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

21–30 of 48 posts

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

#21

Post by unalone »

bendotc wrote: post #6
josefresco wrote: post #3

I'll buy anything not published and DRM'd by EA.

Then I guess you'll buy Bioshock. And you should, too. For those of us interested in videogames as an artistic medium, this is one of the most exciting games out there.

That's a slight exaggeration. I think it reveals an exciting trend, but the game itself fails artistically. Its gameplay is more or less generic, and its story has a great concept but poor execution.

Portal, on the other hand, or Half-Life 2... Those games seem to get dismissed by the "games are art" crowd, or at least not brought up. I've never understood that. And Psychonauts, Killer 7, Shadow of the Colossus... But I think that the real innovative games don't get the same level of heralding because people who find those games know that games have been artistic since at least the NES stage. Final Fantasy II/IV, anybody? Zelda?

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

#22

Post by unalone »

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…

Have you played Half-Life 2? That's a perfect example of telling a story and keeping the gameplay top-notch.

The voice on the speaker in the beginning are particularly well-done. And if you compare Half-Life 2 to BioShock, I think you find that there's no real comparison: Half-Life wins hands-down.

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

#23

Post by prospero »

unalone wrote: post #22
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…

Have you played Half-Life 2? That's a perfect example of telling a story and keeping the gameplay top-notch. The voice on the speaker in the beginning are particularly well-done. And if you compare Half-Life 2 to BioShock, I think you find that there's no real comparison: Half-Life wins hands-down.

I agree, Half Life 2 is amazing. Like I said, Valve is a notable exception.

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

#24

Post by orib »

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?"

Personally, I read it and half-agreed, half-disagreed. Her ideals are powerful and moving. It would be great if people could be like that, but they aren't. Plus, her characters seem to have a few too many tantrums and blow up buildings ;-)

Overall, I ended up incorporating elements of her philosophy into my world view, but rejecting other parts. I'd still highly recommmend her books to anyone, but really, if you're not willing to think about what the books say and blindly follow what she outlines as her philosophy... well. you've just become one of the sheep that she heaps so much contempt on in her books.

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

#25

Post by jonny_noog »

unalone wrote: post #20
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…

Call it exaggeration if you like, but actually I firmly believe exactly this. People are not capable of achieving perfection. Perfection is by definition not achievable.

What are the downsides? Well without writing a thesis on the subject, basically what I have already mentioned. If one believes ones self to be perfect, then logically, there is no reason to continue to strive for improvement is there? Again by definition, you can't improve on perfection.

If one believes ones self to be perfect, then ones opinions/decisions/actions must also be perfect (i.e., perfectly correct) and therefore beyond doubt or compromise. I see such an absolute and unquestionable position (particularly if that position is held by a person in any kind of leadership role) having the possibility to lead to all sorts of unfortunate social consequences. History is filled with examples of leaders who believed their point of view to be beyond question or compromise, usually with bad results.

So if it's not Ayn Rand, who's perfect then?

I stand by my original comment.

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

#26

Post by SwellJoe »

prospero wrote: post #13
ivank wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

To be fair to nethack, you can not only kill things, you can make them your pet, appease them with gifts, use them defensively in a variety of ways, or frighten them off with bright lights or elven scribblings. And, as for things you can do with objects...I'm not even gonna try.

But, yes, what "story" there is is not emergent, and is injected by human authors, and the game can only really have two outcomes: death (about 95% of the time) or ascension and success (with a few bits of story line along the way based on your character class, race, and alignment). The joy is in the many amusing ways in which your character can die, rather than in the narrative.

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

#27

Post by SwellJoe »

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 was 18 or 19. And it was pretty much like a rope swing to the other side of the river for me, rather than a convincing argument to go for a swim (i.e. I turned out to have anarcho-capitalist tendencies, rather than Objectivist ones--and I was already an atheist before reading Rand, so there wasn't much room for her to have an impact on that front). But, mostly, I'd be happy if everybody would just agree that the founding fathers of the US got things mostly right (excepting the obvious bugs: slavery, male-only voting) and leave well enough alone. I don't much care for the strident tone of Rand's books (excepting Anthem which was short enough that it avoids all of the mind-numbing angry repetition of all of her other works).

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

#28

Post by menloparkbum »

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.

17. Being fourth generation progeny of critical thinking literary snobs, I was unable to make it through Atlas Shrugged.

Unfortunately, as it is difficult for Hollywood newcomers to avoid Scientology recruiters, a college freshman finds it difficult to avoid the Objectivist Club recruiters.

Thus, later in the same year I had a brush with Rand again. I tried reading "The Romantic Manifesto" and found it unintentionally hilarious, in the same way Sarah Palin's press conferences are hilarious.

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

#29

Post by gunderson »

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?"

Or in other words, when did you give up on your childish ideas about the heights of your own human potential?

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

#30

Post by gunderson »

menloparkbum wrote: post #28
msg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

17. Being fourth generation progeny of critical thinking literary snobs, I was unable to make it through Atlas Shrugged. Unfortunately, as it is difficult for Hollywood newcomers to avoid Scientology recruiters, a college freshman finds it difficult to avoid the Objectivist Club recruiters. Thus, later in the same year I had a brush with Rand again. I tried reading "The Romantic Manifesto" and found it unintentionall…

You have too much taste for Atlas Shrugged because of your illustrious bloodline?

If reading Atlas Shrugged is too much work for your taste, then I think the actual ideas contained in it would surely be quite distasteful to you, but I guess the world will never know.

Post reply on HN