Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

kotaku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#11

Post by ivank »

prospero wrote: post #10
s3graham wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this repeated a lot, but honestly I found the story trite, and the combat pretty generic after a few levels. Maybe I was hoping for too much though. YMMV, of course.

I think video games are held to a different (lower) standard than most other mediums with respect to storytelling. This is a shame, but there's a good reason: you can't embed a narrative inside emergent, non-formulaic gameplay. Either you tell a story with how you limit the player's actions, or you don't tell any story at all. But even if you accept that as a fundamental limitation of the medium, most video games sti…

At least one game (NetHack) sets up the framework for a story but lets randomness fill in 99% of the details. It seems like everyone in the last 12 years has tried to steal bits of NetHack for their mass-market game, with mixed success. (Diablo comes to mind. Spore, too - bones files->Will Wright's "massively singleplayer" game.)

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#13

Post by prospero »

ivank wrote: post #11
prospero wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think video games are held to a different (lower) standard than most other mediums with respect to storytelling. This is a shame, but there's a good reason: you can't embed a narrative inside emergent, non-formulaic gameplay. Either you tell a story with how you limit the player's actions, or you don't tell any story at all. But even if you accept that as a fundamental limitation of the medium, most video games sti…

At least one game (NetHack) sets up the framework for a story but lets randomness fill in 99% of the details. It seems like everyone in the last 12 years has tried to steal bits of NetHack for their mass-market game, with mixed success. (Diablo comes to mind. Spore, too - bones files->Will Wright's "massively singleplayer" game.)

NetHack is a good example of emergent gameplay, Daggerfall is another. They do not, however, have compelling stories. All fan-fiction to the contrary, "I kill the kobold and take his chainmail leggings" fifty times in a row doesn't constitute a real plot.

Also, what story does exist is by virtue of how limited the player's interaction with his environment is: he can either kill things or carry them. If his actions were less discrete, or lacked real-world metaphors, there wouldn't even be a fan-fiction plot.

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#14

Post by davidw »

rantfoil wrote: post #7

This article is truly fascinating. Having read Ayn Rand, and briefly taken by the stark ideology, it all falls into place. I suddenly have a deeper appreciation for the gameplay, the philosophy, and the artwork of Bioshock. I love the commentary too -- it's both an homage and a cautionary tale. Bioshock starts as a utopia and de-evolves into an awful dystopia.

If it weren't terribly off topic and likely to lead to pointless flame wars, that might make for a fun poll. "At what age did you go through your Ayn Rand phase? How long did it last?"

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#15

Post by msg »

davidw wrote: post #14
rantfoil wrote: post #7

This article is truly fascinating. Having read Ayn Rand, and briefly taken by the stark ideology, it all falls into place. I suddenly have a deeper appreciation for the gameplay, the philosophy, and the artwork of Bioshock. I love the commentary too -- it's both an homage and a cautionary tale. Bioshock starts as a utopia and de-evolves into an awful dystopia.

If it weren't terribly off topic and likely to lead to pointless flame wars, that might make for a fun poll. "At what age did you go through your Ayn Rand phase? How long did it last?"

17, 6 months

I would be interested in knowing how many are still under the baleful Eye as well.

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#16

Post by hugh »

prospero wrote: post #10
s3graham wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this repeated a lot, but honestly I found the story trite, and the combat pretty generic after a few levels. Maybe I was hoping for too much though. YMMV, of course.

I think video games are held to a different (lower) standard than most other mediums with respect to storytelling. This is a shame, but there's a good reason: you can't embed a narrative inside emergent, non-formulaic gameplay. Either you tell a story with how you limit the player's actions, or you don't tell any story at all. But even if you accept that as a fundamental limitation of the medium, most video games sti…

I think we need to distinguish between two aspects of good storytelling: having a good story, and telling it well. In a game, I think the latter matters a lot more than the former.

People don't play games just because they want to see a story -- if they wanted that they'd just watch a movie and get a lot more story in a lot less time. In a game the main function of the story is to provide a reward for beating the last part of the game, and a motivation to beat the next part. Games can have quite simple, even cliched storylines (e.g. Prince of Persia Sands of Time, or the original Half Life) and still seem compelling.

On the other hand, a lot of games fall down in the quality of the storytelling. Bad dialogue, bargain-basement voice-acting, or just plain dull scenes can spoil a game pretty quickly. ("I fought a seven-headed monster for this?")

Bioshock may have a well-developed story for an interesting novel, but I'm not sure about the quality of the storytelling. I've only played the first couple of levels before getting bored, but so far most of the story has been pumped directly into my ear by some guy with a sepia-toned icon and a largely-incomprehensible monotonic brogue. Combine that with the fact that the levels and enemies so far have all looked pretty much the same, and I couldn't summon up the motivation to keep playing.

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#17

Post by prospero »

hugh wrote: post #16
prospero wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think video games are held to a different (lower) standard than most other mediums with respect to storytelling. This is a shame, but there's a good reason: you can't embed a narrative inside emergent, non-formulaic gameplay. Either you tell a story with how you limit the player's actions, or you don't tell any story at all. But even if you accept that as a fundamental limitation of the medium, most video games sti…

I think we need to distinguish between two aspects of good storytelling: having a good story, and telling it well. In a game, I think the latter matters a lot more than the former. People don't play games just because they want to see a story -- if they wanted that they'd just watch a movie and get a lot more story in a lot less time. In a game the main function of the story is to provide a reward for beating the las…

I think it's unreasonable to expect that even a masterpiece (which Bioshock is not) would appeal to everyone. Any creative work's impact is measured by its appeal to its core audience, who are often people who live and breath the medium or genre.

For instance, one of my favorite movies is Kill! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063186/), which is a brilliant and quite funny re-imagining of the samurai flick. It's a pretty good movie in its own right, but what makes it truly masterful is how it subtly twists the norms and tropes of its genre. These little touches are not aimed at a broad audience, they're aimed at people who are predisposed to like samurai movies, and have already seen a few dozen samurai movies in their life. That's not cheating, either, it's just knowing your audience and giving them what they want.

As to the bad dialogue, voice-acting, etc. I think it's hard to break it down into anything so specific. A story is good if it allows you to suspend your disbelief. Bioshock didn't, but it wasn't necessarily because of any of the things you listed; you could just as easily have liked the game in spite of them. For instance, one of my favorite games of all time is Deus Ex, and it had absolutely laughable voice acting (check out http://ispeeeelmydreeenk.ytmnd.com/). Any great creative work is going to be more than the sum of its parts, and just because video games involve computers doesn't mean that they're somehow more quantifiable than painting or poetry.

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#18

Post by jonny_noog »

I'm not going to say that I don't find some of Ayn Rand's ideas interesting, but some of the comments attributed to Yaron Brook in that article are just plain scary.

"It seems to me that he's misrepresented what Ayn Rand believes and her ideals beyond objectivism," he said. "He's setting it up to fail. He believes , based on what I've read, that any system that is absolutist is ultimately going to lead to disastrous effect. Any system of black and white, any system of ultimate morality."

I'm sure a system of "ultimate morality" would work just fine for me... if I was defining the "ultimate morality".

"I think its flawed logic in the sense that he thinks that people have to be flawed"

"I think there are great people and perfect people and I think we all should strive to be great and perfect."

To strive for perfection is a worthy endeavour, to assume that I or anyone else has achieved it, is naive, limiting and possibly dangerous. I'd like to know who Yaron Brook's puts in this category of great and perfect. Ayn Rand, I suppose would be one.

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#19

Post by unalone »

msg wrote: post #15
davidw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it weren't terribly off topic and likely to lead to pointless flame wars, that might make for a fun poll. "At what age did you go through your Ayn Rand phase? How long did it last?"

17, 6 months I would be interested in knowing how many are still under the baleful Eye as well.

I suppose I'd fall under the category of "baleful Eye." I still haven't heard a good argument as to why the ideals of her philosophy is flawed, and her ideas still make logical sense to me, so I'd identify myself as objectivist faster than I'd identify myself most other things.

Re: No Gods or Kings: Objectivism and Ayn Rand in BioShock

#20

Post by unalone »

jonny_noog wrote: post #18

I'm not going to say that I don't find some of Ayn Rand's ideas interesting, but some of the comments attributed to Yaron Brook in that article are just plain scary. "It seems to me that he's misrepresented what Ayn Rand believes and her ideals beyond objectivism," he said. "He's setting it up to fail. He believes , based on what I've read, that any system that is absolutist is ultimately going to lead to disastrous…

I'd actually bet that most people who really believe in objectivism would NOT call Rand perfect, because she most certainly was not. She was flawed both in writing and in character. It's just that she happened to do a much better job with both than most other people do, and she created a set of principles that are greater than she was.

"Just plain scary?" A lot of people exaggerate like that. And what's the downside in thinking that people are capable of being perfect? What sort of a situation would have that leading to a downfall?

Post reply on HN