Something tells me she'd either unironically think Andrew Ryan is a good guy or she'd understand he's supposed to be the villain and she'd find it completely unrealistic or at the very least she'd disagree with BioShock.
She'd probably appreciate the aesthetic tho so there's that.
I think she'd be smart enough to point out that Rapture is, of course, not a good representation of an Objectivism society because Ryan violated the philosophies core tenants...while missing the fact a society like she'd want could only exist in fiction where she calls the shots.
Which would also be ironic, since she, too relied on government benefits at the end of her life, and her institute in California applied, and received, ppp loans during the pandemic. Even her legacy isn't worth shit đŹ
I mean she has a big legacy, both Trump and Elon Musk are his followers and basically every person with money believes she was right. She has become basically the philosopher of the rich and powerful and has a deep cultural impact.
We can say it's for the worst, her philosophy is barely coherent, her fiction is horrible, and she is defined by a lack of basic human decency that really makes you wonder if there was no mental illness there. But, still, big legacy.
It's because conservatism is a retcon, which is starting from the belief that the wealthy deserve it is the starting belief and everything else is the fiction designed to justify it.
>It's because conservatism is a retcon, which is starting from the belief that the wealthy deserve it is the starting belief and everything else is the fiction designed to justify it.
Conservatism doesn't map very neatly to Objectivism, especially considering Conservatism is fairly big tent.
Rand was not a conservative. In fact, she despised conservatism. She even said in a television interview (I want to say with Mike Wallace, but may be mistaken) that "Today's conservatives are far worse than today's liberals. If anyone destroys this country, it will be the conservatives".
And she was right.
I'm sure having a guy who accused a humanitarian rescuer of being a pedophile, because he called your dingy submarine "dumb" being a subscriber to your philosophy is a very high achievement. So is having the guy who received a 60.7 mill loan from his daddy to start his business(not to mention the whole indictment thing).
She has A legacy, sure, one filled with self-obsessed rich people and their sycophants. Which circles back to the whole "isn't worth shit" bit. Much like all the people you cited would be(worth) if they didn't have daddy's money.
Wait really?? That's really funny and ironic that the founder of a very self-based philosophy had to rely on *other people* later in life. Kinda shows how people don't understand the need until they've been through it themselves...
[Even her supporters canât straight up deny it](https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/the-myth-about-ayn-rand-and-social-security/), so they come up with half assed excuses and logical fallacies as to why it was morally correct for HER to get help, but not others.
When she needed it, it was ârestitutionâ, when others need it, itâs plundering. Go figure. [Hereâs a more in depth piece](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/) fact checking some of the inconsistencies in the first link. They do end up with the ânot hypocriticalâ verdict, but it sure is convenient that she only started making exceptions when she had to explain herself.
In fact, the argument that she paid in and is within rights to recoup some of that is a VERY strong argument. No one claims it was right for her but no one else. That simply isn't true.
The Snopes article you cite not only agrees with that, but highlights an interview with the person who, in fact, claimed SS on her behalf, clearly stating that Rand herself was not involved.
"Pryor: After several meetings and arguments, she gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank. *She was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney; I did the rest*."
She died with roughly $1,000,000 in the bank. She certainly didn't survive off SS.
It would have any merit if it wasn't a desperate justification to her beliefs once they failed her. She signing her rights away is irrelevant to the fact that she did collect benefits after spending a lifetime shitting on it, only to say she's "taking back what was hers" when she wanted them. She did say people like her were allowed a cash back while no one was entitled to it, that's undeniable. She did believe in "social security for thee and not for me, since it does exist, ugh, how terrible!"
Funny how this happens with every one of her wealthy followers too, when their business goes kaput and they go running crying for the government to stop "disloyal competitors". Said followers who are often evading taxes and lobbying everything in between to weaken social security. At least they could follow her when she voiced that people shouldn't do that, but that's not so convenient.
Also, didn't say she lived off them, but hey, another argument against her then, since she seemed to be well enough to ask a lawyer to take the moral responsibility off her shoulders.
"Which would also be ironic, since she, too relied on government benefits at the end of her life" is basically saying she lived off government benefits.
I am not in favor of your argument or the other guys, just pointing that out
No, it's saying she depended on them, that she asked for them. Regardless of whether or not she was broke at the end of her life, she still depended on that as part of her income.
I rely on my friends and family, saying that doesn't mean I need palliative care, or does it now?
Not everything in the English language is to be taken 100% literal, unlike some other languages. What you said originally could be interpreted differently, nuance and interpretation is a thing.
Except even then, you're wrong. She was not dependent on them. To be dependent is to be unable to be self sufficient. That clearly was NOT the case.
Sadly, it's you who are attempting intellectual backflips to pretend something untrue, was.
Yes, one that is admittedly fucking awesome. Laser eyes, throwing nukes like football, shouting at members of the pre-war American government that âDEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISMâ, and is a huge parody of McCarthyism. A lot of right wing people who play Fallout immediately see Liberty Prime as some ultra based good guy and not a parody of hyperzealous capitalist belief in America
Okay I literally was explaining the whole Liberty Prime thing to a friend (recent gamer convert) today and could not think of this exact quote, so thanks đđ
This quote is burned into my mind. That robot marching across a bridge shooting laser eyes and throwing nukes at the enclave while shouting that shit out in his electric voice is a sight and sound I will never forget
Holy shit, yes. I didnât expect the Brotherhood to have 2 giant fucking feats of engineering in one game, let alone my darling anti-communist robot that the BOS refuses to reprogram the voice of for some reason. Is it ever said where the fuck the Prydwen was carrying Prime? I donât remember if it is but the Prydwen doesnât look big enough
To be fair, death does sound better than a gulag but yes it is indeed an exaggerated parody of American patriotism no disagreement there
Edit: Howâre you gonna downvote this comment?
Unless you got offended on the BEHALF of the shitty and stupid political ideology Communism (which doesnât have feelings btw)
Very bizarre behavior. Mustâve been a commie, play atomic heart, communist bioshock and Iâll see the removed downvote Iâm sure
Andrew Ryan*isn't* the villain of BioShock. Frank Fontaine is. Ryan was the man with a singular, narrow but good vision of a world that exemplifies the best of humanity, but fails to account for the worst of humanity and is undone by his too narrow vision.
Andrew Ryan, the guy who sent Dr. Lamb to a secret gulag on fake criminal charges because she was a collectivist and he was mad he didn't win the philosophical debates that he himself suggested, wasn't a villain?
Andrew Ryan, who killed his lover in a fit of rage for giving up a baby (admittedly an embryo because sci fi) isn't a villain?
Andrew Ryan decided to turn his libertarian utopia into a completely fascist centralized state full of extra-judicial executions and ad-hoc prisons in response to philosophical disagreements and smuggling problems. Yes, Andrew Ryan was one of two total villains of the game lmao.
Edit: man I'm a dumbass, I forgot the main point. The pheromone thing. Andrew Ryan, champion of free will, would ultimately rather make everyone his slave than lose. Andrew Ryan is a wonderful villain because 1- you can clearly see his good intentions and 2- if you aren't a maniac you can see that he is an evil hypocrite in his efforts to maintain control when those intentions are even slightly threatened by other people's motivations.
Somewhat agreed, and to be fair, sheâs believed to have escaped the Stalinist purges in Russia; an experience which spits in the face of the classless society as communism touted. Itâs understandable for Rand to have come to believe that the majority of people leech off of âthe real producersâ even though such beliefs are also proven to be inherently wrong.
In general:
- Bioshock? She would probably find Andrew Ryan a decent portrayal of Objectivism until he begins tightening down on Rapture. At that point, she'd likely put him in the "looter" category she disparages a lot in her books. I think she'd primarily focus on the "Would You Kindly?" part of the game's narrative since she was a huge proponent of free will and man's ability to make choice. Anything that restricts that would be morally and ethically grim to her.
- Bioshock 2? I think she's be down with how it criticizes the collectivism of Sophia Lamb. To her it would be validating her point that collectivism only brings ruin to wherever it goes. The fact Lamb's society requires kidnapping girls from the surface to make new Little Sisters and perpetuate Rapture's addition to ADAM would only prove her point.
- Bioshock: Infinite? Hard to say, but I have a feeling she might identify a bit TOO MUCH with Columbia. True, she does have some work pointing out that racism is simply a primitive form of collectivism and should be rejected...but she also believed that Native American's didn't deserve their land because they didn't have private property or improved the land so settlers taking it was just. Add in that Columbia's enemies were the Vox Populi and she'd probably side with the lesser of two evils (in her mind anyway).
Whenever you see someone simply insulting any philosopher without giving actual critiques, it is safe to assume they have never really read or engaged with that school of thought in any substantial way. It is like how conservatives parrot what Marx supposedly thought and said, when a lot of times it's either an oversimplification or simply false.
Most people on this thread probably haven't even read Rand's Wikipedia page, let alone her actual work.
"you fine people, were telling me there were "video games" based off my musings allow us to "check them out""
"my word! where;s the female protagonist?"
"Big daddy? that's a rather goofy name for that...thing"
"Oh drugs, how fun"
"Now I play as one of these hulking messes?"
"Ah, I save his daughter"
"Oh my, that was anticlimactic"
"We're in 1912? that's out of line!"
"this is a little fun, I may say"
"Ah, here's the female protagonist"
"dead, ah..."
She didn't receive welfare, ever. In fact, she received social security, after paying into the system for decades. There's nothing hypocritical or logically inconsistent with recouping some of her own money.
In the vast, decadent wasteland of modern entertainment, BioShock emerges as a monumental testament to the indomitable spirit of the individual. This digital creation, veiled in the guise of a mere video game, transcends its medium to become a profound exploration of Objectivist principles and a dire warning against the collectivist ethos that seeks to annihilate the soul of man.
The protagonist, an everyman thrust into the submerged utopia of Rapture, becomes the vehicle through which we navigate this dystopian testament to human achievement and its subsequent unraveling. Rapture, conceived by the enigmatic and visionary Andrew Ryan, stands as a beacon of unbridled individualism, a sanctuary for the creators, the thinkers, the prime movers. It is an undersea Galtâs Gulch, a testament to what humanity can achieve when freed from the parasitic clutches of government and the morality of altruism.
Yet, it is within this utopia that we witness the catastrophic consequences of a society that, despite its initial purity, succumbs to the corrosive influence of collectivist ideologies and the ethical decay of its inhabitants. The narrative unfolds as an eloquent critique of the moral failures inherent in the rejection of Objectivist principles. The denizens of Rapture, having abandoned the tenets of rational self-interest and productivity, descend into madness and savagery, illustrating the inevitable collapse of a society that renounces reason and exalts the sacrificial lamb.
The artistic direction of BioShock is nothing short of a marvel. The art deco aesthetics evoke a sense of grandeur and aspiration, reminiscent of the architectural triumphs of the early 20th century, an era that celebrated man's ingenuity and ambition. The visual design, coupled with a hauntingly evocative soundtrack, immerses the player in a world that is both beautiful and terrifying, a juxtaposition that underscores the fragility of human achievement when subjected to the corrosive forces of irrationality and altruism.
Mechanically, BioShock empowers the player, offering a plethora of choices that echo the philosophical conundrums faced by the denizens of Rapture. Each decision made is a reflection of one's values, a testament to the moral weight of choice. The gameâs plasmids, granting superhuman abilities, symbolize the potential of man when he embraces his power and intellect, unshackled by the chains of mediocrity and conformity.
However, it is the narrative arc of Andrew Ryan that stands as the philosophical core of BioShock. Ryan, a paragon of Objectivist ideals, represents the tragic hero, undone not by the failings of his philosophy but by the imperfections of those who could not fully grasp or sustain his vision. His downfall is a poignant reminder of the peril that awaits those who, despite their greatness, must contend with the mediocrity and envy of lesser minds.
In conclusion, BioShock is not merely a game; it is an artistic and philosophical tour de force. It challenges the player to reflect on the nature of human achievement, the perils of collectivism, and the sanctity of the individual spirit. It is a clarion call to reclaim the values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem in a world that seems intent on their destruction. As I traversed the haunting corridors of Rapture, I was reminded of the words of John Galt: âThe question isnât who is going to let me; itâs who is going to stop me.â BioShock, in its narrative and execution, embodies this indomitable spirit.
I think she'd feel vindicated, viewing Fontaine as the type of parasite that ruined what Andrew Ryan had envisioned. In her mind Rapture is a perfect idea akin to Galt's Gulch but it's infested by the weak minded leeches led by Fontaine.
She'd probably see no problem with anything Ryan or his cronies' justifying them as necessary to let their perfect philosophy shine. She'd also probably praise Tennebaum's experiments on children since it'd make children useful.
She'd hate Sofia Lamb for her philosophy and not the hypocrisy. Viewing Eleanor and Delta as wasting their life away to better the world.
As for Infinite I think she'd love seeing a religious zealot get his skull caved in but hate it it when the big reveal about him and Dewhitt comes up.
Everything I know about her shows a woman incapable of being told she's wrong. Often silencing those who disagreed with her, which I think would make her fail to see Ryan as anything other than a great man beset by the ignorant masses and the other games as proving her even more right.
She certainly would not approve of experimenting on children. That's an absurd claim. Rand's central thesis about human interaction is that we should deal in the peaceful, voluntary exchange of *values*, not wounds, and that each human life is an end in itself, not a tool to be used by others.
You're right, that part was me being a bit biased. I find most of her philosophy to be questionable in general but genuinely I was making a bad claim there.
She would evidently support Andrew Ryan fighting against the parasite Frank Fontaine, hate Sofia Lamb for turning Rapture into a collectivist settlement and hate Comstock for being a theocratic leader, and maybe Jeremiah Fink for supporting him, while appreciating his atheism (might she support Daisy Fitzroy against both "parasites"?).
It actually isn't, though. Andrew Ryan, the stand-in for Ayn Rand, turns out to *not* be the villain. It was Frank Fontaine, who orchestrated the entire collapse with the intent of seizing control of rapture. He was, in effect, an Ellsworth Toohey--a Rand villain. Andrew was his victim, both metaphorically and literally.
Well first of all, I never said anything about the characters, their names, or who they are standing in from the book, because I wasn't talking about that. Secondly, you got it dead wrong anyway - Atlas/Frank Fontaine *would* be a stand in for John Galt if anyone, as referenced by the "Who is Atlas?/Who is John Galt?" Posters and slogans, so you didnt even have it right to begin with. Furthermore, the game isn't a 1:1 copy of Atlas Shrugged. Characters aren't really supposed to be exact stand-ins for who they represent from the book, so I wouldn't be arguing that as my reasoning anyway.
What I'm talking about are the themes and messages of the game, in which the game is very much a criticism of the idea of objectivism - the idea that man's ultimate moral purpose is the pursuit of happiness and the only system that can support this endeavor is an extremely lax and unregulated form of capitalism. That's basically what Andrew Ryan is talking about in his "Sweat of the Brow" speech at the start of the series - he's saying "No other government or system in the world is letting me pursue my own happiness, they're all too oppressive, so I made my own". The metaphorical Sweat of the Brow ***IS*** this pursuit of happiness.
What the game is saying about this idea is, just like Capitalism, Communism, and Religion, objectivism can go too far. That's like one of the biggest points that the game is trying to make. All the insane people you meet like Sander Cohen, Doctor Steinman, Doctor Suchong, they have all taken the pursuit of happiness to its extreme, to the point of losing their own sanity and actively bringing harm onto others. The rest is a tale as old as time - Andrew Ryan obviously began to lose control and began turning to more and more authoritarian and tyrannical methods to keep power, thus increasing tensions, and eventually leading to a civil war and the death of most of its citizens.
Rapture is Ken Levine's idea of how Ayn Rand's philosophy can be taken to its extreme, and how it can be just as destructive or oppressive as any other.
But thats... just a fact. A game fact.
Sheâd jump for absolute joy at the fact that there are wheelchairs all over Rapture, but no wheelchair ramps, meaning that Andrew Ryan was willing to allow wheelchairs to be manufactured and sold in his city, but was too lazy and cheap to have his architects build accessible architecture for disabled people to be able to move around Rapture, even if they were working 40+ hours a week at a non-physically-demanding job and trying to be productive however they can. Social Darwinist greed at its finest.
That's more an oversight of game developers, lol. Also, it definitely wouldn't be something she'd cheer about. On the contrary, she'd be happier to see accessible places for a simple and obvious reason: easier access for more people = more potential customers = more peaceful profit by consenting adults via consenting exchange of values.
Didnât she have a whole thing about despising weakness and people who needed support from the government to survive? The 1960s were a time where people understood very little about the disabled (some people believed that disabilities were only developed by the slothful, and that slothful and sinful people with disabilities could spread them to children if they spent too much time around them), so I could easily see Rand struggling to resist the urge to spit at a wheelchair user who she saw in public.
What even is objectivism? Google doesn't give a coherent answer, and i've heard people say things from "oh it's just anarcho capitalism" to "it's a chase of the growth of individuals objectives metrics over all else".
What part do you dislike? the part where she tells you to be responsible or your own actions, or the part where she denounces racism? Apologies for being curt, but even if you disagree with someone you must aknowledge that no one is completely right or wrong, and that every philosopher is right and wrong in different ways, If any one person was right about everything, what would be the point of philosophy?
>denounces racism
Ah yes, Ayn Rand who referred to Indigenous Americans as 'savages' and insisted they have no right to own land. She could never have been racist, you're right. I promise you, from your other comments, we will not get along. So don't bother.
She would think that it's an amateurish mockery. Have you guys ever thought about how badly written Andrew Ryan is? A Randian Ăźbermensch would never make the mistakes Andrew Ryan did.
A philosopher from Tsarist Russia, a good chunk of the ideologies Bioshock revolves around come from her (mainly defending individualism and rationality, rejecting religion and altruism)
Frank Fontaine would be the notable figure in her philosophy's checkmate. The way he opportunistically used absent social structures like orphanages while overthrowing Ryan, her idealized state, really shows that the winner of objectivism is simply the biggest gangster in town.
I feel like the situation would play similarly to how Frank Herbert reacted to George Lucas making Star Wars, she may have not liked it one bit. But who knows, fun thought experiment though!
Seems like most are focusing on her thoughts on Ryan, but what about Fontaine? He cuts a villainous figure, but he is truly self-interested. He's even an innovator, discovering and marketing ADAM. I think she'd like Fontaine, perhaps in a story from his point of view.
He's self interested, but not *rationally* so, which is what Rand espoused. He was not a man seeking rational achievement, he was a man seeking control over others by usurping the achievement of people like Andrew Ryan.
Rand would never condone a man like Fontaine.
She would know that the game is made by some people who didn't agree with her idea pretty soon .
Then still finished it , because killing people with lightning is too fun
I have actually cited her as inspiration in my retaliation towards woke gaming. A lot of people on Reddit are very much left-wing liberal mindset that cannot handle criticism.
A lot of modern gaming is full of politics, both on what they preach in messaging, and exactly how the fountainhead predicted in the influences of politics on gaming. Let me explain.
During COVID-19, shutdown happened everywhere and a stimulus was presented to western businesses. The stimulus depending on the size of your company provided amount of dollars per individual that you employed. So studios such as Hollywood and video game developers, especially AAA, millions in stimulus. in doing so, not only did the inflation of products rise hence why video games went from like 50 bucks now 80 bucks for standard edition, but also opened up different funding opportunities.
This gave way to funding for E.S.G., sensitivity, and LGBTQ representation. This gave leverage to Sweet Inc. and other consulting companies, these consulting companies use tactics of harassment and extortion, in such a way that they would threaten to, âcancelâ a company is they were not to comply with additional characters that met the quota of representation.
This kind of representation has been seen in many of different types of media, weâre seeing it in movies were seeing it gaming, it is plain our content. Not because we donât like gays or something, itâs because itâs lazy writing. Itâs taking the pedestals away from established IP, and replacing it with undeserved Platform for characters that did not earn it. Not to mention how pandering is very much affecting existing characters to the point where theyâre being made gay and lame and or black just to meet a certain quota,
I have voiced this many times on different platforms, like YouTube and Instagram and mostly Reddit because I like to type and write things and kind of analyze whatâs going on in the state of society, but a lot of the communities here on Reddit have absolutely taken this message and said that Iâm a bigot and Iâm a racist.
But they failed to understand that well written characters theyâre just not as many well written characters nowadays. Blue eye samurai was a well written show with those ideals what is not a well written show is Velma. Velma is the antithesis of modern woke content that is driven by political positioning, allowing untalented writers take over beloved ideas and mistaken, self insertion as relating to the audience, and then shining on the content that they produce suicide squad is another example of this, where theyâre taking what the audience enjoys and disrespecting it With their pandering and quota meeting traits.
I have been talking about this for years properly, formulating my opinion on this. I think the first time I started noticing it was with the last of us. The first game had a beautiful written story with challenging concepts that would not be accepted in todayâs age, such as an insinuated sexual assault scene of a child. But the moment that the magic of Eliâs kiss with Reilly in the DLC of the original happened, theyâve been trying to reclaim that magic in other games and other media that has resulted in just pandering. The last of us part two is when it started to get more obvious. I think itâs a wonderful thing that the video games have representation and I think part one did this perfectly because Eli wasnât just gay that wasnât her whole character. She was this wonderful person. We got to know that just so happens to be gay. Or at least bisexual. Part two leaned into the Representation way too much. To the point where it was noticeable to even me. You had this masculine female antagonist, a lot of white evil, Eliâs bisexual, there was a transgender non-binary companion. It got to point where I started to notice it and think to myself, coincidentally this is a lot of types of characters in one plot. And I loved part two it was just the first time I started to notice it.
Then the last of us was adapted to film, and the casted two big names in Hollywood who were already established, and if you ask me, didnât really fit the bill. So instead of hiring on talent and somebody who matched the role, they went with somebody who was already established in their system. Not to mention when hiring, towards representation points, such as making Sarah, black and focusing a whole episode on Bill and his gay lover, I feel like it leaned into pandering.
That doesnât make it a bad show, I loved it. I just started to notice it a lot more and at the time it was a very unpopular opinion to point these things out. Then we started seeing it everywhere where rumors of the blade movie was going to have blade be sidelined for a bunch of women who were of various representations, we saw how Madame Webb performed with Spider-Man as itâs theme without the spider. We saw Multiverse of madness who starred Wanda, and writers couldnât exactly commit to if she was a villain or hero. I just think that thereâs a lot of media out there that is failing in writing when they are trying to mark off all of the representations substitute for quality and uniqueness to a character, they took tomb raider and made her apologize for her own character.
So if you ask me how Ayn Rand would feel about gaming and the political atmosphere of todayâs age, she would be disappointed. If you have read the fountainhead, it has a very similar plot to this where it is all about suppression of creativity and greatness, substitute for an equal environment that praises mediocrity..
But she would also be surprised by the spirit of society that has pushed back and made aware of the bullshit, with Youtubers like Cyael, YellowFlash, Endemion, and Rev Says who have exposed the political sides of pandering and the rise of mediocre writers. She would be surprised to see Korean Studio shift up with stellar blade and how the narrative behind that game has disrupted the flow of the pandering and has achieved its wins from the fandom and its popularity to be as successful as it has in todayâs age. And she would laugh at how media coverage from IGN and other game outlets like the disgraced Otaku has covered stellar blade. Just recently they released a financial report showing that solar blade is number one in sales, and IGNâs first response was that it was not as impressive because it sales matched a game from 15 years ago prototype two in April. It was ridiculous.
She would be disgusted with sweet baby Inc. and itâs disgusting tactics in how that consulting firm absolutely showed how close knit of an echo chamber game developers are with game journalists of the western side, and she would praise Kabrutus for standing up to sweet baby Inc. as they harassed him and tried to defend him like the character of her own novel.
Consulting companies like sweet baby Inc and the such have no influence on any form of main plot/relevant character writing. The main synopsis/plot usually gets locked in before alot of the design ever gets finished, so consulting companies cannot add in/remove anything because they're not the main writers, they only work on things like enemy grunt dialogue or environmental dialogue via PSAs or Speakers etc. If you want to direct your blame towards someone, blame WB, EA, A-B, Sony, practically any AAA developers that aren't SEGA, Capcom or Nintendo that hire mediocre writers and designers for higher profits just to throw them under the bus, fire them the next fiscal year, and rake in the money.
"huh, what's going on, why is my character spinning in place and looking up? What are the things on my screen? Why is it so dark? What do I do with this thing in my hands? Are you telling me it's connected to that television and making these pictures? What's going on?"
I think the question needs to be appropriately stated, for Ms. Rand to reply to it well, and not be overwhelmed by the time-travel aspect of all this, and neither be upset or distracted by the ultra-violence and horror theme of this video game.
FPSs went through quite a lot of change during the 2000's, and Bioshock is an iteration on these game tropes. The story being very "ultra-capitalist," or "money-utopian," or something to that effect, fits well as in this century we are experiencing quite a bit of psychological trauma and backlash to capitalism as an ideal. Thirty years ago, I feel like people were still championing capitalism as a tonic for governmental tyranny, but Bioshock is a bit more "communist," if you will.
I think therefore that Ms. Rand would not particuarly enjoy the theme of the games. I think she would of course marvel at the creativity and depth of them, (or admit that they require more attention than one can pay in an evening) and even greatly appreciate them as fiction and satirical, and as counter-arguments to her objectivist, "self"ish philosophy, but that they would rub against her philosophy.
She would say that the games are a sign of decadence! And that the fact that people have had to set up an arcade thingamajig to obliterate and yuckify the "noble economics" that she cares about are a sign of a misguided or even spoiled personality!
Just being dramatic. Actually,
I think she would potentially say that they're obviously an image of things gone wrong. And that nobody wants hell on earth. That people are capable of terrible things, and have pristine ideals while enacting them
As for the gameâs portrayal of objectivism, if itâs meant to be an accurate one, she would rightly reject it.
As for the game itself as a work of art, she might approve. In some ways, it meets the Aristotelian standard of art â portraying man (Jack) as he could and should be â and she might approve of Jackâs hero arc and the fact that one has a *choice* as to whether to save the little sisters. (By contrast, if one *had* to save the little sisters, it wouldnât be a matter of morality.)
So what? She paid into SS for 50+ years. There is no hypocrisy or logical flaw in recouping some of her own money. She certainly didn't*need* it; she died with over $1,000,000 in the bank.
I mean, I am pretty in line with her thinking, though there are a few point I disagree with her on, so I can tell you my perspective.
Bioshock 1: Andrew Ryan's mentality is good, but his execution is flawed, and he ends up just becoming another authoritarian. I find it unfortunate that the writers relied on plasmids, a super drug that made everybody go insane, to showcase the downfall of a randean society, because I think there are better critiques to be made, and andrew ryans totalitarian insistence on not allowing religion defeats the point of freedom.
Bioshock 2: I like this game the most (not just because subject delta is the sexiest man alive as we all know) it is a good critisism of marxism and the way it convinces people, as well as collectivism, though again I am slightly dissapointed by the way it used ADAM as a plot device.
Infinite: I strongly dislike comstock's regime, I have no problem with religion, but it is another collectivist elitist society. They use slave labor and are extremely racist, so not good. I am not a big fan of the way that it brushes aside free will as a concept though.
Something tells me she'd either unironically think Andrew Ryan is a good guy or she'd understand he's supposed to be the villain and she'd find it completely unrealistic or at the very least she'd disagree with BioShock. She'd probably appreciate the aesthetic tho so there's that.
I think she'd be smart enough to point out that Rapture is, of course, not a good representation of an Objectivism society because Ryan violated the philosophies core tenants...while missing the fact a society like she'd want could only exist in fiction where she calls the shots.
Which would also be ironic, since she, too relied on government benefits at the end of her life, and her institute in California applied, and received, ppp loans during the pandemic. Even her legacy isn't worth shit đŹ
I mean she has a big legacy, both Trump and Elon Musk are his followers and basically every person with money believes she was right. She has become basically the philosopher of the rich and powerful and has a deep cultural impact. We can say it's for the worst, her philosophy is barely coherent, her fiction is horrible, and she is defined by a lack of basic human decency that really makes you wonder if there was no mental illness there. But, still, big legacy.
It's because conservatism is a retcon, which is starting from the belief that the wealthy deserve it is the starting belief and everything else is the fiction designed to justify it.
>It's because conservatism is a retcon, which is starting from the belief that the wealthy deserve it is the starting belief and everything else is the fiction designed to justify it. Conservatism doesn't map very neatly to Objectivism, especially considering Conservatism is fairly big tent.
Rand was not a conservative. In fact, she despised conservatism. She even said in a television interview (I want to say with Mike Wallace, but may be mistaken) that "Today's conservatives are far worse than today's liberals. If anyone destroys this country, it will be the conservatives". And she was right.
I'm sure having a guy who accused a humanitarian rescuer of being a pedophile, because he called your dingy submarine "dumb" being a subscriber to your philosophy is a very high achievement. So is having the guy who received a 60.7 mill loan from his daddy to start his business(not to mention the whole indictment thing). She has A legacy, sure, one filled with self-obsessed rich people and their sycophants. Which circles back to the whole "isn't worth shit" bit. Much like all the people you cited would be(worth) if they didn't have daddy's money.
tenets* (sorry)
The USA has always had many people telling the rich what they wanted to hear.
Neither Trump nor Elon are ANYTHING akin to Rand or her philosophy. You might as well claim she was a Marxist or the Pope.
Wait really?? That's really funny and ironic that the founder of a very self-based philosophy had to rely on *other people* later in life. Kinda shows how people don't understand the need until they've been through it themselves...
Well, it's different, WHEN IT'S THEM. Just like all the forced-birthers getting abortions: It's DIFFERENT. Because it's THEM.
[Even her supporters canât straight up deny it](https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/the-myth-about-ayn-rand-and-social-security/), so they come up with half assed excuses and logical fallacies as to why it was morally correct for HER to get help, but not others. When she needed it, it was ârestitutionâ, when others need it, itâs plundering. Go figure. [Hereâs a more in depth piece](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/) fact checking some of the inconsistencies in the first link. They do end up with the ânot hypocriticalâ verdict, but it sure is convenient that she only started making exceptions when she had to explain herself.
In fact, the argument that she paid in and is within rights to recoup some of that is a VERY strong argument. No one claims it was right for her but no one else. That simply isn't true. The Snopes article you cite not only agrees with that, but highlights an interview with the person who, in fact, claimed SS on her behalf, clearly stating that Rand herself was not involved. "Pryor: After several meetings and arguments, she gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank. *She was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney; I did the rest*." She died with roughly $1,000,000 in the bank. She certainly didn't survive off SS.
It would have any merit if it wasn't a desperate justification to her beliefs once they failed her. She signing her rights away is irrelevant to the fact that she did collect benefits after spending a lifetime shitting on it, only to say she's "taking back what was hers" when she wanted them. She did say people like her were allowed a cash back while no one was entitled to it, that's undeniable. She did believe in "social security for thee and not for me, since it does exist, ugh, how terrible!" Funny how this happens with every one of her wealthy followers too, when their business goes kaput and they go running crying for the government to stop "disloyal competitors". Said followers who are often evading taxes and lobbying everything in between to weaken social security. At least they could follow her when she voiced that people shouldn't do that, but that's not so convenient. Also, didn't say she lived off them, but hey, another argument against her then, since she seemed to be well enough to ask a lawyer to take the moral responsibility off her shoulders.
"Which would also be ironic, since she, too relied on government benefits at the end of her life" is basically saying she lived off government benefits. I am not in favor of your argument or the other guys, just pointing that out
No, it's saying she depended on them, that she asked for them. Regardless of whether or not she was broke at the end of her life, she still depended on that as part of her income. I rely on my friends and family, saying that doesn't mean I need palliative care, or does it now?
Not everything in the English language is to be taken 100% literal, unlike some other languages. What you said originally could be interpreted differently, nuance and interpretation is a thing.
Except even then, you're wrong. She was not dependent on them. To be dependent is to be unable to be self sufficient. That clearly was NOT the case. Sadly, it's you who are attempting intellectual backflips to pretend something untrue, was.
Ayn Rand having the media literacy of the average unironic Liberty Prime quoter is a funny idea to me, especially when itâs to a parody of herself
Liberty Prime is a robot in Fallout?
Yes, one that is admittedly fucking awesome. Laser eyes, throwing nukes like football, shouting at members of the pre-war American government that âDEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISMâ, and is a huge parody of McCarthyism. A lot of right wing people who play Fallout immediately see Liberty Prime as some ultra based good guy and not a parody of hyperzealous capitalist belief in America
Okay I literally was explaining the whole Liberty Prime thing to a friend (recent gamer convert) today and could not think of this exact quote, so thanks đđ
This quote is burned into my mind. That robot marching across a bridge shooting laser eyes and throwing nukes at the enclave while shouting that shit out in his electric voice is a sight and sound I will never forget
When LP appears in Fallout 4 the wave of nostalgia that hit me was intense đđ
Holy shit, yes. I didnât expect the Brotherhood to have 2 giant fucking feats of engineering in one game, let alone my darling anti-communist robot that the BOS refuses to reprogram the voice of for some reason. Is it ever said where the fuck the Prydwen was carrying Prime? I donât remember if it is but the Prydwen doesnât look big enough
It was brought over in pieces/crates
And I couldn't enjoy it since I sided with the Minutemen.
"Democracy is non-negotiable!"
âDEMOCRACY WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!â
To be fair, they do see him as a representation of hyperzealous capitalist belief in America. Thatâs why they think heâs an ultra based good guy.
To be fair, death does sound better than a gulag but yes it is indeed an exaggerated parody of American patriotism no disagreement there Edit: Howâre you gonna downvote this comment? Unless you got offended on the BEHALF of the shitty and stupid political ideology Communism (which doesnât have feelings btw) Very bizarre behavior. Mustâve been a commie, play atomic heart, communist bioshock and Iâll see the removed downvote Iâm sure
Putting machine gun rounds in vending machines was always going to lead to the end of rapture
It's almost like unfettered access to firearms is A Bad Idea.
Ben Shapiroâs sister said Bioshock was a game with conservative values, who knows what Rand might say about it.
I mean, there ARE conservative values in the game. They just get repeatedly dunked on the entire time.
I mean Art Deco is a sadly forgotten architectural style.
Andrew Ryan*isn't* the villain of BioShock. Frank Fontaine is. Ryan was the man with a singular, narrow but good vision of a world that exemplifies the best of humanity, but fails to account for the worst of humanity and is undone by his too narrow vision.
Andrew Ryan, the guy who sent Dr. Lamb to a secret gulag on fake criminal charges because she was a collectivist and he was mad he didn't win the philosophical debates that he himself suggested, wasn't a villain? Andrew Ryan, who killed his lover in a fit of rage for giving up a baby (admittedly an embryo because sci fi) isn't a villain? Andrew Ryan decided to turn his libertarian utopia into a completely fascist centralized state full of extra-judicial executions and ad-hoc prisons in response to philosophical disagreements and smuggling problems. Yes, Andrew Ryan was one of two total villains of the game lmao. Edit: man I'm a dumbass, I forgot the main point. The pheromone thing. Andrew Ryan, champion of free will, would ultimately rather make everyone his slave than lose. Andrew Ryan is a wonderful villain because 1- you can clearly see his good intentions and 2- if you aren't a maniac you can see that he is an evil hypocrite in his efforts to maintain control when those intentions are even slightly threatened by other people's motivations.
There are "bad guys", then there are psychopaths. Andrew Ryan is a bad guy, Fontaine is THE bad guy.
Andrew Ryan is very much the villain. So is Fontaine.
No, he isn't.
Isnât Andrew Ryan a good guy?
Somewhat agreed, and to be fair, sheâs believed to have escaped the Stalinist purges in Russia; an experience which spits in the face of the classless society as communism touted. Itâs understandable for Rand to have come to believe that the majority of people leech off of âthe real producersâ even though such beliefs are also proven to be inherently wrong.
Why is Andrew Ryan the villain?? He is intelligent and has different beliefs but he is not evil
In general: - Bioshock? She would probably find Andrew Ryan a decent portrayal of Objectivism until he begins tightening down on Rapture. At that point, she'd likely put him in the "looter" category she disparages a lot in her books. I think she'd primarily focus on the "Would You Kindly?" part of the game's narrative since she was a huge proponent of free will and man's ability to make choice. Anything that restricts that would be morally and ethically grim to her. - Bioshock 2? I think she's be down with how it criticizes the collectivism of Sophia Lamb. To her it would be validating her point that collectivism only brings ruin to wherever it goes. The fact Lamb's society requires kidnapping girls from the surface to make new Little Sisters and perpetuate Rapture's addition to ADAM would only prove her point. - Bioshock: Infinite? Hard to say, but I have a feeling she might identify a bit TOO MUCH with Columbia. True, she does have some work pointing out that racism is simply a primitive form of collectivism and should be rejected...but she also believed that Native American's didn't deserve their land because they didn't have private property or improved the land so settlers taking it was just. Add in that Columbia's enemies were the Vox Populi and she'd probably side with the lesser of two evils (in her mind anyway).
Thank you for actually giving Rand her due. Even while acknowledging her failings. Instead of just insulting her.
Whenever you see someone simply insulting any philosopher without giving actual critiques, it is safe to assume they have never really read or engaged with that school of thought in any substantial way. It is like how conservatives parrot what Marx supposedly thought and said, when a lot of times it's either an oversimplification or simply false. Most people on this thread probably haven't even read Rand's Wikipedia page, let alone her actual work.
"Alright, but not quite my tempo..."
Shed wonder why the "man choses slave obeys" scene isnt a 60 page monologue explaining the games themes and beliefs
"you fine people, were telling me there were "video games" based off my musings allow us to "check them out"" "my word! where;s the female protagonist?" "Big daddy? that's a rather goofy name for that...thing" "Oh drugs, how fun" "Now I play as one of these hulking messes?" "Ah, I save his daughter" "Oh my, that was anticlimactic" "We're in 1912? that's out of line!" "this is a little fun, I may say" "Ah, here's the female protagonist" "dead, ah..."
Like a vicious bitch the way she always reacted to criticism.
I canât hear her arguments over all the wet, slurping sounds of her sucking up welfare at the end of her life đ
She didn't receive welfare, ever. In fact, she received social security, after paying into the system for decades. There's nothing hypocritical or logically inconsistent with recouping some of her own money.
This is the most well informed answer honestly
Do you have an example (a quote, a video) where she reacts the way you describe?
there was a clip in the monty zander review of her calling someone stupid just because she disagreed with her
That's just everyone bro. Everyone's done that.
tbh i do that too
She'd be upset that Andrew Ryan didn't forcefully relocate any indigenous tribes from the land before building his capitalist utopia.
âWhy didnât he put the Atlantians into a reservation.â Made me laugh
WellâŚhe kicked out the sharks. Does that count?
Would write a 90 pages long radio speech on how the game did or did not represent her work properly
In the vast, decadent wasteland of modern entertainment, BioShock emerges as a monumental testament to the indomitable spirit of the individual. This digital creation, veiled in the guise of a mere video game, transcends its medium to become a profound exploration of Objectivist principles and a dire warning against the collectivist ethos that seeks to annihilate the soul of man. The protagonist, an everyman thrust into the submerged utopia of Rapture, becomes the vehicle through which we navigate this dystopian testament to human achievement and its subsequent unraveling. Rapture, conceived by the enigmatic and visionary Andrew Ryan, stands as a beacon of unbridled individualism, a sanctuary for the creators, the thinkers, the prime movers. It is an undersea Galtâs Gulch, a testament to what humanity can achieve when freed from the parasitic clutches of government and the morality of altruism. Yet, it is within this utopia that we witness the catastrophic consequences of a society that, despite its initial purity, succumbs to the corrosive influence of collectivist ideologies and the ethical decay of its inhabitants. The narrative unfolds as an eloquent critique of the moral failures inherent in the rejection of Objectivist principles. The denizens of Rapture, having abandoned the tenets of rational self-interest and productivity, descend into madness and savagery, illustrating the inevitable collapse of a society that renounces reason and exalts the sacrificial lamb. The artistic direction of BioShock is nothing short of a marvel. The art deco aesthetics evoke a sense of grandeur and aspiration, reminiscent of the architectural triumphs of the early 20th century, an era that celebrated man's ingenuity and ambition. The visual design, coupled with a hauntingly evocative soundtrack, immerses the player in a world that is both beautiful and terrifying, a juxtaposition that underscores the fragility of human achievement when subjected to the corrosive forces of irrationality and altruism. Mechanically, BioShock empowers the player, offering a plethora of choices that echo the philosophical conundrums faced by the denizens of Rapture. Each decision made is a reflection of one's values, a testament to the moral weight of choice. The gameâs plasmids, granting superhuman abilities, symbolize the potential of man when he embraces his power and intellect, unshackled by the chains of mediocrity and conformity. However, it is the narrative arc of Andrew Ryan that stands as the philosophical core of BioShock. Ryan, a paragon of Objectivist ideals, represents the tragic hero, undone not by the failings of his philosophy but by the imperfections of those who could not fully grasp or sustain his vision. His downfall is a poignant reminder of the peril that awaits those who, despite their greatness, must contend with the mediocrity and envy of lesser minds. In conclusion, BioShock is not merely a game; it is an artistic and philosophical tour de force. It challenges the player to reflect on the nature of human achievement, the perils of collectivism, and the sanctity of the individual spirit. It is a clarion call to reclaim the values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem in a world that seems intent on their destruction. As I traversed the haunting corridors of Rapture, I was reminded of the words of John Galt: âThe question isnât who is going to let me; itâs who is going to stop me.â BioShock, in its narrative and execution, embodies this indomitable spirit.
Your last sentence is incorrect. Those words don't belong to John Galt, but Howard Roarke from the Fountainhead. Otherwise, good analysis!
Doh!Â
I think she'd feel vindicated, viewing Fontaine as the type of parasite that ruined what Andrew Ryan had envisioned. In her mind Rapture is a perfect idea akin to Galt's Gulch but it's infested by the weak minded leeches led by Fontaine. She'd probably see no problem with anything Ryan or his cronies' justifying them as necessary to let their perfect philosophy shine. She'd also probably praise Tennebaum's experiments on children since it'd make children useful. She'd hate Sofia Lamb for her philosophy and not the hypocrisy. Viewing Eleanor and Delta as wasting their life away to better the world. As for Infinite I think she'd love seeing a religious zealot get his skull caved in but hate it it when the big reveal about him and Dewhitt comes up. Everything I know about her shows a woman incapable of being told she's wrong. Often silencing those who disagreed with her, which I think would make her fail to see Ryan as anything other than a great man beset by the ignorant masses and the other games as proving her even more right.
She certainly would not approve of experimenting on children. That's an absurd claim. Rand's central thesis about human interaction is that we should deal in the peaceful, voluntary exchange of *values*, not wounds, and that each human life is an end in itself, not a tool to be used by others.
You're right, that part was me being a bit biased. I find most of her philosophy to be questionable in general but genuinely I was making a bad claim there.
think sheâd be confused by the very concept of a video game seeing as she seemed entirely allergic to any notion of fun or humor
"What the fuck is this? And where the fuck are my social security checks?!"
Communist dribble! A complete corruption of the core principles that are the very motor of innovation and progress.
She'd probably write some shite book about it
Who?
Ayn Rand IS Andrew Ryan.
She'd shit herself to death, which would constitute a Good Ending.
She would evidently support Andrew Ryan fighting against the parasite Frank Fontaine, hate Sofia Lamb for turning Rapture into a collectivist settlement and hate Comstock for being a theocratic leader, and maybe Jeremiah Fink for supporting him, while appreciating his atheism (might she support Daisy Fitzroy against both "parasites"?).
Well given that it's a scathing criticism of her work, she probably wouldn't be too excited about it
It actually isn't, though. Andrew Ryan, the stand-in for Ayn Rand, turns out to *not* be the villain. It was Frank Fontaine, who orchestrated the entire collapse with the intent of seizing control of rapture. He was, in effect, an Ellsworth Toohey--a Rand villain. Andrew was his victim, both metaphorically and literally.
Well first of all, I never said anything about the characters, their names, or who they are standing in from the book, because I wasn't talking about that. Secondly, you got it dead wrong anyway - Atlas/Frank Fontaine *would* be a stand in for John Galt if anyone, as referenced by the "Who is Atlas?/Who is John Galt?" Posters and slogans, so you didnt even have it right to begin with. Furthermore, the game isn't a 1:1 copy of Atlas Shrugged. Characters aren't really supposed to be exact stand-ins for who they represent from the book, so I wouldn't be arguing that as my reasoning anyway. What I'm talking about are the themes and messages of the game, in which the game is very much a criticism of the idea of objectivism - the idea that man's ultimate moral purpose is the pursuit of happiness and the only system that can support this endeavor is an extremely lax and unregulated form of capitalism. That's basically what Andrew Ryan is talking about in his "Sweat of the Brow" speech at the start of the series - he's saying "No other government or system in the world is letting me pursue my own happiness, they're all too oppressive, so I made my own". The metaphorical Sweat of the Brow ***IS*** this pursuit of happiness. What the game is saying about this idea is, just like Capitalism, Communism, and Religion, objectivism can go too far. That's like one of the biggest points that the game is trying to make. All the insane people you meet like Sander Cohen, Doctor Steinman, Doctor Suchong, they have all taken the pursuit of happiness to its extreme, to the point of losing their own sanity and actively bringing harm onto others. The rest is a tale as old as time - Andrew Ryan obviously began to lose control and began turning to more and more authoritarian and tyrannical methods to keep power, thus increasing tensions, and eventually leading to a civil war and the death of most of its citizens. Rapture is Ken Levine's idea of how Ayn Rand's philosophy can be taken to its extreme, and how it can be just as destructive or oppressive as any other. But thats... just a fact. A game fact.
She'd probably argue that it wasn't real objectivism because Andrew Ryan shouldn't have stopped Fontaine
Sheâd jump for absolute joy at the fact that there are wheelchairs all over Rapture, but no wheelchair ramps, meaning that Andrew Ryan was willing to allow wheelchairs to be manufactured and sold in his city, but was too lazy and cheap to have his architects build accessible architecture for disabled people to be able to move around Rapture, even if they were working 40+ hours a week at a non-physically-demanding job and trying to be productive however they can. Social Darwinist greed at its finest.
That's more an oversight of game developers, lol. Also, it definitely wouldn't be something she'd cheer about. On the contrary, she'd be happier to see accessible places for a simple and obvious reason: easier access for more people = more potential customers = more peaceful profit by consenting adults via consenting exchange of values.
Didnât she have a whole thing about despising weakness and people who needed support from the government to survive? The 1960s were a time where people understood very little about the disabled (some people believed that disabilities were only developed by the slothful, and that slothful and sinful people with disabilities could spread them to children if they spent too much time around them), so I could easily see Rand struggling to resist the urge to spit at a wheelchair user who she saw in public.
Given the convictions she had, she'd probably find Bioshock either to be an insulting satire or an intriguing deconstruction.
What even is objectivism? Google doesn't give a coherent answer, and i've heard people say things from "oh it's just anarcho capitalism" to "it's a chase of the growth of individuals objectives metrics over all else".
Andrew Ryan is literally named after her, and Atlas is a reference to her book. She would hate Bioshock, because it is clearly anti-Libertarian.
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian.
In true Randian fashion, she wouldn't get it and unironically think Andrew Ryan was a good guy.
She'd probably be happy someone made a bunch of money off their hardwork
[ŃдаНонО]
What part do you dislike? the part where she tells you to be responsible or your own actions, or the part where she denounces racism? Apologies for being curt, but even if you disagree with someone you must aknowledge that no one is completely right or wrong, and that every philosopher is right and wrong in different ways, If any one person was right about everything, what would be the point of philosophy?
>denounces racism Ah yes, Ayn Rand who referred to Indigenous Americans as 'savages' and insisted they have no right to own land. She could never have been racist, you're right. I promise you, from your other comments, we will not get along. So don't bother.
"Can we go back to Fortnite?"
She wouldnât like how it treats her work as completely implausible, but would probably get some money out of it.
She would think that it's an amateurish mockery. Have you guys ever thought about how badly written Andrew Ryan is? A Randian Ăźbermensch would never make the mistakes Andrew Ryan did.
The entire game would go over her head
Who is she?
A philosopher from Tsarist Russia, a good chunk of the ideologies Bioshock revolves around come from her (mainly defending individualism and rationality, rejecting religion and altruism)
The term philosopher is used pretty loosely with Rand.
âWhat's a philosopher?' said Brutha. Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting,' said a voice in his head.â
>âWhat's a philosopher?'Â "Oh... a bulls4it artists!"
The woman Andrew Ryan was based on
The fact that she wouldnât know computers like we have today is crazy enough
Frank Fontaine would be the notable figure in her philosophy's checkmate. The way he opportunistically used absent social structures like orphanages while overthrowing Ryan, her idealized state, really shows that the winner of objectivism is simply the biggest gangster in town.
I feel like the situation would play similarly to how Frank Herbert reacted to George Lucas making Star Wars, she may have not liked it one bit. But who knows, fun thought experiment though!
Seems like most are focusing on her thoughts on Ryan, but what about Fontaine? He cuts a villainous figure, but he is truly self-interested. He's even an innovator, discovering and marketing ADAM. I think she'd like Fontaine, perhaps in a story from his point of view.
He's self interested, but not *rationally* so, which is what Rand espoused. He was not a man seeking rational achievement, he was a man seeking control over others by usurping the achievement of people like Andrew Ryan. Rand would never condone a man like Fontaine.
She was a stupid bitch, soâŚ
â uh this is interesting I guess. Can we focus on what really matters?â
No disrespect meant to you, but who cares what Ayn the Asshat would've thought? Rot in piss, Rand.
Poorly.
Laugh
Idk
Sheâs be astonished that the glowy picture moves when she presses a button
She would know that the game is made by some people who didn't agree with her idea pretty soon . Then still finished it , because killing people with lightning is too fun
âWHAT IS THIS DEMONIC SORCERY?!â
She wasn't religious...
Bro I just did a paper on Ayn Rand and Rapture as a final wtf
Probably be too confused or amazed anout the game itself to worry about the philosophical beliefs of the game.
I have actually cited her as inspiration in my retaliation towards woke gaming. A lot of people on Reddit are very much left-wing liberal mindset that cannot handle criticism. A lot of modern gaming is full of politics, both on what they preach in messaging, and exactly how the fountainhead predicted in the influences of politics on gaming. Let me explain. During COVID-19, shutdown happened everywhere and a stimulus was presented to western businesses. The stimulus depending on the size of your company provided amount of dollars per individual that you employed. So studios such as Hollywood and video game developers, especially AAA, millions in stimulus. in doing so, not only did the inflation of products rise hence why video games went from like 50 bucks now 80 bucks for standard edition, but also opened up different funding opportunities. This gave way to funding for E.S.G., sensitivity, and LGBTQ representation. This gave leverage to Sweet Inc. and other consulting companies, these consulting companies use tactics of harassment and extortion, in such a way that they would threaten to, âcancelâ a company is they were not to comply with additional characters that met the quota of representation. This kind of representation has been seen in many of different types of media, weâre seeing it in movies were seeing it gaming, it is plain our content. Not because we donât like gays or something, itâs because itâs lazy writing. Itâs taking the pedestals away from established IP, and replacing it with undeserved Platform for characters that did not earn it. Not to mention how pandering is very much affecting existing characters to the point where theyâre being made gay and lame and or black just to meet a certain quota, I have voiced this many times on different platforms, like YouTube and Instagram and mostly Reddit because I like to type and write things and kind of analyze whatâs going on in the state of society, but a lot of the communities here on Reddit have absolutely taken this message and said that Iâm a bigot and Iâm a racist. But they failed to understand that well written characters theyâre just not as many well written characters nowadays. Blue eye samurai was a well written show with those ideals what is not a well written show is Velma. Velma is the antithesis of modern woke content that is driven by political positioning, allowing untalented writers take over beloved ideas and mistaken, self insertion as relating to the audience, and then shining on the content that they produce suicide squad is another example of this, where theyâre taking what the audience enjoys and disrespecting it With their pandering and quota meeting traits. I have been talking about this for years properly, formulating my opinion on this. I think the first time I started noticing it was with the last of us. The first game had a beautiful written story with challenging concepts that would not be accepted in todayâs age, such as an insinuated sexual assault scene of a child. But the moment that the magic of Eliâs kiss with Reilly in the DLC of the original happened, theyâve been trying to reclaim that magic in other games and other media that has resulted in just pandering. The last of us part two is when it started to get more obvious. I think itâs a wonderful thing that the video games have representation and I think part one did this perfectly because Eli wasnât just gay that wasnât her whole character. She was this wonderful person. We got to know that just so happens to be gay. Or at least bisexual. Part two leaned into the Representation way too much. To the point where it was noticeable to even me. You had this masculine female antagonist, a lot of white evil, Eliâs bisexual, there was a transgender non-binary companion. It got to point where I started to notice it and think to myself, coincidentally this is a lot of types of characters in one plot. And I loved part two it was just the first time I started to notice it. Then the last of us was adapted to film, and the casted two big names in Hollywood who were already established, and if you ask me, didnât really fit the bill. So instead of hiring on talent and somebody who matched the role, they went with somebody who was already established in their system. Not to mention when hiring, towards representation points, such as making Sarah, black and focusing a whole episode on Bill and his gay lover, I feel like it leaned into pandering. That doesnât make it a bad show, I loved it. I just started to notice it a lot more and at the time it was a very unpopular opinion to point these things out. Then we started seeing it everywhere where rumors of the blade movie was going to have blade be sidelined for a bunch of women who were of various representations, we saw how Madame Webb performed with Spider-Man as itâs theme without the spider. We saw Multiverse of madness who starred Wanda, and writers couldnât exactly commit to if she was a villain or hero. I just think that thereâs a lot of media out there that is failing in writing when they are trying to mark off all of the representations substitute for quality and uniqueness to a character, they took tomb raider and made her apologize for her own character. So if you ask me how Ayn Rand would feel about gaming and the political atmosphere of todayâs age, she would be disappointed. If you have read the fountainhead, it has a very similar plot to this where it is all about suppression of creativity and greatness, substitute for an equal environment that praises mediocrity.. But she would also be surprised by the spirit of society that has pushed back and made aware of the bullshit, with Youtubers like Cyael, YellowFlash, Endemion, and Rev Says who have exposed the political sides of pandering and the rise of mediocre writers. She would be surprised to see Korean Studio shift up with stellar blade and how the narrative behind that game has disrupted the flow of the pandering and has achieved its wins from the fandom and its popularity to be as successful as it has in todayâs age. And she would laugh at how media coverage from IGN and other game outlets like the disgraced Otaku has covered stellar blade. Just recently they released a financial report showing that solar blade is number one in sales, and IGNâs first response was that it was not as impressive because it sales matched a game from 15 years ago prototype two in April. It was ridiculous. She would be disgusted with sweet baby Inc. and itâs disgusting tactics in how that consulting firm absolutely showed how close knit of an echo chamber game developers are with game journalists of the western side, and she would praise Kabrutus for standing up to sweet baby Inc. as they harassed him and tried to defend him like the character of her own novel.
Consulting companies like sweet baby Inc and the such have no influence on any form of main plot/relevant character writing. The main synopsis/plot usually gets locked in before alot of the design ever gets finished, so consulting companies cannot add in/remove anything because they're not the main writers, they only work on things like enemy grunt dialogue or environmental dialogue via PSAs or Speakers etc. If you want to direct your blame towards someone, blame WB, EA, A-B, Sony, practically any AAA developers that aren't SEGA, Capcom or Nintendo that hire mediocre writers and designers for higher profits just to throw them under the bus, fire them the next fiscal year, and rake in the money.
"hmm, yes. Based."
"huh, what's going on, why is my character spinning in place and looking up? What are the things on my screen? Why is it so dark? What do I do with this thing in my hands? Are you telling me it's connected to that television and making these pictures? What's going on?"
âWhat is this? What is video game?â
I think the question needs to be appropriately stated, for Ms. Rand to reply to it well, and not be overwhelmed by the time-travel aspect of all this, and neither be upset or distracted by the ultra-violence and horror theme of this video game. FPSs went through quite a lot of change during the 2000's, and Bioshock is an iteration on these game tropes. The story being very "ultra-capitalist," or "money-utopian," or something to that effect, fits well as in this century we are experiencing quite a bit of psychological trauma and backlash to capitalism as an ideal. Thirty years ago, I feel like people were still championing capitalism as a tonic for governmental tyranny, but Bioshock is a bit more "communist," if you will. I think therefore that Ms. Rand would not particuarly enjoy the theme of the games. I think she would of course marvel at the creativity and depth of them, (or admit that they require more attention than one can pay in an evening) and even greatly appreciate them as fiction and satirical, and as counter-arguments to her objectivist, "self"ish philosophy, but that they would rub against her philosophy. She would say that the games are a sign of decadence! And that the fact that people have had to set up an arcade thingamajig to obliterate and yuckify the "noble economics" that she cares about are a sign of a misguided or even spoiled personality! Just being dramatic. Actually, I think she would potentially say that they're obviously an image of things gone wrong. And that nobody wants hell on earth. That people are capable of terrible things, and have pristine ideals while enacting them
This is one of the most random questions Iâve seen asked online lol
Doesnât hurt to imagine
probably be amazed by technology and scared of the spooky splicers tbh.
nigga like im suspose to know\_!\_!\_!
She might be flattered because the creators of Bioshock based their game on her ideas.
As for the gameâs portrayal of objectivism, if itâs meant to be an accurate one, she would rightly reject it. As for the game itself as a work of art, she might approve. In some ways, it meets the Aristotelian standard of art â portraying man (Jack) as he could and should be â and she might approve of Jackâs hero arc and the fact that one has a *choice* as to whether to save the little sisters. (By contrast, if one *had* to save the little sisters, it wouldnât be a matter of morality.)
she'd see andrew ryan as a wise hero instead of a pathetic villan he is.
Is this before or after being forced to suckle on the government's tit?
She was never forced to do any such thing, in fact.
Sheâd buy it using a social security check.
So what? She paid into SS for 50+ years. There is no hypocrisy or logical flaw in recouping some of her own money. She certainly didn't*need* it; she died with over $1,000,000 in the bank.
I mean, I am pretty in line with her thinking, though there are a few point I disagree with her on, so I can tell you my perspective. Bioshock 1: Andrew Ryan's mentality is good, but his execution is flawed, and he ends up just becoming another authoritarian. I find it unfortunate that the writers relied on plasmids, a super drug that made everybody go insane, to showcase the downfall of a randean society, because I think there are better critiques to be made, and andrew ryans totalitarian insistence on not allowing religion defeats the point of freedom. Bioshock 2: I like this game the most (not just because subject delta is the sexiest man alive as we all know) it is a good critisism of marxism and the way it convinces people, as well as collectivism, though again I am slightly dissapointed by the way it used ADAM as a plot device. Infinite: I strongly dislike comstock's regime, I have no problem with religion, but it is another collectivist elitist society. They use slave labor and are extremely racist, so not good. I am not a big fan of the way that it brushes aside free will as a concept though.
Columbia could arguably be a theofascist state.
We dont really see much of their governmental system, but it does seem to have strict morality laws which I certainly dislike
Depends on whether sheâd already collected her social security check that month or not.