Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Thinking and Writing: Bioshock vs. Ayn Rand

           In the video game Bioshock, the silent protagonist Jack's plane crashes into the ocean next to a mysterious lighthouse.  After entering the lighthouse and boarding a bathysphere, he is taken to the underwater dystopia of Rapture, which has been destroyed due to civil war.  From this point, he must work with the freedom fighter Atlas against the tyrannical ruler of the city, Andrew Ryan, in order to escape.  The game has sold over 4 million copies, and Gore Verbinski, director of The Pirates of the Caribbean, was interested in adapting the game into a film.  However, the proposed 200 million dollar budget was too high for the studios.  Bioshock also has one of the highest ratings for a first person shooter on the reviewing site Metacritic, scoring an 96.  The principle reason that this game appeals to fans and critics is that it uses its story, setting, and characters to analyze and criticize Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy.
            Ayn Rand was a writer who proposed the idea of Objectivism, which states that the proper moral purpose of life is the pursuit of one's own happiness.  Objectivism also states that  laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system that maintains full respect for an individual's rights.  Simply put, it states that an individual should do what is best for himself and that the government should not interfere in any private or commercial matters.  There are many references to Ayn Rand and Objectivism throughout Bioshock.  The main villain's name, Andrew Ryan, is very similar to Ayn Rand.  Both of them are Russian immigrants who became disillusioned with Communism.  Also, another major character is named Atlas, a reference to Ayn Rand's objectivist novel Atlas Shrugged.  Andrew Ryan proclaims his objectivist views right at the beginning of the game as the player descends by bathysphere to the city of Rapture:  "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?  No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor.  No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God.  No, says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.  I rejected those answers.  Instead, I chose something different.  I chose the impossible.  I chose Rapture: a city where the artist would not fear  the censor.  Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.  Where the great would not be constrained by the small."  
With this statement, Andrew Ryan firmly admits that the entire city of Rapture was built under Objectivist ideals. 
            The rest of the game's plot subverts these ideals and demonstrates the fundamental flaws evident in Objectivist philosophy.  As Ryan states, a city built on these ideals would seem perfect for an artist, entrepreneur, or scientist.  However, as the game shows, this level of philosophical thinking created a class struggle between the elitists and the working class in the city which eventually culminated in civil war.  The once beautiful city of Rapture decayed into a skeleton of its former glory, which represents the hidden ugliness that was present in the city's ideals all along.  Even more importantly, the laissez-faire ideals that Rapture greatly adored eventually led to its own destruction.  Scientists in the city discovered a substance called "Adam" that alters one's genetic code and grants superhuman powers.  Products made with this substance were sold to the general public with no interference from the government because Rapture was founded under the idea of free enterprise without governmental control.  "Adam" proved to be incredibly powerful and addictive, and soon the citizens of Rapture went mad in their desire to obtain more Adam, using their powers to further throw the city into civil war.  Ironically, the city's worship of Objectivist ideals, such as laissez-faire capitalism and self-interest, eventually led the city to its downfall.
            The game's endings ultimately demonstrate that Altruism, the polar opposite philosophy of Objectivism, is the superior philosophy.  There are two different endings depending on how a player chooses to act during key moments in the game.  Throughout the game, the player encounters "Little Sisters", young orphan girls who have been brainwashed to gather Adam from corpses in the street.  After defeating one of their protectors, nicknamed "Big Daddies", the player is given a choice of harvesting the Little Sister for her Adam or sparing her life.  Harvesting a Little Sister gives the player much more Adam and allows him to level up more quickly, but the Little Sister dies in the process. However, if the player spares the Little Sister, he gains much less Adam, but eventually gains the trust of Tenebaum, the German scientist who created the Little Sisters.  She rewards the player with large gifts of Adam, which allow the player to continue gaining new abilities.  If a player chooses to save all of the Little Sisters, he receives the "good" ending of the game: Jack rescues five of the Little Sisters, takes them up to the surface, and raises them as his own daughters.  If he chooses to harvest them, however, the game ends with Jack betraying the Little Sisters, stealing a submarine and a large supply of Adam, and setting out to conquer the world with nuclear weapons.  The "good" ending of the game is the only one where Jack demonstrates Altruism, acting in order to benefit another.  The "bad" ending demonstrates the ideals of Objectivism, with Jack thinking only of himself, stealing all of the power, and becoming just as evil as Andrew Ryan was.  Thus, the game demonstrates Altruism's superiority over Objectivism.

            There is a fundamental flaw with the game's statement on Altruism, however. In order to stay alive during the game, you need to loot every container, safe, and even corpses in order to find health, money, and ammo.  This mode of gameplay contradicts the game's central message about Altruism by forcing players to act selfishly in order to continue playing.  However, despite this flaw in gaming dynamics, the game still manages to tell a compelling story that not only entertains, but provides a brilliant critique of Objectivism.

No comments:

Post a Comment