[Michael Stuart Kelly]

BioShock
Julian "rabbit" Murdoch
June 05, 2007
Gamers with Jobs

Barbara sent me this link and it is fascinating. Who would imagine that a first person shooter game would be based on Rand? The game review starts with a Rand quote:

Quote

"Anyone who has new or valuable ideas to offer stands outside the intellectual status quo.
But the status quo is not a stream, let alone a 'mainstream'. It is a stagnant swamp.
It is the innovators who carry mankind forward." -- Ayn Rand

Whether this quote is a part of the game is not given. But Rand is all over the game. It starts like this:

Quote

The intent of BioShock is to give the player free will. Rather than running through corridors, the player will explore a city. Not a wide-open Grand Theft Auto city, to be sure, but a city nonetheless. And the physical environment you explore, and the story it tells, will be unique. At least, it won't look like one you've seen in any other game.

"It's a castaway story," explains Levine, trying his best to boil down what is an expansive, layered plot to four words. "You're a guy in a plane crash, you end up on the surface of the ocean. There's a lighthouse in the distance, you swim to it, and it takes you to this strange city that nobody's ever heard of."

The city is Rapture.

Now that might not seem particularly Randish, but look at the description of Rapture:

Quote

Rapture: Plot by Architecture
In the 1940s, one Andrew Ryan, fed up with the world around him sucking the life, money, and art from the brightest minds of his age, creates Rapture: an underwater utopia. As Ryan describes it in one of many in-game soliloquies:

"Build a city on the bottom of the ocean? Impossible. But on the surface, all the parasites and hangers on would have taken this from us. So the ONLY place to build the city I wanted to build was at the bottom of the ocean."

Seem familiar? How about the wordplay between Andrew Ryan and Ayn Rand? And it goes on. There is a mysterious man named "Atlas" and other cute allusions. In addition to Rand-related thing, there are some cool hi-tech features like "stem-cell mutating goo" and a "customizable weapon system." For bad guys there is a twist, the normal mean hard-to-kill villain, "Big Daddy" and villains with a moral choice, little girls who drink blood called "Little Sisters."

Quote

A little, bobble headed girl -- a "Little Sister" genetically engineered by unscrupulous scientists -- approaches a corpse, extracts blood from it with a heart-needle syringe and then swallows it down like a shot of tequila. She's not alone. She's never alone. She always has her protector: a deep-sea-diver-suited, well-armed and lumbering monstrosity. A "Big Daddy." He's very protective, and designed to be very hard to kill.

This set piece of the game succeeds in being horrifying and stomach turning, two reactions difficult to achieve in any medium. 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. "You come up to one of these Little Sisters and you immediately have a choice. And it has immediate gameplay implications," Levine says. And those implications are very real. Kill a splicer? Well a little sister may come along and leech him dry. Exploit a Little Sister? You've chosen a dark path that nets you immediate resources. Protected her? Well, that's a different path, with different rewards, different payback.

There is a lot more information in the article. This game looks like it is going to be a lot of fun for the general public and a special treat for Objectivists who like first person shooters.

Ken Levine is the person who designed the game. He has a company in Quincy, MA. Guess what it is called? What else?

Irrational Games.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Ayn Rand thought she had made it in the culture with comic strips maybe now it video games.

[Kori]

AWESOME!! I can't wait for this game...and I'm not much of a fan of first person shooter games (and by that I mean that I'm not very good at them). The problem I have with most first person shooters is that I get to a certain point and then get stuck. There is a set place for you to go and if you can't find it, you're SOL. I love the idea of the player having many different options and different consequences to go along with. I only wish this was coming out on PS2 (I'm so old school). I'll have to get it for PC.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have seen this game discussed on other forums as being anti-Objectivist. I think what I have read so far completely misses the point. The whole purpose of games (and plot, for that matter) is conflict. Making the conflict interesting is what it is all about.

I wonder if the same people who blast this game because they think it is disrespectful of Rand would blast The Night of January 16th because it is disrespectful of law and order and glorifies a criminal.

The purpose of a video game is not to preach, but instead to provide fun in overcoming obstacles. The more interesting the obstacles, the more fun.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Why I am experienced non-surprise to find that there are Objectivists who don't approve of this video game.

Maybe better than anything I know this explains why Objectivism has not become a major force in our culture.

[Kori]

Well said, Michael. I think I'd rather play Duck Hunt than sit and listen to somebody explain to me how to hunt ducks. *gets out her plastic pistol*

Chris Grieb, on Jun 17 2007, 11:59 AM, said:

Why I am experienced non-surprise to find that there are Objectivists who don't approve of this video game.

Maybe better than anything I know this explains why Objectivism has not become a major force in our culture.

And well said, Chris. Video games are a damn huge part of our culture.

[Michael Brown]

I seem to recall reading of such a game a year or so ago.

As I recall, the only 'randian' influence is in the backstory to the game. Its set in an underwater utopia built on the principles of Rand. The scientist there got into genetic engineering (shades of Star Trek's Augements or Andromeda's Nietzhians) and it went horrabily wrong, wiping out the utopia.

I don't recall the objective of the game or anything about the gameplay being 'randian'.

[John Dailey]

~ M. Brown is 'on point' here. The creators got their idea of such a 'Randian' utopia and 'backstoried' the game from that framework, where something went wrong, but, not with any implication of such merely because it was 'Randian'; indeed, it was merely because of the usual idea that ALL presumed utopias become dystopias. A year ago some famous game-mag had a whole cover story on it and had the intro to the lead article quoting something from Galt's speech. I sent an e-m to C. Sciabarra on it (since he collected things on Rand, culture-wise.)

~ It IS 'anti'-O'ist only in that its backstory is explained (only in interviews) in terms of the creator's interest in Randian 'ideas' and does not promote O'ism, per se. But, that's a bit of a myopic perspective to begin with.

LLAP
J:D

PS: Can't wait 'till August!

This post has been edited by John Dailey: 19 June 2007 - 01:02 PM

[Matus1976]

This looks like an interesting game, more interesting for gamers is the fact that this is the first fully non-linear first person shooter, allegedly you can roam around and do whatever you want in the city, and what you do alters the course of the game. Most first person shooters require you to follow a scripted path.

Quote

The whole purpose of games (and plot, for that matter) is conflict. Making the conflict interesting is what it is all about.

I am getting the same impression, while the 'every body mutates and tries to kill each other' is not an pro-objectivist theme, it seems like (to me) the game maker wanted to make a Rand inspried city or theme, but then said "well, I want to make a game as well" and so the twist of the mutants and stem cell goo.

I'll check it out when it comes out.

[John Dailey]

~ Though Rand is referred to (fairly speaking, sometimes associatably to Nietzche, her early attraction [probably why many 'fundamentalist' "O'ists" are in a supposed uproar]), indeed subliminally referenced within the actual game-story, she really was mainly the idea-source of the story dystopia re how most of us 'Eddie Willers' types might find ourselves in a...well...read this:

FROM THE HORSE'S [game creator] MOUTH

~ This is an adjunct to my recent comment on the other 'Video-Games' thread re the upcoming BIO-SHOCK.

LLAP
J:D

PS: Last post for a while.

[Michael Brown]

John Dailey, on Jun 19 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

~ M. Brown is 'on point' here. The creators got their idea of such a 'Randian' utopia and 'backstoried' the game from that framework, where something went wrong, but, not with any implication of such merely because it was 'Randian'; indeed, it was merely because of the usual idea that ALL presumed utopias become dystopias.

There is also the 'genetic engineering gone bad' meme, because this is what happens when man gets involved in 'things he was not meant to', which as we always knows leads to megalomanic 'supermen' (ST's Augments, Andromeda's Niechians, etc), out of control viri, plants, animals, etc.

[John Dailey]

~ From what further (since last posts here) I've read in cyber-space, I'd be surprised if this game doesn't make some bona-fide TV-news (if not 'CNN Headline', then some talk-show or other, ergo, more than one.) The PR'd 'moral' choices re apparent 'little girls' will give the ratings-groups mucho pause to...think twice about...and comment to 'how-do-you-feel?' reporter-questioners.

~ The creator argues that this is basically an FPS (and not, as many see it, an RPG), b-u-t, an evolved development of such, advancing the whole idea of the (DOOM-QUAKE) genre, stressing the choices (aka 'options') one has combined with the much-later different consequences of such. --- That PR hype alone has me asking my Joey to get it for me (my wife just looks at me and grimacingly frowns, with a cocked eyebrow.)

~ Since Barbara Branden proxily started this thread (via you, MSK), can't wait to hear what she thinks of playing it ...in August, that is.

[John Dailey]

~ Well, it's here. Probably pick it up tomorrow. Hence will post little here for a while; I appreciate that everyone, especially MSK, will go (but, secretly... )

~ For a list of interesting 'reviews' by prof-'gamer' thumb-twitchers (or, in my case, mouse-clickers), check out...

BioShock Review-Listing

~ It does seem unique, development-wise, given all earlier aforesaid and the reviews' latest details, even to the strategies/tactics-changes necessary going onward. --- The biggest decision though, seems to be: "To kill or let live 'Little Sisters', THAT is the question." --- Also, it seems 'Andrew Ryan' apparently has a foe, each vying (over speaker/earphones) for the player's decisions to follow theirs; the foe's name is 'Atlas.' Hmmmm...probably some anonymous blogger...with a big chip.

LLAP
J:D

This post has been edited by John Dailey: 22 August 2007 - 01:10 AM

[John Dailey]

~ Well, THAT was an unintended 'fake-out'! Can't play the game...on my system. Ergo, (other than when I'm finishing TRIII), I'm still around to comment on things.

~ Ntl, studiokent made a good synopsis/analysis of BIOSHOCK on a separate thread.

LLAP
J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

As these threads tend to become separated over time, I am copying the posts in that other thread here for reference purposes. Andrew's review was extremely good.

Michael

studiodekadent, on Aug 24 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

I have been lusting after Bioshock for 3 years now. I have finished it and now I am going to deliver my verdict.

Bioshock is relevant to me in two ways: firstly, it is a spiritual successor to my favorite game of all time, System Shock 2 (a dark, terrifying FPS/RPG/Survival-Horror Cyberpunk game), and the second is that it is the first computer game to ever by influenced (strongly) by Ayn Rand. Since I am an Objectivist, this influence pulls at my emotional heartstrings, to say the least, and since this is an Objectivist website I might as well get the Objectivism stuff out of the way.

The first question: does Bioshock attack, mistreat or misrepresent Objectivism? My answer is "no." The setting of the game is an Objectivist utopia gone wrong, but it is reasonably obvious that the downfall of this utopia is not due to Objectivism, but people going insane, and good-old-fashioned hypocrisy (motivated by power-lust). Hence, it is not the content of Objectivism that is blamed for the disaster. As such, I am grateful to Ken Levine (the creative director of Bioshock) for treating the ideas of Objectivism with respect. However, one of the reasons Bioshock cannot be accused of strawmanning Objectivism is because fundamentally speaking, Bioshock is not about Objectivism!

Bioshock follows the story of Jack, a man who survives a plane crash over the Atlantic Ocean. The crash site is right next to a very art-deco-styled lighthouse, just popping out of the sea (interesting.....). Jack enters the lighthouse, enters a bathysphere, activates it, and that sends him off to Rapture: an Objectivist paradise under the sea. Once in Rapture, a man named Atlas contacts him and begs for help, asking for Jack to help him rescue his wife and child. From there, Jack hears how people have lost their minds, descended into hideously evil behavior, and how the insanity produced as an unfortunate byproduct of genetic modification has torn Rapture apart. From there, Jack learns that the forces behind the war in Rapture have utterly machiavellian plots and schemes, some of which provide disturbing information about his own past.

Objectivism provides the setting and some elements of the characterization. It does not provide the plot. However, the setting of Rapture is utterly phenomenal. The architecture is so genuinely beautiful and so strongly concretizing of the Objectivist vision of man-as-heroic I can scarcely describe the sense-of-life jollies this game gives me. It is obvious that Ken Levine (the creative director of the game) knows his stuff about Objectivism. The graphics are delicious, the water effects excellent. Sound is excellent, and the voice acting and characterizations are beyond reproach. The atmosphere of the game is extraordinary... the glow of a beautiful idealism, tragically mutated and destroyed, replaced with a world of insanity where children loot the dead of their blood. Although not as terrifying as System Shock 2, Bioshock has moments of pure morbidity that I cannot help but love.

As for the gameplay, I can state this game truly is the successor of System Shock 2. The game mechanics are as complex as any RPG, weapons can be modified and loaded with up to 3 different ammo types, and characters can be grown genetically with plasmids and tonics. The system feels very similar to System Shock 1 and 2, as well as the Deus Ex games. The complex, living world can be manipulated in a multitude of ways and complex interaction between game elements is commonplace.

Any downsides? Both of the game's endings are lacklustre. One is too dark and the other is too sugary. In both cases, the Objectivist ideal is not met (the sugary one tries but its too sugary!). Either way, the game is simply too good to give anything but huge marks. I will officially state that Bioshock is at least System Shock 2's equal and hence the equal best game of all time.

Objectivists should purchase this game. Merely for the chance to walk around Rapture, even if it is a mess. The strategic, intelligent gameplay and dark, developed story, combined with the Objectivist setting, make Bioshock a must-purchase for Objectivists. Anyone that wants to morally condemn this game is fundamentally insane.

studiodekadent, on Aug 26 2007, 01:46 AM, said:

I would like to add;

Another way in which BioShock is surprisingly Objectivist-friendly is in one of its characterizations: specifically the mobster and hoodlum Frank Fontaine. He is one of the most despicable characters in the game, and he is also the one that establishes the "Frank Fontaine House For The Poor." Yep, the man who practices charity is also one of the most monstrous men in the game! Why? Specifically, his charity work is merely another weapon... he does not start his poorhouse to help the poor, rather they are one of his weapons in his campaign against Andrew Ryan. In addition, Fontaine's attitude to the poor is despicably cruel, saying "you dont need to build a city to make people worship you, just make the chumps think they are worth a nickel."

In other words, Fontaine uses charity and pity as a weapon, and he is preoccupied with subjugating people to him and defeating them (in one of his audio logs, he talks about how he loves being able to defraud the smart people, it makes him feel like a big man (!)). As we all know, pity is never motivated by human kindness; one only feels pity in the presence of the worthless and the pathetic.

Fontaine is truly a Rand-worthy character. He really reminds me of a more brutal, less intellectual version of Ellsworth Toohey.

John Dailey, on Aug 26 2007, 03:31 AM, said:

Stud:

~ Very good summarizing of the whole relationship 'twixt this game and O-ism. Re the 'plot' aspect, good analysis also (but, a little more could have been mentioned about Ryan, apart from the, by now, over-commented anagram-name allusion); surprised you said nothing about the 'moral decisions' concerns in it though.

~ Yes, back-story-wise, utopia became dystopia when 'greed' was allowed to blindly run over reason for all (including Fontaine [and Ryan?]) in allowing 'addiction' to Adam run each of everyone's lives. Even Galt's Gultch could conceivably find a monkey wrench fouling things up...kinda like America 'of then'-vs-'of now.'

LLAP
J:D

John Dailey, on Aug 26 2007, 03:34 AM, said:

Addendum:

~ Unfortunately, haven't played it...yet. Found out the day I went to buy it that my PC's not quite up to par (got it 2yrs ago) for it (been thinking about upgrading for a yr now, but...not just for a 'game', that's for sure!) --- Not interested in the XBox360 vers (though my Joey has the system.)

~ I did read the 'guide' though. Yes, Levine created something quite unique here, and, for better or worse, made Rand an official 'name' in the computer/gaming community. --- Wonder how TV-media'll handle this? Ignore the relationship, or, hype it negatively?

LLAP
J:D

[studiodekadent]

Speaking of BioShock...

The first post at this forum is useful: http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...p?showtopic=838

The poster, "Inspector" is unfortunately of the orthodoxy, however in my limited dealings with him (our paths crossed regarding Objectivism and Bioshock) he has shown himself to be a very reasonable person, and not a hysteric like too many members of the orthodoxy. This post discusses Andrew Ryan alot, as well as the creative director Ken Levine. As such it is very good at looking at how Objectivism influenced BioShock as well as how BioShock 'treats' Objectivism.

My favorite part of the interview:

inspector said:

Quote

Ken Levine: Rapture is a failed dream. Before it fell apart, it was beautiful. That’s the difference between drama and tragedy: tragedy demands that things MIGHT have worked out, MIGHT have been great if only things had gone differently.
BioShock is a tragedy.

INSPECTOR: He selected those ideals precisely because he saw them as good. As he says, it is a necessary element of a tragedy.

In addition, Objectivism Online has some people being somewhat uncharitable towards the game, albiet they aren't a monopoly opinion. It is sad that some Objectivists have chosen to dismiss the game outright rather than play it and analyze it thoroughly. However, not all Objectivists have been so brash, and these Objectivists (such as Inspector) are to be praised for that.

This post has been edited by studiodekadent: 31 August 2007 - 08:17 AM

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ Thanx for the 'post copy' here. Worthwhile, I'd say.

Stud: (like that shortened version? )

~ Great find re 'Inspector.' Had caught a lot of interviews with Levine, but, not that one!

~ Overall, if I may add, I think something's overlooked, Levine's explanations to Inspector nwst: reading the official 'Guide', my impression of what went wrong with Fontaine was that he (and, I think Ryan) indulged in the slug-discovery stem-cell-affecting addictive 'ADAM' themselves, hence ruined what they built; in effect...Aristotle became enamored of becoming Plato's Philosopher-King...and uses the player to wipe out Plato. --- An interesting aspect is the player, making 'choices', doesn't realize that his following advice is really...not very 'choice-making', if ya know what I mean.

~ Re the 'O-ist critics'...remember how 'Frisco was judged by the masses?

LLAP
J:D

[studiodekadent]

John Dailey, on Sep 3 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

reading the official 'Guide', my impression of what went wrong with Fontaine was that he (and, I think Ryan) indulged in the slug-discovery stem-cell-affecting addictive 'ADAM' themselves, hence ruined what they built; in effect...Aristotle became enamored of becoming Plato's Philosopher-King...

Well, Fontaine actually doesn't use ADAM in the game up until the very end of the game. (When you are in the "proving grounds" level you get a message from Fontaine saying he never used ADAM before, he just tried some and, in his words, "Ain't this the mother's milk!"). I don't know about Ryan, since when you meet him, he is casually playing golf on an office putting strip, so there is no evidence of him actually using ADAM since he isn't throwing lightning bolts at you or anything.

[John Dailey]

stud:

~ Hmmm...weird. So, no 'rationale' is given for why these two guys worked to create this fantabulous (then, anyways) place, and then flipped out, one desiring to be Attila and the other deciding to go...play golf?

~ A 'plot element' seems missing here; maybe Levine should have been told (as a professorial cartoon shows "then a miracle occurs" in the center of a blackboard equation, and a critic points out...) "I think you should be more explicit here, in step 2."

~ For a good-seeming game, story-wise: bummer.

LLAP
J:D

[studiodekadent]

John Dailey, on Sep 4 2007, 08:58 AM, said:

Hmmm...weird. So, no 'rationale' is given for why these two guys worked to create this fantabulous (then, anyways) place, and then flipped out, one desiring to be Attila and the other deciding to go...play golf?

Well, Ryan created the place and never worked with Fontaine. Fontaine managed to work his way to power by smuggling goods into the city (including bibles, strangely enough!) from the surface, this supplied a lot of income. This fuelled his rise, he was eventually able to threaten Ryan, etc. etc.

Fontaine was always a crook, a conman, etc.