Why must Bioshock and Metroid Prime 3 come out within 1 day of one another.
It's maddening.

I guess I'll play both of them at once. It's the only option.

Thank you, Chris, for making me remember The Fountainhead all over again. Jerk.

And here I was, convinced that I'd rather castrate myself than ever lay eyes on anything related to Ayn Rand ever again.

Ayn Rand : intellectual sophistication :: gory games : maturity

Objectivism sucks. That is all.

"With hefty dollops of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's political ideology, on display not only in the game's story but in it's construction, BioShock roughly mirrors the plot of Rand's polemical Atlas Shrugged."

I had no idea. Well there goes any interest I had in this game.

"Knowing that may not interest some of you, they're of course eager to remind everyone that it's also a 'kick-ass shooter.'"

Yeah, and the creators of Eternal Forces (The Left Behind Games, game) thought their RTS was pretty awesome too.

No thanks in either case.

I could say a few things (mostly good, some bad) about Ayn Rand, but this is hardly the environment I want to get into a political discussion with. However, I will note that this may be one of the more interesting FPS games I've read about, and I will probably check it out someday, when 360's are not quite so expensive.

Could you slow down the "I hate Ayn Rand" bandwagon, I would like to hop on...

Um, I took the fact that the game is set in a FAILED meritocratic utopia as a rejection of Rand's philosophy. But without having played the game, I guess I'm not as savvy on the topic than the Joystiq staff.

Er, "as" the Joystiq staff.

"In the 1940s, one Andrew Ryan, "
Andrew Ryan = Ayn Rand -rew = fail = Rapture

I read the comment about the guy making you ask a "deep" question like "is it really okay to kill it if it just LOOKS like a little kid?" (paraphrasing) and really that's not deep at all. The answer is obvious. If it's at all as intelligent as a little kid, of course not. If it's only as smart as a badger, well it'll be the best badger I've ever eaten, if I need it to survive. I mean seriously, this isn't hard stuff. The previews I saw though DID indicate these little monsters are smart. They communicate and seem to know how to use a syrenge and everything. Of COURSE we shouldn't kill them if we can avoid it. Yeesh, I thought they were actually TRYING to be deep here. Anyone who ever watched Star Trek already has a mindset that intelligent aliens should have all the rights humans do. That's old hat. Try making me wonder why killing intelligent beings is wrong at all or something!

Ayn Rand, oh yes, now THERE'S a painful bit of reading. Yeah, according to her if someone gets in your way and getting rid of them will benefit you in the long run in all ways, it is your moral obligation to eliminate them, not just "okay". I'm afraid I can't sign up for that. I'm fine just not hurting people for the sake of not hurting them as it's own end thanks.

you people have no fucking clue what Ayn Rand was all about.


i was ready to skip tis game before, but now I'm kind of interested.

Chris, here's what I was going on:

"With hefty dollops of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's political ideology, on display not only in the game's story but in it's construction, BioShock roughly mirrors the plot of Rand's polemical Atlas Shrugged."

Sorry if I misinterpreted. I'm as excited for this game as you are, so please don't take my comments as a dismissal of the game. I was merely saying that I understood the game to be more of a rejection/skewering of Objectivism than a "mirror" of the book. And I didn't read the article because I feel like my enjoyment of the game will be enhanced by not reading all the previews of it. I want to enjoy the game on my own terms when it comes out, not have my experience be influenced by pre-release criticism/reaction. (That's also why I allowed that you guys probably know more about this game than I do, though looking back, I suppose that comment could be interpreted as sarcasm. I didn't intend it that way, though.)

"Ayn Rand, oh yes, now THERE'S a painful bit of reading. Yeah, according to her if someone gets in your way and getting rid of them will benefit you in the long run in all ways, it is your moral obligation to eliminate them, not just "okay". I'm afraid I can't sign up for that. I'm fine just not hurting people for the sake of not hurting them as it's own end thanks."

That's absolutely untrue. Objectivism is against all kinds of force, which is the reason why it opposes economic regulation. You may not kill anyone for your own ends, since that is parasitic and immoral. Rand very much believes in the ideas of "life, liberty and property" and she believes that to deny anyone of these is immoral and wrong.

I never really understood why people hate Ayn Rand with such ferocity, but perhaps many simply don't understand it. It's really not as radical of a philosophy as people seem to make it out as.

Anyway, I thought this game looked cool, but I didn't realize it addressed objectivism. Now I'm thoroughly intrigued.

System Shock 1 & 2 were amazing. I am so looking forward to this.

And if you don't like Ayn Rand you SHOULD castrate yourself so your Chomsky-reading DNA never gets passed on.

I don't know about all you haters, but when I finished the last page of The Fountainhead I felt all warm and fuzzy inside. And Cryofax, that random Chomsky dis was hilarious. All this Objectivist madness is the only thing that interests me about this game. I've seriously had my fill of shooters since last millennium.

This game looks awesome.

John Galt sets up his little utopia, and it's just a few years ago before everyone is clawing each other's eyes out and screaming, "Here's my self-interest, bitch!"

As Levine says, when you set up a society of self-proclaimed elites, nobody really wants to clean the toilets.

I'm really hoping they pull this one off.

geezus did any of you people actually read the fountainhead or atlas shrugged?

a. it glorified the men and women of the mind; the men and women who made things possible (inventors, engineers, industrialists, hard working honest people)without selling their "souls". over the people who would simply destroy others for the sake of controlling holding some power over them

b. taught you that your life is your own, does not belong to anyone else nor can you live someone elses' and that you shouldnt give up your dreams, ambitions and goals just to make other people happy and that those that do usually have an ulterior motive

and there was more than just the above 2 examples
most of the people who whine about ayn rand books rarely got the point

"And if you don't like Ayn Rand you SHOULD castrate yourself so your Chomsky-reading DNA never gets passed on."

Really? You think just READING Noam Chomsky is enough to keep someone out of your Intellectual Valhalla?

I don't really think you got the point of Rand, either.

Ayn Rand Defense Force, assemble!

"I didn't say it supported "Objectivism"! Simply that the game addresses it. Please read the source article before you start erroneously damning the entire game. Here's an apt quote: "By both highlighting and skewering Objectivism, Levine's on the warpath against zealots.""

Go back and read that section again. Neither you nor the author seem to understand what Levine is doing. From the quoted language:

"Real people aren't perfect. That's the problem with ideologies. Real people carry out ideologies. So even the best of intentions gets screwed up."

Substitute "Objectivism" with "Communism" and you'll see he's simply trying to rehabilitate Objectivism. IOW, it's not the ideology's problem these people couldn't get it right. "Communism is awesome. Too bad the Soviets screwed it all up!"

Levine again: "One of the things that's very appealing about Rand to me, and about Rapture, is at least in the beginning they're driven by reason."

Objectivism is very appealing to him. Do you still stand by the author's belief that the game "skewers" Objectivism?

He's on the "warpath against zealots." "Zealots", those who are unable to implement Objectivism, not Objectivism itself.

I can pretty much guarantee, even if I didn't read what he said, that Levine didn't decide to make a game to attack a thoroughly discredited philosophy that finds its last refuge amongst marginalized loners and college students (obviously some overlap).

I'm not going to debate Objectivism here simply because one can go elsewhere to reach their own conclusions. However, to believe that Levine isn't endorsing Objectivism in this game, based on everything in that article, I think is to miss his clear intentions.

I'll add to psychoticdream - I honestly can't recognise the smallest bit of the typical accusations against Rand in the book. If the premise was "if it benefits you to kill someone then do it", why would the group of creators help each other rather than turn each other in for a reward? Why did they not gas the continent and make use of the scrap material? It is an absurd interpretation, and yes, it does slightly appear like the accuser haven't read the book.

The central theme in my view, as exemplified by the extremely strong Rearden family scene, is that whoever gives deserves thanks. As simple as that, if you go out of your way to defer to others, then you _should have_ their appreciation and thanks. Even for something as simple as paying tax. Rand does not at all say "Governments should not tax", she says "When the government taxes, it had better provide something good in return, and appreciate the payers".

This may sound like a theme so self-evident that its absurd, but remember that Rand's family fled from Russia. At the time, and in communist theory, someone who gives does NOT deserve thanks and is NOT a good person, because whatever that person had was in the first instance stolen from its rightful owners, and being born with good health and ability is simply a stroke a luck that puts an obligation on you to work for the less fortunate. I would even say that there is a significant number of people who hold a similar view today, especially that a 'rich person' cannot have a single redeeming feature, and that it is in their self-interest to portray Rand poorly. As such, if the true theme of Atlas Shrugged _is_ that it's right to kill people if it benefits you then I would be opposed to it, but as I can't see that, I support it.

Oh, and on Bioshock, I am concerned it might be overhyped. And the same goes for Spore.

Cue #23, why do you use as a method of ridicule and discredit to call someone 'marginalized loners'? I assume those are negative traits, as to emphasise their personal weaknesses in being shut out by the compassionate, warm, inclusive, intelligent majority?

to 24 michael the randy
its so simple to see the main themes from ayn rand's books that it just leaves one flabbergasted as to how people could get the message so skewed is it lazyness? ...an unwillingness to accept that there are things wrong with themselves or how they see the world out there?
but i digress
----
after reading the original article the only thing i can say is that we'll have to wait and see how the game approaches the themes found in "atlas shrugged", "the fountainhead" or "we the living"
but so far i'm interested :p

"I never really understood why people hate Ayn Rand with such ferocity"

because selfishness is daft, everyone and everything is connected

"because selfishness is daft, everyone and everything is connected"

The selfishness that we think of isn't the one that Rand talks of as moral; for example it's considered selfish to steal something, but that's still immoral by objectivism. It has more to do with rational self-interest, and living your life how you want to without violating the rights of others. So if you wanted to live your life as a philanthropist who does a lot of charity work, that would be absolutely in line with objectivism, just don't force anyone else to do the same.

As far as everything being connected...I don't see how that's true at all...

@25

Lt. Cmdr. Data: Captain, why do you use as a method of ridicule and discredit to call someone 'marginalized loners'? I assume those are negative traits, as to emphasise their personal weaknesses in being shut out by the compassionate, warm, inclusive, intelligent majority?

Capt. Picard: Well Data, one man's fact is another another man's "method of discredit."

Lt. Cmdr. Data: So a fact can also be a source of ridicule?

Capt. Picard: That's right Data. Indeed, highlighting an obvious, but unstated fact can often serve as a strong rhetorical device.

Lt. Cmdr. Data: Such as Commander Riker is fat?

Capt. Picard: That's right Data.

Lt. Cmdr. Data: But aren't rhetorical devices logical fallacies?

Capt. Picard: Oftentimes Data, but not necessarily. Other times, they are simply necessary to provide third-parties with a context to understand the participants in a particular discourse.

Lt. Cmdr. Data: So by stating that many fans of Ayn Rand are often marginalized loners, you are informing others unfamiliar with both Ayn Rand and her philsophy that there is an extensive history to this discussion, and that the philosophy has, effectively, no well-regarded adherents?

Capt. Picard: Exactly Data. [To Riker] Number One, ENGAGE!

AYN RAND IS FUCKING CRAZY

Who is John Galt?

JOYSTIQ POSTERS ARE FUCKING CRAZY

@30 and 32
not our fault you are too dumb to understand stuff beyond "dee deee dee" "jackass" or "southpark" now run along :p

I've only read Anthem and was amazed people could stomach her writing. Not her ideology, though I disagree with most of it, just the fact that she can't write.

I like better that it's examining the themes in Atlas Shrugged rather than just "mirroring" them. Thanks for the better explanation commenters.