[Atlasphere] BioShock and Its Ayn Rand-Inspired Themes

[O-Land News Junkie]

Kotaku Managing Editor Brian Crecente has written a lengthy and interesting article — “No Gods or Kings: Objectivism in BioShock” — on the intersections between the new BioShock game and its Ayn Rand-inspired themes.

Ayn Rand Institute President Yaron Brook is quoted several times in the article.

The article begins:

The sunken city of Rapture, a world of art deco aesthetics, neon sales pitches and looming architecture, is home to more than just murderous splicers and lumbering Big Daddys, it’s also a surprising breeding ground for introspection.

BioShock may have been conceived as a study in nuance, a place for gamers to discover and explore at their own pace, but its dip into the ethical morass of Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophies has brought her beliefs back into the mainstream spotlight and even piqued the interest of the Ayn Rand Institute’s president, Yaron Brook.

Brook, a former member of the Israeli Army military intelligence and award-winning finance professor at Santa Clara University, first took notice of the game when he discovered his 18-year-old son playing it. It’s a fact that didn’t bother Brook despite his son’s objectivist beliefs and the game’s not so positive take on the philosophy.

“My son has to find his own way in life,” he said. “There are certain games I wouldn’t want him to play, like Grand Theft Auto, games that celebrate criminality. But a game that might lead him to think and have him challenge his ideas, I’m fine with.

“Luckily for me he doesn’t agree with the game, he still seems to believe in objectivism”

Objectivism as a central theme in BioShock was actually the result of a confluence of ideas and happenstance. The heart of the game started, as do most of Ken Levine’s games, as the answer to a problem.

“How do we make an environment that feels really complete?” Levine said. “That’s where we came up with a space ship for System Shock. In BioShock we said what can we do similarly and simulate fully as we could a space ship.”

The answer was an underwater city, but that simply formed the game’s outline, the walls that kept a player from remembering they were in a confined space.

Levine wondered what sorts of people might live in an underwater city, what would drive someone from the rest of the world.

“I started thinking about utopian civilizations,” he said. “You have these traditional utopian notions. I’ve always been a fan of utopian and dystopian literature.

“The more I started thinking about making a compelling place and compelling villain, someone who had a real concrete set of beliefs made sense.”

Enter Objectivism. Levine said he had been reading Ayn Rand’s books over the past few years and was fascinated with her “intensity and purity of belief.”

“The surety she has in her beliefs was fascinating,” he said. “She almost spoke like a super villain, like Dr Doom.”

And her characters, Levine believed, projected that same intensity.

“I started to wonder, what happens when you stop questioning yourself? It becomes a set of accepted truths, instead of something you’re constantly using in the lab of reality.”

Keep reading for much more, including Yaron Brook’s explanation of why the game’s characters are unnecessarily flawed.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/723.php

[John Dailey]

~ What I found MOST interesting was that, in the original article, Brook says he has NO problem with the game, his criticisms (more on Levine's take on O'ism than on how the game presents the ideas) nwst; such is not even hinted at much less mentioned in the selected quote-excerpts.

LLAP

J:D

[studiodekadent]

What I found most interesting was that Levine said the problems of Rapture are due to Ryan's ideology being treated as sacred scripture rather than "constantly using it in the lab of reality."

Objectivism is an empiricist (in the broad sense) philosophy. Its meant to be constantly tested and used in the lab of reality. Of course treating Objectivism as inarguable divine revelation is going to lead to problems (ARI serves, in many cases, as a cautionary tale about that).

Levine obviously sees Rand's philosophy as promoting a rationalistic kind of certainty, i.e. he misses the distinction between Rand and Descartes. I do not blame him since the distinction is quite technical and not obvious since Rand's writing style does come off as absolutist, however Rand's technical philosophy is much more contextual and empirical than Levine seems to believe.

I wish Brook actually commented on this. Instead he comments on a relatively minor issue, i.e. "can people be morally perfect," and in his comment he leaves out the fact that by the predominant Christian-influenced standards of our culture no one CAN be perfect, by definition, wheras by Objectivism's standards, people CAN be.

[John Dailey]

studio:

~ Well put. --- Gah, I gotta get that game (er, a comp for it.)

LLAP

J:D

[studiodekadent]

studio:

~ Well put. --- Gah, I gotta get that game (er, a comp for it.)

LLAP

J:D

You can also get Bioshock on the Xbox 360, FYI

[John Dailey]

stud:

~ Oh, yeah...that's right; all I gotta do is buy a (can we say EXPENSIVE?) 'dedicated-for-games' system for that single game.

~ I'd rather 'up-grade' on something (like a PC, which has to be done every 5-yrs anyway for one to not be stuck with a 'model T' re new software and protection) which allows d-l's of hobbyist additions; such makes a game go mucho farther (as so many extra 'levels' were made for DOOM [and it's sequels, including the latest], QUAKE, etc.)

~ Besides, my 14-yr old won't let me use his, 'twixt his using GUITAR HERO 3 and CALL OF DUTY 4 on 'X-Box Live.' I'd have a real Juvenile Delinquent prob if I took over that thing...even when he's asleep.

LLAP

J:D

Edited February 19, 2008 by John Dailey