High On Grief

Adapted from an IFCOMP25 Review

This series has sunk into my brain a bit. The first entry I found to be challenging - unconvincing character and plot beats scrambled with DEEEPLY convincing character and plot beats, and undergirded with a metaphor deployment of unqualified genius. The second, a lighter, stagey script-like affair of similar mix, that ended on a left field plot beat that demanded followup.

This is not that followup. This, my third entry here, is yet again a shift in gears. This is a meta-textual exploration of grief, when the loss is of an actively harmful relationship. It drafts off the most powerful elements of the first work, but is resolutely its own story. Great swaths of world building are ignored here, in favor of third wall playfulness and memoir-fiction line blurring. In this emerging umbrella of a series my appreciation grows with each new entry. Each one carves out unique gameplay and preoccupations, developing its own vibe in a beautifully asymmetric patchwork. It is also true, though, that I find every one a mix of wonderful and confounding elements.

HoG is structured as a time loopy game - a fraught one-time memorial service prologue followed by loops of therapeutic reflection and support from the friend group. Except the time loopiness of it is not really in-world time looping, it is explicitly NARRATIVE looping. You and your friends have full memory of every loop. There is no reason it had to be a loop - it could have been a series of phone calls in real, one-way running time. No, the Loop was explicitly the player’s choice to keep digging v giving up at safe but superficial understanding. Plumbing the same ground for more meaning. That was cool. We come to an ending, complete with credits, only to be prompted by the narrator to keep digging, to continue exploring the myriad dimensions of pain and connection.

Each iteration, the narrator gently cajoles us to not settle for a single, or even a few self-aggrandizing ‘endings.’ It is explicitly saying “Sure that’s part of it, but if you stop now, you won’t have the full picture and are probably missing some important artifacts.” Its choice architecture reinforces this in a wonderful way - the player will bias towards explorations they are more comfortable with, leaving increasingly uncomfortable options to loom larger the closer we get to finale. We are enjoined to not stop playing until we have unearthed the full truth, most especially the least flattering aspects and artifacts of years of mental abuse. Thematically this was a creative use of format for a very specific effect, recasting its artificiality as deliberate and evocative. It is all very intriguing, but also somewhat distancing? The more we loop, the closer the narrator and protagonist become - acknowledging the artificiality of the game format, the limits and power of fictionalized emotion, and even the reader/player’s engagement. By continually highlighting the various identity disconnects it seems to reframe any emerging empathy as at least partially artificial. This disconnect colored every iteration, increasingly so as we neared the end. It is a fascinating approach of deliberately challenging complexity, plumbing the limits of the medium.

There was an even bigger narrative confrontation, though. See the whole thing is built on (Spoiler - click to show)eating your dead Mom’s ashes. The work announces this before any serious emotional excavation has started. How are we supposed to react to this with anything but revulsion? It was such a stark, in-your-face choice. It back footed me so hard, every subsequent character and dramatic moment was overshadowed by its visceral punch. Ultimately, it felt very much of a kind with the first in the series: unconvincing and offputting ‘reality’ in service of very powerful and subtle metaphor. Here’s the thing though - metaphor is intellectual. Revulsion is visceral. The latter wins the moment EVERY TIME, and can only be conquered in retrospect. Meaning, we are continually trying to reconcile how something that feels SO off is GOOD, ACTUALLY. Humans are not built for that kind of contradiction and I was never able to fully shed its shadow. Even as I acknowledged the depth of the metaphor against the aims of the piece.

It is formally and thematically accomplished, playing with function and metaphor to very strong effect. But it underestimates the power of its imagery and the blurring of narrator/protagonist/author/player is as confounding as it is effective. For sure, this series has not become LESS interesting!

Played: 11/7/25
Playtime: 30m, restarted until game stopped telling me to
Artistic/Technical ratings: Sparks of Joy/Mostly Seamless
Would Play After Comp?: No, experience feels complete

Artistic/Technical ratings:
Artistic scale: Bouncy, Mechanical, Sparks of Joy, Engaging, Transcendent
Technical scale: Unplayable, Intrusive, Notable (Bugginess), Mostly Seamless, Seamless