Poll: Bioshock's theme?

[wilsonscrazybed]

I thought the theme was "mind control" correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Mr. Levine come out and say that right off the bat?

 

[Squarewave]

I wasn't familiar with Ayn Rand, after looking her up on wiki I can see the connection. In any event bioshock seems to support the notion of her ideas when the society live in a bubble, as in cut off from the world. If anything it supports the idea that religion and charity are bad things that destroy utopias.

According to the game rapture was a utopia that was only possible after throwing out the ideals of charity and religion. This is evident by how they built a city underwater and mastered genetics in the 1950's

It wasn't until atlas started smuggling in bibles and what not that utopia fell apart.

The game felt like propaganda demonizing charity to me for most of the game till the very end even then it gave the impression that they had to give up all the advancements made in rapture in order to be kind

 

[bread golem]

As much as I would love to say that every one here is absolutely wrong,you seem to strike a gold mine, then think its copper and continue, the game itself is about what would to an Objectivist society if regular business men and dickheads moved into said utopia, and the game is about the aftermath of mans greed and overall dickheadishness, causing mass insanity and dysopotarian society... at time you people see parts of this, but then skip by it like a four year old in a park.

 

[chaos13]

I thought bioshocks message was without morals or regret a society cannot stand. When people began doing shamfull acts with no fear of punishment the underwater paradies turned into an underwater hell.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Back from the grave post?

All this hatred of Objectivism leads me to believe that no one actually understands Rand's books. You people (That's right, YOU PEOPLE) probably take the characters of rich industrialist geniuses in Atlas Shrugged too literally, they are merely symbols of Objectivist values who just happen to be rich. Howad Roark in The Fountainhead is by no means rich, his business fails twice because he is being constantly being put down by 'The Man' so there is an example of less-than-wealthy Rand hero. On another note, Libertarianism and Objecctivism are NOT the same thing.

Rapture was not destroyed by it's own values, it was the citizens who refused to follow Objectivism and resorted to force, stealing, and manipulation to get what they want instead of honest hard work (Fontaine). The Objectivism in Bioshock is highly distorted for dramatic effect and does not accurately reflect Rand's entire philosophy.

I also direct you to this ancient post of mine.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.142899#3271295

 

[Alex_P]

All this hatred of Objectivism leads me to believe that no one actually understands Rand's books.

It's quite easy to hate Objectivism even if you do understand it.
One could hate the self-assured way in which Rand dresses up her downright mystical ideals about law and property as "rational" and "objective", for example.
One could hate the dickish character of Rand's clique and mock the petty politics that they couched in philosophy.
One could hate the way Rand and her followers seem to employ her novels as justifications of their ideas -- like making up a story where you are right proves anything.
One could hate the way the vast majority of Objectivism's adherents live the life of James Taggart but style themselves to be John Galt.
There's plenty to hate! And, beyond the hate, there's rather little to actually study and digest. I think Rand's beliefs are pretty flat in the end, and her immitators' are weaker still.

On another note, Libertarianism and Objecctivism are NOT the same thing.

Indeed. The most obvious gulf is in defining value. Neoliberals, anarcho-capitalists, and their ilk are pretty clear on the "free market" as a mechanism that operates on the basis of subjective, arbitrary value. For them, it's not so much that you "deserve" what you have -- it's just that curtailing violence while allowing for the exchange of goods creates a situation in which people tend to use what they have effectively. Objectivists seem to have a lot more in common with ideological Marxists in this regard: they do believe you can objectively "deserve" things, but adhere to a radically different theory of value than the Marxists. Roughly speaking, Marxists emphasize honest compensation for honest toil (and believe that capitalism and markets are fundamentally rigged to deny this to the worker), while Objectivists exalt in the ability to make money out of ideas (and believe that contracts and markets guarantee this).

In addition, libertarian superstar Murray Rothbard thought the Objectivists were total asshats on a strictly personal level, too [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html].

But old-school libertarianism is pretty much dead. The label's been consumed by far-right extremists, who've also adopted Rand without any real understanding of her philosophy or politics. Now she's just another pillar of an anti-intellectual populist movement with some para-fascist undertones.

(I don't think that man understands Atlas Shrugged. Like, at all. But he sure does love it!)

Rapture was not destroyed by it's own values, it was the citizens who refused to follow Objectivism and resorted to force, stealing, and manipulation to get what they want instead of honest hard work (Fontaine). The Objectivism in Bioshock is highly distorted for dramatic effect and does not accurately reflect Rand's entire philosophy.

That thing I said about theories of value above? I think that's all over Bioshock. Ryan is married to his idea of Rapture. He sees himself as the rightful owner of the city because it is his vision. Within Rapture, society seemed to be organized to reward architects at the expense of builders. Ryan's society develops an underclass for Fontaine to exploit.

And these folks aren't all just lazy freeloaders who've come to leech off Rapture. Many of them probably believe in the dream just as much as the city's successful leaders; but they lack the good fortune or natural ability to produce the Big Ideas that have power in Rapture. Quite unintentionally, Ryan has hoodwinked them with his spiel: Rapture doesn't recognize the value of the sweat of their brows. Before Fontaine even enters the picture with his charities and Bibles, these folks are suffering, finding themselves falling out of the bottom of a society they were trying to help create. To me, that's really the dark heart of Rand's Objectivist myth-making right there: shitting on Eddie Willers.

(I'm breaking out my little Dogs in the Vineyard chart here.) Looks to me like Fontaine's sins destroy Rapture, but the injustices he exploits are a direct result of Ryan's ideology and pride.

-- Alex

 

[chaos13]

Back from the grave post?
it was the citizens who refused to follow Objectivism and resorted to force, stealing, and manipulation to get what they want instead of honest hard work (Fontaine).

however fontaine was manipulating from the very begining. He was using you to do his dirty work through mind control.

 

[Jonci]

Ryan wanted to build a society that didn't bow to over-oppressive forces of government and religion. He hated taxes, religion, and socialism, believing that what you work for should be yours in whole. So he builds Rapture.

But he becomes the thing he hates. He says everyone is free to work without giving away anything to anyone else, but only if it follows Ryan's ideals. Sure, he believed in absolute capitalism, but under his own dictatorship. He created laws to squelch things he hated, like religious icons. Already he is going down a path that creates an extreme government, something he thought he was escaping.

Then Fontaine comes along. Here is a man that believes in profit, too, but he doesn't want to follow laws either. He comes into Ryan's perfect world and allows for the very "evils" that Ryan wants to keep away. Fontaine becomes a man of the people by selling what they want, blaming Ryan for why they don't have it. Even helping the poor, which goes against Ryan's anti-socialism. He just want to manipulate everyone he can.

The biggest concept, and the ultimate downfall, is Greed. Ryan wants his own perfect society. Fontaine wants the money and power. A civil war breaks out between two guys that are fighting for control of capitalism and abusing the freedoms they claim they would bring.

This is all built up further by the greed of the average citizen. They want the freedoms promised and would removed anyone that conflicts with that. Add in the devistating effects of Plasmids and easy access to guns, all hell broke loose.

 

[Alex_P]

See, any system can work if you populate it with people who believe in its values. A radical Marxist state of complete Communism would work perfectly well if a writer was able to populate it with Ghandi and Jesus and Mother Teresa the way Rand populates Galt's Gulch with basically a bunch of Objectivist saints.

That's more than just "believing in its values". You have to epitomize its ideals, too. Galt et al. are Objectivist superheroes, intellectual titans endowed with boundless creative energy.

I keep harping on Eddie Willers because he's like the one character who supports Objectivism without being an Objectivist superhero. And his fate is to follow the superheroes faithfully and then get left to die in a desert or something. Rand's Objectivist world simply has no place for any common man, even the one helping to build it.

-- Alex

 

[Ivan Issaccs]

I saw Bioshock as less of a bashing of enterprise and more of a statement that a society cannot hope to survive long when their are more ammo and grenade vending machines than condom dispensers, while simultaneously having a population capable of shooting fireballs out of their hands at the expense of turning completely insane...

 

[Jandau]

Bioshock's message was simple enough: There are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Also, humans can't be given absolute freedom because we're not ready for it. We're not mature enough to handle it and end up destroying ourselves in bursts of selfishness and egomania.

 

[hermes]

Levine has said before he consider himself a libertarian, and expressed respect for Rand and her ideas. He did, however, not respected the intransigence of her ideas (which he refered as "my way or the highway")

To me, the main message of Bioshock is that an ideology, no matter how reasonable and "objective" you make it be, is doomed when taken to extremes. Truth, Fontaine did a lot to speed up the downfall of Rapture (basically, by using a side of human nature Ryan prefered to ignore), but when Ryan couldn't mantain his promise of a perfect world, filled with perfect people, and exploit the people hatery to goverment and such, he was more than willing to use the force, he became paranoid (hidding in his own personal fortress, quite literaly) and megalomaniac. In the end, his desire to protect his utopian dream make him even worst than the powers in the exterior world he tried to escape.

 

[oranger]

Its not the end of rapture that mattered. Ryan decided that everything he could hold in his hands, and keep away from others, was his. IE burning his forest down to prevent its nationalization. Even at his end, he was willing to die for his fantasy, by creating a situation that would prove him right, regardless of anyone elses intent. I'm pretty sure the player killed ryan because he wanted to, as ryan's orders were vague enough to wiggle out of them.
I guess my point is this: Bioshock supports objectivism by demonstrating that reality happens to you, not the other way around, regardless of what we want and we simply choose the best card from the dealt hand.

 

[Alex_P]

The biggest concept, and the ultimate downfall, is Greed. Ryan wants his own perfect society. Fontaine wants the money and power. A civil war breaks out between two guys that are fighting for control of capitalism and abusing the freedoms they claim they would bring.

I disagree with you about Ryan. I think he's all about pride. Ryan doesn't become the pushy overlord of Rapture because he wants more stuff. No, what he wants is to be the master of his creation -- the vision of Rapture is his so Rapture must be his, too, because it is an expression of his own will and ego.

Whenever we have a discussion about copyright and the hardcore Objectivists come in, they talk about creative works in these terms, too -- like every idea you have is absolutely and ineffably connected back to you.

-- Alex

 

[Jonci]

The biggest concept, and the ultimate downfall, is Greed. Ryan wants his own perfect society. Fontaine wants the money and power. A civil war breaks out between two guys that are fighting for control of capitalism and abusing the freedoms they claim they would bring.

I disagree with you about Ryan. I think he's all about pride. Ryan doesn't become the pushy overlord of Rapture because he wants more stuff. No, what he wants is to be the master of his creation -- the vision of Rapture is his so Rapture must be his, too, because it is an expression of his own will and ego.

Whenever we have a discussion about copyright and the hardcore Objectivists come in, they talk about creative works in these terms, too -- like every idea you have is absolutely and ineffably connected back to you.

-- Alex

Pride may play a part, but greed was an inspiration. He only wanted to escape the US, Soviet Russia, and the Vatican because he believed they would take everything from you that you worked for. In the intro movie to Rapture, when you first enter it, he says "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone. No says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God." He is describing how the big influences of that time just wanted your money or service.

 

[iamthehorde]

sorry, i don´t get it. can´t mr levine be something in between? what´s the point? i always thought of bioshock as a game that tells the player the exact opposide of being an ideologist. i mean the thing is (SPOILER) you fight against a guy who is a really strong ideologist and is rather going to hell than admitting he was somehow wrong. then you have a guy that seems to be your guardian but really is the perfect embodiment of the philosophy the other guy proclaims in manipulating everything for his very own advantage. still, bioshock didn´t kill objectivism, or capitalism, or socialism. to me it seemed that the game is about ideologies in general and how people relate to them. it forces you to form your own opinion about the relation of your own free will, the world/system you inhabit and asks the question if an ideology is realisable without benefiting certain people that turn its morals upside down to exploit it. therefore, i think the game handles ideologies in general in a very critical way. i don´t feel that it does promote any form of government or system/ideology.

 

[A Weary Exile]

*Snip*

That is an awesome picture. I'm hesitant to use the term 'Fail' because it's so obnoxious, but that guy has indeed failed.

Just to clarify I do not agree %100 with Rand's ideas on government, I agree about %90-%80. I do not agree %100 wih any ideology unless it is my own, Rand's philosophy just seems to make the most sense to me out of any other I've read about. The basic tenets I like are:

-Live only by logic.
-Be an individual.
-Own your own work and get ahead in life based on your achievments.
-Rational self-interest should be one's main priority, this however does not condone things like thievery or deception in order to further one's self in life.
-Collective ideas are the root of most evils perpertrated on mankind, to paraphrase "How many catastrophies were launched with the phrase 'Think of yourself'? It's the King and country crowd who light the torch of destruction."

In Rand's book she expresses that a lassiez-faire state would be ideal but not not realistic, in Atlas Shrugged I clearly recall one of her characters saying something along the lines of "Government should be used for protection of the citizen's rights and for that purpose only." I do, however, realize that a lassiez-faire state like Rapture could never exist, but only because of the well-known fact that people are assholes. They will do whatever it takes to get what they want, whether the method through which they obtain it honorable or not doe snot not matter in most cases.

This is one reason why Bioshock is one of my favorite games. What other game can generate so much thoughtful discussion?

*Snip*

 

[Arkhangelsk]

The thing with Rapture was that it was for capitalism and free market, but Ryan created it so it would only work for those who shared his exact opinions. So, he wanted a city full of Ryan clones.

The game shows that corruption can destroy any society, but I don't think it's degrading any form of economic system. But it opens the eyes of the one playing. It makes him think; how should the world work? It's political, with questionable siding. I believe that Rapture could work without corruption. But there will always be one to try to change the balance. And sometimes that's a good thing. But there are also people who try to change the balance for the wrong reasons.

There is no right or wrong in politics, as everyone have stretched out those limits. To me, capitalism is the lesser evil. But not many agree with me, cause politics is about moral; what you're willing to sacrifice in society to bring out something else. But all systems share one thing, they have cons. Every system has pros and cons. And corruption can give a bad name by showing how wrong it can go. Like Soviet Russia, or example. Corrupted by it's leaders, now being an example for those who oppose communism. And if Rapture was real, it'd be used as an example to bash capitalism.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I think the game was very neutral in that regard. If it made any points on the issues then it pretty evenly pointed out the benefits and drawbacks of both systems, but mostly it just conveyed how the plot worked out for the city of Rapture.

 

[Therumancer]

It should also be considered that there were extenuating circumstances behind why Rapture fell. It didn't collapse specifically because of the principles it was founded on.

Perhaps the only real point they had in setting things up was that all these people who came to Rapture seeking freedom and expression forgot that in the end someone had to take out the trash and clean the toilets. So thus people fleeing a social structure wound up having to create one on their own anyway. The idea being that whether your socialist or capitolist in the end you have to have more people on the bottom than at the top to do the grunt work, and the guy scrubbing toilets (which need to be scrubbed) is never going to be happy scrubbing toilets. This isn't inherantly good or evil, it's simply how society is. In the end there is a toilet... it needs to be scrubbed.

I have mixed opinions about the entire message, and truthfully feel it's not worthy of the analysis some people put into it.

I also think a lot of people who knock Ayn Rand really don't understand her very well. I have in the past denied this game existing to "zap" Ayn Rand (though was later disproven) simply because it is so out of context.

This is not to say that I agree with Ayn Rand on everything, but like all social theorists she has good and bad points. The fact that she is right about a number of things and addresses them better than almost anyone (albeit within a limited scope) is one of the reasons why writings like "Atlas Shrugged" endure.