jeff, for leaving the comments open a litter bit longer.
Update