Ah, mash-up culture! Bioshock is a brand new, highly rated video game…it gotten a couple of ’10s’, which is pretty unusual, and gotten raves about the complexity and beauty of the game world – an underwater art deco setting inspired oddly enough by Ayn Rand but mixed in with zombies, underwater stuff and scary little girls.
It’s this expedition of discovery, laced heavily with the philosophical undertones of Ayn Rand, that makes BioShock such a uniquely compelling game. It makes you feel like a fish out of water, gasping for air as the world around you takes shape in twisted and horrifying ways. Young girls, who could be no older than 12, scour the city’s dimly lit hallways for corpses to harvest. Lumbering giants, outfitted in scuba suits, emit moans like blue whales and wield a small army’s worth of weaponry. This world is as dangerous as it is wondrous. You want to flee, yet you can’t help but be hopelessly entranced by its strange beauty.
As a plane-crash survivor who stumbles onto the underwater community of Rapture, you quickly discover that all isn’t well in this would-be utopia. All isn’t well is probably a bit of an understatement. Ghouls roam the rusting hallways in search of Adam, an addictive substance that allows for a variety of physical and mental enhancements. And if the risk of having someone forcibly try to examine what’s in your skull isn’t danger enough, there are also signs of a failed political uprising. As soon as the doors to the underwater elevator open, you’re met with stacks of picket signs proclaiming “Ryan doesn’t own us,†a reference to Rapture’s founder, the paranoid industrialist Andrew Ryan. Your guide throughout the game is the staticky, disembodied voice of a man named Atlas, who also seems to serve as the counterpoint to Ryan’s increasingly crazed agenda.
In addition to guiding players through the game, offering guidance in exchange for helping get Atlas’ family out of Rapture, Atlas is also the subject of public-address messages that play periodically over the intercom. These messages portray Atlas and his “gang of bandits†as a menace to Rapture’s safety and security. Whether or not this is an accurate representation of things remains unknown—during our demo we weren’t allowed to see a long stretch of gameplay, preventing us from seeing a couple of promised plot twists. While BioShock mines much of its inspiration from Ayn Rand’s work, it wouldn’t be unheard of for a character like Atlas to actually be a made-up bogeyman designed to keep the populace in check, like Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell’s 1984.
Five Things You Should Know About BioShock
(Game developer) Levine has stated in an interview with gaming website IGN that the project has drawn on many influences, mostly from Utopian and dystopia literature; “And I have my useless liberal arts degree, so I’ve read stuff from Ayn Rand (whose name inspired the name “Andrew Ryan”) and George Orwell, and all the sort of Utopian and dystopia writings of the 20th century, which I’ve found really fascinating.” He also states that he wanted to confront challenges that face the modern world such as, “stem cell research and the moral issues that go around.”
In a screenshot of an in-game location known as “Kashmir Restaurant”, there appears to be a golden statue holding a globe with the word “Rapture”, in a pose strikingly similar to the one on the cover of Atlas Shrugged by Rand. Whether or not this is a direct influence is unknown.
BioShock – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Blogged with Flock
Update 1: My son Shane downloaded the playable demo from Xbox Live. It really is gorgeous – the underwater retro deco city is pretty breathtaking and they did a nice job on the water effects. As for the philosophy, they got Rand wrong but that’s not a shock. So far, Andrew Ryan’s ideas are closer to a techocrat Nietzsche than Rand but it’s a close enough mistake so that almost nobody will care. It doesn’t effect the game one way or another, of course. No Ron Paul billboards in Rapture, either.
Update 2: Shane got the game and really likes it so far. From what I’ve seen, it’s creepy and very impressive. It seems to also have multiple possible endings, depending on how you play. Right now, Shane’s more into saving Little Sisters than killing them so we’ll see how that works out.
As for the Andrew Ryan philosophy – yeah, it’s more Nietzsche than Rand. I could also say that that makes it more like early Ayn Rand, where she was pretty heavily influenced by ‘ole Friedrich. Specifically, it’s more the philosophy of ’superior people can do whatever they want.’ That’s not Objectivism, which has a moral code that applies to all people. However, if you look at something like Rand’s play The Night Of January 16th, it’s pretty much ’superior people can do whatever they want’.
And again – it’s a GAME so it doesn’t matter. They made the right choice for Bioshock, which never claims to be based on Objectivism. It’s a mash-up – a little Night Of The Living Dead, a little 1984, a little Ayn Rand, a little Nazi stuff, a dash of Jules Verne, a smidgen of Metropolis, a heaping spoonful of art deco….stir liberally…a brilliant game.
If you’re interested in this post, you might also want to read about my post about Objectivism and Libertarianism, a post about Objectivist Hip Hop artist Eros and look at the cool buildings of collectivist statist anti-life anti-mind architect Oscar Niemeyer.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
The creator of the game, Ken Levine, has called it an “Objectivist shooter,” and said he based it on “Atlas Shrugged.” You’re giving out false and incorrect information when you claim differently–and when the information can be verified through basic websearches.
September 1st, 2007 at 3:15 am
I’m not sure what your agenda is here. It’s obvious that he based it in part on Atlas Shrugged and the work of Ayn Rand – nothing I said or quoted disputes that. But here’s another quote from above…
““And I have my useless liberal arts degree, so I’ve read stuff from Ayn Rand (whose name inspired the name “Andrew Ryanâ€) and George Orwell, and all the sort of Utopian and dystopia writings of the 20th century, which I’ve found really fascinating.—
And it’s obvious based in part on other stuff, like Orwell.
The philosophy presented in game clearly isn’t Objectivism, either. Again – sort of based on it in part, but that’s it.
September 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
What I meant is that the game is based on Objectivism–”which never claims to be based on Objectivism”–and is a scathing critique of it, pointing out the flawed areas and showing how, when the boat has enough holes, it’ll sink no matter how pretty the outside of it was.
September 1st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
And while you say it is also based on books like 1984, I agree, to a point. The point being that the game will share commonalities with any book about a dystopia. But when you run around seeing banners spread across the city, “Altruism is Mankind’s Greatest Sin,” etc., you realize this game is portraying all the flawed aspects of Ayn’s world, not George’s totalitarian one where the government has already decided for you. The creator basically indicated this game is about what happens when philosophy (in this case the game critiques Objectivism, specifically) meets the real world. What happen when one steps outside of the whole mental-masturbatory exercise of “Well, if everybody were perfect, predictable things that followed thus-and-such to a T, this philosophy would be great!” and actually apply it to a world with real people–like you and I experience everyday.
And I wasn’t attacking your loyalty or disloyalty to Objectivism, sorry if it seemed that way. I disagree with so much of what she says it’s not even funny.
September 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Thanks for the clarifications…they help me understand your position a lot better.
I should have said ‘it never claims to be presenting a detailed treatise on Objectivism’ or something like that. My point there was just that the game doesn’t accurately reflect what Objectivism’s position is on a number of points, but that wasn’t the intent so no problem.
I’m not sure it’s a critique of Objectivism, per se – from what Levine says in the interview in my ‘controversy’, Levine views extremism in general as the real enemy.
Again – thanks for clarifying.
September 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I agree it is a critique on extremism–but it’s just as much a critique on Objectivism and those who worship at the altar of Rand, slavishly following her ideals at the expense of questioning her–which, by her own words, she wanted. There was another game a few years back made by a team that has ties to the Bioshock guys. It was called Deus Ex and it too dealt with bio-enhancements (in this case cybernetic enhancements and nano technology) and it’s focus was really criticizing “Big Brother”–it was about a future where class had divided horrifically (i.e. no more middle class) and everything was in someway tied to authority. In a broader sense, yes, it dealt with extremism too, but did it by focusing on the more microcosmic idea of totalitarianism at its most facistly regulated. In this way Bioshock deals with extremism by focusing on Objectivism.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
The reason I posted my first message–the vaguely critical one due to my unspecifed position–was simply because I’ve seen several sites extolling the virtues of Bioshock and using it as a platform to put down Rand, which is what anyone will do if they think they’ve been given a platform. But my opening remark was more or less directed because I’ve seen several Objectivists–or people with some Objectivist ideals–try to state that Bioshock actually paints Objectivism in a good light. I just reject that so much because instead of taking a “Hey, I don’t agree, but this game makes me think!” response, they’re taking a “Ooh, this game paints my beliefs in a darker light…I need some false justification for playing it, so I can feel better afterward and not go to be thinking I’ve hurt Ayn’s feelings.” In my misguided assumptions, I thought you were doing the latter as well. I thank you for the intelligent discourse.
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Tom, you said that “I agree it is a critique on extremism–but it’s just as much a critique on Objectivism and those who worship at the altar of Rand, slavishly following her ideals at the expense of questioning her–which, by her own words, she wanted.”
That’s called extremism.
I’ve played the game; they have Ryan throwing out catch phrases that sound might familiar from Objectivist beliefs, things like “Should a man not be entitled to the fruits of his labor? Should a man not be entitled to the food he makes? Should a man not be entitled to the money he produces? Should a man…” etc, ad infinitum. But just because of base similarities and them basing his name on hers doesn’t mean that it’s at all an actual depiction of Objectivist ideology, because along with those quotes they have slogan’s such as “We are all members of the Great Chain,” where they are all basically slaves to Ryan…
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I haven’t played the game but I’ve watched my son play some and that’s what I based my observations on, plus the interviews I’ve seen with Mr. Levine…
I didn’t think the crazy plastic surgeon guy sounded too Objectivist, either – especially the references to Picasso.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Felix, Lee, both of your arguments don’t change what the game intrinsically is which is using extreme objectivism to make its point. In contrast, if the game was set in a place that looked like a mad cuckoo clock and had characters running around named Adolf and Himmler and they spouted lines about “purifying the race,” would you also say it’s only about “extremism” and that National Socialism isn’t being undressed, either?
September 4th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Here’s why the Nazi example you’re giving doesn’t work – because the Nazis DID talk about purifying the race. It’s not ‘extreme’, it’s accurate…
A lot of the stuff in BioShock just isn’t objectivism in any way, shape or form and some of it completely contradicts Objectivism.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Which is why the creator has said it’s his opinion and critique of. It’s a critique. Where in the idea of it being the opinion of Levine and his critique does the implication exist of being “fair and balanced”? That’s why it’s an opinionated critique to begin with.
Let’s quit being intellectually dishonest here. Anyone who will say this is not about Objectivism–obviously one persona’s idea of it, yes–is flying full in the face of the game as well as many Objectivist forums and the majority of reviews. That sounds quite a bit like they’re wanting to take a subjective view on reality, simply because they dislike disagreement with their philosophy. It also sounds heavily like being a Randroid.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
*person, not persona
September 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I’ve never seen an interview or statement where Levine said it was a critique of Objectivism. Obviously, a bunch of things were based on Objectivism – nobody’s disputing that. But what I’ve read, Levine isn’t critical of Objectivism particularly he’s described himself as a libertarian…
So – is there an interview you saw that I missed? Not being sarcastic – I’m really asking…
September 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
He’s called it an “Objectivist shooter,” when rattling off why it would be hard to sell it that way. Lee, please. We’re both thinking people.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
And with that, I’ve had about all the intellectual dishonesty I can stand. This is obviosuly going to devolve into one of those “This is what it is, and here’s proof,” “No it’s not because I say so (and even if I agreed, I’d still argue for the sake of it),” back-and-forths that the internet is famous for, and it’s tiring. If you don’t want to actually agree with “objective” reality regarding the game, then don’t. It’s no skin off my nose.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I’m just not explaining myself well enough, maybe.
Calling it an Objectivist shooter doesn’t imply to me that it’s a critique of Objectivism. It’s the ‘critique’ part that’s eluding me. Like I said, it’s obviously based to a large extent on Ayn Rand’s work – there’s no disagreement there. I just don’t see it as critique, really.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Back, just to ask, since you’re not seeingBioshock as being critical of Objectivism, then obviously you’re seeing it as both commending of and complimentary to it?
September 6th, 2007 at 7:11 am
No – I don’t see it that way, either. That would be a critique, too – just a positive one. I see as having taken elements from Atlas Shrugged and to a lesser extent the Fountainhead, and mixed them together with a bunch of other elements without an agenda except telling a good story in game terms. It’s not trying to present Objectivism accurately or inaccurately – it’s just telling a story.
First person shooters aren’t the best ways to critique a philosophy, for one thing.
PS – I wrote Ken Levine an email to ask him directly.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Lee, commending is not the same as a “positively critiquing.” It is the antonym of criticizing. For a writer, you should know that.
So, since you’re now claiming that you see it as neither shedding positive (commending) nor negative (critiquing) light on Objectivism, you’re claiming the game uses some elements of Objectivism to “tell a good story in game terms” which is like saying that a child is the smartest of the special education kids. For a ghetto genre like video games, this one rises out of the ghetto just enough that it should be noticed (tells a good story), but otherwise is frivolous (because the story is told in the medium of a game–on game terms).
Which then betrays why you would bother to post a blog about it at all if you feel that way. Or betrays the “I wouldn’t agree with you (even if secretly I really do)” mentality of never admitting one may be mistaken that I spoke about earlier.
And, if Levine does get back to you, I’d be surprised if he gave anything other than his typical non-commital bullshit answer, “The game is about ideologies taken to the extreme, it could have been Objectivism, it could have been anything.” Of course, the fact that he picked Objectivism and only Objectivism gets skated over by those who buy his fluff, but that’s par for the course when one is picking up the cute baby and tossing out the ugly bathwater.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:46 am
I don’t see much of distinction on the first point.
I wrote about it for the same reason I write about anything – it was interesting to me. I wrote about it within minutes of first hearing about it last month. If I had an opinion, I’d give it. I give my opinion when I have one. I thought a game with an explicit Ayn Rand influence was interesting because 1) I like video games and 2) I know a lot abut Ayn Rand. There was no agenda of mine in the initial post, or now – if I thought the game was a critique, I’d say so because why would I care if a game critiqued Objectivism positively or negatively?
Finally, if you won’t take Levine’s word about Levine was thinking, then – who’s the one who won’t admit to being mistaken?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:40 am
If you don’t see a distinction, then I can’t help you. I’m going with how the word is defined in English, not whatever assumptions/interpretations/other associations that you’re saddling the word with. That’s between you and your Ghost of Samuel Johnson.
Secondly, since you see the game as neither critiquing nor commending, obviously you must think it was made in a vacuum by creatures with no thought about what they were doing and that the game came out the way it did was by chance; otherwise your argument must be that artists do not put any of themselves or their opinions into the creations, be it pop-cultural like Charlie Brown’s wry life observations or Stephen King’s string of alcoholic-write characters just trying to get along, or deeper movements like Cubism or Transcendentalist literature.
That’s the only third option. Game makers can’t make a game that doesn’t offer any form of the smallest minsicule grain-of-sand commentary on a subject and put their own take onto it. It’s impossible.
And lastly, Levine is couching his words to up sales. He’s not going to come out and say, “This game is a polemic on Objectivist philosphy. With guns!”
That you would expect me to take his obviously money-motivated words which only skirt the issue, and don’t deny it indicates you’d also expect me to believe J.K. Rowling’s claims that she didn’t realize until after her book came out she was writing fantasy, that Microsoft honestly never was trying to be the biggest dog in the computer market, or that I really will denounce Coke if blindfolded and given it and Pepsi in unmarked cups.
I guess what that means is that since virtually every other person agrees it is a critique (commentary, choose-an-adjective for semantic’s sake) it means either they’re right, or it means that you’re the only one who sees the utter ambivalence of the game and everyone else has formed a paradigmatic cabal to say the complete opposite.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Ummm. No.
It doesn’t seem to me like it’s a critique of objectivism. That’s all I’m saying – not any of the inferences you’re making.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:27 am
This is going to turn into a “No, I’m not,” “Yes, you are,” pissing contest isn’t it?
Lee, as a writer you know that words and phrases and clauses and the things they’re all strung together into–sentences–have meanings and connotations/implications. The idea that a work of art can be made and have nothing to say on a subject matter at all implies directly it was made by mindless action and simply turned out. The ideas of meaningless art can not coexist.
You’re also saying that you have to be right in your opinion and that EVERYBODY else is wrong or you’re–for the supposed Rand expert you are–utterly throwing reason to the wind with this fingers-in-the-ears “LALALA I can’t hear you,” response you’re taking to what everyone else (just Google Bioshock, Ayn Rand, and Objectivism, you’ll see) is plainly deriving from this game.
Farewell to your land of arguing to argue. Yes, this is your blog, but no, that doesn’t make you an expert or keep you from being in denial.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Last P.S.: The idea of dismissing every other argument a person makes with this detatched, “Umm, no,” attitude that indicates you think the other person is a zealous loon is a completely intellectually dishonest approach to discussion equal to “Your mama,’ as an argument. That coupled with pretending to not understand words, the fact that words and sentences have meanings other than their purely surface ones, etc. and the fact that your site claims that you are a writer as you take this approach indicates you want to be right no matter what intellecutally dishonest tactic you employ and do not care for actual meaningful discourse from which if someone offers you evidence you create a new paradigm by changing out incorrect values in old ones.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am
The problem is that instead of arguing about what I’m actually saying, you’re leaping to all sort of reductio ad absurdum conclusions.
I’m not saying art is meaningless. I’m saying this specific game BioShock doesn’t seem to me to have been created with a ‘critique of Objectivism’ as one of it’s explicit goals. I’m saying that I think the creator of the game didn’t appear to have that goal in mind. It’s obvious that Objectivism was a leaping off point for many of themes, but there are myriad other influences and leaping of points as well.
I’m not saying everyone else is wrong. I’m saying what I’m saying.
And you’re kind of coming across as a zealous loon.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:21 am
wow this is sorta a big blow out. lee i need to ask you if you have played the game or are trying to ome at this from only looking over your son’s shoulder as he plays? the other guy omes off forcefully convicted (sorry tom, its true lol) but he mentioned things you only find playing the game (which is so gonna be goty I hope) so hes actually got a point. if you haven’t played i t(you sorta said you haven’t but i could be wrong) you dont reallt have a leg to stand on on any feelings about it. its like saying this books sucks, have ou read it? nope, lol.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:28 am
well fuck you all you’re nutcases lol.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I finished this game. While Andrew Ryan seems to be subscribing to some things related to Objectivism, he also compromises in several points in the game, such as using force to compel people to act in ways favorable to himself and harmful to their own interests.
Overall, I was disappointed with the philosophical/literary side of Bioshock. It just wasn’t as well-thought-out as Deus Ex. Levine seems to be suggesting that no ideology or philosophy is coherent enough to withstand reality… which seems sort of useless. “We are all flawed”- umm, actually, this sounds like a vaguely Christian concept, not Objectivist or philosophical in general. The whole dystopian literature is tainted by the concept of Original Sin and the Fall, I believe.
OTOH, what is shown of objectivism seems very cold, callous, and unfavorable. Ryan is portrayed as a visionary, a man of great wealth and ambition, but also cold, maniacal, and inhuman. OTOH, some Objectivists seem to think that is peachy (they’d just say he’s virtuous, or somesuch), and that’s because deep down Objectivism is a philosophy that goes against our natures as social beings. But then I’m not an objectivist.
September 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I finished the game as well. It seems what Ryan started out with is a city guided by objectivism. The same kind of utopia that is portrayed at the end of Atlas Shrugged: a laissez-faire capitalism where nothing is for free, altruism does not exist, and there is no government intervention at all. The people went there believing they would have a better life, and great oppertunity.
With the finding of the sea shells that provide adam and plasmids, no government is in place to control their sale, or even provide aquedate testing or safety warnings. The uncontrolled use of dangerous substances basically destroys the brains of the people, making them agressive and irrational.
That is where objectivism (which is based on rationality) ends and all hell breaks loose. Ryan starts to see, but doesn’t want to admit, that his dream is failing. He starts acting like a government/dictator after all, forbidding people to see that rapture is collapsing. Seems it’s a bit like the USSR under communism, the original ideology is grossly twisted and distorted into an authoritarian state.
Fontaine actually points out another problem with objectivism in one of the audio logs: that not everyone can be a captain of industry. Someone needs to do the dirty jobs, and some people are bound to be underpaid and poor.
So it might be a bit of a critique of objectivism, but IMO you could just as well substitute it with any ideology taken to the extreme, when the ideology becomes more important than the human aspect and people’s lives.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I was skeptical when I read that Bioshock was based on Ayn Rand. How could a first person shooter possibly be influenced by such an intellectual and heavy handed philospher? Sure enough, when I played the game, Ayn Rand was everywhere. I was elated to be a part of the minority of gamers who recognized the allusions to Rand’s work.
The bitter conflict on this thread between Lee and Tom inspired me to do a little research on Levine’s statements and interviews regarding the influence of Objectivism on Bioshock. My conclusions lean more towards the opinion of Lee, that Bioshock was not intended to critique objectivism. Rapture was certainly created with objectionist ideals, and crumbles into the set of a horror movie. The game also illustrates the need to have some sort of societal control over the results of scientific discovery (Genetic enhancements that turn people into serial killers that crawl on ceilings should certainly be regulated.) It is easy to interpret this as a hang-man effigy and scathing critique, but Levine clearly states that a scathing critique was not his motivation. In fact, he claims that he admires many of the ideals Rand preaches. He set out to make an entertaining game that encompasses a complete world and tells the story of the rise and fall of a Utopia that was built upon a Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Levine simply thought it would be a deep rewarding interactive experience to base a game off of the question, “What would happen if a Gault’s Gulch Experiment went terribly terribly wrong, and what if it was headed by a Rand hero who degenerated into a dictator?” I don’t think he was trying to say Ayn Rand is a fool and her ideals are the road to Hell. I think he thought a twisted bizzarro Gault Gulch would make a better game than Sim Fountainhead. I bet that Levine would philosophically support a story where Rapture succeeds if it would be engaging to design and play. Fortunately, Levine is in the market to create fun games, not the Sims. My defense of Lee’s position is not due to the fact that I worship the altar of Ayn Rand. My stance is objective (pun completely intended). I don’t buy wholesale into her philosophy. I believe in a power higher than the individual man, and base many of my decisions off of that faith. I believe in moral absolutes, while Rand believed that reason should be a man’s only absolute. I believe that God can help reveal the greatness and divinity in a willing man. Like Levine, I do admire many of the ideals of Ayn Rand.
I think that the interesting question in Bioshock is not whether or not Objectivism is good or bad, but why it failed in Rapture. Was the collapse of Rapture a result of individualist ideals, or a result of the fact that Andrew Ryan did not adequately embody the perfect man? Whatever Andrew Ryan was, he was no Howard Roarke or John Gault.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Atomicus, it does beg the question of whether or Objectivism works, then.
You say it failed due (most likely) to Andrew Ryan not being a John Galt–except this point is addressed in the game and in common sense.
The game points out how any Galt’s Gulch would fail because not everyone can be at the top of the heap. Not everyone will be able to be the richest architect or most read author, and some people will inevitably end up washing dished or scrubbing floors. And when they get tired of being on that low rung, watch out. In-game, that’s why Rapture failed.
The common sense side to this is that Objectivism doesn’t work if you have to be John Galt for it to do so. No *real* human is a paragon or an archetype.
It’s like people who argue for Communism as a philosophy. “If only people were like *this*, then Communism would be the best form of government.”
But people aren’t like *that*. They’re people, not robots. And, as far as we’ve seen, no form of Communism since instituted has been anything close to the ideal and life in it is not paradisical.
If something will only work as long as people adhere to a set of rules that makes no allowance for any form of deviation or the whole thing goes off the tracks, it’s a busto idea, period.