So, I read an article on Bioshock here, because I was curious why a certain Bastard was so convinced it was pro-Objectivism that he wouldn’t even consider it, despite there being a free (awesome) demo out for it.
Having played a fistful of Irrational’s previous games (System Shock, SS2, Terra Nova, etc.), one of the main tenets of their games is that they give the player the freedom to develop their own character. So, for Irrational to have done something objectively pro-Objectivist seems out-of-character to me.
Now, having read the review, it seems like Rand “appeals” to Levine, though (and perhaps this is desperate rationalization) he doesn’t necessarily say that he espouses those beliefs. The way I read it, my impression was more that it was fertile ground for an interesting setting/story/characters, and that the ideas were interesting enough that they’d make for an interesting story.
Now, I’m not going to argue that Objectivism is good – I, like A_B, think that it’s a fundamentally self-absorbed, immature worldview. But at the same time, it’s sort of like Communism – the distinction between how it plays out as an ideology in an ideal setting versus how it interacts with basic human nature is fertile ground for discussion of what human nature really is, how people are motivated, and why people are drawn to particular philosophies.
I mean, in general, I like Communism as an ideal, but in practice, I’d never, ever want to live in a communist society. I want rewards when I do well, and I want success to be personally meaningful. That’s not to say that I want to be completely self-centered, either.
But I like the idea of fiction using that as a starting point to illustrate the essential perils of the philosophical extremes, and seeing how those play out in a world like this. To me, the opening of Bioshock certainly doesn’t paint a positive picture of Objectivism – it seems like you had a megalomaniac who was in love with the concept, then when he put it into practice everything went to shit. Whether that’s what plays out in the game or not, I don’t know – but a world in which the people were supposedly free of the burden of altruism and needing to work with others/rely on them/help them out – having the player walk through the consequences of an embodiment of that philosophy, and essentially even make some choices relating to how they want their character to interact with that clash of philosophies – seems interesting to me.
Of course, the problem is that on the other hand, I understand the reason you’d be completely turned off to the concept as well – I *don’t* want to play a game based on fundamentalist right-wing evangelical Christianity. I just don’t. I find the sort of Fred Phelps version of Christianity utterly repugnant, and want nothing to do with it. You *can’t* pose interesting moral questions based on that philosophy because it’s so obviously insane.
So, yeah, I get it – but based on my previous experiences with Irrational’s games, I have faith that Bioshock is going to be an interesting, stimulating experience – whether because of, or despite the philosophical trappings I can’t say. But my god, that demo is incredible.
Even though you posted it really late, and it’s even later in east coast time, I fully expected A_B’s spidey sense to tingle and alert him, and for him to already have posted an eviscerating response to your post.
Alas, I am disappointed.
I’ve been writing all night! 😉
[And having written this, this little text box makes it hard to be coherent and not repetitive]
“Now, having read the review, it seems like Rand “appeals” to Levine, though (and perhaps this is desperate rationalization) he doesn’t necessarily say that he espouses those beliefs.”
I think you’re wrong about the influence of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and impact that it has on the game.
Levine has stated that he thinks Objectivism is just swell. He just thinks, in the hands of ideologues, it gets wrecked. He specifically calls Ayn Rand an ideologue that went too far, but at the same time saying that Objectivism is good.
There is not criticism of the ideology, merely the purveyors. Like a Left Behind game saying there are some “bad” priests screwing up “God’s Word.” The ideology remains unscathed.
First, the main character (creator of the city) is named “Andrew Ryan.” Uh, “Ayn Rand.” I’m sure it was just a coincidence. 🙂 So, he names the ideologue that took “Rapture” too far after Ayn Rand.
Clearly, not a good start because other ideologues will always claim, “well, that other dude fucked it up. It’s still good.”
Now, Rapture is an Objectivist City. That’s established. How was it before the ideologue fucked it up? “Rapture was, for a time, the shining utopia Ryan hoped for — a world of unfettered capitalism, science, art, and luxury.”
Objectivism leads to a shining Utopia, but it all gets screwed up when people get “greedy”.
More importantly, the central theme of the game is objectivism:
“If it succeeds for you, it sets up the story by forcing you to make a choice — a moral choice — about how you are going to interact with these little girls.”
This is Objectivism coated in a veneer of “moral” choice. Objectivism, essentially, argues that anything that makes you better, is a moral imperative. If it benefits you, then it is good. That’s why it rationalizes all sorts of miserable conduct. Its why one of the central criticisms is that it can be, and Rand essentially argues, that rape isn’t all that bad.
From Wikipedia: “Ayn Rand condensed her ethics into the statement that man properly lives “with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life.””
She further wrote:
” “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice — and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man — by choice; he has to hold his life as a value — by choice; he has to learn to sustain it — by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues — by choice.
“A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.””
See where this is going? Bioshock, in effect, puts you in the position of agreeing with the tenets of Objectivism, and softens the problematic nature of these choices. You play the game and think, “well hell, it helped my character, it’s not so bad …”
I don’t think this needs much embellishment:
“The initial plot of BioShock — the founding of this utopia — mirrors the plot (albeit through a glass darkly) of Rand’s 1960’s epic book “Atlas Shrugged.””
That’s not “fertile ground.” That’s taking the plot.
The person leading the revolt is named “Atlas.”
What if somebody made a game, said the plot mirrored the Bible, and the main characters were named Jesus and another was Jusad. Based on the tenets of Christianity, as we know it, a “Utopia” was created. But, “bad priests” screwed it up.
Would you say the Bible was just fertile ground for the game? Or would you think, “well, I’m not interested in that Bible game.”
“BioShock’s story — for those who wish to stop blowing things up to delve into it — is about translating this Objectivist ideology into the real world.”
Clearly. Add to my previous analogy: what if the maker of the “Bible game” said the game was about translating Christian ideology into the real world? Would you still think that Rand only “appeal[ed]” to the maker of the game?
Like I said at the beginning, Objectivism is unscathed. It’s the morons that affect it that get Levine’s criticism:
“Real people aren’t perfect. That’s the problem with ideologies. Real people carry out ideologies. So even the best of intentions gets screwed up.”
But the problem with Objectivism isn’t merely the people, the problem is the dipshitty ideology.
Consequently, this game is no different than a Left Behind game put in the hands of somebody who knows how to make a decent game, which I don’t deny. I’ve seen the screen shots. It’s pretty. And the Creation Museum used some of the best animatronic engineers in the world. Doesn’t mean I want to give them my money.
A_B
But have you seen the graphics?!
So, how does someone espouse a philosophy that they can see doesn’t work in practice? If I say, ‘Man, Communism is really great, but in practice, people really fuck it up,’ I can’t really endorse Communism as a practical ideal.
Now, maybe I’m giving people too much credit in thinking that someone can’t possibly espouse something they can so plainly see simply doesn’t work in *reality* – maybe that’s simply not a concern of theirs.
But the notion that Bioshock’s about a philosophy that appears, on the surface, to be “alright” to a lot of people, and actually shows its logical consquence, as implemented *by* people – how fucked up it all got, shows to me that they’re thinking about the practical side as well as the ideology.
In terms of giving the player choice, if this is a traditional “Irrational” game, the idea is that they’re not going to *have* to follow Atlas. That’s the setup, and how the player’s introduced to the world – but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that in this game, the player will have competing objectives.
Hell, as I understand it, the central tenet of gameplay – whether you choose to “power up” yourself via plasmids, which need Adam, which requires murdering little girls, or whether you choose to progress through the game without doing so – seems to me to be pretty much “rationalize whatever makes you better is worthwhile” or “don’t.”
“So, how does someone espouse a philosophy that they can see doesn’t work in practice?”
Well, in theory, I can see your point, but conveniently for Objectivism and Ayn Rand, one of their hobby-horses is how flawed everybody else is and how the lone actor (i.e., “ME!!!”) is the “paragon” that needs to escape all the losers surrounding them.
Consequently, Levine’s position is entirely consistent with Objectivism and his support of it.
Moreover, this conclusion is supported by the fact that he never criticizes the ideology. He never says, “Because of [X], Objectvism is impossible, and therefore a flawed system.” It’s always somebody else’s fault. It’s not different than any rationalization of a failed system. There are plenty of Communists in the world making the argument today.
A_B
While A_B definitely makes many, many good points in his posts, I’m actually more in agreement with Seppo, for many of the same reasons (which very well could be rationalization).
I have played through many games that were intentionally created to reflect characters and events in the Bible. Many of these games were created by Japanese developers, so I am fairly certain that they weren’t trying to convince the player that the Bible is the word of God, but rather, that it makes an interesting story (yes, there are Christian Japanese, but as a culture, Japan is extremely a-religious).
If the creator had never even mentioned Objectivism, would you have even noticed? In general, videogames push you toward a very Objectivist point of view (killing random animals is good, walking into people’s houses and stealing their stuff is good, etc all because it makes you more powerful). Yet, nobody has any issue with this. If somebody had created a Left Behind sort of game, but called it something entirely different, it might actually make for an interesting story.
Okay, I know very little about the game or Objectivism, but compare with KotOR: there’s a lightside path and a darkside path. The game allows you to follow and win with either, but it’s clear that the dark side is bad.
If Bioshock has one path that involves killing little girls to get your powerups? That really seems to me less like support for Objectivism and more like a statement that it’s just like the dark side of the force: a powerful but sucky philosophy that leads to evil.
There’s not much that bugs me more than Objectivists & Libertarians, but I’m still going to play the hell out of Bioshock.
Based on interviews with Levine I’ve read, and reinforced by A_B’s quotes, Levine is pro-Objectivism. From what I’ve seen in the demo, it looks like there’s potential for exactly the scenario A_B describes: this idealogue built a city on his philosophy, it was awesome for a while, and then it got corrupted. So while you start out seeing the city in ruin — i.e., the Grand Experiment failed — I can totally see the “message” being snuck in that it’s not the ideology that’s faulty, it’s the people that either fail to implement it, or ruin it for the really smart ones.
Which is a philosophy that’s goofy at best, offensive at worst.
And I still say: “so the fuck what?”
Since when are differing opinions, even objectionable opinions, so vile that we refuse to even hear them out? Frankly, I have to wonder if y’all have been really exposed to genuine fundamentalism, because that’s exactly how it works — people get so afraid of the “other” that they reject it, sight unseen. That’s how you get groups boycotting and calling for a banning of the Harry Potter books, without even reading them.
That’s how you dig the core out of a religion, by getting people to believe in it because they’re afraid not to believe in it, and it ends up making no sense because it’s never been tested. And as a result, you get people on the other side who will lump all people of faith together with the irrational crazies. That’s not debate, or understanding.
In any case: I personally don’t bother with the “Left Behind” games, or the self-described “Christians” that Seppo mentions, because I’ve heard enough of their “message” to realize there’s no message there. And I personally will never read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, because I’ve read summaries (and suffered through roommates all through college giving me their own interpretations) enough to know that it’s not just a horrible ideology, it’s a dry, tedious, and dogmatic presentation of that ideology.
Bioshock, on the other hand, looks neat, seems like it has the potential to be a lot of fun, and would be an impressive game even without its “message.” What better way to present an idea, even if it’s an idea I don’t personally agree with, than to wrap it up in an interactive experience? (Plus, I’m interested to see how they experiment with storytelling in games; if it’s more subtle and better handled than in the demo).
This is exactly the kind of thing that shows the potential of videogames and other interactive media. I remember hoping, when I first started getting into videogames, that someday we’d be able to argue about the meaning of a game, instead of just the surface stuff like how it looks or the kinds of weapons you get. I’m excited as hell to see that kind of thing finally becoming popular.
“I remember hoping, when I first started getting into videogames, that someday we’d be able to argue about the meaning of a game, instead of just the surface stuff like how it looks or the kinds of weapons you get.”
Quoted for mutha f’n truth 😀
Well said!
“And I still say: “so the fuck what?””
What if the philosophy was White Supremacy?
I know it’s not. But what if the philosophy was repugnant to you. You thought it was bad. And then you saw people that said, “well, it’s just [white supremacy]. Look at the fucking graphics! Sweeeet!”
“Frankly, I have to wonder if y’all have been really exposed to genuine fundamentalism, because that’s exactly how it works — people get so afraid of the “other” that they reject it, sight unseen.”
Well, if the you know the philosophy, and you know the creator advocates it and represents it in a particular medium, what is the point of studying, in depth, the manifestation of the philosophy? To appreciate the ability to realize the philosophy in a particular medium?
Now, if I didn’t know Objectivism, and I didn’t know that the producer was into it, and then a said, “fuck that game. It looks like Objectivism to me.” Then that’s problematic.
“What if the philosophy was White Supremacy?
I know it’s not. But what if the philosophy was repugnant to you. You thought it was bad. And then you saw people that said, ‘well, it’s just [white supremacy]. Look at the fucking graphics! Sweeeet!'”
Objectivism is a philosophy that’s repugnant to me. I do think it’s bad. And you’re doing my comments a disservice, and insulting me, by reducing them to just “look at the fucking graphics! Sweet!”
That’s as simple-minded as, say, suggesting that Objectivism (a repugnant philosophy based on selfishness) is in any way interchangeable with White Supremacy (a repugnant philosophy based on hate, fear, and ignorance).
You say you know it’s not, but what if it were? But that’s a specious argument, because it couldn’t be. Thankfully, you simply would not be able to make a pro-Klan game in the west and have it be on the scale of BioShock.
But if it were something like the movie Crash, which took a more intelligent and reasoned look at the reasons why people justify racism, without condoning that behavior… is that something that’s just not worth seeing because you disagree with the filmmaker that racist characters should be presented in no way sympathetically?
Or a closer example from the flip side, Do the Right Thing. I totally disagree with Spike Lee’s take on race relations. I’ve read interviews with him, and I think he’s way off-base, and many of his quotes are offensive. I still watched Do the Right Thing with an open mind, and I still think it’s a great movie.
Partly because he presents the situation from a viewpoint that’s outside my own experience, not being a black guy growing up in New York City. And every bit as much because it’s fascinating visually and has some extremely powerful images, right from the credits to the climax. A big part of the power of movies is the visuals, or as you’d put it, “Look at those fucking graphics! Sweet!”
Well, if the you know the philosophy, and you know the creator advocates it and represents it in a particular medium, what is the point of studying, in depth, the manifestation of the philosophy? To appreciate the ability to realize the philosophy in a particular medium?
Yes, that’s part of it. To say “thank God people are finally making games that say something, even if it’s not something I agree with.” Because that means that more people can make games that say something, and maybe I can spend my game-playing time expanding my world-view instead of just indulging in escapist entertainment.
But also, it’s clear that BioShock isn’t just some Objectivist manifesto; it’s more nuanced than that. By all accounts, they made a shooter with a strong narrative first, and the narrative deals with a particular philosophy.
So as long as I’m reading something with more depth than a Chick tract, and more importantly it’s something that I control, then why should I be so afraid or disgusted by an objectionable philosophy?
At worst, I go away saying, “That was a fun game with a lousy message.” At best, it realizes the real potential of interactive art, and I say, “that’s interesting, how I reacted when put into that situation. I now have a better understanding of how other people can come up with a worldview that’s so contrary to my own.”