Your takes gets more and more based as it goes on.
Gullible 45 points a year ago
That executive meddling ruins final bosses.
But on a serious note, look at modern society and the tipping points we’re reaching. AI, climate change, ultra-individualism bred by class disparity. Rapture just happened to get capitalism’d a hundred years earlier.
There are points to be made about comparability to Hitler’s rise, slavery through class busting and then mind control, races to the bottom, oligopolies, regulatory capture, and-and-and- but this is a greentext community.
MacNCheezus -14 points a year ago
Does he though? In Atlas Shrugged, which Bioshock seems to be somewhat of an antithesis to, it's not the capitalists that go crazy, but the socialists, who enact more and more draconian laws depriving the productive class of all their profits in order to funnel more money to the unproductive, which ultimately makes working entirely unprofitable.
Both works are basically at opposite ends of the spectrum — Atlas Shrugged depicts a communist utopia gone wrong, while Bioshock shows a capitalist utopia gone wrong. They're both myopic in their own way, but the common thread seems to be that absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is a truth no one can escape. In reality, a functioning society requires a delicate balance between both forces, not a winner-takes-tall approach. Unfortunately, that idea seems to be lost on both of them, which is probably what anon is trying to hint at.
SamuraiBeandog 45 points a year ago
but the common thread seems to be that absolute power corrupts absolutely
This is not at all the intended message of Atlas Shrugs.
MacNCheezus -10 points a year ago
Perhaps not, but that was what I took away from it.
Sue me, I guess.
neukenindekeuken 24 points a year ago
The entire theme of Atlas shrugged is about how capitalist oligarchs are the critical class desperately needed in the world to make any real progress.
That they should be handed unregulated power because they'll do more with it than the "workers".
It's the polar opposite of what you're describing as the takeaway, and it's not even subtle or mysterious about it. It repeats that point ad nauseum from about chapter 2 until the end of the book.
So my question to you would be: are you sure you're thinking of the correct book? If so, it might be time for you to refresh yourself on it because there's not another interpretation about the point of it. It's not a hidden meaning or left up to the reader. It literally beats that into the reader during every capitalistic sychophantish chapter.
julietOscarEcho 11 points a year ago
Difference is, everyone knows bioshock is entertainment. And no one bases their actual political philosophy on it.
MacNCheezus -2 points a year ago
LOL
LMAO, even
molten 70 points a year ago
Wow it's like with vague enough framing, anybody can be the bad guys.
"Germany was making unprecedented scientific discoveries and innovating every aspect of their country from equality to population control when they were brutally attacked and their leader driven to suicide."
BigBananaDealer 14 points a year ago
also gave his life heroically to kill hitler
paultimate14 60 points a year ago
From playing and replaying both BioShock and Infinite, and reading interviews from Ken Levine, my own conclusion is that both of the BioShock games simply use ideology as a narrative tool to create conflict, and the only thing he is condemning broadly is extremism.
In other words, Levine and the rest of the team didn't make BioShock because they hated Ayn Rand and wanted to spread that message. They made BioShock because they wanted to make a first-person shooter similar to System Shock 2. They needed villains to create conflict, and the easiest way a sci-fi writer can create a villain is just to take any ideology to extremes and think of ways that could go wrong.
I think this is made pretty clear by the lack of any "good" characters in either game. I can't think of anyone the player is expected to just like and agree with- they are all charicatures taking their ideologies to extremes. Andrew Ryan is clearly bad, but the only real representative of lower classes is Fontaine who is argaubly an even more evil antagonist.
In Infinite, Comstock is clearly the villain as a racist and religious dictator. Daisy Fitzroy is the leader of the rebellion, someone who has personally suffered at Comstock's hands. She initially starts off as the player's ally, but then shifts to become "too violent" and "too extreme" in her rebellion, so she and the rest of the rebellion become enemies of Booker. It was really ham-fisted and just kind of waived off as "well anything can happen with the infinite possibilities of dimension hopping!". But the real reason was more simple: they needed to add additional enemy types to shake up the combat and escalate the difficulty. They wanted to add the chaos of having the player run between two factions fighting each other without the safety of making one of those an ally.
Those two games use ideology as set pieces, but when you combine the two games together the final message is "extremeism bad, centrism good". I don't think every game needs to be a doctorate-level poli-sci dissertation, but I do think these two games deserve criticism for being pretty weak there.
aaaa 17 points a year ago
Did you play the BioShock infinite dlc? They had a strange retcon where the Lutece twins approached Fitzroy and instructed her to appear to be a monster, specifically so Elizabeth would feel like she had to kill her.
It was a strange choice, because the remaining revolution was pretty blatantly horrible without her either way, and I'm not entirely sure that's how this sanitized version of her would want it to go.
The politics of BioShock are not all that deep in the end. They're mostly just a setting so they can tell a story of someone forced into a role without understanding it
paultimate14 5 points a year ago
Ah I hadn't - it's still in my backlog. But it sounds like it just re-affirms what I had drawn from the main games.
sugar_in_your_tea 2 points a year ago
Eh, I think the high level themes are interesting, and Fountainhead is a legitimately interesting book (Anthem is shorter of you just want a quick intro). It gets weird quick when you read her justification for taking land from the native peoples (the "savages" didn't have the concept of owning land, so their claims aren't legitimate).
I'm glad I read her books because it helped me set boundaries on my own views and recognize when a politician boosting Atlas Shrugged is full of BS. I agree with her assertion that we're better off expecting and even encouraging people to follow their own self-interest, but disagree on leaving it at that. We should reward self-interest when it benefits society and punish it when it doesn't, and redistribute the excess to everyone has a chance to succeed, however they define that. Asking people to not follow their self-interest leads to reduced productivity and outcomes.
blarghly 11 points a year ago
Those two games use ideology as set pieces, but when you combine the two games together the final message is “extremeism bad, centrism good”. I don’t think every game needs to be a doctorate-level poli-sci dissertation, but I do think these two games deserve criticism for being pretty weak there.
Imo, they get the hype for being "deep" because they are pretty deep as far as popular games go. They are certainly deeper than COD's "Look, terrorists, shoot them!" or Mario's "Dragon stole my princess".
MacNCheezus 4 points a year ago
Solid effortpost, but I'm left wondering what sort of alternative to "extremism bad, centrism good" you would propose that might satisfy your intellectual demands.
paultimate14 6 points a year ago
Well I kind of alluded to it, but both of the games lack any clear solutions other than "play the game kill the bad guy".
Which, to be fair, is probably the reason BioShock 1 at least got so popular. I would say this point is much more important to BioShock 1 than any commentary about Ayn Rand, or any commentary about how worker's movements can get subverted by selfish actors like Atlas. It takes the usual tropes about videogames and turns them into a commentary on how easily our assumptions and expectations can deceive us. Players do what the game tells them to, they progress the way the game allows them to, without ever questioning whether that is the morally correct thing to do. I would say that's a pretty reasonable thing to do considering the money these games cost, but BioShock at least shines a light on that and makes the player think about it.
There are plenty of other examples of games that DO engage with political ideologies, and use games as a mechanism to think about then. The most famous one is probably Monopoly, which was stolen from the original creator who called it "the landlords game" to show how capitalism eventually leads to one rich person and a bunch of broke people.
If you want a videogame, Disco Elysium is a fabulous, recent, and well-reviewed example. Personally it's a bit dense for me to play for too long (sometimes it feels more like reading a textbook than playing a game).
I don't think BioShock 1 or Infinite are terrible or that they shouldn't have delved into politics at all. I think that they are overrated in part because they get credit for political commentary that ends up being pretty superficial. I think they could have executed the ideas better.
Fitzroy for example: either give us a better reason to fight her or don't make us do it. Maybe she gets killed by Comstock and leaves a power vacuum, with the chaos of rebel leaders trying to promote solidarity, fight for their own power, hold off or even negotiate peace with Comstock. Or maybe someone like Lady Comstock or Fink could be a source of division within Comstock's ranks. Or maybe Fitzroy gets convinced that she needs to kill Elizabeth because she's some dimensional McGuffin protecting Comstock. Maybe get rid of the rebellion entirely and have another country attack Colombia. They already ceded from the US- surely Uncle Sam isn't cool with losing this technological marvel, nor having this independent state potentially floating above US territories. It's been a while since I replayed it but I remember the Boxer Rebellion being a key piece of the story: maybe some fallout from that cones to Colombia.
MacNCheezus 3 points a year ago
Right, that makes sense. Unfortunately the "kill the bad guy and the evil will end" trope is very much entrenched not just in video games, but also most popular fiction as well ("all we need to do is throw the Ring into the fires of Mordor and Sauron's reign will come to an end").
I guess growing up is realizing there's a new evil forged every day and you have to keep making the trip again and again, like Sisyphus. But I suppose that wouldn't make for a good game, would it.
SpiceyDejarik 3 points a year ago
I guess growing up is realizing there’s a new evil forged every day and you have to keep making the trip again and again, like Sisyphus. But I suppose that wouldn’t make for a good game, would it.
I think it could make a pretty good game, actually. You know how some games unlock difficulty modes when you beat them? Do something like that, but with different villains. You beat the game, then you can play it again with a different bad guy. They could make a few bad guys to swap into the game with each one getting a bit harder, like they've learned from the mistakes of their predecessors.
sugar_in_your_tea 2 points a year ago
Exactly. At least for 1&2, Objectivism is setting, not plot, the plot was created by the team. They could just as easily have used socialism, fascism, or any other "-ism" to make the same game, the main difference would be the set pieces. If it was Nazis, for example, the plasmids would be for creating super soldiers, and for socialism it would be yet another social experiment to see if it would create super workers or whatever.
Luffy879 55 points a year ago
Now, disregarding the whole ethical thing, the reason why Rapture Fell was because there was a very big divide beetween the workers and the people. (Also because Plasmids were not regulated and the poor became addicted)
And since there was no social housing and stuff, they Protested, and then joined Sofia Lamb, who was appealing to them
So, its more of a mix of the people going insane without ethical restrictions, the consumers going insane because of addiction, and a bunch of people dying because of protests by the workers
chuckleslord 20 points a year ago
The Sofia Lamb bit is a retcon by hurt objectivists who thought the first game unfair. So, they retconned it to be not their fault. It was, instead, the dirty socialists fault.
Anyways, Rapture fell because unfettered business interests always end up at massive inequality. This was made worse by magic addictive powers and a complete lack of ethics. Plus, being at the bottom of the ocean meant you couldn't just ship in a new lower class to ease tensions.
I'm surprised some egomaniacal billionaire didn't start flooding areas if people couldn't pay him to not to.
Luffy879 8 points a year ago
The Sofia Lamb bit is a retcon by hurt objectivists who thought the first game unfair.
I can see that, I was just playing BioShock 2, and in the Hotel section, there was just this Audiolog with 2 people, one of whom was supplying the other with raw supplies, the other manifacturing Adam Syringes out of it, and selling it to the same guy who then sells it to Ryan industries, monologing about „how big of a fool the other was, because they make so much Profits”, essentially retconning all of Capitalism in BioShock.
Which first of all wouldn't even work, because they have a fucking Monopoly at that point and can raise prices all they want
And second just goes back to „Why the fuck would they Vote for Lamb, if they weren't oppressed? Lamb addressed Problems in rapture that didn't even exist according to BioShock 2
I'm surprised some egomaniacal billionaire didn't start flooding areas if people couldn't pay him to not to.
I always like to add it to my head cannon that when Rapture started leaking, the billionaires just started demanding money for the big Daddies and all the repairs
finitebanjo 2 points a year ago path: 0 19179948 19182891 19184285 19189717, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
sad_detective_man 53 points a year ago
Whomst amongst us would not be guilty of a little sperging under a completely unregulated oligarchy? Surely the social contract would protect everyone from lead poisoning 🧐
CitizenKong 17 points a year ago
I mean, seriously, a legal injection that can give me superpowers? Give me that shit now!
abbotsbury 6 points a year ago
A little sperging, as a treat.
aaaa 27 points a year ago
BioShock 2 revealed that Andrew Ryan had a secret prison to throw people into when they disrupted his control over the city. And more than once he decided he would burn it all down rather than let someone else win.
It may have masqueraded as anarchy, but the system was still rigged from the start. There was always a ruler. And power can corrupt even the strongest idealistic convictions
SamuraiBeandog 17 points a year ago
but the system was still rigged from the start
And this, intentionally or not, is the real message. There's no such thing as a real meritocracy, the system is always rigged in favor of the people who created it.
finitebanjo 4 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19179112 19179468, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
A_cook_not_a_chef 7 points a year ago
Anarchy is explicitly against "profits".
ComfortableRaspberry 12 points a year ago
And it doesn't mean that there are no rules but no rulers.
finitebanjo -6 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19178514 19178583 19179320, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 24
ComfortableRaspberry 10 points a year ago
No, what you describe is chaos. Anarchy means there are no rulers. People rule themselves and are also looking out for each other thus enforcing the minimum set of rules that are necessary to have a stable society. Rules can come from a consensus, yes.
A current example is the anarchist punk camp on Sylt where it was decided that dogs need to be on a leash when your are in the camp. If someone sees someone with a dog without a leash, they tell them of the decision and why it was made and that's it.
finitebanjo -2 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19178514 19179311, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 7
finitebanjo -1 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19178514 19179311 19191599 19192733, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 5
OrganicMustard 7 points a year ago
Core ideas of anarchism: mutual aid, no hierarchies, stateless moneyless society, free association.
This person: anarchism is capitalism without rules
finitebanjo -7 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19180183 19180519, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 21
OrganicMustard 9 points a year ago
Surely you know better after skimming through a dictionary than me, an anarchist that has read dozens of anarchist theory books
finitebanjo -5 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19180183 19180519 19180670 19180753, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 19
finitebanjo -2 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19179712 19180536, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 1
finitebanjo -6 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19180717 19180781, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 11
chuckleslord 6 points a year ago
The issue is that finitebanjo has conflated the two different meanings of Anarchy. Donpiano is talking about contemporary anarchism, a mode of governance without authority structures. One that argues that hierarchies and centralized power is the root of most of humanities ails. Governance is still performed, but it's on an individual level between peers where each member of the group is an active part in decision making.
Finitebanjo is talking about anarchy, the state of lawlessness that arises when the state fails to perform its governing duties. Most associated with riots and looting. The problem is when they call it "anarchism in it's truest form", they're conflating the state of lawlessness when the state abandons an area with a system of governance. It is not the same thing.
finitebanjo -6 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19180717 19180781 19186753 19189592, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 4
finitebanjo -5 points a year ago path: 0 19178453 19180717 19180781 19180815 19180827, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 3
Kolanaki 19 points a year ago
I think it's kind of a logical conclusion to science and technology when not constrained by ethics, morality or other regulations aimed at safety as one would find in a Libertarian's wet dream. It might not be superpowered mutants, but more like human experimentation like the Nazis did or nuclear weapons that go boom when you don't want them to because you're being careless about safety.
Also, wasn't the true downfall of the city more because of the power struggle between Atlas and Ryan? There is a whole subplot about the class war happening in the city along with a rebellion, but I haven't played it in so long I don't recall all the details. Ot if that even matters because didnt they turn out to be the same guy just manipulating you? 🤔
Fuck. Gonna make me play through Bioshock again.
GTG3000 13 points a year ago
Yup. As Atlas puts it:
These sad saps. They come to Rapture thinking they're gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody's gotta scrub the toilets.
Ryan likes to talk about "the chain" and being in control, but he also used and discarded his associates and the moment he was no longer in absolute control, he started murdering people and using pheromones to mind-control splicers.
Kolanaki 4 points a year ago
I mean... I guess it depends which nazi scientist was doing the experiments. One of them had some pretty wild ideas and is where the basis for a lot of the supernatural BS in the Wolfenstein games came from. Forgot his name tho... 🤔
hotdogcharmer 2 points a year ago
third ball
sugar_in_your_tea 1 point a year ago
Libertarian's wet dream
Please don't conflate Objectivism and Libertarianism. They're different, and Ayn Rand hated Libertarians. Objectivism is all about selfishness (maximize personal benefit), whereas Libertarianism is all about minimizing harm between people (initiation of force, NAP).
Let's use an example of someone creating a dangerous product and someone gets hurt. An Objectivist would say "oops!" whereas the Libertarian would say the seller should be legally liable for damages and criminally liable if they knew about the danger and didn't properly disclose/prevent it, otherwise it's an initiation of force.
Objectivists believe in maximum freedom. Libertarians believe your freedoms end where mine begin. They're different.
insomniac_lemon 16 points a year ago
I've already depicted you as the Sander Cohen and myself as the Atlas.
samus12345 6 points a year ago
Nae King! Nae Quin! Nae Laird!
ToiletFlushShowerScream 5 points a year ago
We won't be fooled again?
Rcklsabndn 3 points a year ago
Return to monke
lessthanluigi 1 point a year ago
No Gods, No Kings...
Only Bus
maxwells_daemon 13 points a year ago
Yeah, I hate when underwater Randism with injectable superpowers.
It's a fictional universe.
OneWomanCreamTeam 13 points a year ago
- Makes a shallow analysis of a piece of media
- Piece of media appears to be shallow
I'm a genius, and this piece of media is dumb
Bane_Killgrind 13 points a year ago
Philosophy fiction
Like the way science fiction isn't science, but less cool.
Skullgrid 2 points a year ago
Borges
borges sucks ass. his book of short stories was basically "yo dawg, this reminds of a story of when I was in a bar an the old guy told me of a story that when he was a boy in a cafe, an old guy told him the story of some ancient gaucho..."
steeznson 2 points a year ago
People were easier to entertain back in the day. There is also a clear line between Borges and modern short story authors like Ted Chiang who take what he started and develop it further.
funkless_eck 4 points a year ago
And her main contribution is that unextended phenomina can override physical reality (!?!?!)
NigelFrobisher 12 points a year ago
Counterpoint: it’s a videogame, and if it’s shallow it’s no more shallow and vapid a deconstruction of objectivism than Atlas Shrugged is the opposite.
ComfortableRaspberry 7 points a year ago
For everyone interested: there is actually a book about the creation and downfall of Rapture. (it's called Rapture)
greentext
@sh.itjust.works
8832
2064
4758
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
go to feed...
greentext
@sh.itjust.works
8832
2064
4758
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
go to feed...
They all started killing each other because plasmid use makes you psychotic, unless you can afford to keep taking more and more.
They all started taking plasmids because they needed to compete in the workplace (then later, in the war) or end up homeless / dead.
Plasmids were legal in the first place because Randism, being based 100% on individual responsibility, doesn't believe that things like feedback loops or cumulative effects can happen at a societal level, and so doesn't believe in regulations.
Plasmids are a pretty clear metaphor for dehumanizing yourself to serve the market, especially because the Randian superman is a psychopath that is only self interested.
But even without plasmids the fact that the worlds elite were brought down to Rapture, yet (to quote an audio log) "we couldn't all be captains of industry, someone had to scrub the toilets" bred a huge amount of resentment from people who felt scammed and now trapped down there. Just like in the real world the markets in BioShock rely completely on low level workers to be able to function, and yet punish them for being in that position.
save