Lol You can’t just do a potatoes level analysis of the game and be like “wow what a bad critique.” The game is not a bad critique, but many players are bad at critical thinking.
- Makes a shallow analysis of a piece of media
- Piece of media appears to be shallow
I’m a genius, and this piece of media is dumb
A science fiction game totally disproves a science fiction ideology.
Let’s next discuss how Ultima 7 DESTROYS SCIENTOLOGY
Let’s next discuss how Ultima 7 DESTROYS SCIENTOLOGY
The Avatar casts that apocalypse spell, easy peasy lemon squeezy
I think it’s kind of a logical conclusion to science and technology when not constrained by ethics, morality or other regulations aimed at safety as one would find in a Libertarian’s wet dream. It might not be superpowered mutants, but more like human experimentation like the Nazis did or nuclear weapons that go boom when you don’t want them to because you’re being careless about safety.
Also, wasn’t the true downfall of the city more because of the power struggle between Atlas and Ryan? There is a whole subplot about the class war happening in the city along with a rebellion, but I haven’t played it in so long I don’t recall all the details. Ot if that even matters because didnt they turn out to be the same guy just manipulating you? 🤔
Fuck. Gonna make me play through Bioshock again.
Libertarian’s wet dream
Please don’t conflate Objectivism and Libertarianism. They’re different, and Ayn Rand hated Libertarians. Objectivism is all about selfishness (maximize personal benefit), whereas Libertarianism is all about minimizing harm between people (initiation of force, NAP).
Let’s use an example of someone creating a dangerous product and someone gets hurt. An Objectivist would say “oops!” whereas the Libertarian would say the seller should be legally liable for damages and criminally liable if they knew about the danger and didn’t properly disclose/prevent it, otherwise it’s an initiation of force.
Objectivists believe in maximum freedom. Libertarians believe your freedoms end where mine begin. They’re different.
It might not be superpowered mutants, but more like human experimentation like the Nazis
What do you think the human experimentation’s goal was?
third ball
I mean… I guess it depends which nazi scientist was doing the experiments. One of them had some pretty wild ideas and is where the basis for a lot of the supernatural BS in the Wolfenstein games came from. Forgot his name tho… 🤔
Yup. As Atlas puts it:
These sad saps. They come to Rapture thinking they’re gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody’s gotta scrub the toilets.
Ryan likes to talk about “the chain” and being in control, but he also used and discarded his associates and the moment he was no longer in absolute control, he started murdering people and using pheromones to mind-control splicers.
Counterpoint: it’s a videogame, and if it’s shallow it’s no more shallow and vapid a deconstruction of objectivism than Atlas Shrugged is the opposite.
A 12 year old can deconstruct objectivism and see how its DOA because I did it in middle school for an advanced English course. We read this trash book called “The Girl Who Owned a City” that was some guys attempt at teaching Rand’s bullshit to children. The book boils down to “be a heartless warlord who hoards supplies and throws hot oil on desperate children who come seeking food”.
A libertarian that doesn’t understand satire, what a shock.
What a bioshock
They all started killing each other because plasmid use makes you psychotic, unless you can afford to keep taking more and more.
They all started taking plasmids because they needed to compete in the workplace (then later, in the war) or end up homeless / dead.
Plasmids were legal in the first place because Randism, being based 100% on individual responsibility, doesn’t believe that things like feedback loops or cumulative effects can happen at a socital level, and so doesn’t believe in regulations.
Plasmids are a pretty clear metaphor for dehumanizing yourself to serve the market, especially because the Randian superman is a psychopath that is only self interested.
But even without plasmids the fact that the worlds elite were brought down to Rapture, yet (to quote an audio log) “we couldn’t all be captains of industry, someone had to scrub the toilets” bred a huge amount of resentment from people who felt scammed and now trapped down there. Just like in the real world the markets in BioShock rely completely on low level workers to be able to function, and yet punish them for being in that position.
Your takes gets more and more based as it goes on.
No Gods or Kings or Mans.
Only Dinosaur.
Open the door.
Get on the floor.
Nae King! Nae Quin! Nae Laird!
Ach wheel
Verrrrrrrrry complicated documents!
Wee free men?!
We won’t be fooled again?
Return to monke
Yeah, I hate when underwater Randism with injectable superpowers.
It’s a fictional universe.
Ayn Rand isn’t really studied if you do a philiosophy degree. She’s more on the literature side of “philosophy” as opposed to belonging to the analytic tradition or whatever.
And her main contribution is that unextended phenomina can override physical reality (!?!?!)
Philosophy fiction
Like the way science fiction isn’t science, but less cool.
Yes, I suppose it’s similar to Herman Hesse or maybe Borges… except those two are quite cool
Borges
borges sucks ass. his book of short stories was basically “yo dawg, this reminds of a story of when I was in a bar an the old guy told me of a story that when he was a boy in a cafe, an old guy told him the story of some ancient gaucho…”
People were easier to entertain back in the day. There is also a clear line between Borges and modern short story authors like Ted Chiang who take what he started and develop it further.
Almost like it doesn’t take a deep and thoughtful deconstruction of Ayn Rand to knock the whole thing over.
From playing and replaying both BioShock and Infinite, and reading interviews from Ken Levine, my own conclusion is that both of the BioShock games simply use ideology as a narrative tool to create conflict, and the only thing he is condemning broadly is extremism.
In other words, Levine and the rest of the team didn’t make BioShock because they hated Ayn Rand and wanted to spread that message. They made BioShock because they wanted to make a first-person shooter similar to System Shock 2. They needed villains to create conflict, and the easiest way a sci-fi writer can create a villain is just to take any ideology to extremes and think of ways that could go wrong.
I think this is made pretty clear by the lack of any “good” characters in either game. I can’t think of anyone the player is expected to just like and agree with- they are all charicatures taking their ideologies to extremes. Andrew Ryan is clearly bad, but the only real representative of lower classes is Fontaine who is argaubly an even more evil antagonist.
In Infinite, Comstock is clearly the villain as a racist and religious dictator. Daisy Fitzroy is the leader of the rebellion, someone who has personally suffered at Comstock’s hands. She initially starts off as the player’s ally, but then shifts to become “too violent” and “too extreme” in her rebellion, so she and the rest of the rebellion become enemies of Booker. It was really ham-fisted and just kind of waived off as “well anything can happen with the infinite possibilities of dimension hopping!”. But the real reason was more simple: they needed to add additional enemy types to shake up the combat and escalate the difficulty. They wanted to add the chaos of having the player run between two factions fighting each other without the safety of making one of those an ally.
Those two games use ideology as set pieces, but when you combine the two games together the final message is “extremeism bad, centrism good”. I don’t think every game needs to be a doctorate-level poli-sci dissertation, but I do think these two games deserve criticism for being pretty weak there.
Exactly. At least for 1&2, Objectivism is setting, not plot, the plot was created by the team. They could just as easily have used socialism, fascism, or any other “-ism” to make the same game, the main difference would be the set pieces. If it was Nazis, for example, the plasmids would be for creating super soldiers, and for socialism it would be yet another social experiment to see if it would create super workers or whatever.
Those two games use ideology as set pieces, but when you combine the two games together the final message is “extremeism bad, centrism good”. I don’t think every game needs to be a doctorate-level poli-sci dissertation, but I do think these two games deserve criticism for being pretty weak there.
Imo, they get the hype for being “deep” because they are pretty deep as far as popular games go. They are certainly deeper than COD’s “Look, terrorists, shoot them!” or Mario’s “Dragon stole my princess”.
Solid effortpost, but I’m left wondering what sort of alternative to “extremism bad, centrism good” you would propose that might satisfy your intellectual demands.
Well I kind of alluded to it, but both of the games lack any clear solutions other than “play the game kill the bad guy”.
Which, to be fair, is probably the reason BioShock 1 at least got so popular. I would say this point is much more important to BioShock 1 than any commentary about Ayn Rand, or any commentary about how worker’s movements can get subverted by selfish actors like Atlas. It takes the usual tropes about videogames and turns them into a commentary on how easily our assumptions and expectations can deceive us. Players do what the game tells them to, they progress the way the game allows them to, without ever questioning whether that is the morally correct thing to do. I would say that’s a pretty reasonable thing to do considering the money these games cost, but BioShock at least shines a light on that and makes the player think about it.
There are plenty of other examples of games that DO engage with political ideologies, and use games as a mechanism to think about then. The most famous one is probably Monopoly, which was stolen from the original creator who called it “the landlords game” to show how capitalism eventually leads to one rich person and a bunch of broke people.
If you want a videogame, Disco Elysium is a fabulous, recent, and well-reviewed example. Personally it’s a bit dense for me to play for too long (sometimes it feels more like reading a textbook than playing a game).
I don’t think BioShock 1 or Infinite are terrible or that they shouldn’t have delved into politics at all. I think that they are overrated in part because they get credit for political commentary that ends up being pretty superficial. I think they could have executed the ideas better.
Fitzroy for example: either give us a better reason to fight her or don’t make us do it. Maybe she gets killed by Comstock and leaves a power vacuum, with the chaos of rebel leaders trying to promote solidarity, fight for their own power, hold off or even negotiate peace with Comstock. Or maybe someone like Lady Comstock or Fink could be a source of division within Comstock’s ranks. Or maybe Fitzroy gets convinced that she needs to kill Elizabeth because she’s some dimensional McGuffin protecting Comstock. Maybe get rid of the rebellion entirely and have another country attack Colombia. They already ceded from the US- surely Uncle Sam isn’t cool with losing this technological marvel, nor having this independent state potentially floating above US territories. It’s been a while since I replayed it but I remember the Boxer Rebellion being a key piece of the story: maybe some fallout from that cones to Colombia.
Right, that makes sense. Unfortunately the “kill the bad guy and the evil will end” trope is very much entrenched not just in video games, but also most popular fiction as well (“all we need to do is throw the Ring into the fires of Mordor and Sauron’s reign will come to an end”).
I guess growing up is realizing there’s a new evil forged every day and you have to keep making the trip again and again, like Sisyphus. But I suppose that wouldn’t make for a good game, would it.
I guess growing up is realizing there’s a new evil forged every day and you have to keep making the trip again and again, like Sisyphus. But I suppose that wouldn’t make for a good game, would it.
I think it could make a pretty good game, actually. You know how some games unlock difficulty modes when you beat them? Do something like that, but with different villains. You beat the game, then you can play it again with a different bad guy. They could make a few bad guys to swap into the game with each one getting a bit harder, like they’ve learned from the mistakes of their predecessors.
Yeah, that’s kinda what roguelikes are doing, isn’t it? Unfortunately it’s not that easy to generate compelling levels and bosses randomly, and more importantly, a story that’s good enough to keep you going. I guess OG Diablo did a pretty good job of it, though.
Ayn Rand,s “philosophy” is about as deep as a puddle.
Eh, I think the high level themes are interesting, and Fountainhead is a legitimately interesting book (Anthem is shorter of you just want a quick intro). It gets weird quick when you read her justification for taking land from the native peoples (the “savages” didn’t have the concept of owning land, so their claims aren’t legitimate).
I’m glad I read her books because it helped me set boundaries on my own views and recognize when a politician boosting Atlas Shrugged is full of BS. I agree with her assertion that we’re better off expecting and even encouraging people to follow their own self-interest, but disagree on leaving it at that. We should reward self-interest when it benefits society and punish it when it doesn’t, and redistribute the excess to everyone has a chance to succeed, however they define that. Asking people to not follow their self-interest leads to reduced productivity and outcomes.
‘Mine!’
Did you play the BioShock infinite dlc? They had a strange retcon where the Lutece twins approached Fitzroy and instructed her to appear to be a monster, specifically so Elizabeth would feel like she had to kill her.
It was a strange choice, because the remaining revolution was pretty blatantly horrible without her either way, and I’m not entirely sure that’s how this sanitized version of her would want it to go.
The politics of BioShock are not all that deep in the end. They’re mostly just a setting so they can tell a story of someone forced into a role without understanding it
Ah I hadn’t - it’s still in my backlog. But it sounds like it just re-affirms what I had drawn from the main games.
I’ve already depicted you as the Sander Cohen and myself as the Atlas.
Anon lacks media literacy
Does he though? In Atlas Shrugged, which Bioshock seems to be somewhat of an antithesis to, it’s not the capitalists that go crazy, but the socialists, who enact more and more draconian laws depriving the productive class of all their profits in order to funnel more money to the unproductive, which ultimately makes working entirely unprofitable.
Both works are basically at opposite ends of the spectrum — Atlas Shrugged depicts a communist utopia gone wrong, while Bioshock shows a capitalist utopia gone wrong. They’re both myopic in their own way, but the common thread seems to be that absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is a truth no one can escape. In reality, a functioning society requires a delicate balance between both forces, not a winner-takes-tall approach. Unfortunately, that idea seems to be lost on both of them, which is probably what anon is trying to hint at.
Difference is, everyone knows bioshock is entertainment. And no one bases their actual political philosophy on it.
LOL
LMAO, even
but the common thread seems to be that absolute power corrupts absolutely
This is not at all the intended message of Atlas Shrugs.
Perhaps not, but that was what I took away from it.
Sue me, I guess.
The entire theme of Atlas shrugged is about how capitalist oligarchs are the critical class desperately needed in the world to make any real progress.
That they should be handed unregulated power because they’ll do more with it than the “workers”.
It’s the polar opposite of what you’re describing as the takeaway, and it’s not even subtle or mysterious about it. It repeats that point ad nauseum from about chapter 2 until the end of the book.
So my question to you would be: are you sure you’re thinking of the correct book? If so, it might be time for you to refresh yourself on it because there’s not another interpretation about the point of it. It’s not a hidden meaning or left up to the reader. It literally beats that into the reader during every capitalistic sychophantish chapter.
Yes, I get that, and it’s just as cringe as communist power fantasies if you ask me. Like, I understood what was bad about the communist dystopia she painted, and I didn’t resent her heroes for trying to escape that and rebuild society from the ground up, but I also didn’t think they were good people. Rand’s heroes are just as insane as the villains they’re fighting.
That’s not to say they didn’t have a point, though. Excessive pandering to people who simply will not lift a finger to change their own condition is just as harmful as excessive pandering to those who will.
The communist fantasy is that we should all work doing what we can to all have our needs met. That none of our work should be controlled by oligarchs or an oppressive state. That we express our needs democratically and work towards that goal together according to our ability. That in this pursuit we’re all treated as equals with no one systematically above others.
The capitalist fantasy is like you agreed with that the capitalist class should own everything and use that to control everyone unfettered by regulations.
Yeah, both of those fantasies are both equally unhinged and cruel.
I’m not going to argue about what happens in practise, but to argue that the communist fantasy is as explicitly evil and cruel as the capitalist fantasy is unhinged.
“Nice argument, unfortunately I already depicted you as the soyjack and me as the chad.”
Come on, man, this is strawmanning 101. Do you really think I’m dumb enough to fall for that?
What’s your take on it? (I just like reading takes on Bioshock)
It’s been a long time since I played it. And honestly, it doesn’t have to be a take. Things are spelled out for the player from what I remember.
The ‘intellectuals’ in the rapture considered activities such as plumbing, cleaning etc to be beneath them. Which led to having an underclass of workers doing these things and eventually there was a rebellion.
Basically, cooperation is far more important than intelligence (or any other talent for that matter) in isolation.
An example I can give is Josh Trank. After Chronicle, his directorial debut which received great reviews, he got opportunity to direct Fant4stic. The production was an absolute shitshow.
Compare that to David Fincher. He was directing music videos before he got Alien 3. That movie had a lot of studio interference. David kept his head down, did his job and moved on. Only spoke negatively about Alien 3 after more than 15 years.
That executive meddling ruins final bosses.
But on a serious note, look at modern society and the tipping points we’re reaching. AI, climate change, ultra-individualism bred by class disparity. Rapture just happened to get capitalism’d a hundred years earlier.
There are points to be made about comparability to Hitler’s rise, slavery through class busting and then mind control, races to the bottom, oligopolies, regulatory capture, and-and-and- but this is a greentext community.
