Bioshock Explained
Saturday, 1. September 2007, 03:17:52
I finished up Bioshock and it was quite a tour-de-force in game narrative, and deserves the kind of critique usually reserved for film and literature, even from the most ardent anti-"game-as-art" critics (read: Ebert). So I gave it a shot. Here is my effort at deconstructing the meaning of Bioshock.
Read it, would you kindly?
MAJOR SPOILERS
Bioshock Explained: The Horror of Randianism
Inspired by utopian and dystopian literature, Bioshock can be seen as more than the RPG-lite horror shooter that is plays so well as, but also as a scathing critique of Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy. This article will examine the game’s argument, as well as criticize the ending for being insufficient and anti-climatic, even inconsistent with the theme of the game, which is that free men are free to pursue great evil, even in a world meant to nurture their creativity.
I hope to show that Bioshock is worthy of critical analysis. I also want to show that its great game design and amazing art direction is, ironically, true to the objectivist view of art as a man’s reconstruction of his reality. The reader will need to have played through the game and have a good grasp on the story for me to make this argument.
Story Summary
Andrew Ryan was born in Russia during the revolution, and developed a life long fear of communism after he saw socialists feed off the labors of others. He founds the underwater city of Rapture in 1946, a year after WWII ends, to host his utopian vision of a city of elite artists, scientists, and thinkers free from the regulation and social limits of the surface world. At first, all goes well, but a working class slowly materializes in the city such that resentment builds up against a world not as perfect as promised.
Where Andrew Ryan controlled the "aristocracy," Frank Fontaine, a con man, began to build a business empire to rival Ryan’s grip, especially by providing for the working class. Around this time, sea slugs with amazing regenerative qualities were discovered by an untrained but genius scientist named Tenenbaum. Forming a possibly romantic alliance with Fontaine, they waged economic war by selling an addicting extract of the slugs called ADAM.
ADAM fuels genetic improvement, but also created addiction as those who go without it start to deform. To harvest back the ADAM from dead junkies, Tenenbaum created Little Sisters, protected by Big Daddies, to reclaim and resell their product. Somehow a prostitute named Jasmine Jolene, bearing Ryan’s illegitimate child, sold the fetus to Tenenbaum, who applied new types of genetic and behavioral engineering on young Jack Ryan at her Little Sister creation facility.
Ryan discovers this betrayal, and kills Jolene in anger. Fontaine has Ryan’s son endure experiments and training to become a weapon against Ryan, and in 1957, sends him to the surface world to be hid. By now, Fontaine and his ADAM-addicted army of splicers and Ryan’s faction have gone into full-blown civil war. Desperate, Ryan takes over Fontaine Futuristics, his splicer factory, to arm his own splicers with more powerful plasmids. Fontaine fakes his own death, and creates Atlas, a revolutionary hero. His armies continue to resist Ryan until New Year’s Eve of 1959, when Jack Ryan returns to Rapture. It is here that the game begins.
The Objectivist Ideal
To understand Bioshock as a criticism of objectivism, we require a concise definition of objectivism. Objectivists hold that there is a real set of morals and values in existence that people strive to embrace with our inherently subjective perceptions. There is a true right and wrong out there, we just have to improve our knowledge until we can see it. Ayn Rand believed that, given a world that respected and admired an individual’s duty to improve himself, these individuals’ selfish self-improvement would help pull society towards progress. She held two almost paradoxical views of the inherently fallible man, and the imminently potential man.
Andrew Ryan embodies that belief. His name, made of the transposed letters of Ayn Rand’s name, means "man" + "little king," An orthodox objectivist, he is their ideal figure, a man who rules by the power of his own agency. It is no accident that Andrew Ryan has a striking resemblance to Charles Foster Kane in the film Citizen Kane, a character whose great individualism and talent led to great power, influence, and eventually ruin.
He creates Rapture, the city’s name interestingly enough meaning "carried away in ecstasy" but comes from the Latin and French root for abduction, and is the same root from which "rape" is derived. More importantly to the game, it is a reference to The Rapture, which in Christian teachings is the name of the event where Jesus Christ, king of kings, will return to take believers to heaven as the world ends. Ryan, the little king, subconsciously fancies himself to be such a savior, a subtle thorn in his anti-religious Randian beliefs.
To objectivists, society can not stand without its creative elite. In Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged, the Atlases of the world, the great artists, scientists, and thinkers, are persecuted or exploited. When they "shrug," they unsettle the world they bear, like the titan Atlas who bore the Earth on his back in Greek mythology. Society, according to them, would crumble and rot if the great men left or boycotted. Ryan explains in the game that “…it is only when we struggle in our own interest that the chain pulls society in the right direction.”
A Systemic Shock
What fallacies to Ayn Rand’s philosophy does Bioshock reveal? Several, but I’ll focus on two important ones. First, the game tells us Rapture could never reach its objectivist ideal state, or sustain such a state for long. Secondly, through story, characters, and gameplay, Bioshock claims that Ayn Rand’s two views of man are not mutually exclusive, and that free will is not necessarily innately good since it is rarely truly free.
The first point: Rapture could never sustain its ideal because the existence of the creative elite is wholly dependent on the backs of what Ayn Rand calls the "unworthy" who have not realized their potential. It is the very struggle against or for the "unworthy" that makes great thinkers great. In fact, the definition of "great" belongs as much to the masses as to the elite, since greatness could not exist in either a vacuum nor in a world of equal men.
In Bioshock, the city is quickly stratified, and many inhabitants become disillusioned as they get recruited to support the upper crust of the creative elite. They end up fixing leaks, growing food, providing services, manual labor, fighting crime, etc. Frank Fontaine exploits their resentment to form a faction of have-nots to Ryan’s haves, and the armies of gene Splicers are formed.
The problem is that this form of greatness became easily achievable in the form of ADAM injections. It is the natural tendency of man to improve himself, yes, but this is true even when improvements are temporary, unethical, or self-destructive. In their ideal world, every man’s selfishness would lead to greatness, and ultimately to the benefit of all society. In reality, junkies hoarding their ADAM, and auteurs like the game’s theatrical boss Sander Cohen, do not supply the reliable productivity upon which stable societies are built. Rapture was doomed by its own brilliance.
Frank Fontaine, whose first name means "free" and last name is both a reference to Ayn Rand’s book The Fountainhead as well as a popular name of many period actors and voices, took on the identity of Atlas. He was a con man, an actor. His "Randian" potential was literally his ability to manipulate. Given the freedom in Rapture to pursue his personal greatness, he did exactly what was natural, and worst for Rapture, he exploited it. As Atlas, he appealed to the elite by acting the part of the elite; he pretended to be godlike.
Frank gave man the "divine," unexplained ADAM, the extract of "angels" (what Little Sisters call corpses) in the same way Atlas’ brother, the titan Prometheus, gave man divine fire. In fact, the last battle takes place at Point Prometheus, beyond Olympus Heights, near the surface world. Jack fights Ryan deep in the city’s hellish energy core Haephaestus, named after the god of blacksmithing. Ryan was a man, a builder, wielding with his own fire in the fiery lava flows of the ocean floor. Neither knew reality.
Nature and Nurture
The second point Bioshock makes is that free will, even among a world of idealists, is never unconditionally free. One’s free will is always an extension of another’s, of environment, and of circumstance. Throughout the game, the player assumes the role of Jack Ryan returning by and serving Fontaine unconsciously. To defeat Fontaine, Jack then must become an instrument again for Tenenbaum.
Jack’s name has a couple meanings. The root for "jack", Jacob, means “He will grace” and “supplanter,” both very telling as to what Jack accomplishes. Jack is graced by God, and by some divine force, which in this game is the ADAM, and he ends up supplanting the power of both Ryan and Fontaine. These meanings of the name can be seen as Jack’s destiny.
However "Jack" in our colloquial English, has a meaning of “mechanical device” found in common expressions like car jack, Lo-jack, etc. He is neutral and wieldable by ambitious characters the same way he wields his wrench. This reflects Jack’s identity in the world as a tool of Fontaine and Tenenbaum to accomplish their goals.
Finally, due to its common usage, "jack" became slang for any fellow, and was used as a generic male personification in words like jackrabbit, jackass, jackhammer, jack-of-all-trades, etc. Jack, like the name John that it’s related to, is the name of an everyman. This is Jack’s identity in the game of Bioshock. This is our identity as we pick up the game and configure the numerous combat and attribute options to play in the way we want. Jack is a tool of the everyman (the player) to supplant the final boss.
As a tool of the characters in the game, the player is given an interesting relationship. Fontaine, it turns out, was using subtle mental manipulation with the phrase "would you kindly" to get you to carry out his bidding. The phrase is one of several programmed into Jack’s being from an early age. Even without this magic phrase, he uses the false identity of Atlas to distort the player’s perception of Andrew Ryan, splicers, and the Little Sisters. The game is showing us how subjective reality is, and why objectivists fail to factor how powerful the right "facts" can change a man’s mind.
Andrew Ryan, believing that his own strength of free will would be genetically represented in you, says the most amazing thing as Jack kills him. Trying to appeal to your free will while under Fontaine’s command, he repeats over and over "A man chooses… a slave obeys!" And yet, the cutscene plays out with Jack repeatedly smashing his face in until he dies. He never tells Jack not to kill him. Instead, he says "would you kindly kill?" using the intransitive "kill," leaving the who of the command up to Jack. I don't interpret this as being given a choice: Ryan's command is for Jack to continue killing through the rest of the game, hopefully reaching Atlas.
What Ryan is saying is that you are a slave (later revealed to be Fontaine’s) because the player is not given choice during the sequence. He is also saying that he is choosing to die by your hand, and that he believes his "first" death, like Fontaine’s, will make you into the "second" and greater Ryan, as Fontaine was reborn as Atlas.
I also want emphasize how important the magic phrase "would you kindly…?" is, which Fontaine uses to control Jack’s actions. In English, "would" indicates the subjunctive mood, used to express a wish or desire relative to a possibly contrary reality. For example, when we say "were he a great man, I would listen to him" but we may not necessarily know if he was a great man or not, or we know he is not and we are saying what if he was.
When Fontaine uses this phrase, it implies that he knows Jack would in fact refuse to "kindly" do it if he knew the truth. Contrast this with "will you kindly" which implies certainty, future. When Jack finds out the truth, he "will" not feel he has done anything kindly for Fontaine, nor will he after. The subjunctive mood, however, hints to us that this request is contrary to reality, and Fontaine is almost presenting Jack a question, not a command. This means that either Jack does have a choice… or Bioshock is telling us that choices (free will) and commands (fate) are often indistinguishable.
Finally, it is very important that the tattoo on Jack’s wrist is that of a chain, which is simultaneously Ryan’s Great Chain of Endeavor and the chains of a slave. I believe this chain to also represent DNA. In the nature vs. nurture argument, what does Ayn Rand have to say about those who empower themselves by improving their very nature? Is this a loophole in her philosophy? Are these elite who cheat really more worthy?
No. In the final fight, Jack willingly (free will) becomes Tenenbaum’s slave. Her name means “fir tree,” commonly known as a Christmas tree. She gives the player gifts via her grateful Little Sisters, whom she protects the innocence of. Donning the gear of the Big Daddy, Jack also assumes the duty of protecting the Little Sisters. Atlas cheats as much as he possibly can, infusing himself with ridiculous amounts of ADAM, only to be defeated by Jack in the end. Was it true free will? Or were Tenenbaum’s ambitions, or some form of residual programming, or just the desire for revenge equally decisive? Why does the player keep playing at this point, knowing the whole story already?
An Artful Conclusion
By now, it should be clear that Bioshock parades the various fallacies of Randian objectivism around for the player to think about. Both types of free, self-empowering men are defeated, the Randian one (Ryan) and the purely capitalistic one (Fontaine). Ryan, "the little king," is the hypocrite who becomes the very system he detests, and foretells his own dethroning with the very first banner you see entering Rapture: "There are no Gods or Kings… only Man." Fontaine is the unethical man, selfishness gone amok. Both commit the inevitable objectivist sin; those who think they know the objective right and wrong ultimately feel they have the right to subjectively judge the rest. Elitism, for noble or selfish causes, is never a good thing.
Bioshock does a superb job of putting us in that very position of pseudo-choice. We act on what we know, but what we know is fed to us by those with agendas. So we think we act freely. But how can we Randians act on what they call "rational egoism" when all knowledge is only true or false relative to a subjective being, either ourselves or others? How can rational egoists say that pursuing happiness you don't deserve is irrational when we rationalize what we deserve? Or in the case of some characters, it's rationalized for us.
The beautiful irony presented in this game is that the game itself is an objectivist work of art. Objectivists believe art is one’s perception of reality made into something real and physical so that everyone can see and participate in your conscious mind. Bioshock does just that. Ken Levine and his team have made what is their "perception" of what a place like Rapture would be like in reality, based on our own reality. Rapture, in a world with the values and people we know, ends up the way we expect. In other words, the creators of this game has made an objectivist work of art pointing out the reality that objectivism is not realistic.
The game for me was absolutely wonderful, but its ending was disappointing in how little it left to ambiguity. It departed from its discussion of the complex self-destructiveness of freedom. I would say it cheesed out, especially leaving the fate of Tenenbaum mostly unresolved. I propose a better ending.
As Atlas lies defeated before Jack, you are given a minute to choose to kill him or save him while he utters the last words "Would you kindly save me?" Failing to choose and he dies. Choosing to let him to die carries out revenge fantasies for "the good guys." Choosing to save him means doing his bidding. Which choice you consider to be truly free will always be subjective. Here, I would turn off the game, and start playing this wonderful tale all over again.
Very interesting read, thanks for analyzing it so well.
By anonymous user, # 1. September 2007, 18:24:44
Incredible, analysis. When I played through the game and thought about the meanings behind it, it seemed to all come back to a moral center. A world without morals, where there is no religion or right or wrong is doomed to fail. In the end, Andrew Ryan and Fontaine were really the same type of people. They both believed they were unquestionably right and broke away from conventional religious and societal morals. Ryan's idea of freedom which ironically took place in the most trapped, remote place in possibly the world was doomed because of his severe lack of standard morals. While Fontaine exploited, and manipulated others for his own personal gain.
The first time I played through I chose to save the little sisters, to me it felt like it was really the only option and made the game a much better story. If I hadn't saved them, then what was the point in me being down there? I felt a little like a religious saviour, sent to Rapture under miraculous conditions (a plane crash) To play the role of the biblical figure, to save the ruined undersea utopia of it's godlessness.
The good ending, in my opinion, was terrible, it seemed to stress of all things, family values, which I hadn't even considered when I was playing through the game. One line Tennenbaum says at the end goes something like this. "I think I know why you did this, to learn more about your family." I was shocked that a game this thought provoking would choose a line like that. I would say the real reason me and my character followed this to the end, saving all the little sisters along the way was because it was simply the "right thing to do." Which is precisely the kind of thinking Rapture had been void of and missing during it's existence.
To sum it up the message I got from the game is this:
"Welcome to Rapture, this is what happens when a society worships no gods, and has no principles of right and wrong."
By anonymous user, # 1. September 2007, 21:07:00
So the message you got is similar but different than mine. I like the idea esp. when you criticize Tenenbaum's silly quote, which I agree does not fit in the game. I argue that saving the little sisters because it is the "right thing to do" is judgement, and minor elitism, and leads to the same path Ryan and Fontaine followed. But one could very well interpret it otherwise... it's the slippery slope between knowing and believing you are doing a true good that we should beware of.
You are right though, Rapture went in headfirst without morals. What we should be sympathetic to is that objectivists hoped the morals it should have had would have materialized if everyone in Rapture just served their own self-interest and self-improvement the best. That was a fool's hope.
By noisewar, # 1. September 2007, 21:56:20
FYI, noisewar, Frank is also the name of Rand's husband, Frank O'Connor.
Also, thinking about what you wrote, one thing that stuck out is that I haven't seen anyone make mention of one of Ryan's greatest lines from the game, "It wasn't impossible to build Rapture on the bottom of the ocean, it was impossible to build it anywhere else."
On the surface such a comment comes off as obvious: he wanted to get away from governments so he built his paradise in international waters to avoid jurisdictions.
But moments in the game makes it much deeper. You save enough little girls and Tenenbaum will tell you that like a candle, you are a light in the darkness [of Rapture]. And you hear the Splicers who found their former religious ways again apologizing to God, "Father, I'm sorry that I traded you for mammon [in the Bible, money, in Rapture, ADAM and greed], and look what it has gotten me!" and "He [God] can see us, even down here!"
And we, the player, begin to see that Ryan's line is twofold. He means it in that his experiment of selfishness needs to be away from juridictional boundaries so people can live and create without "censorship" and "petty morality" and we see it as meaning that his world of capitalism unbound and focusing only on one's personal happiness would (in the real world, with real people) lead to the monstrosity Rapture became. It was impossible to build Rapture anywhere else because the world of the surface would not stand such an abomination.
By anonymous user, # 2. September 2007, 07:03:37
Also, just to point out, Jack did not arrive in Rapture on New Year's Eve 1959. The opening scene says 1960s, and if you listen to McClintok's(sp) audio tapes you hear about the attack at the New Year's Eve Party, and then her following audio tapes about her admission to a hospital and eventual her release and joining Atlas's resistance against Ryan, where eventually she is killed by "Atlas" after walking in on him confessing his true identity. This all takes place in the course of a few months (it is believed), or even as long as a few years.
By anonymous user, # 2. September 2007, 13:03:14
The argument over game as art is such a touchy subject, but I think the evidence of great critical analysis such as this is a good example that games such as Bioshock are on the right track. Of course, it also doesn't hurt to thematically draw from famous literary sources! But what makes Bioshock unique is naturally in the gameplay. Players are given this illusion of choice that you pointed out. The problem is, like all literature, the outcome is predetermined. Choice really amounts to nothing except to reveal the truth at the narrative's end. What freedom is there when you achieve one of two possible endings? I think Bioshock plays into this idea very well in its critique of objectivism. To me, that quality of depth that combines narrative and gameplay to reflect each other is something very special that we don't often see enough of in video games. Then again I still marvel at the concept of Shadow of the Colossus and its theme of blind faith. That game still gets to me every time I finish it.
By anonymous user, # 3. September 2007, 06:27:42
An amazing read sir! I found myself as provoked by your analysis as I was the games' story. When I reviewed the game two weeks ago (before launch) I wrote my thoughts about it before finishing it. Not unusual, considering the time constraint. I consider though, that as a player, I choose to save the Little Sisters, for one simple reason...
It's what I would do. I played through KOTOR the same way. It's quite possibly why I may not enjoy GTA as much as many others. Blame my parents , or accuse me of having a Superman complex (many have) but despite that these characters are virtual-realistic, I still feel compelled to play as who I am—a savior, a hero. How odd. I may play through again, and execute the filthy urchins, just to see what happens. Isn't it unusual that it never crosses my mind to play games of choice any other route? Does that mean I have free will to do good, or that I am a slave to my programming?
In the end, can't that be said for us all? Even when we do good, is it not for some selfish reward? We hold a door open for someone, are we not somewhat peeved if they don't thank us? The reward of feeling good about ones self, is still a reward, isn't it? How often are we actually selfLESS in our generosity. Many donate to cancer societies because we knew someone who has the disease. We buy girl scout cookies because they taste good. Thus, we are a slave to emotion; that small tingle that brews within us from doing the Right Thing. The Decent thing.
Now, is that being a Slave to my upbringing? Isn't that the reality my parents built for me? Is that always beneficial? I would say no. No, it is not always beneficial. From personal experience, I have seen the pure act of being kind, of trying to save, lead to hellish nightmares when the world around you does not share that same philosophy... in the short term. Like Earl though, I believe in Karma...
...Can one uphold the belief that both Destiny and Free Will can coexist? I see proof in both arguments on a daily basis. If Neo made the choices to become The One, he still fulfilled the Destiny of becoming the One. He had free will, but that freedom lead him to his Destiny. A preordained path that even the slightest change in his decisions would have brought crashing down the entire prophecy. Was he a slave, or was he free? Wasn't he... and possibly all of us... both?
Holy COW, that's what a great article you wrote, now I AM getting all deep and sh*t, lol!
By anonymous user, # 3. September 2007, 13:45:15
great analysis here, I enjoyed the read!
just as an aside, I'm an amateur occult researcher and I tend to notice messages through symbology
when the game begins, when you exit the bathysphere, look up at the symbol on the ceiling
the freemasonic square and compass are subtly displayed in Ryan's industry symbol, this wasn't done by accident IMO
Andrew Ryan's elitism and "man can become God" philosophy also belongs to Freemasonry, not publically promoted by the Masons perhaps, but this is the crux of their beliefs once the covers are pulled back and you look beyond the intitial Masonic degrees
a lot more obvious are the references to paganism, satanism, and human sacrifice as seen in the Arcadia/Farmer's Market part of the game and others
don't get me wrong I don't believe the game to be promoting these things, quite the opposite, I feel they are exposing some ugly truths that are often hidden but very much a part of reality
the game apparently has many layers of meaning and symbolism, some serious thought and planning must have went into it, kudos!
By anonymous user, # 3. September 2007, 17:55:57
Although i find the analysis of the game to be accurate, your analysis of ayn rand and any of her novels is so far off the mark i question whether or not you have actually read any of her novels.
By anonymous user, # 3. September 2007, 21:10:31
Agreeing with Jenny above.
Objectivism is not a system that allows capitalism to run rampant free from government and morality. Ryan fails the ideal in the first minutes of the game when he says they are free from "petty morality". Morals are an incredibly integral concept to Objectivism and having none is ... well exactly the opposite. No government? Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal to see that government has an ESSENTIAL place in the Randian "utopia". What we see is the degradation of a system that is a mix of anarchy and ... corporatism.
In essence, Ryan's detachment from government (democratic republic) and removal of any morality show how Randian ideals can be perverted and shows WHY Rapture went wrong. Ryan was a man that didn't understand what he was getting into and wanted the power all to himself.
By anonymous user, # 4. September 2007, 20:20:29
"Agree with Jenny,"
When Ryan says they will not deal with petty morality, he's talking about morality in the PETA, human testing sense. Why fetter themselves with what would be illegal on the surface? He says nothing about Randroidian morality.
Did you play the game? There is a form of government, too, in a council. Though the game never gets into what it is or how it functions, it does at least shield itself from the "no government" attack.
By anonymous user, # 5. September 2007, 01:47:28
great read, makes me long for my university days as a philosophy major. =)
By anonymous user, # 5. September 2007, 14:18:15
Does "Choosing to save him means doing his bidding." really mean you did his bidding, or that you did the "right" thing?
By anonymous user, # 5. September 2007, 21:59:52
Ryan did not enter Rapture without morals, just what he called "petty" morality. This is evidenced by the fact that there was law enforcement, government, etc. What happened was that as his city fell under assault by those without morals, he felt compelled to give up his own to survive.
More importantly, Ryan did not enter Rapture with the intent of gaining absolute power. Bioshock is telling us that Randianism is easily perverted, not that Ryan began with perverted ideals. It describes a state, not a process, and to get to the objectivist ideal, Ryan felt pressured into forsaking his beliefs (temporarily) to save his city.
Jenny, please tell me where I have mis-analyzed her work, it would greatly help my understanding.
By noisewar, # 6. September 2007, 00:22:22
noisewar,
I question your assertion that "Ryan did not enter Rapture with the intent of gaining absolte power."
The fact that there is a long hallway supplicants must walk down to seek his time/attention/etc. as well as the fact that they must then enter this palacial expanse of rooms before getting to him in his inner sanctum that just also happens to have the only sure way to destroy the entire place as well as being set off from the main power grid of Rapture itself indicates he's already broken his idea of there being no "Gods or Kings" in Rapture. He's already it's king so-to-speak from the way he set himself up instead of starting at square one, and he's its god in the sense that only he has the power to destroy utterly what he had wrought. There's a reason even in the beginning of the game itself there's a statue of Ryan holding the "No Kings Nor Gods" banner: he's also above them.
It's sort of the same argument that can easily be made against followers of Rand (and easily ignored by them for it's very factuality) and that is that Rand had a "salon" with followers of her system hanging onto her every word in her chosen home of New York. What no one takes to task is that if these people are following her thoughts only, then they are mooching her morality and looting her ideas and she's allowing these people in her inner circle to commit these acts of what she calls immorality because she likes the attention.
By anonymous user, # 6. September 2007, 09:08:03
While I want to say that there are alternate explanations for the architecture and for why Ryan is situated on the core, let's forget about that for now. I agree that the huge bronze busts of his likeness everywhere is the very kind of hypocrisy that the cultists of Rand tend to show, but objectivism does offer a lot of excuses for egoism.
Actual, physical power, however, is another story. Ryan only fancies himself a king with all the trappings. But throughout the dialogue in the game, it's clear that his power is actually very limited. He is at the mercy of the capitalism of Frank until he gains ADAM for his own faction, he coerces the police to do his bidding only indirectly, and he himself says
"But I will make no proclamations, I will dictate no laws."
as he lets people run amok splicing themselves into monsters, which he clearly disagrees with. Going through his audio files, you could argue that he did too little even as he saw things sour, and that his lassiez-faire attitude is what led to the war.
The iron-fisted Ryan you see in the game is what the original Ryan made himself into when he lost control of Rapture; he didn't ruin Rapture with control.
By noisewar, # 6. September 2007, 09:31:06
I see what you are saying, but will point out that in the beginning, Ryan did have actual, physical power. Remember, Ryan began with Ryan Industries; Fontaine didn't have Fontaine Futuristics, yet, only Fontaine Fisheries. Now, I will say that Fontaine was a conman from the start and was probably already looking for the holes to exploit in the structure of Rapture, but it wasn't until Tenenbaum came to him after being turned away from Ryan himself that he was able to do so as quickly.
Fontaine indicates that he had always been a conman and preferred a smart mark over a dumb one, indicating he came to Rapture to take individuals for their worth; when Tenebaum came to him with the project that even Ryan had turned down, I would argue that it was only then he saw the potential to hustle not just various citizens of Rapture, but Rapture itself.
Why that matters, is, for the few short years before Tenebaum happened upon her discovery and Fontaine saw its value, Ryan was effectively Rapture's king. He held the most buildings and money (I believe he says he purchased buildings and 'fish-futures'), lived to excess (which Peach was griping about), and not because he did it by coming to Rapture tabula rasa like everyone else. Thusly, I would argue, simply because of the way Ryan started with advantages (his reasoning probably being that he started a city of new elightenment and beginnings for other people--not himself), the reason he let his idea of lassiez-faire run was because he had already removed himself from the possibility of being the victim (until Tenebaum and Fontaine) of such policy. When one has the distinction of being above the disadvantages of certain policy, it becomes quite easy to put those ideas into practice.
By anonymous user, # 6. September 2007, 10:23:42
Interesting interpretation of Bioshock. I quite agree that this is one of the few games which really ask for a deeper interpretation like yours, but I don't agree with your focus on seeing it as a criticism of objectivism.
But it is Dylans statement about the ending which I wanted to comment on. He writes: "The good ending, in my opinion, was terrible, it seemed to stress of all things, family values" - Well, you could have seen it coming ;-)
The opening cut scene starts with the ego sitting in the plane and remembering his family (keeping a parcel on his knees with the written instruction across "Would you kindly not open it" ). The image, we later learn, the implanted image, of his family flashes before him repeatedly during the game.
Atlas entices his help by pointing out that he needs him to get back to his (= Atlas) family and later on Atlas cries for revenge for the lifes of his family.
In one of the rooms above McDonough's Tavern (I think) there is a dead couple. They seem to have committed suicide after loosing their daughter Masha who became a little sister.
So family plays a very important role from the beginning and it is only consequent that the positive ending is one where the ego dies as the 'big daddy' to all the little sisters now grown women. Maybe it is a question of age but I don't think that this is a let down or intellectually not on the same level as the reflections on society, because family can be seen as the core of any social system and with its demands as the first counter-part to any striving for individualistic freedom and evolvement. As so often in this amazing game this thought is inherent in the game play by giving you the choice with the little sisters: if you choose to kill them you definitely evolve further.
Bioshock seems to be one of the first games which really merge a popular appeal with the depth of serious art. Quite an achievement.
By anonymous user, # 9. September 2007, 21:44:40
Just wanted to add 2 interesting links:
Letter by Levine explaining his attitude toward Rand
http://objectivistcenter.org/cs/forums/318/ShowPost.aspx
Another outline of an interpretation of Bioshock:
http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=155111
PS: the security code mechanism only works from time to time
By anonymous user, # 10. September 2007, 09:41:09
If one plays this game and listens to the audio logs, one gathers that this game has strong antipathy towards neo-paganism, gays, libertarianism, humanism, objectivism, and atheism. Add to it piles of bibles, martyr imagery, and people bemoaning their damned fates with bible verses, and this game seems like thinly-disguised Christian Fundamentalist Hate Literature. The sweet irony of all is that Christian Fundamentalists HATE the game too, because they can't see past the evils of violent video games realize it is batting for them.
By anonymous user, # 11. September 2007, 05:54:30
I'm afraid i'm not going to be able to do any constructive comment per se, first because it's way late and i'm feeling lazy; second because i'm quite clueless when it comes to objetivism since I haven't read any of Rand's work.
Anyway, I agree with Fotis: family is indeed present trough the game and the good ending (as weak as both endings can be) is the only one that actually gives a kind of coherent closing to the story. The facts pointed by Fotis, and the subsecuent plot twist when you confront Ryan actually disintegrate de character's identity regarding his own past & his family -i don't know, perhaps i'm reading too far away- So ending the game with Jack having a family of it's own for good doesn't seem to outrageous to me.
That said, are a couple of things about bioshock that i've been thinking but had no time to develope.
First: I'm not exactly sure how was rapture actaully working. The council or goverment of the city is never explained in all the detail i've would like to -to make a comprehensive reality that endorses why & how the randian utopia could be feasible. How was the political life in Rapture? Who held legality, legitimacy and authority? On what grounds? i mean how these people who held the power justify it? What kind of fictions -in Kermode's sense- were built around to give sense to the world, if rapture was to be a break to the surface world (and thus, the way people comprehend and explain reality and society)?
The second is regarding the narration in Bioshock. Quoting Richard:
"Players are given this illusion of choice that you pointed out. The problem is, like all literature, the outcome is predetermined. Choice really amounts to nothing except to reveal the truth at the narrative's end" This is one of the main problems I've been thinking regarding games. Whenever interactivity implies changing a story, you're determined to branch it. Well, it's impossible to determine all the things a player would try to do with a game. The complete player freedom could be like the MMORPGs, and stories are very difficult to maintain there, eventually, becoming a sort of everyday thing. The MAIN problem with the story in a game is a game's own nature: interactivity. I remember reading some article by Ron Gilbert were he adressed this issue in a very accurate way.
So closing up maybe and just maybe, free will & freedom of choice are tainted concepts when talking about a game, and somehow with every character in general (how much freedom a written character whose actions are strictly defined has?). I'm thinking out loud regarding the end of NATURE AND NURTURE in the article.
"In the final fight, Jack willingly (free will) becomes Tenenbaum’s slave. [...] Was it true free will? Or were Tenenbaum’s ambitions, or some form of residual programming, or just the desire for revenge equally decisive? Why does the player keep playing at this point, knowing the whole story already?" WAS IT TRUE FREE WILL? As a player, how I cannot choose to forgive Fontaine, why I cannot choose to try to escape rapture and curse them all?
By anonymous user, # 11. September 2007, 05:56:20
Fotis,
This link is, in the end, next to useless when discussing the game:
“Another outline of an interpretation of Bioshock:
http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=155111”
The author picks and choose what information he wants for his argument. I.e. the issue with “ghosts” (explained in the game as genetic memories the player is receiving due to the ADAM his body is taking in coming from multiple sources all over Rapture). The person writing the article basically dismisses all the games explanation in favor of what he has chosen to believe about the “ghosts.” This does not make for even mediocre research; ignoring or manipulating the facts as one sees fit makes for blatant lies and wrong conclusions.
By anonymous user, # 11. September 2007, 17:42:06
soundofsatellites:
I just wanted to comment on your observation that video games like Bioshock don't really support the free will they discuss since the game itself is finite, the endings decided, the story limited to a small range of outcomes, few of which really recognize what the player has done.
You are absolutely right, but I don't find anything wrong with it. A moral parable about even something like free will requires a finite point. You could see a game as one instance of the message the author wants to get across. In this sense, the story in Bioshock has already happened, you are just re-enacting it, and the specific actions you make are just interpretations you make of the story. There doesn't need to be free will.
Or maybe free will isn't what we think it is. Free will, to me, is the freedom to make choices, not the freedom to achieve any consequence you want. Christians would argue that given the choice between orgasmic heaven and the damnation of hell, you choose your fate, and therefore have free will. Others would say that proposition is not a choice to begin with. But even my ardent atheism has come around and now I do consider the actual choice you possess to be free will--- it's just at the mercy of a greater will than yours, God, gravity, or a game someone else made.
By noisewar, # 12. September 2007, 00:15:34
For my two cents - the elements of exploration in gaming are generally limited by the willingness of publishers to devote resources to creating the worlds. The richer the programmer-intense environment is (which Rapture certainly is), the greater the preference to keep the player on a set of in-world rails. In doing so, the number of redundant branches that need to be modeled is far smaller, making better use of programmer time per player experience.
Obvious - I know, but there are ways to build 'choice' elements into this. Great example of where this worked well (albeit still in a limited way) is STALKER, from earlier this year. The end point was physical confrontation in the same place, regardless of the actions taken to get there - but the resolution of the narrative was based on different aspects of the player's interactions. Did you amass wealth? did you overpower the resident gangs? did you build a reputation for helping people or wiping them out? Depending on how different conditions were met - there were 7 possible outcomes.
Compare that to the polar endings for bioshock of 'did you rescue all' or 'did you harvest any'. Not that STALKER's in game rulings were exactly perfect, but think about the possible narratives if they built a few more options out for Bioshock - you harvested the first set of sisters, but upon learning of your actual identity you 'reformed' and saved the last 5. Should you still get the 'happy' ending? Maybe Jack is shown older and tortured by his failure to save them all?
What if you played through choosing to keep yourself 'pure' by adding only the minimum of plasmids? Leaving in the bathysphere having 'shut down' the abomination of the city; While if you spliced dozens of plasmids during the game - the end shows you committed to a life in Rapture addicted to ADAM, and reliving the lives of all the 'ghosts' you have the memories of?
Ok - so I may not have the best creative options here; but the idea of linking the end outcome to your style throughout the game has to be better than just a Y/N at the critical moment.
As one other aside (and I am stealing from the GFW podcast), when you are introduced to the rescue/harvest concept - Tenenbaum tells you there will be a reward for helping the girls. This may have been a better morality question if that wasn't in there - you get 80 to save them, 160 if you don't. That's it - your choice to take the 'moral' path will make life harder in game. Even if the gifts do in fact turn up - just don't tell us, let the trade-off be made on the raw merit.
By Ekfud, # 12. September 2007, 04:36:56
Ekfud, I think the reason they had to make the "Tenebaum giving a reward to the player" idea more fleshed out is to make it seem criminal in the utmost to kill the girls as opposed to merely bad for the watchdog groups who would raise enough stink anyway. When you go to forums around the time Bethesda is releasing Oblivion and there're threads with people whining about how quest characters will only get knocked out when they want to slaughter them mercilessly, think of what simply leaving the idea of saving or killing th girls blindly up to the players would have done.
By anonymous user, # 16. September 2007, 11:43:29
Great essay! I agree with you that Bioshock - perhaps uniquely among games - merits serious thinking and analysis, and I agree with you that the ending sells the game short very badly. But still it's fantastic.
I don't agree with you as to the way in which it critiques Randian philosophy. I do not believe the mistake of it is so much in riding rough- (or maybe slip-
But hey, that's just me
By anonymous user, # 16. November 2007, 08:59:44
I am not certain if anyone has mentioned this, but I found it interesting that Fontaine's revolt occurred very close to the time (perhaps the exact time, I am a bit sketchy on the chronology) as Fidel Castro's in Cuba.
By anonymous user, # 26. November 2007, 22:59:40
Top notch review I give it 4 out of 5 gang signs.
By anonymous user, # 15. December 2007, 07:07:42
On family...
Maybe because that's the one structure of mutual trust and support that even a Randist can believe in.
The 'good' ending starts with family, the first step out of a world that scorned order and focused only on the individual.
One individual joins the family. The family joins the clan. The clans join into a society. The societies join into all civilization.
By anonymous user, # 25. January 2008, 23:03:05
Excellent. Just have to say that this is great to read. When I played through BioShock I would say I was 'aware' of the effects and themes, but not in such detail. And it really does warrant this level of analysis, mainly due to Levine's incredible enthusiasm and willingness to invest so much thought-provoking material into a game.
Does it make a great game? I don't know... I, like many people here, thought the ending was poor. Similar to what 'anonymous' wrote towards the begining of the threads, I also approached the saviour/harvesting of the Little Sisters by doing what I would have done myself: I killed them all, to get more ADAM and try and survive. It's the one aspect of the game that forces you to make a decision (which is not necessarily the same as free choice, as has been discussed), and what I would have liked to see more of in this game is a similar kind of manipulation of the character, but in an environment that was more open to the player's decisions. A situation whereby, yes, you do affect the world around you but, no, this does not necessarily mean you can control it. As it stands I am still simply running around, killing splicers, quick-saving and then carrying on with the story. No matter how deep that story is, it still hasn't reconciled the 'game' with the 'art'.
For this reason it seems to me that BioShock for sure addresses Ayn Rand and Objectivism (and all else that has been discussed) but it cannot in itself offer anything more than this, hence the troubled endings. What it does offer is still remarkable, though: it is the first game to truly understand what it is.
By anonymous user, # 14. August 2008, 19:48:46