Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Bioschock fanpage

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
Yeah, BioShock looks and sounds pretty neato. I have the Game Informer with it.

Here's the plot, incase they dont say there:

The game starts with the player underwater following a plane crash in the ocean, surrounded by debris. No introductory cut scene is displayed explaining how this happened, leaving the player to decide for themself why they were on the plane. Nearby, a lighthouse is sticking out of the water, in the middle of the ocean. Upon getting inside and traversing the internal stairwell, the player finds a bathysphere, with a corpse inside. Upon removing the corpse and descending in the bathysphere (having nowhere else to go), the player eventually reaches an underwater city on the ocean floor.

A plot unfolds involving the crumbling city, named Rapture, and the utopian society it was built for. A man named Andrew Ryan, a former Soviet citizen, built the city in 1946, and the society was envisioned as the ultimate capitalistic and individualist paradise, with the elite achieving for themselves, rather than for the the whole.

A scientific discovery upset the balance of the society. Two scientists studying ocean-floor dwelling creatures discovered a species of sea slug that secretes pure stem cells. These could be used to enhance ones body, improving physical or mental capabilities, curing diseases and healing injuries. The substance, dubbed "Adam", became so sought after in the society, that it became the dominant currency of the city. A "full-scale genetic arms race" broke out between Ryan and a young entrepreneur named Fontaine. Ryan eventually won, but everyone in the city was permanently changed. During the war, it was discovered that Adam could be used to modify one's body, combining technology and mutations to adapt and survive the conflict, but losing their humanity in the process. During the conflict, all natural sources of Adam were destroyed, which eventually resulted in a major shift in the "ecology" of the city, as all inhabitants had become biologically dependant on Adam to survive.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
"the ultimate capitalistic society" would contain property rights and a justice system which curtails war.

Sounds more like a frontier commons society where first extraction rule applies, causing violent battles for first grab at more resources.

Sounds like a group of hermit geniuses living in a commons. And the "elite" as political upper class, for "achieving for themselves" doesn't make any sense in a free market unless they do everything with their own property without trading.

But I wouldn't expect game developers to know about such things. If something upset the balance it would be calls by organized groups to force redistribution of such resources leading to a war.

Such a "the ultimate capitalistic society" would depend on its very nature that the people agree to settle disputes without violence which is the opposite of what happened in the story. So either grabs for political power caused it or the developers don't know what they are talking about.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
Well, the setting, if I'm not mistaken, is about the failure of a perfect capitalist society, echoing the Soviet Union, not an actual perfect capitalist society.

Of course, chances are you're right and the devs just don't know what they're talking about.
 

Visbhume

Prophet
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
984
The game setting is more or less a sendup of the philosophy of Ayn Rand (down to the "former soviet citizen" bit) . We'll see if it is a thoughtful, well developed one besides yet another excuse to have mutaded mosters prancing around.
 

spacemoose

Erudite
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
9,632
Location
california
Human Shield said:
"the ultimate capitalistic society" would contain property rights and a justice system which curtails war.

The point is that people are greedy fucks and if they can use force to win more power, they will do it. In Ayn Rand's perfect world there would be no government oversight or regulation of business whatsoever, quite possibly leading to private armies and a powegrab by someone who amassed enough wealth. The game illustrates this.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
kingcomrade said:
Well, the setting, if I'm not mistaken, is about the failure of a perfect capitalist society, echoing the Soviet Union, not an actual perfect capitalist society.

Of course, chances are you're right and the devs just don't know what they're talking about.

Such a failure would come from people wanting to change the system and not following such a system. Its system isn't opposed to human nature such as communism.

And objectivism isn't a pure capitalist society, it supports a government police force which can turn things into a police state if the leader can get such a science fiction advantage that no one can stop him. Which is a failure of not pursuing more capitalism.

Such a failure would need the majority of the society to suddenly want to attack each other after already previously agreeing that they can all get more done in the long term by cooperating and not stealing from each other. If the discovery releases an undetectable gas that makes people insane then maybe.

I'm guessing the devs wanted to sound obscure and provide the easy escape of cultural relativism that is popular among leftists (which is probably the majority of the dev team). So you can't really say that a system of liberty is better then slavery, "its all relative dudes".

Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
 

TheGreatGodPan

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
1,762
Spacemoose said:
The point is that people are greedy fucks and if they can use force to win more power, they will do it. In Ayn Rand's perfect world there would be no government oversight or regulation of business whatsoever, quite possibly leading to private armies and a powegrab by someone who amassed enough wealth. The game illustrates this.
I've never read any Rand, but I know enough to know you don't know what you're talking about.
 

spacemoose

Erudite
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
9,632
Location
california
Human Shield said:
Its system isn't opposed to human nature such as communism.
agreeing that they can all get more done in the long term by cooperating and not stealing from each other.

And there is the fallacy. People will always put their own benefit first, and no matter how much reasoning you have explaining that by treating each other nice they will INDIVIDUALLY benefit more, the system breaks down when ONE person desides to cheat, steal and generally behave like a good capitalist. So objectivism is at least as faulty as communism

TheGreatGodPan said:
something
Well buddy, unlike you, I have read Rand.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
Spacemoose said:
The point is that people are greedy fucks and if they can use force to win more power, they will do it. In Ayn Rand's perfect world there would be no government oversight or regulation of business whatsoever, quite possibly leading to private armies and a powegrab by someone who amassed enough wealth. The game illustrates this.

This is a false arguement. A society that wants to do war with each other will become worse with a government in place, any individual then can have his evil desires multipled by gaining policial power.

Gaining political power goes to those with most desire for power over other people. Getting money (which doesn't involve power if other people don't agree) involves having to serve other people the best.

Saving up money for a private army would have to overpower the rest of the society including others pooling money offering the mercs more. It is stupid to assume an individual could a mass far, far beyond 50% of the entire society (and supply and demand would change value from such a accumulation farther reducing his influence). A situation would a government was in place makes this much more likely.

Any war that breaks out would be many times worse off if a government was in place to begin with. Total war instead of fractional skirmishes with each side wanting to end it as peacefully as possible (the war is coming from their own pockets NOT a national treasury).

Spacemoose said:
And there is the fallacy. People will always put their own benefit first, and no matter how much reasoning you have explaining that by treating each other nice they will INDIVIDUALLY benefit more, the system breaks down when ONE person desides to cheat, steal and generally behave like a good capitalist. So objectivism is at least as faulty as communism.

That is completely disregarding reality. Trading and merchants have formed on their own many times throughout history. The first societies existed with people working together to farm and hunt. According to you humans should still be animals. The reality is that you spending your time growing cows which is what your best at and then trading meat for other stuff you want is easier then stealing and having to fight everyone you see. Trading does benefit the person more then stealing.

It doesn't break down because the person that is the target of theft has it in his own best interest to defend himself. Other people would find it in their best interest to get rich offering guard duty instead of trying to rob.

If everyone wants to fight such a society would still be WORSE under a government.
 

spacemoose

Erudite
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
9,632
Location
california
Human Shield said:
Gaining political power goes to those with most desire for power over other people. Getting money (which doesn't involve power if other people don't agree) involves having to serve other people the best.

Getting money certainly does involve power if you're dealing in goods required to survive - land to live on (assuming private ownership of land), food, and maybe most importantly - medicine. As soon as an individual, or a group of individuals working together somehow get control of a life-critical resource, they unquestionably have power over other people.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
Spacemoose said:
Getting money certainly does involve power if you're dealing in goods required to survive - land to live on (assuming private ownership of land), food, and maybe most importantly - medicine. As soon as an individual, or a group of individuals working together somehow get control of a life-critical resource, they unquestionably have power over other people.

And you are free to find an example of monopoly or cartel in the free market. The history is that such goods grow in abundence in a free market while they are always in a shortage in government run economies. America was getting fat while Russians and Chinese straved, the majority of the food produced in those countries were with the minority of land under private ownership.
 

spacemoose

Erudite
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
9,632
Location
california
That is completely disregarding reality. Trading and merchants have formed on their own many times throughout history. The first societies existed with people working together to farm and hunt.
In small communities, where everyone had an obligation to each other due to (however distant) familial bonds. To put it another way, everyone knew each other personally and it was expected that you'd get each other's back. This breaks down completely once the city-state comes into being, now you can't trust other people, there is no obligation to anyone and you're free to cheat, steal and do anything to get ahead. Take a look at corporate culture. This is all around us today and I can't believe you would deny it. As a trivial example I present Enron. Trusts, price fixing, and virtual monopolies still exist today.

According to you humans should still be animals.
Strawman Haw haw.

The reality is that you spending your time growing cows which is what your best at and then trading meat for other stuff you want is easier then stealing and having to fight everyone you see.
Comparative advantage is fun as long as someone wants the products you're good at producing.

Trading does benefit the person more then stealing.
Let me elaborate on stealing. How aboutstealing ideas, exploiting cheap labor and price gouging, not physically taking someone's goods. And you did not address the cheating/backstabbing on the rise to the top.


And you are free to find an example of monopoly or cartel in the free market.
Give me a market you consider free, and I will.

The history is that such goods grow in abundence in a free market while they are always in a shortage in government run economies.
The point stands that control of these goods gives the owner power over other people. Let me use newly developed drugs for a terminal disease as an example - the company that developed them can gouge whatever price they name from the sick.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
Spacemoose said:
In small communities, where everyone had an obligation to each other due to (however distant) familial bonds. To put it another way, everyone knew each other personally and it was expected that you'd get each other's back. This breaks down completely once the city-state comes into being, now you can't trust other people, there is no obligation to anyone and you're free to cheat, steal and do anything to get ahead. Take a look at corporate culture. This is all around us today and I can't believe you would deny it. As a trivial example I present Enron. Trusts, price fixing, and virtual monopolies still exist today.

Traders and shipping lanes came about without government control.

Having police and justice system is a good way to trust people, the different is that I feel they can arise without a government.

All your "corporate" examples exist due to government interference, "corporations" themselves are products of a political system (where do you think limited-liability comes from?).

According to you humans should still be animals.

Strawman Haw haw.

I didn't present that as your argument then attack it, it mite be slippery slope.

How do you think order forms in society? That a warlord must come in and surpress people or else they would be constantly hurting each other?

Comparative advantage is fun as long as someone wants the products you're good at producing.

Review Ricardo's law and recognize unlimited greed in humans (always imagine a more preferable state).

Let me elaborate on stealing. How about stealing ideas, exploiting cheap labor and price gouging, not physically taking someone's goods. And you did not address the cheating/backstabbing on the rise to the top.

Ideas aren't property and can't be stolen.
Labor is paid their market price (based on productivity) that is better then their other alternatives.
Price gouging saves lives and improves disaster conditions.

Violating someone else's rights is a claim for compensation.

And you are free to find an example of monopoly or cartel in the free market.

Give me a market you consider free, and I will.

Interactions without government control. In other words find a monopoly or cartel that wasn't that way because of legal force from the government.

The point stands that control of these goods gives the owner power over other people. Let me use newly developed drugs for a terminal disease as an example - the company that developed them can gouge whatever price they name from the sick.

No, actually blocking other people from using their own factories to copy the drug comes from a legal monopoly power and is backed by government police.
 

WouldBeCreator

Scholar
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
936
My verdict: game backstory is clearly a critique of Rand. If it's meant to play out on a symbolic level -- i.e., that Adam provides people with the ability to change themselves "limitlessly," which untetheredness produces monstrosity, I think it's an interesting premise. Although I'd say I'm probably a statist -- and therefore as far from a Randite as possible -- I've read and appreciate her writings and know a good share of libertarians and objectivists.

It does seem to me that the question is whether untethering human beings from their sense of obligation to one another -- a natural sense -- turns them into monsters. If the game is exploring that question, then I think it might be interesting. If the game winds up being about how greed -- rather than the desire for autonomy and self-improvement -- runs amok, then I think it will be neither an interesting story nor an interesting challenge to Rand's philosophy.

FWIW, it obviously is a lefty game meant to bash an ideology they probably only tenuously grasp. But even a broken watch is right twice a day, no?
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
Human Shield, I just meant that the capitalistic society failed because someone broke it. Not because it was inherently sucky or anything. Just that some megalomaniac took over and broke everything, which is what I got reading the magazine scans. I mean, people are people, they don't have to operate by capitalistic rules, they can decide whatever they want. Ideology, not economics, is the key to human behavior.
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
I dont think its "turning into monsters" but that human sociaty requires a natural check system in order to funtion, just like animal sociaties.

That is flaw of taking any system to its extreme, any system on its extreme will fail.

The issue I see here is the americans worship capitalism as some kind of religion, without being keep in checks its going to be as bad as comunism turned out in the Soviet Union.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
The issue I see here is the americans worship capitalism as some kind of religion, without being keep in checks its going to be as bad as comunism turned out in the Soviet Union.
I don't think it's really so deep, as supposed to be a critique of American love for capitalism, like I said above what I got from the magazine scans was that some powerful guy broke the system and took over. Teh Eval Wun/Teh Final Boss
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
I mean in the replies ... even if I somewhat got used to american "holy capitalism" and "demon comunism" I still get anoyed when I have to see those messages ... not as bad as "evil liberals" and "conservatives are holy men" ...
 

EvoG

Erudite
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
1,424
Location
Chicago
Kinda cool to see a thread about a game provoke such discussions. Couldn't imagine that 'other' game doing as much. :)

Anyway, speaking of Rand, my favorite of hers was Anthem, but oddly enough, its "meaning"(individualism) was overshadowed(for me) by the dystopian setting...a collectivist society criminalizing education, with the knowledge from a past civilization(the unmentionable times)hidden and long forgotten. My imagination ran wild to learn what the protaganist would discover from the unmentionable times, rather than the novels parallels to socialism. Odds are due to reading it a young age, the philosophy was less interesting. Reading it again last year, it was even better now that I can appreciate its full meaning. Good stuff.
 

WouldBeCreator

Scholar
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
936
BTW, this may have been obvious to all, but in case not, even the name -- Andrew Ryan -- is clearly a mixing of Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand
Rand Ayn
Andr yan
Andrew Ryan
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
hey guys

A man named Andrew Ryan, a former Soviet citizen, built the city in 1946, and the society was envisioned as the ultimate capitalistic and individualist paradise, with the elite achieving for themselves, rather than for the the whole.

chances are it didnt pan out correctly
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
kingcomrade said:
Ideology, not economics, is the key to human behavior.

Economics is the study of human action.

If the conditions change, such as some people being able to become physically superhuman to the point that no one can enforce justice on them the situation will change.

Such things happen void of any political or economic system so any parallels drawn are pointless. Any human system fails if one person can get superpowers and do anything he wants, it doesn't invalidate the assumptions into human nature and the theory would accurately predict the harm that would follow.

Such a story would boost the theory's claims. It remains to be seen how knowledgeable the developers are.

Drakron said:
I dont think its "turning into monsters" but that human sociaty requires a natural check system in order to funtion, just like animal sociaties.

That is flaw of taking any system to its extreme, any system on its extreme will fail.

The issue I see here is the americans worship capitalism as some kind of religion, without being keep in checks its going to be as bad as comunism turned out in the Soviet Union.

Capitalism is a system of COMPLETE checks and balances. It is checks and balances taken down to the individual level. People don't understand what capitalism means and therefore make inaccurate statements about it.

I haven't seen any rational argument about how a system that enforces natural human rights (and why some defend it so as a religion) can go too far. It it trite to say extremes are bad.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
No, the social sciences are the studies of human action. Economics is the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of things of value.

Human behavior is not dictated nor predicated on economics, wealth, ownership, or the desire for any of these, but on what people believe and what they want.

If human behavior were simply about economics, half the world wouldn't persist in policies and beliefs that inhibit economic growth.

As for the comments about the family, in some ways family is considered an expense in modern society, rather than a personal/social asset. Else, why would abortion be such an issue?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom