I am done spending my time quoting you back to you. The words you wrote are in this post. Read them.

You've doubled down on the stupidity that the only struggles worth experiencing in the context of a videogame are: death, violence, the threat of violence.

I never said that. I don't believe that. I explained to you why. Then I explained why it's not applicable to the game.

And there lies the problem. I guess it's a game about overcoming your demons? Well so was Limbo. But in Limbo you could die. You can't here. What's to overcome when you can't be harmed? What good is a world explored if it doesn't present danger? This is itself a huge failure of design and theme. It undercuts the game to the very core.

The position that the only obstacles worth overcoming in the context of a videogame involve death, violence, or the threat of violence is ridiculous and stupid.

It's a particularly objectionable bit of reductionist nonsense when discussing a game that is arguably about trauma. Your complaint is that the protagonist, in the struggle to recover from trauma, can't be KILLED during the context of the game.

I mean... WTAF, seriously.

If you can’t be killed, or much less even really fail, how much of a “struggle” is it? It softens this, and ultimately says overcoming your demons is easy because they don’t actually weigh you down.

If you are suffering from trauma and you fail to succeed at overcoming it, then you FAIL. You STILL HAVE TRAUMA.

You've doubled down on the stupidity that the only struggles worth experiencing in the context of a videogame are: death, violence, the threat of violence.

The idea that obstacles that aren't portrayed in those particular ways are "easy" and "don't really weigh you down" is particularly offensive.

I don’t believe I ever said that. You can explore all that through story and character instead of violence… but surprise. This game has none of that, so it’s up to the mechanics then. I am using exactly what the game presents to me.

I am done spending my time quoting you back to you. The words you wrote are in this post. Read them.

And there lies the problem. I guess it's a game about overcoming your demons? Well so was Limbo. But in Limbo you could die. You can't here. What's to overcome when you can't be harmed? What good is a world explored if it doesn't present danger? This is itself a huge failure of design and theme. It undercuts the game to the very core.

The position that the only obstacles worth overcoming in the context of a videogame involve death, violence, or the threat of violence is ridiculous and stupid.

It's a particularly objectionable bit of reductionist nonsense when discussing a game that is arguably about trauma. Your complaint is that the protagonist, in the struggle to recover from trauma, can't be KILLED during the context of the game.

I mean... WTAF, seriously.

If you can’t be killed, or much less even really fail, how much of a “struggle” is it? It softens this, and ultimately says overcoming your demons is easy because they don’t actually weigh you down.

If you are suffering from trauma and you fail to succeed at overcoming it, then you FAIL. You STILL HAVE TRAUMA.

You've doubled down on the stupidity that the only struggles worth experiencing in the context of a videogame are: death, violence, the threat of violence.

The idea that obstacles that aren't portrayed in those particular ways are "easy" and "don't really weigh you down" is particularly offensive.

I don’t believe I ever said that. You can explore all that through story and character instead of violence… but surprise. This game has none of that, so it’s up to the mechanics then. I am using exactly what the game presents to me.

And there lies the problem. I guess it's a game about overcoming your demons? Well so was Limbo. But in Limbo you could die. You can't here. What's to overcome when you can't be harmed? What good is a world explored if it doesn't present danger? This is itself a huge failure of design and theme. It undercuts the game to the very core.

The position that the only obstacles worth overcoming in the context of a videogame involve death, violence, or the threat of violence is ridiculous and stupid.

It's a particularly objectionable bit of reductionist nonsense when discussing a game that is arguably about trauma. Your complaint is that the protagonist, in the struggle to recover from trauma, can't be KILLED during the context of the game.

I mean... WTAF, seriously.

If you can’t be killed, or much less even really fail, how much of a “struggle” is it? It softens this, and ultimately says overcoming your demons is easy because they don’t actually weigh you down.

If you are suffering from trauma and you fail to succeed at overcoming it, then you FAIL. You STILL HAVE TRAUMA.

You've doubled down on the stupidity that the only struggles worth experiencing in the context of a videogame are: death, violence, the threat of violence.

The idea that obstacles that aren't portrayed in those particular ways are "easy" and "don't really weigh you down" is particularly offensive.

And there lies the problem. I guess it's a game about overcoming your demons? Well so was Limbo. But in Limbo you could die. You can't here. What's to overcome when you can't be harmed? What good is a world explored if it doesn't present danger? This is itself a huge failure of design and theme. It undercuts the game to the very core.

The position that the only obstacles worth overcoming in the context of a videogame involve death, violence, or the threat of violence is ridiculous and stupid.

It's a particularly objectionable bit of reductionist nonsense when discussing a game that is arguably about trauma. Your complaint is that the protagonist, in the struggle to recover from trauma, can't be KILLED during the context of the game.

I mean... WTAF, seriously.

If you can’t be killed, or much less even really fail, how much of a “struggle” is it? It softens this, and ultimately says overcoming your demons is easy because they don’t actually weigh you down.

And there lies the problem. I guess it's a game about overcoming your demons? Well so was Limbo. But in Limbo you could die. You can't here. What's to overcome when you can't be harmed? What good is a world explored if it doesn't present danger? This is itself a huge failure of design and theme. It undercuts the game to the very core.

The position that the only obstacles worth overcoming in the context of a videogame involve death, violence, or the threat of violence is ridiculous and stupid.

It's a particularly objectionable bit of reductionist nonsense when discussing a game that is arguably about trauma. Your complaint is that the protagonist, in the struggle to recover from trauma, can't be KILLED during the context of the game.

I mean... WTAF, seriously.

Ultimately, I just think it's an enjoyable experience, and it doesn't need to be any more than that. Music is the form of entertainment that means the most to me. I'd give up movies, books, video games, and just about any other entertainment before I gave up music. So games with good music, that make music a core part of the experience, really speak to me. That's a huge reason I love Tetris Effect so much. It's part of why I like GRIS (and Journey) so much. GRIS is more interactive soundtrack than anything else to me, and that is enough justification for me to really enjoy it.

I do think the game could be a stronger game, for all the reasons you mentioned. It's story feels like a little cliched, in that there isn't a definitive story, and didn't feel like it had a real message. It's the typical "interpret this however you want as a generic metaphor for anxiety/depression/grief/whatever." That said, I do think it was affecting, and effective, in that at least the music and visuals are effective at eliciting some sort of emotional response, in me at least. I personally see it as a story about shifting perspectives more than overcoming challenge, in that restoring colors allows you to see new things in the same environment, but that's a simplistic reading that still doesn't really say anything.

I also think there could be a better, stronger game in there if they had leaned on the mechanics to build truly difficult platforming sections, or at least expanded the exploration aspect. But again, I think that's fundamentally counter to the experience the game is trying to present, which is supposed to be more relaxed. I personally found a lot of value in spending a couple of evenings just making my way through the pretty environments with a great soundtrack, and the gameplay, simple as it is, was more than engaging enough to carry the experience for me.

But I noticed you didn’t address the part about the game’s lack of danger fundamentally undermining its story and theme. Never mind the challenge or interactivity - this is for me the biggest flaw.

That's fine.

I won't tell you that you're wrong about any of what you said. I understand exactly where you're coming from. I just disagree with most of it. Not in that what you said was wrong, but in that I fundamentally disagree with you on what video games must be.

You say that you'd have lost nothing by just watching someone else play it. I disagree with that fundamentally. Yes, the game is very prescriptive. There's no real exploration to speak of, the mechanics aren't difficult to master. And while I think there's lots of lost potential. I'd love to see a version of the game that is more interactive, where abilities open up new possibilities in previous levels, where there is more mechanical challenge. But that's not the game that GRIS is, and I think that very idea runs counter to what the game is even supposed to be. This is a relaxed game, and I can enjoy that. Sure, the "puzzles," if you can even call them that, are incredibly easy. They're still mechanically interesting and fun. The timing puzzles with the trees are neat, even if you can see how to get through them almost immediately. The boss fight with the bird has a really great feel to it, even though it's impossible to screw up. Those red leaf launch pads just feel awesome.

Yes, it's a game that is all but impossible to lose, with no way to miss the set path forward, but it still fundamentally feels good. It's a case of the entire experience being more than the sum of its parts.

That’s just as dumb! Because I think it was made completely clear to you what this game was before you even bought it. You bought this game intending to hate to make some sort of point.

I didn’t INTEND to hate it. I had an idea of how good it would be… and it turned out to be basically that.

Gris is an opera you simply have to sit through even if you just want to go see some rock and roll.

I was okay with your review until this line.

If you want to see rock and roll, Cody, don't go to the opera. Duh.

Do you sit down and say "I really feel like some Vanquish today!", fire up Destiny, and bitch because you're not playing Vanquish?

No but if you fire up a platformer and want cool platforming…

Gris is an opera you simply have to sit through even if you just want to go see some rock and roll.

I was okay with your review until this line.

If you want to see rock and roll, Cody, don't go to the opera. Duh.

Do you sit down and say "I really feel like some Vanquish today!", fire up Destiny, and bitch because you're not playing Vanquish?

The most damning thing can be summed up with a conversation I had with my girlfriend:

"That looks pretty, what is it?"
"It's a game called Gris"
"What do you do?"
"You wander around, and collect sparks of light so you can continue on"
"Okay but why? What's the point?"
"………"

And there lies the problem. I guess it's a game about overcoming your demons? Well so was Limbo. But in Limbo you could die. You can't here. What's to overcome when you can't be harmed? What good is a world explored if it doesn't present danger? This is itself a huge failure of design and theme. It undercuts the game to the very core.

The art is pretty, and there is certainly coherence to it. However it is flat. There is no sense this world extends beyond us in either direction in a significant fashion. There is no interplay between background and foreground like in a game such as Inside. The path forward is always presented to you, and the solutions never more than a screen away. There is no sense of creativity to your actions, as everything is placed exactly to where it's to be used. The red pedals for instance, are placed exactly where they need to be. All you have to do is activate them. There is no real decision making on your part.

Danger is a big part of exploration, and for a game about fear it's completely inexcusable that you can't die or fail. The game asks nothing of you other than to continue on. Inputs are a formality when the 'challenges' are perfunctory. Gaming is about interactivity, and the games that use it the most are therefore the best. I could have watched someone play it and had the same satisfaction.

At least Inside had the fortitude to shock and challenge you thematically. The ending left you wondering. Is there an outside at all? Or is that part of the system too? The ending to Gris leaves nothing to the imagination, nor does it say anything definitive. it just… is.

The set pieces we have seen countless times before in other games. A mishmash of the old, simplified with no stakes and a fresh coat of paint.

Gris is an opera you simply have to sit through even if you just want to go see some rock and roll.

-Excruciatingly long intro sequence

This alone tells me you will not like this game. That you would describe it as "excruciatingly long," instead of enjoying the pretty visuals and music for the mere two and half minutes means you honestly might as well just quit playing it.

I loved every minute of MGS4, and that game takes control away from you for up to 70 minutes at a time (literally). It's not that. It's excruciatingly long because there is no compelling reason for me to be watching yet versus playing.

And that's not to say you're wrong. If I can appreciate a game for just being pretty and having a great soundtrack, you can certainly dislike it for lacking compelling gameplay (and that's not even the right way to phrase that, because I do find the gameplay compelling, as simple as it is). Just recognize that what you consider compelling gameplay is not a prerequisite for a game being good. Gaming as a medium as truly grown into being an art, and that's what this game is. It's a statement, an art piece, not just a piece of entertainment.

45 minutes in. Started a big wheel. No semblance of any sort of challenge, decision making, narrative or anything that asks the player to apply themselves. It's only slightly better than Inside, which was hold right to see what happens next. I think this is a pure platformer: there is no meaningful exploration as so far the path is linear.

It's honestly basically just like Journey but you can't get lost.

There isn't really any difference so far if I were watching someone else play, and that is squandering the art of games. This could be an animated film and lose little, and gain more.

But I will finish it because I said I would.

-Excruciatingly long intro sequence

This alone tells me you will not like this game. That you would describe it as "excruciatingly long," instead of enjoying the pretty visuals and music for the mere two and half minutes means you honestly might as well just quit playing it.

That sequence could have been three times as long, and I'd have still loved it. You seem like you're a "gameplay is king" sort of person--this is not that game.

This game, for me, is mostly an awesome, relaxing album with an interactive visual element. That's a gross over-simplification, but it's a game that's about taking in the pretty sights and sounds, and doing some cool movement while you do that. Try and appreciate it from that perspective. Put away your preconceived notions of what a game "should" be.

And that's not to say you're wrong. If I can appreciate a game for just being pretty and having a great soundtrack, you can certainly dislike it for lacking compelling gameplay (and that's not even the right way to phrase that, because I do find the gameplay compelling, as simple as it is). Just recognize that what you consider compelling gameplay is not a prerequisite for a game being good. Gaming as a medium as truly grown into being an art, and that's what this game is. It's a statement, an art piece, not just a piece of entertainment.

Actually scratch that. I’ll play it over holiday break and do a full review / analysis / criticism. It’ll be a learning opportunity for everyone here, including me.

I don't know if you'll like it, but I suspect you will come away thinking it's a better game than Journey. The deeper I get, the more I like it, and it has much more mechanical complexity than Journey does.

There are actually some neat platforming sections. Nothing super difficult, but definitely fun, and at least one so far had me scratching my head for a moment.

This game is great.

First 15 minutes:

-Controls are not reconfigurable using a controller. The defaults are sensible but this is inexcusable.
-Excruciatingly long intro sequence
-More decision making and mechanical complexity on the first screen of Mario 1 than in the game so far.
-Low impact: doesn't make my Macbook Pro fan spin up.
-Animation and art is good.

Actually scratch that. I’ll play it over holiday break and do a full review / analysis / criticism. It’ll be a learning opportunity for everyone here, including me.

I don't know if you'll like it, but I suspect you will come away thinking it's a better game than Journey. The deeper I get, the more I like it, and it has much more mechanical complexity than Journey does.

There are actually some neat platforming sections. Nothing super difficult, but definitely fun, and at least one so far had me scratching my head for a moment.

This game is great.

But it’s even worse than journey. Journey lets you explore in three dimensions. This is only two.

To fully understand a video game, we must first be fluent with its art, music, and elements of gameplay, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the game been rendered and 2) How many dimensions is that objective rendered in? Question 1 rates the game's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the game's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the game's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the game yields the measure of its greatness.

Huh

But the number of dimensions directly influences the “gameplay”. They can’t be treated separately…

I am facepalming so hard right now. JFC

On the other hand, if you think the above was just something I pulled out of my ass, I'm flattered, I guess?