Ken Levine and Gail Wynand: A Comparative Study Prompted By "Bioshock Infinite, Burial At Sea Part 2"

[studiodekadent]

The first Bioshock was a landmark video game which portrayed an Objectivist utopia torn apart by the hypocrisy of some and the power-lust of others. It did not strawman Objectivism but rather argued that in a world where humans are prone to hypocrisy and to the love of controlling others, idealism leads to tragedy.

The sequel, Bioshock 2, showed the once-Objectivist city of Rapture after being taken over by a collectivist cult; the results were even worse than before. In a plot which stunningly mirrored Rand's critique of altruism, collectivism and mysticism, Bioshock 2 proved that Objectivism itself was not the target of critique, but totalistic ideology was being criticized.

Bioshock Infinite took place in a different world, with the exception of two downloadable add-ons: the "Burial At Sea" stories took place in Rapture, the fallen Randian utopia.

Bioshock 1 was mostly sympathetic to Objectivism. Bioshock 2, whilst less sympathetic to Objectivism, was even more critical of the altruist/collectivist/anti-rational side of the equation.

After the release of Bioshock Infinite, Burial At Sea Episode 2, I am disappointed to report that Objectivism has been completely straw-manned.

This game was designed by Ken Levine. I have personally corresponded with Levine, who is self-admittedly a moderate libertarian sympathetic to Rand but critical of her 'extremism'. Ken Levine designed my favorite video game of all time (specifically, System Shock 2). The first Bioshock proved that Levine did his homework... he knows what Objectivism is about.

So how on earth can we explain Levine's sudden resorting to the kind of cliche misrepresentations of Objectivism that one expects out of Marxists?

Burial At Sea, Episode 2 begins with a section where the player-character moves through the "Ryan The Lion Preparatory Academy" - a school where children are put in the 'corner of shame' for sharing their toys, where "there are no free lunches" is emblazoned on a statue in the mess hall (coincidentally, I am an Australian and school lunch does not exist in my country unless you pay for it... yet Australia is hardly a Randian utopia), where the Principal uses mind control powers to make kids obedient and compliant (!), and in which you can find videos where the founder of Rapture argues that charity is evil because it coddles the poor (a stance Rand did not hold) and that the first game's villain's behavior was a product of "altruism" (which in fact contradicts an important plot point of the first Bioshock: the villain's "charities" were in fact all about recruiting people to side with him in a revolution which would allow him to take over Rapture... ergo, 'altruism' was used as a weapon of power-lust).

At no time is any positive representation of Objectivism given. Immediately after leaving the "Ryan The Lion Preparatory Academy," the player character enters an erotica store - Rapture existed during the 50's. Instead of the environment being used as an example of Rapture's relative sexual liberation (and thus embrace of socially liberal values) compared to the general world at the time, the environment is played for laughs... even though the store contains a piece of erotica which clearly counts as transgender erotica. Not only that, but recurring character Sander Cohen (a member of Rapture's elite) is implied to be gay on repeated occasions; at no time is Rapture's relatively accepting social climate given an explicit mention (after all, that would make Objectivism look less than evil!). The game even argues that the Objectivist theory of sex demands that sexual congress be contractually negotiated (as in physical paper contracts! (I am tempted to wonder if Adam was the source material for this particular misconception)).

Anyone even remotely familiar with Objectivism can see the misrepresentations involved here. So why would Levine... a man who clearly knows what Objectivism is about... engage in such an obvious, hateful, blatant strawmanning?

It is this question which my article plans on answering.

So how does this have something to do with Gail Wynand?

In The Fountainhead, Gail Wynand is a newspaper magnate who profits by telling the people what they wish to hear; he doesn't care about anything other than flattering establishment sensibilities so as to make money through selling newspapers. He doesn't stand up for what he believes in - his papers just reflect the established wisdom. He truly has values and principles, but he ignores them because he believes, erroneously, he makes public opinion when in fact he has only been mirroring it. Finally he realizes that his "power to shape opinion" (and thus power over the masses) is an illusion, and that he has spent his life as little more than a slave to popular opinion.

My thesis is that Ken Levine is like Gail Wynand in that his own opinions and beliefs have been subordinated to the horrors of public relations. The first BioShock was made before he became the video game development equivalent of a rockstar; Burial At Sea was made after. Now, as he openly acknowledged in this interview (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-11-would-the-real-ken-levine-kindly-stand-up), gamers and the media react to his "body of work" and "public persona."

This console generation has demonstrated a large reliance on "blockbuster" and "AAA" games, funded by corporate entities who are naturally risk-averse. An outspoken game developer who has an opinion that could place a dent is sales figures is thus a danger to shareholder returns. Levine, a developer of games which occupy this market space, is thus subject to such pressures.

As such, Burial At Sea Episode 2 reflects the establishment opinion of Objectivism, rather than a reasonable interpretation thereof.

But this is not the only factor which must be accounted for; another is the climate of public opinion on the internet, which has shifted towards the New-Leftist "politically correct" paradigm significantly in the last few years.

"Political correctness," now renamed "social justice" (a cause formerly of the Old Left which used to refer to income redistribution but now refers to the kind of bilge which the Sokal Affair successfully mocked), happens to have many supporters on the internet (social media website Tumblr is full of it). Of course, hatred of Rand and libertarianism is general is part of the Social Justice Warrior catechism; Social Justice ideology is based on a radically anti-individualist set of sociological/meta-anthropological assumptions that are logically opposed to those which sit at the basis of libertarianism.

Whereas libertarianism sees individual agency as the primary fact of human actions, Social Justice ideology sees us all as social constructs with no free will, shaped by an oppressive matrix of power relations called the "kyriarchy," where various class struggles between oppressor classes and oppressed classes play out on a whole range of politically-useful dimensions (i.e. sex, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc). This is a far stronger claim than simply acknowledging that bigotry exists in many places within the western world (of course it does) - this is the kind of claim which ultimately argues no person of European ancestry is allowed to criticize fundamentalist Islam because its apparently racist and colonialist to do so.

This influx of Social Justice Warriors into video game culture is relatively recent.

And Bioshock Infinite (the game to which Burial At Sea functions as an expansion pack) was accused by several Social Justice Warriors of being racist. The game's plot centers around a society which is in fact racist (because the society is built on the kind of American jingoism which existed during the "Manifest Destiny" era) but the claim made against the game was that the game was itself racist. They basically ran a smear campaign against the game. And did I mention that smear campaigns, cyberstalking and similar tactics (including "doxxing," which is the exposure of anonymous internet users' real-life identities (and which sometimes leads to harassment like phone calls and getting people fired from their real-world jobs)) are commonly used by Social Justice Warriors?

But it isn't merely the left that have been offended by Bioshock Infinite; people sharing conservative beliefs have as well (unsurprising for a game which depicts a racist, religionist, nationalist society in negative terms). As Ken Levine said, one of the artists for the game was so offended by the game's use of baptism as a plot point (because it depicts an important character in the game as becoming evil after being baptized) that he nearly resigned (see: http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/22051/bioshock-infinites-ending-may-cause-controversy). Levine ended up altering the game to not offend the artist's sensibilities (and, by proxy, the sensibilities of religionist conservatives).

Now, Christianity is a religion based on avoiding one's moral comeuppance by using that Nazarene carpenter as a scapegoat; Levine was hardly being unfair in suggesting the mere possibility that someone may feel that because they're "saved" then they can be a complete prick (I'm sure our esteemed George H. Smith can honor us with extensive tales of precisely this kind of thing happening).

But, no, we can't offend the Christians can we? It might be bad for sales figures!

So, the Social Justice Warriors cannot be offended too much because then they'd cause a lot of bad publicity and damage sales. Nor can the Christians be offended, although perhaps bad publicity from them would cause others to buy the game more as a way to stick it to the Servile Carpenter Religion.

But which demographic can be offended? Who's sensibilities barely impact the balance sheet?

Objectivists.

And bashing Objectivism would help soothe the ruffled feathers of SJWs who's "feels" were hurt by Bioshock Infinite!

In a recent interview, Levine mentioned Ayn Rand's taking of welfare and accused of being an act of hypocrisy (which it wasn't, because Rand said people who've paid into government systems (which she certainly did) have the right to get something out of them in return) on par with the hypocrisy of Rapture's leader (who nationalized the competition and instituted a police state... significantly more extreme actions to say the least). Of course, Levine's PR overlords wouldn't have allowed him to make a similar allegation about anything Jesus or Mother Theresa did, or anything Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama did.

As such, I come to the conclusion that the public relations pressures of AAA game development in today's economy are responsible for Levine kowtowing to relatively popular belief systems and thus producing a mischaracterization of Objectivism so cartoonishly extreme and hilariously false that there is no way the man behind the first Bioshock game could possibly believe them. Levine is pandering to the stereotype which the left (and to a lesser extent the religious right) have used to poison the well against Objectivism. He's trying to avoid controversy. After all, he is trying to sell a blockbuster game that cost tens (or possibly hundreds) of millions to produce.

Like Gail Wynand, Levine has modified the products of his passion to pander to popular prejudices. Like Wynand, Levine has debased his integrity in the name of sales figures. Levine sold out.

I still believe the first Bioshock game is a classic and all Objectivists should play it. But it saddens me that the finale for Infinite relies on the kind of infantile stereotyping one expects from a college-freshman Progressive.

Levine recently stated he was moving away from the AAA space and is forming a smaller team. In addition, this generation of gaming is likely to have lower development costs and significantly easier ways to profit than the previous generation did. Hopefully this means Ken will be able to tear the leash off his neck and stop being a slave to PR.

At least I hope so.

[Derek McGowan]

for those who may have missed this game (Bioshock 1), here is the opening sequence

http://youtu.be/Lmw78t8NgIE?t=9s

Wonderful game

[studiodekadent]

for those who may have missed this game (Bioshock 1), here is the opening sequence

http://youtu.be/Lmw78t8NgIE?t=9s

Wonderful game

I agree that Bioshock was a brilliant game, however I am discussing a downloadable expansion for one of the sequels to the first BioShock. This expansion simply happens to take place in the same world as the first BioShock game.

[DallasCowboys]

studiodekadent- In my opinion Levine is slipping further and further away from the person he was when the first Bioshock was made. I too have spoken to Levine and honestly he wasn't the nicest guy. I have always been a big fan of the first Bioshock and I agree I don't find it to be a critique on Objectivism, it actually annoys me when people say that. Just because it is a separate society where smart people conjugated doesn't make it Galt's Gulch. What the characters in rapture do is so far from what Rand stood for. I didn't even bother playing Burial at Sea because I knew he wasn't the same person and Infinite wasn't my favorite game because even though I am an objectivist the game takes unnecessary shots at religion making it seem as if someone who is religious is off the hinges, as Comstock is. I do agree there could be people like that but it personally just annoyed me but your point is fair.I think Levine found it easiest to take shots at objectivists. I agree I think fame got to him a little bit and he was willing to do whatever the people wanted too get recognition.

[studiodekadent]

studiodekadent- In my opinion Levine is slipping further and further away from the person he was when the first Bioshock was made. I too have spoken to Levine and honestly he wasn't the nicest guy. I have always been a big fan of the first Bioshock and I agree I don't find it to be a critique on Objectivism, it actually annoys me when people say that. Just because it is a separate society where smart people conjugated doesn't make it Galt's Gulch. What the characters in rapture do is so far from what Rand stood for. I didn't even bother playing Burial at Sea because I knew he wasn't the same person and Infinite wasn't my favorite game because even though I am an objectivist the game takes unnecessary shots at religion making it seem as if someone who is religious is off the hinges, as Comstock is. I do agree there could be people like that but it personally just annoyed me but your point is fair.I think Levine found it easiest to take shots at objectivists. I agree I think fame got to him a little bit and he was willing to do whatever the people wanted too get recognition.

Dallas,

I think you've misinterpreted me somewhat.

In my opinion, Levine as a person hasn't changed. What HAS changed is that now, he has to be a Slave To PR in order to make sure his game sells and doesn't get bad press. I don't think he has changed per se, I think he's just playing the Public Relations game. This is why I think he's like Gail Wynand now... has true principles and passions but is forced to be a spiritual prostitute to keep his overlords happy. He was very nice several years ago... he just got less-so as hundreds of millions of dollars started relying on him to not rock the boat. It isn't the fame 'getting to him.'

As for "unnecessary shots" at religion, I disagree. I think the game was TOO easy on religion. It should've been MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more anti-religious. But NOOOO, that would've been bad for PR.

[DallasCowboys]

I am gonna agree to disagree on the Religion thing. Yes I think they could have been more harsh to religion but I certainly thought they were pretty harsh as is. My point was I don't think he is like Gail Wynand. I think Levine has changed as a person. I think by giving into the PR he too has changed as a person. Unlike Wynand who has that passion still there deep inside. Now I might be wrong, maybe you are right and that is why he closed Irrational Games because he thought he was becoming a slave to PR but I think someone who gives into PR so much has somewhat changed as a person. Hope that makes sense. And I apologize for saying "fame got to him" that was the wrong term, what I should have said was PR got to him.

Thanks,

David C.

[studiodekadent]

David C,

I can understand your desire to agree to disagree on religion, but as an Objectivist you must agree that the evils of Christianity need to be exposed, proclaimed and talked about... That disgusting Servile Carpenter Religion deserves to be marinated in scorn and loathing given that it has literally centuries of good publicity which need to be reversed. It deserves to be hated, burned and loathed (DISCLAIMER: I was talking about the religion itself, NOT NECESSARILY ITS FOLLOWERS).

With respect to Levine, I understand your position. My reason for adopting my position is his closure of Irrational (like Wynand closed the Banner) and his open acknowledgement of his becoming a slave to PR.. as someone who corresponded wih him before the 'change' I think he didn't change and was really repressed by the pressures of AAA-game-development media relations.

You don't have to apologize for having a different position to mine.

-Andrew

[DallasCowboys]

Andrew I just wanted to thanks for being so respectful, it is a rare quality to find nowadays. On a side note you didn't need to clarify on the whole burning the religion itself and not the people thing, you being an objectivist I didn't think you wanted to burn religious people, I actually find it sad that you had to clarify yourself because you were afraid someone might jump on the opportunity to say you wanted to burn people. I totally understand your position and you do bring up some interesting points especially with regard to him closing irrational games and the comparison to Wynand closing the Banner. I guess the best test to see who is right, is what Levine does now.

Thanks Again,

David Czerwin

[Derek McGowan]

for those who may have missed this game (Bioshock 1), here is the opening sequence

http://youtu.be/Lmw78t8NgIE?t=9s

Wonderful game

I agree that Bioshock was a brilliant game, however I am discussing a downloadable expansion for one of the sequels to the first BioShock. This expansion simply happens to take place in the same world as the first BioShock game.

I realized that. Actually Ive beaten all three games (first 2 on hard- looking forward to 1999 mode with part 3) but I haven't gotten to play the burials at sea yet.

I think that while the first one may not have critiqued objectivism itself, it certainly disputes the validity of ideal societies/communities...