If only my literature classes were half as engaging as this...
@WikiSorcerer
6 жыл бұрын
A few more decades and they'll probably create college classes about the cultural imperative of video games same as "Art Appreciation" and "Film Appreciation" and various literature classes.
@xXsomethingfishyXx
9 жыл бұрын
Why does this dude not have way more subscribers.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
xXsomethingfishyXx Good question! :P
@NewAgeGam3rs
9 жыл бұрын
xXsomethingfishyXx It's the classic KZitem problem. Channels that do more with games such as breaking down themes or looking at the science behind a game are vastly drowned out by Lets Play channels.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
New Age Gam3rs Yup. It's occasionally a sad thing to realize, that a 30-second video of a guy screaming over Call of Duty footage will always get more views than I ever will. But it's how it goes. What fans I do have like what I do, so I'm alright with it.
@NewAgeGam3rs
9 жыл бұрын
Well as I am a new comer to your channel I do enjoy your quality and topics of your videos. I enjoy breaking down games and learning whats behind it. I do that on my channel as well. I look at the science, technology, and philosophy behind games and look at the real life implications behind those elements. I'm always actively looking for channels like ours because I get sick and tired of the million Lets Play Channels.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Good to know there are people looking for this stuff, and glad you enjoy the channel! I enjoy that kind of analysis as well. ^_^
@robloxdude19
8 жыл бұрын
Fact: Ken Levine stated in a commentary for The Bioshock Collection that the final boss was a decision made by 2K and NOT Irrational and as such, even he states that the ending was a mistake and moral choice system were never intended to be in the game.
@Lucas-ez4uj
6 жыл бұрын
Minarus Infernus GODDAMN IT STRAUSS ZELNICK
@KoryLunaa
5 жыл бұрын
@@Lucas-ez4uj GODDAMIT GRANDMA
@doctorroach1680
4 жыл бұрын
Really? where can I find this? Btw what was the intended ending then? Was the good ending supposed to be the intended one or the bad ending?
@catpurrito5586
3 жыл бұрын
Its funny that he gonna makes a linear game that offers no choices when the game is about free will. How can you say there are free will in your game when you was gonna offered us no choices
@Aq-ii8nv
2 жыл бұрын
@@catpurrito5586 and you missed the point.
@belindacarmona8482
6 жыл бұрын
When it comes to the Little Sisters, I think it actually fits in with the story, specifically with Ryan's view of choice. He believes that men make choices, but in the end those choices end up making the man. So the moral system of choice is the only time Jack is allowed to have free will, so in those moments he is a 'man' rather than a 'slave'. And, just like Ryan said, Jack having a choice in how he treats the Little Sisters ultimately forms what sort of person he is, reflected in the ending. So, in the end, Jack truly becomes a 'man' because of the one choice he was able to make throughout the story, the one time he was allowed to exercise his free will. That's just my take on it though. Personally, I was never really bothered by the moral system.
@ApplesandDragons
2 жыл бұрын
Cool take, but I think the "allowed to have free will" part shows what's going on. Jack was only able to save the little sisters because he was allowed to. If Atlas had used If You Kindly to make Jack kill the little sisters, he would have killed them. So I don't know if it's fair to say Jack had free will regarding the little sisters at all. Jack's freedom to save the little sisters comes from Atlas's attitude toward morality. When Jack encounters the first little sister, Atlas says right and wrong don't count for much down here. It's a line that tells us what Atlas thinks about right and wrong, that morality is relativistic. It also teases the player with moral relativism, cluing the player early on that Bioshock won't mind if he behaves like a hero or a monster. Anything goes. This moral freedom is inherently intriguing and alluring to people, because it's an opportunity to explore our darker sides and thereby learn things about ourselves and morality that we wouldn't be able to learn otherwise. However I think it's clear that Bioshock convicts the player for killing little sisters in the end, thematically demonstrating its stance against moral relativism. It convicts the player with critical dialogue from the little sisters, and by rewarding him less materially in the long run, and through the revelation that Atlas, the man who tempted the player with moral relativism to begin with, turned out to be the player's enemy the whole time who's using him and intends to discard him when he has worn out his usefulness.
@mrhorrorface
Жыл бұрын
I agree, but I would’ve loved it if you didn’t get as much ADAM out of it, it removes part of the Morals or Reward equation by essentially giving you more of a reward for three rescues than harvest’s in the long run, I also would’ve loved more endings, kind-of like the second game where having conflicting morals results in a less sweet but still fine ending, the two endings we have in the original game are too extreme to be enjoyable, the good one is satisfying but the bad one is a little too ridiculous for me
@mrhorrorface
Жыл бұрын
I agree, but I would’ve loved it if you didn’t get as much ADAM out of it, it removes part of the Morals or Reward equation by essentially giving you more of a reward for three rescues than harvest’s in the long run, I also would’ve loved more endings, kind-of like the second game where having conflicting morals results in a less sweet but still fine ending, the two endings we have in the original game are too extreme to be enjoyable, the good one is satisfying but the bad one is a little too ridiculous for me
@OliviaSoule
8 жыл бұрын
So in depth and well produced. Absolutely love it
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
Glad you liked it!
@MrShoebox21
7 жыл бұрын
I really hate to be pedantic, but we DO hear Jack's voice as a child when he's being experimented on by Suchong.
@biocaster777
3 жыл бұрын
Wait, that boy who broke puppy's neck was Jack?
@gemain609
3 жыл бұрын
@@biocaster777 yep!
@mrhorrorface
Жыл бұрын
And the opening to the game
@E-0921
Жыл бұрын
@@mrhorrorface that’s what the OPs comment is implying. We hear Jacks voice one other time BESIDES the opening.
@contrafatual
8 жыл бұрын
This is the best analysis of a game I have ever seen.
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
+Janos Biro M. Leite Thanks! Personally I think I outdid it with the Last of Us analysis, but this is one of my favorites I've done so far. And I just love Bioshock so much.
@mikeyman2010
8 жыл бұрын
+Games As Literature Will you do a follow-up with infinite and burial at sea? I feel the sequel is essential in filling in the whole bioshock narrative.
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
+mikeyman2010 I plan to do the series in order, yes, just spread out a bit. Doing them all too quickly would get it out of the way too quickly and alienate people who haven't played the series, so I'm spreading them out. Bioshock 2 is due in the coming months, if I remember my schedule correctly.
@mikeyman2010
8 жыл бұрын
Games As Literature Thanks, subbed and looking forward to it!
@contrafatual
8 жыл бұрын
Can I pick a bone with you on the ethics of Bioshock? I think the game is not really criticizing Objectivism (which I regard as a terrible way to think about ethics and economy). Yes, it rewards the player for sacrificing himself, but it also rewards the player for stealing, murdering, and committing other terrible things. The player is, after all, a slave, he does Fontaine's dirty work, and he is very corruptible. Not exactly a hero, even in the good ending, if you think about it. The ideia that Rapture could work if the "parasites" didn't interfere kind of remains. What do you think?
@DitisEmile
5 жыл бұрын
I absolutely LOVE this analysis to bits! Here's some small interesting facts that you forgot to include as well, though: * Andrew Ryan was Jewish, which actually was a huge part of his fear for the war. * When Brigid Tenenbaum 'participated' in Nazi Germany experiments she was still a child. (She was also Jewish and has Autism, so most of her participation was so she would stay alive.) * While it's never stated explicitly, the fact that Sander Cohen is gay is made very clear in subtext (it was widely believed he had sexual relations with his proteges/you later find out all his proteges are male when send out to kill them/etc.) and the Audio Diary about his ears is most likely about internalized homophobia. * I could go on, but these were the most interesting things I missed!
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
As for Bioshock being art under Rand's definition: It would qualify, as she did consider science fiction to be art (in fact, she was a Trekkie). Some of her stories are borderline-science fiction (Anthem was even titled "A short science fiction novel") However, she didn't much like abstraction in art. You can think of it like: A sculpture of a dragon is art, but a cube of granite with "Dragon" drawn on it in sharpie is not.
@vintheguy
3 жыл бұрын
i wouldn't pay any mind to what she has to say about art or really anything
@vintheguy
3 жыл бұрын
@Tom Ffrench I... I don't... What? I think you need to see more abstract paintings
@wolborg105
2 жыл бұрын
Weird to think she was a Trekkie considering her politics are completely opposed to the politics of Star Trek
@EdmundAlynJones
5 жыл бұрын
I can’t play FPS games because they give me “motion sickness” so this video has been the closest thing I’ve heard to experiencing this game. Thanks for your hard work on this.
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
To play devil's advocate, Bioshock could be argued to be pro-Objectivist, as harvesting the little sisters would qualify as "parasitism" (you're taking what they produced at their expense). Saving the little sisters is mutually beneficial for both Jack and the Little Sister (which is more in line with objectivism-you don't have to do harm to help yourself). Likewise, he frees the Little Sisters from a life of altruistic service to Rapture and the Adam Industry so that they are no longer slaves, and free to seek out what they want from life.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Matthew Campbell In one short paragraph, you made a better argument for Bioshock being pro-Objectivism than I've seen elsewhere. Seriously, I tried looking up those arguments before writing this episode, and couldn't find any I felt checked out. Well done. :D
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much! Oh, another thing: Rescuing the little sister is actually the first time Jack rebels against Atlas, and the only time Jack is shown to act like an individual rather than some mindless drone. By saving the little sisters, he's fulfilling both sides of the objectivist ethos: He doesn't sacrifice himself to Atlas, and doesn't sacrifice the little sisters to himself.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Makes sense. Though Atlas didn't actually command that he harvest the Little Sister, simply advised it, so it's hardly rebellion in the same way as later on. More of Jack acting within his freedoms, rather than grasping freedom that was denied to him by authority. My only major contention (which I of course realized this evening rather than when I replied to your original post) is that neither Jack nor the player are aware of the fact that saving the Little Sisters benefits them more in the long run, making the game less about acting simultaneously in your interest and that of others and more about giving of yourself and ending up richer for it.
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
Fair enough, though even given that, the pro-objectivist narrative still works (between profiting greatly while becoming a parasite, and profiting less while not trampling on the rights of others, the latter is the more 'objectivist' choice) Though that leads me to what my actual interpretation of the story: I like to think the bad ending is anti-objectivist, while the good ending is pro-objectivist. Evil Jack is a straw objectivist who uses the self-interest to harm others, while Good Jack is an objectivist paragon who helps break the chains of oppressive altruistic servitude to the parasites.
@zom6ieslayer9115
8 жыл бұрын
Oh please god would you kindly do Dark Souls!!
@giverofsnuggles
5 жыл бұрын
The real plot twist is that Sander Cohen is a hilariously-competent genius with precognitive powers. Calling it now: if there's ever a Bioshock 4, he'll be revealed as the mastermind behind everything.
@kellennicholson4488
3 жыл бұрын
They're making a Bioshock 4, and we'll see if you're right
@m0ZZaik
9 жыл бұрын
Charity is not immoral from the objectivist perspective. Forced charity is.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
+m0ZZaik Yeah, I've been informed of that since this video; the research I did in preparation for this episode indicated that it was, and it seems to line up with Rand's approach to those who don't contribute to society. But yes, this has been corrected since then.
@fab006
6 жыл бұрын
That’s actually not true. Yes, it’s immoral according to Objectivism to force charity, but that’s sort of a derivative issue (more political than moral). Nor is charity itself immoral. What’s immoral, according to Objectivism, is sacrifice: giving up a higher for a lesser value. And that is exactly what altruism demands: to sacrifice that which one values personally for the “greater good” (but lesser personal value) of others. And that is how much charity is presented and thought of. And *that* is immoral. Whether it is, objectively, a sacrifice to give charity in any one case depends on the personal objective values of the giver, but it can only be moral in the first place if he seeks to gain a value by it, rather than destroy one.
@fab006
6 жыл бұрын
Also, at the risk of nitpicking a two-year-old comment, Rand would be horrified by a phrase like “contribute to society” as applied to her views. That implies that society (others) are owed something, that one gains value from giving to others. She would rather talk about whether an individual is doing the best he can for himself, or not.
@shingshongshamalama
6 жыл бұрын
The problem with objectivism is that nobody follows its principles. Because its principles are built on the assumption that human beings have no morality, no emotions, no feelings and no flaws. It should be really telling that Ayn Rand herself was a hypocritical piece of shit who argued it was completely reasonable for her to have an affair with a younger, more handsome man. And then got butthurt about him doing the same to her without a shred of self-awareness or decency.
@fab006
6 жыл бұрын
It's quite telling that you feel the need to resort to profanity to smear a person who's been dead for 35 years... :/
@Jaspertine
2 жыл бұрын
One point I kept waiting for you to make is that Andrew Ryan's dying statement (a man chooses, a slave obeys) is just flat out incorrect. The difference between a man and a slave is that a slave had choice taken away from him, usually through some form of coercion by external forces more powerful than himself. Objectivism is often very picky about when it does or doesn't accept the reality of people's material conditions, often preferring to believe men are simply better than slaves through some innate characteristic of their person. Choosing to believe a person's social status is an indicator of their value to society. If Ryan believed there was something innately special about his son that would allow him to simply choose to reject years of torturous mental conditioning, then his death was as inevitable as the fall of Rapture itself. And even as he lie dying, still taunting his own son for not being as rational and self-determined as he is, thinking he still got the last laugh, he clearly didn't learn a fucking thing from the experience and I don't feel the slightest bit bad that he died the way he did. Full disclosure here, I don't like Bioshock, and I found the twist kind of insulting.
@fireops
8 жыл бұрын
1:03:09 "altruism is rewarded" (paraphrasing) But isn't this in some ways saying and essentially conceding to the idea that objectivism, or at the very least selfishness, is the driving force of altruism. In Bioshock, being "altruistic" after all reaps you higher rewards. This essentially turns altruism from being a selfless act into more of an investment. "I will have access to less 'money' now, but I will have more later than if I'd not invested it into 'helping' ". In the financial world, while buying stocks of a company is giving said company more money to work with, you don't buy stocks out selflessness or altruism because you want to help Apple or BP, you buy stocks because you plan on reaping larger dividends than your initial investment (aka "sacrifice" of money). And while not all acts of altruism will result in a net positive monetary gain, you do always get something out of being altruistic. Always. That gain changes from person to person and situation to situation, but there is always a personal gain involved into an altruistic "investment". This can be positive reputation (or a negative reputation and ostracisation by society if you refuse to do so) if you do it with witnesses present. It can be an increase in self-worth or self-esteem. It might give you a sense of moral superiority. It might please your supernatural deity. You might do it because you think it will help the world (something you and potentially your offspring are and will be a part of). It might simply make you happy. But all of those reasons are for your own, essentially selfish reasons. If altruism would not be for your own gain, then it should not matter to you what someone does with the results of your sacrifice. If you give 20 dollars to someone in need and they literally burn the money in front of your eyes, and you get upset about that, then you deny them their own free will to do with said gift however the please, at which point you have to concede that you gave them to money for one of the aforementioned reasons. In conclusion, even charity and altruism could fit into a objectivist model, if one agrees to the theory that even selfless acts are purely a form of investment that are expected to reap some type of benefit for you, even if said benefit is purely satisfaction with yourself. Also: 22:16 Black kitty! 24:13 Tricolour kitty!
@Grizabeebles
8 жыл бұрын
The main problem with that is that the main proponents of a philosophy where people of exceptional ability are given total freedom are people who see THEMSELVES as "exceptional". People of that mold often find themselves falling into the traps that ensnared the characters in Bioshock. Ambition and a disregard for the well-being of others is a toxic combination in any society but its praised as a virtue by many of the more public voices advocating Objectivism. I don't think its possible to find a version of Objectivism that will find any traction among its current "fanbase" if it incorporates altruism as a mandatory component. A quick google search of "objectivism, altruism" can show that. Yet as Bioshock shows, no society can exist made up entirely of "winners" and that even exceptional people are still human beings. Simple probability shows that some individuals will be on the losing end of any unequal transaction. Objectivism abandons them to their own devices but fails to take into account that "quantity has a quality all its own." The health of the overall society is VITAL to creating an environment where the exceptional can prosper or the rest of society will turn on its leaders out of simple self-preservation. Society NEEDS exceptional individuals like Jack who either by choice or by compulsion SACRIFICE their own well-being for the good of the many WITHOUT thought of personal reward or else society will collapse into dictatorship or anarchy. Objectivism calls those people immoral fools. I call those people HEROES.
@ThePuppyTurtle
8 жыл бұрын
This is why it is important that the game deceive you into thinking that altruism will be punished.
@FNGLHR
6 жыл бұрын
Replaying the game recently, it is semi-punished. You cannot get a ton of Plasmids that may be helpful right away. You can only get a few. It takes three rescues each to eventually be reward and if you had just harvested you'd probably have gotten every plasmid and tonic you could want quicker and sooner. You certainly wouldn't have had to potentially choose between winter blast and upgrading your health So it's sacrificing the long term for short term immediate returns. The inevitable result of all greed and selfishness. I get what I want now at the expense of others rather than later through a vague promise I might be rewards. You have no reason to trust that Tenebaum will reward you or keep rewarding you. You just have to trust she's on the level and your good deeds will be rewarded somehow. There's no garuntee they will be though. Infinite probably does this better, as there is no immediately obvious reward for being moral or good. Only your own perception of what you feel is right and whether or not you can live with yourself after. Much like Booker who is denying his own guilt and refusing to face what he did. But I still feel the Little Sisters are a well done element illustrating the idea of empathy for others and sacrificing something for your own ends to achieve a greater whole. Even if Objectivism doesn't advocate harm and simply disuade charity, it's logical conclusion is abject selfishness. Rand herself promoted the exploitation of the Middle East and its resources based purely on the fact America was the only country capable of getting it. So even if it was in another country, it was America's by simple fact they developed the technology to get it. That's like saying my car belongs to the manufacturer even after sale and I'm obligated to give him a ride because he put the time and effort into building it for me. So, a little bit of hypocrisy there.
@Mrfiredog5656
6 жыл бұрын
Grizabeebles As someone who has worked with the ARI (Ayn Rand Institute), no voice has publicly supported chasing your self-interest to the detriment of others. Not one. So I’m curious as to whose voice you’re listening to? It can’t be anyone from the Institute.
@eja361
5 жыл бұрын
Man, I truly miss this class. I just replayed the remastered version of this game and was blown away by Andrew Ryan. Back when this game premiered I was too young to truly understand his character and now I can't get enough.
@dejavu3741
9 жыл бұрын
I will be honest when i played the game i saw it as pro objectivist throughout. If Ryan had stuck with his principles and allowed others to have trade with the outside world there would have been no black market for fontaine to garner his money and influence. because of this he would have not had the money to fund the Adam research but that is somewhat of a minor point because he could have made his money by any means but shows on of the first instances of Ryan failing to follow his own philosophy. The more pressing issue is ignoring the fact that one of the main pillars of objectivism is that one does not have the right to use force against anyone else in society. This point is somewhat muddied with the little sisters as they were voluntarily handed over under false pretenses to the research but they were still forced to become experiments without understood consent. After that the game goes off the rails as far as sticking with objectivism because almost everything is done via force. The nationalization of fontaine futuristics, forced surgeries, the "art". Not harvesting the little sisters is actually the more objectivist action because you are doing something that is beneficial to both parties although the consent is not given so it is technically not a voluntary interaction. On the other hand harvesting them is using force against them that has no benefit to them. So in the end choosing the mutually beneficial and arguably consented to method is rewarded. Also i slightly disagree with the assessment of Tennenbaum as you could argue that inorder to make herself feel better about what she had done in the past she is attempting to right her wrong doings. Framing it in this manner you could say that she has decided it is in her own rational self interest to restore the little sisters to their pre-experimental form. You could argue that she has restored her objectivist beliefs as she has rejected her previous use of force against others. All that being said in my opinion almost all of the negatives that occurred in rapture happened as a result of force, coercion, or the rejection of objectivism. That being said it is still #2 on my favorite games of all time list (behind Portal) and i enjoyed the thoughtful analysis and trip down memory lane. Sorry if this came across as defensive or argumentative i just had a different take on a couple situations. Subscribed, Liked and looking forward to checking out some other vids.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
+Cody Weber It didn't come across as argumentative; I love a good discussion from different viewpoints! But ultimately, yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I've seen a few arguments for the game's pro-objectivism since I made this video, and while I still mostly hold to the interpretation given here, I'm impressed at how much more sense it makes now that people have explained it in response to my own. I do tend to more easily understand other viewpoints when I can debate them with people, so maybe that's what I needed for it to make any sense. :P In any case, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
@nathaneskin3572
7 жыл бұрын
I think part of the point is that pure objectivism might be effective, but it just isn't possible and it would inevitably be exploited.
@lucalove2386
6 жыл бұрын
Would love to see more videos analysing games like this! I think it is interesting that Ryan's objection to Fontaine's smuggling is not a philosophical one but one out of the practicality of keeping Rapture secret. ("A city in the Ocean Deep, A promise we will always keep" ). Possibly this game is saying that this philosophy is feasible only if it has completely no contact with any other civilization.
@floh2959
7 жыл бұрын
one of the greatest regrets of my life is that I had the Bioshock 1 twist ruined for me (via Google images of all things) and I wish I knew what it felt like in that moment when the rug is pulled out from under your feet. great analysis and fantastic work!
@nathanielfishburn7653
8 жыл бұрын
Calvin & Hobbes put it well when describing why philosophies based on Selfishness don't work: "I didn't mean EVERYONE, you dolt, just ME!" It's all well and good to say we should fend for ourselves and the needy are parasites, until someone else decides it's YOU who's in their way, and until it's YOU who suddenly needs help.
@kissmyasthma3155
8 жыл бұрын
Bioshock Infinite! DO IT NOW!!!
@MarceloMinholi
8 жыл бұрын
Just before the final battle, when Jack's transformation is complete, he becomes part of a experiment to test if the objective to induce him to turn himself in a Big Daddy was done right. I think he really was turned in a Big Daddy and the ending is only part of the mind control applied to make him defend the little sisters in Rapture until death. In my interpretation he never left Rapture and all the happy ending is just the final lie used to consolidate his paternal love and make him act as a Big Daddy. During all the game he only kills splicers and the only real person he kills is your father, who represents is own principles and at the end he kills Atlas (thinking that is killing Fontaine), who represents his own ideals and objectives, turning himself irreversibly into a slave.
@hermanessences
8 жыл бұрын
Objectivism is misrepresented here. And in fact, the deal with the little sisters is the perfect example. It doesn't demonstrate the greatness of altruism, but of egoism. By saving these sisters, you are acting to your best interest _long term and in a complete way_ (i.e. ultimately gaining more resources, getting to see these girls happy, and not feeling like a monster) An example of a defense of altruism would be if you had the choice to save Atlas _after he betrayed you and tried to kill you_, and you could see no good reason to save him, but saving him would lead to a greater reward later that you couldn't possibly imagine. Altruism does not being nice to others, and egoism does not mean acting like a psychopath. It's about whether you really think about what is, and act towards, your overall self-interest, rather than putting your faith in someone who says that you must not trust your own judgment, but believe in them, sacrifice what appears to be in your interest, and so on.
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
+hermanessences I would agree, except that Jack and the player both aren't meant to know they're acting in their best interest. That knowledge is only gained from spoilers or replays; harvesting the Little Sisters is presented as the option that's best for you. Acting on knowledge the character could not have (and the player would only have after already completing the game) doesn't have any bearing on how the game is to be interpreted. The player ultimately gains a greater reward from actions that, at the time, they understand to be less beneficial to them.
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
+hermanessences Though I should add that I am aware of some misrepresentations of objectivism here, and plan to address and correct them when I analyze Bioshock 2.
@hermanessences
8 жыл бұрын
+Games As Literature Oh, I seem to remember that the game (or even Tenenbaum) told you that saving the little sisters would give you a greater reward in the long run? If not, there is some point in this being a support of altruism, although there's also the issue of feeling like a monster. Even a person who's been an Objectivist his whole life would probably never kill a strange girl just to be physically stronger, even if he wasn't punished or ostracized for it, because we do after all feel sympathy for others who are similar to us, we want them to thrive, and killing them would be traumatic. On the flip side again, it is indeed a "life boat scenario", in which one's own survival is at stake, which might make it more complicated again. I'd say it might be meant as a defense of altruism, but it's not clear cut. And kudos for being intellectually honest. Most opponents of Objectivism are not.
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
+hermanessences Tenenbaum does say something like, "I'll make it worth your while" in the chaos of that first encounter, but that's all we get, and she doesn't give any of the care packages until you've saved a few of them. Plus, much like the rest of the game, it's banking on the player's expectations of game logic the first time through the game, and the dilemma of the "good" path being less fun or easy is pretty well ingrained into our minds as gamers. I suppose one could argue the effectiveness of the tactic, but I think it's pretty clear the game intended for the player to see harvesting the little sisters as more beneficial to them. And yeah, I researched Objectivism for this video, but I learned more since then. I still don't agree with or like it, and as such I think some of the mistakes I made are still functionally accurate even if Rand herself would have said otherwise, but I still stated them incorrectly, and I try to make sure I own up when I make a mistake.
@Talesfromtheshelf
5 жыл бұрын
You should make your own analysis video if you know so much
@Imbacore01
7 жыл бұрын
OMG that tie. I want one! Subscribed!
@timothymclean
7 жыл бұрын
Here you go. www.thinkgeek.com/product/9352/
@colevacheron7312
8 жыл бұрын
This was very well done and your passion for the game and the medium inspiring. Do you think you'll ever do an analysis of Infinite and compare the big ideas of the games and how they delve into and show the pros and cons of the opposing viewpoints?
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
I absolutely do plan on doing Infinite at some point, though likely after I've also done Bioshock 2.
@Warriorette12
8 жыл бұрын
This was an awesome analysis of the first game in my favorite game saga. I'm so glad I found your channel! Would you kindly analyze Bioshock Infinite? I feel like you could get a good 2+ hours out of that!
@CharlesOwens04
8 жыл бұрын
I find that the game doesn't trash objectivisim, because Ryan doesn't follow one of the most basic rules of objectivist principles. Ryan prohibited free trade. Doing that, he created a market for smuggling. If Ryan had simply opened trade, I don't believe the problems Ryan faced with people like Fontaine would have come up.
@shingshongshamalama
6 жыл бұрын
It was my impression that Objectivism is a hypocritical pile of bullshit and Bioshock calls it out for that.
@chiefmaggot360
6 жыл бұрын
shingshongshamalama Good look at it tbh.
@seanurbik5158
6 жыл бұрын
Charles Owens Though free trade doesn't exclude the secret of rapture, something Ryan wanted to keep under lock and key, to protect it against the afformentioned so-called "parasites". Fontaine didn't want that either, as with no one with authority over him, he can do whatever he wants. THIS is the failure of objectivism. we are not perfect and some even get where they are BY hurting others directly. indeed, the freedom that's granted to pursue what we want without hurting people directly, also grants the freedom to hurt people directly, something that Fontaine took full advantage of, to everyone else's determent.
@seanurbik5158
6 жыл бұрын
Charles Owens If Ryan wanted to keep a purely objectivist society.
@LazilyDiligent
6 жыл бұрын
Charles Owens good point. Maybe the inability of Ryan, the ultimate Rand hero, to follow objectivist principles is a commentary on how alien those principles are. Are humans even capable of following them?
@withalittlehelpfrom3
3 жыл бұрын
Speaking of Literature (Bioshock spoilers below): I just realized that, as Andrew Ryan's son, technically Jack's full name would be Jack Ryan. Like Jack Ryan, the CIA agent in Tom Clancy's books who made his debut in 1987. Like Jack Ryan, the spy? ...well played, Bioshock. Well played!
@bedlamscrape9433
8 жыл бұрын
I hate to be 'that one guy' but I only bring this up out of my own curiosity. around 23:00 you bring up the invention of the Big Daddies. While you're that they were bonded to the little sisters to be protectors.. I don't believe youre assumption as to why/how they (big daddies) were created is correct. On the last levels of bioshock when you are roaming around little wonders and discovering the entire big daddy process, you find radio diaries explaining the creation process, as well as testing. In one of suchong's diaries, he has a man speaking which seems to be some kind of ex-army vet, being turned into a big daddy. So i don't think they were just taking scum and turning those into daddies.. as far as i know, the process was completely voluntary and people were signing up for it in hopes to have some kind of meaning for life. (although its true quite a few of those people could of been scum with nothing better). I am getting off topic here though. One of my other points was going to be that I do not believe the big daddy itself was created purely because of the little sisters, because you do see, multiple times, the big daddy on the outside of rapture, fixing it, repairing it and making sure it doesnt fall apart. Youll see him fixing water leaks, or welding, etc. Which leads me to believe that the original intention of the big daddies was to be a repairman.. explaining the diving suits, rivet guns, etc. So I was wondering what your response to that is because I am overly-fascinated by bioshock and love learning more history on it!
@tiureiji
7 жыл бұрын
You're kinda right. Big Daddies were originally created to be maintenance workers for Rapture. bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Big_Daddy
@PublicEnemyMinusOne
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video. My love for this piece of art that is the bioshock franchise is obsessive. Tattoos, books, Quotes Stuck up on my wall beside my bed so it’s the first thing I see in the morning. These games have possessed my mind since I first played them and I’m nothing but grateful. If Bioshock isn’t proof that video games can be works of art, Then i don’t want anything to do with art.
@lighthoused.
8 жыл бұрын
I am so happy I stumbled on this brilliant analysis. It was so in depth and did the game's story and philosophy justice, exploring every nook and cranny of this fantastic game. I've been a fan of Bioshock for quite awhile and this literary analysis was a joy to listen to. Keep up the great work!
@mughat
9 жыл бұрын
@15:40 You make a mistake here. Charity is not morally wrong according to Objectivism. "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." -A.R.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
mughat I've gotten a few corrections on this one, but it seems to be an issue people are split on. I did research for this video, to make sure I wasn't going to completely misrepresent the issue, and ran it by a friend with a philosophy degree, and it checked out up until I uploaded it and got some comments like yours. I'm all for learning more about stuff like this, and perhaps I'd have worded it a bit differently had I seen this quote before making the video. That said, I think the "if and when they are worthy of the help" caveat may be a problem there. At the very least, it does indicate some level of contextual morality based on who you're helping, and considering Rand wasn't too fond of people taking government aid, I'd be interested in knowing what her criteria were for one who was "worthy."
@m0ZZaik
9 жыл бұрын
+Games As Literature "I'd be interested in knowing what her criteria were for one who was "worthy." There is an example Ayn Rand used which clarifies this imho: *To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her-for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable.* It basically depends on your personal values which are hierarchical. If you have very little money and need it for food etc., charity would be considered immoral.
@chadnine3432
8 жыл бұрын
I've heard it argued that for someone brought up in a collectivist state, Ayn rebelled strongly against the state and society forcing their morality on others. Altruism and charity can be twisted, just like Objectivism is portrayed in Bioshock. (And Rand would probably say that altruism and charity were twisted in her land of birth.) I actually find a lot of Bioshock to be a kind of straw man of objectivism. Any ideology run to extreme, corrupted by disruptive elements, can go off the rails. And Objectivism can be a kind of low-hanging fruit for that kind of deconstruction, because people tend to be shocked at the idea of selfishness being thought of as a virtue instead of a vice. As the Little Sisters were a clumsy morality mechanic, so the whole game seems to be in it's statement on Objectivism. Who would find Objectivism appealing when it's portrayal features cold-hearted people in suits, making long winded speeches, and preying on little girls? The themes and ambiance, the setting is wonderfully evocative. And I enjoyed the game, but I couldn't help feeling like I was being preached to all throughout.
@dragmire3D
8 жыл бұрын
So is the splicing that the protagonist does not have that pheromone corruption? Is the mental conditioning overriding the pheromones? It seems weird that Atlas leaves the little sister choice in the protagonists hands when he states that he wants them killed without using his favorite phrase.
@GrubHuncher
8 жыл бұрын
I just assumed he wasn't doing enough of it or didn't do it for long enough to see side effects.
@LockG66
8 жыл бұрын
I thought it had something to do with the fact that Jack was Ryan's son. Like, the plasmids didn't effect anyone in Ryan's gene pool.
@bachpham6862
2 жыл бұрын
I would go as far as saying Andrew Ryan death is his own delusion of choice. He is making a scene about he gets to choose how he gets to die, not by Atlas, not by you, but by himself on his own terms, therefore he died as a man. However, that is all a delusion: he claims he is in the position of power, but given actual practical choice, he could have chosen life; but he cannot, and it is such a force of cognitive dissonance for Andrew Ryan. His philosophy promise a world where human would be the ultimate owner of their own fate, but his adherence to the philosophy ended up giving up his fate in the hands of others.
@cookie1138
8 жыл бұрын
OH MY GOD I JUST REALIZED THE HI JACK. HOLY FUCK MINDBLOWN!
@SarahAndreaRoycesChannel
8 жыл бұрын
What I found interesting is that "World of Tomorrow" pretty much is the movie version but basically choose the bad ending. Speaking of movies. One often hears the phrase "The 'Citizen Kane' of gaming has yet to come". I think it has been here for quite a while now. Well Orson Wells classic was not considered that masterpiece in its time, either.
@RetroMarkyRM
7 жыл бұрын
Fantastic and intelligent analysis. I would definitely like more of this calibre and the long length is a pro not a con imo :) thank you for all your effort.
@MalaysianGov
8 жыл бұрын
This was a fantastic analysis. It's a pretty long video, but its treatment of the material, as well the crucial ideas and sources from which it draws, is so well done and goes into so much depth that it was absolutely worth watching all the way to the end. I have a lot of respect for your project here. I'll be recommending this to friends of mine!
@Grace_Ravel
9 жыл бұрын
SERIOUSLY KZitem ? This video has 1659 views, few comments and 76 likes ?! Damn, I can't believe it, that's must be unrewarding for the awesome guy behind this video, I mean, look at the work in put into this hour long video ! Dude, you're awesome and from now I'll be a faithful subscriber !
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Lord Retro Thanks! I admit your comment reflects some of my occasional frustrations, but comments like this make it worthwhile. :)
@Grace_Ravel
9 жыл бұрын
Games As Literature btw love your beard ! :3
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Lord Retro Thanks! It's the result of so much care, attention, and... really just laziness because I hate shaving. Also I look thirteen without it. :P
@Grace_Ravel
9 жыл бұрын
Normally I don't really like beards that long but yours looks bloody awesome ! If I don't shave I look 15.... Oh wait I'm 15 ! :P
@nexusshark
8 жыл бұрын
What do you think of Burial At Sea and how it affects the story of the first game? Personally I did not like it. I liked Burial At Sea as a standalone what-if scenario, but as a prequel to Bioshock not so much.
@Hornfluffy1964
8 жыл бұрын
+nexusshark well it is (technically) its within a parallel universe.
@TheSkyHazCloudz
8 жыл бұрын
Really? I loved it. I preferred part 1 for the gameplay and preferred part 2 for the story. I loved how you got to see Suchong's death, and the last hour of part 2 was narrative perfection in my opinion. Especially the song choice that they choose for at the end of the final scene :,(
@wad5907
8 жыл бұрын
Well Bioshock wouldn't be the bioshock we know if Burial at Sea didn't happen.
@nexusshark
8 жыл бұрын
I'm Nubby Yes it would have been. Because it was. The original game never needed any redemption seeker to trigger the events that were already happening.
@wad5907
8 жыл бұрын
***** It wasn't redemption, it was full explanation. Thats why if you're only a fan of gameplay and not into the story that much, the DLC isn't for you and is rather short. However, if you love the story, it's a perfect DLC.
@PSLegend999
8 жыл бұрын
Can you elaborate the symbolism of Atlas? How is it in relation to this objectivism ideology, and why the name Atlas Shrugged for Rand's fictional yet philosophical book?
@elignationsva5895
7 жыл бұрын
This was absolutely amazing. I've never seen a better review of a product, from games to movies to books, and the fact that the review was on my favorite game made it even more pleasing. Thank you for the lesson, and have a good day.
@PeteSkerritt
8 жыл бұрын
I really enjoyed this. It's pretty neat that we can still find new interpretations and even have our eyes opened to things we might have missed in a game when we view it through the lens of someone else, even years after playing for the first time. I'll have to catch up on the rest of your work as time allows, as I'm a first-time viewer, but now that I know about you, I'm subscribed. Many thanks for your time and effort on this; it really shows.
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
I'm glad you liked the video! Hopefully my other content delivers as well. ^_^
@MaxiM_PL
8 жыл бұрын
I understand that you're probably quite young and probably a console player (judging by the Bioshock for Xbox in the backgroud), but you should do yourself (and your viewers) a favor and tackle System Shock - at least 2 if 1 is too much. That's the whe "Shocks" started and arguably, System Shock 2 is still the best game out of the bunch.
@MaxiM_PL
8 жыл бұрын
That one I actually saw - gj ;)
@user-ir8rd6oy4w
8 жыл бұрын
+Love Life And Anarchy Your channel is pretty good! Keep on doing what you're doing.
@Mishakeet
8 жыл бұрын
this is true, but some ppl genuinely prefer BS discussed themes
@Jaconllllll
9 жыл бұрын
Sir, you made an amazing video, and I can only hope to make a video analysis that comes close to this level of quality and intellect. I'm so happy more people are making these connections. What's funny is that I just took a college course on music history and culture, and one day my professor spent the whole class time lecturing us about the musical anachronisms in Bioshock Infinate as a way to prepare for his presentation at some music theory conference. It was awesome. I've never seen the class so involved. Anyway, great video. And I look forward to witnessing a his channel grow. (Btw, I'm working on a literary analysis in the Mass Effect Trilogy. I hope you tackle that series too. Wish me luck!)
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Antonio Valenteen Fuentes Thanks! I'm always happy to hear that people appreciate the videos. ^_^ Also great to see video games being used in college! That's becoming increasingly common, and I hope it won't be too much longer before there can be actual classes all about those concepts. And yes, Mass Effect is coming, but RPG analyses take so absurdly much time and effort that I'm waiting until there's a certain level of Patreon support. When I can justify taking some time off work to make it, that analysis will certainly be on its way! (Also, feel free to subscribe/like/follow/share if you want to see the channel grow) :P
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Antonio Valenteen Fuentes Oh, and good luck on your own analysis! I'll subscribe so I make sure not to miss it when it happens! That's a pretty huge undertaking, as the series' themes and arcs are many (even if the ending of 3 kind of invalidates most of them). :)
@someindividualistdude4645
7 жыл бұрын
I think that Bioshock (Bioshock 1 and 2) shows the merits and shortcomings of Objectivism and altruism, as the 'villains' of the story have understandable reasons to believe what they believe and they're not entirely bad (except Frank Fontaine/Atlas, he definitely had evil intentions). Both of their stubborn beliefs in their ideals led to their respective downfalls and demises, even if Ryan believed he had triumphed in the end.
@gamingmetalhead1996
9 жыл бұрын
I think the Cohen level wasn't just made to explore artistic freedom in Rapture. It also showed that Jack,after losing radio contact with Atlas needed instructions to go about his existence,thus doing Cohen his bidding. Though it's likely you're basically playing the part to continue getting through to Andrew Ryan. anyway, you did an awesome job sir,and have earned another subscriber.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
gamingmetalhead1996 Man, that's the kind of thought that makes me mad it didn't dawn on me before I made the video! That's an excellent observation!
@VINTAGE1959
4 жыл бұрын
May I ask why you haven't covered Bioshock Infinite? I would appreciate your views and opinions on the game and it's story.
@williameggly145
8 жыл бұрын
This is my favourite analysis of my favourite game. This is great! Keep doing this, you're awesome!
@Aeradom2000
9 жыл бұрын
You know, it's important to remember that while the interpretation is clearly an indictment of objectivism, Rapture isn't really what Ayn Rand would advocate for anyways. Frank Gamer did a great video on this using Ayn Rand interviews. If you listen to her own words, you'll see that she is indeed in favor of governance to protect the natural rights of man. Clearly there was no government in Rapture, at least not one that was there to protect anyone. The society would be a better example of Anarchism than Objectivist (or Libertarian) society than, as that features no government whatsoever.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
+Damian Clark Actually, anarchism is only present by the time you get there. Before, there was certainly a government. People often mistake Rapture's society for anarchy rather than objectivism, because it really looks like "anyone can do whatever they want" from what we can see, but the audio diaries and extended materials give more detail on how Ryan went about it, and there were laws and requirements. There's even an audio diary referencing an appeals system that held businesses accountable to Ryan himself.
@Aeradom2000
9 жыл бұрын
Games As Literature But I'd argue that the "government" that was in place wasn't strong enough or even held enough authority that it could accomplish what something like Ayn Rand advocates though. To be fair, it's been a while since I played the game, but I don't remember there being that strong of a central government even prior to the fall. Appreciate the response though.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
+Damian Clark That is entirely possible, yes. The game itself only hinted at it, but the details would be found in the book about Andrew Ryan, which I unfortunately haven't read yet, so you may very well be right.
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
On a slightly unrelated note, my other complaint with Infinite's story is that the villain wasn't as rounded this time. Andrew Ryan started out a reasonably ok guy (if a bit of an idealogue) who turned to evil when his dreams of utopia began to fall apart. By contrast, Comstock is little more than a Klansman. When you arrive, the evils and racism going on in Columbia aren't (to my knowledge) Comstock being driven to madness by an extant threat to his dreams, grasping at straws for any hope to save it. They were what he was planning from the start.
@easystreetband
8 жыл бұрын
+Matthew Campbell I've always seen Infinite as more of an omg parallel universes so cool kind of action game as Inception is a fun and thoughtfully plotted movie, but with little philosophical value. Frankly I think Infinite got way more praise for its plot than it should have and the genius of BioShock and objectivism went over 90 percent of players' heads.
@arcadiaglens7307
5 жыл бұрын
Emmett LaFave Very well said
@jacobporter173
9 жыл бұрын
ahh the Bioshock series. Bioshock Infinite is most likely my favorite video game in terms of music, taking a second to only Minecraft. And I definitely agree with you on the violence. It's a very amazing series, but not the most family-friendly.
@alexlane8751
8 жыл бұрын
It legitimately surprises me how this profile only has ~6,000 subscribers - so much effort and time is put into these videos and they are always a joy to watch and really do a fantastic job of teaching a lot about everything behind games and the media around such content. I feel as though a collaboration between this channel and another known as Extra Credits (a very similar, but much more bite-sized premise to this channel) would create an awesome video. Also, I realized that in the beginning of this video, you mention about teaching (I believe?) what sounded like a gaming class in high school similar to this channel? If you could elaborate on this that would be much appreciated.
@Maltcider
9 жыл бұрын
Are you sure they see charity as immoral? I thought Rand was okay with charity so long as it was voluntary.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
+Polycube Yeah, that's the information I found in doing research, but I've been corrected a few times in these comments. You're right, charity isn't necessarily immoral so long as it's voluntary, but Rand tends to add another caveat that the one receiving charity must be deserving of it, because people must succeed based on their own merit, not the altruistic kindness of others. I might be missing something, but I feel like most people who need charity wouldn't qualify for Rand's criteria of "deserving." But that's just an issue of the philosophy; you're right that charity isn't necessarily considered immoral, that just seems to be one school of thought on the issue.
@Maltcider
9 жыл бұрын
Games As Literature According to the Atlas Society she was lukewarm to charity. That's true about some of her followers, I've found many of them use Randianism as a way to take it even further and excuse fascist social-Darwinism ideas. The main contradiction I find with Objectivist philosophy is how it wants both liberty and capitalism at the same time. The two are incomparable since once all the unowned land is claimed, as it is now, people's negative-liberty to have the freedom to meet their needs independently become restricted they must rent themselves out to others for survival and obey the owners demands. It also entails that the the means of production are privately owned on a wide scale which means the most ruthless Narcissistic and Sociopathic individuals, such as Frank Fontaine, have the best advantage in a competitive free market so they end up rising to the top of the ownership hierarchy; controlling peoples lives in totalitarian ways and parasitically extracting profit from their conquests. It also demonizes all collective actions as being some kind of a guise for coercion, while ignoring the countless possibilities for non-governmental structures which can socially organize society in democratic voluntary ways free from domination of any kind; such as anarcho-socialism.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
+Polycube Quite eloquently put; I agree on all counts. Also sounds like Bioshock portrayed those issues fairly well, especially regarding what you mentioned about Fontaine having the advantage.
@anrojoo
9 жыл бұрын
+Polycube If I may add to this conversation, I believe Rand's ideology is not against charity and it is not about judging whether the recipient is "deserving" or not. Charity to help others by itself is ok as long as it is voluntary, but it can entail a moral danger due to the potential of the recipient to become dependent of it, and opens a possibility of a form of control. Sometimes, trying to help someone can prove to be a very difficult endeavor, as some individuals can eventually feel entitled to receiving such help/ charity and choose to remain content without actually trying to improve their situation. I say this by personal experience, and also looking at the unintended consequences of the so called "welfare state", which even though it was meant to help get people out of poverty, it has achieved the complete opposite, trapping individuals in a perpetual state of mediocrity and sometimes a high sense of entitlement. On the other hand, they are also now completely dependent of government, and are now forced to vote for whoever promises to conserve the status quo.
@Maltcider
9 жыл бұрын
anrojoo There is a risk with charity but I think it's right to the focus more on the moral hazards of the structural violence inherent within Statism and Capitalism. The best band aid solution to poverty without addressing those root issues would probably be a Universal Basic Income, an income which every individual receives that is just high enough to keep everyone out of poverty without being financially punished for finding additional work or being controlled by churches, philanthropists, or bureaucracies.
@kirtur
9 жыл бұрын
Awesome presentation! Thanks for all the effort you put into these!
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
kirtur Thanks! Really glad you like it; this one nearly killed me. :P I may need to hold off on such long and complex analyses until I have enough Patreon support to justify taking a day off work or something. Totally worth it, though.
@kylestallings9684
9 жыл бұрын
Basically: Ayn Rand the game. Lol
@OliviaSoule
8 жыл бұрын
Ayn Rand's wet dream
@fireops
8 жыл бұрын
Hardly; she would be appalled by the statement that objectivism would "ultimately always lead to failure", and discredit the game as another piece of parasite propaganda and further fostering the victim complex of the parasite.
@wargonyc
8 жыл бұрын
Andrew Ryan stopped following the principles of objectivism and that was the reason of Rapture's fall
@Mishakeet
8 жыл бұрын
no
@ThePuppyTurtle
8 жыл бұрын
Actually, it is because he was really bad at governing. Anyone with two braincells to rub together could have foreseen that once rapture was finished being built, a shitton of people would be put out of work. Had there been any plan for how these people would be reintegrated into society, (and it needn't be a social safety net: any jobs program would have done), these people wouldn't have been impoverished and Fontaine would have had no one to fight in his rebellion. Fontaine's plans only worked because of Ryan's incompetence. They also wouldn't have had the means to rise if he'd regulated ADAM from the beginning, and not have the ability to shoot lightning be something you can buy off of every street corner.
@redraptorwrites6778
7 жыл бұрын
Too bad Infinite had to ruin it, especially with Burial at Sea.
@AmaSonali
6 жыл бұрын
I just wanted to thank you. I'm using you for my son's homeschooling curriculum. This is a great game to cover: anarchy, atheism, plato's save, noble savage noble liar, capitalism, stockholm syndrome and the cause and effects of the drug world. Besides it's always nice vegging on the sofa playing games all day long doing nothing with my kiddo. Thanks again!
@GameProf
6 жыл бұрын
That's awesome! I'm so glad you're finding this useful in an educational context. :D
@bigdog517
6 жыл бұрын
DO BIOSHOCK 2 not infinite, infinite is shit
@ChilyCheezeFryz
3 жыл бұрын
My thoughts on Sander Cohen are that his masterpiece is probably trying to show the moment of death, as in, what you have accomplished. Everything you have ever done and what it amounts to are only captured in the moment of your death. Rapture is a tomb, so he is taking advantage of the corpses, alive or dead. Normally, when someone dies down there, nobody would ever know anything about them, but to Cohen, he wants the player to take pictures of the immediate poses of his proteges' deaths, so that he can display all they have accomplished in one striking image. Ryan says something similar when you try to get into his office. He has corpses nailed to the walls as a display of power and fear. He tells the player that the people will ask "Who was that, hanging on the wall? Who was that?". I believe Cohen is trying to give an answer "Here it is! THIS is who they were!"
@redraptorwrites6778
7 жыл бұрын
I think having fetch quests was a good idea for the gameplay because in nearly every level it forces the player to explore Rapture and discover more of its wonderfully crafted setting. Fort Frolic especially is a good example of this. The player is forced to look at more and more of the art that is produced when there are no moral limitations.
@OmarHH26
8 жыл бұрын
how the fuck do you only have 10k subscribers? this is really well done man, good job and of course i subbed
@boyo-shook3891
6 жыл бұрын
Bioshock is Objectivism for people that hate Objectivism
@jeremytaylorfrancisgleaves3854
5 жыл бұрын
uuuUUUUHHH????
@Wanna_Be_Desu
5 жыл бұрын
The only Lit thing here is... You
@tomr1041
8 жыл бұрын
Love this analysis and the game! I wish you had addressed one of Bioshocks bigger plotholes however, that I think cheapens the experience. Why does Fontaine pretend to be Atlas to the player/Jack? If Jack will do anything with the phrase "Would you Kindly?" then Fontaine would not have any reason to go through all the trouble of pretending to have a family and speaking in an Irish accent. Theres no point in fooling Jack.
@GameProf
8 жыл бұрын
Perhaps, but there's something to be said for avoiding even an attempt to push back on Jack's part. If Fontaine was upfront about who he was, and Jack found out who Fontaine is and what he did as he explored Rapture (which does happen through the audio diaries and environmental storytelling), he would probably try to push back, or stop himself, perhaps even kill himself to stop Fontaine from continuing to use him. It may not actually work, but it'd probably be better to just avoid the entire possibility.
@viktorvlasov483
7 жыл бұрын
Games As Literature or just turn off radio...
@AiamMaianaise
5 жыл бұрын
"in a /frankly/rather plain and uninteresting boss battle" against frank fontaine. I'm not sure if the frankly was intentional or not but either way it was amusing
@the3dotsguy...610
7 жыл бұрын
ohh... Andrew Ryan... Before i even played bioshock i think just like him. and it been always like that! I remember, I was 10yo I had lot of problems whit teachers cus I didn't "OBEY" them and I used to say "I am not your slave"... and I've been always like that...
@JanisTreijs
7 жыл бұрын
That "OBEY!" sounded very much like "UBEY" which in russian means "kill".. interesting.
@jeremytaylorfrancisgleaves3854
5 жыл бұрын
52:30 I disagree about there not being a moral grey area, although I know what you mean in that violence, towards children no less, is a deeply rooted ethical sin in western civilization. One of the cornerstones of bioshock is taking objectivist principles to extremes. We've seen self interest taken to an extreme, how much destruction and murder it causes, how much it offends the maternal sensibilities, among other things. If we lived in objectivist society, someone like you might make a video saying "Now obviously there's no grey area, if you find a small girl who hasn't taken the neccesary steps to protect herself you should take full advantage of her". This choice asks the player "Well now! Will you participate in Ryan's philosophy? Or reject it?". Bioshock does reward altruism but it ALSO rewards selfishness. Now, it doesn't "reward" you at the very end of the game necessarily, which, in my opinion, is too bad and would have really hit the nail on the head. You'd be scot free and drinking a martini as you start conquesting on land followed by a demonstration of the horrible brutality you caused the sisters. The drive for the exploitation of other people is NOT inhuman. It was deeply advantageous for tribes in the wilderness long ago, to take advantage of another tribe. And so too today, bullies that prey on the week I'm not saying I don't find objectivism reprehensible, which I more or less do. I guess I'm saying there's hardly ever a moral grey area, and in this case especially considering Ayn Rand's popularity and impact.
@ex-muslimlibertarianatheis9008
7 жыл бұрын
Not necessarily. Charity should be an individual choice, and objectively, it's not immoral and wrong. What is immoral however, are coercive means which force people to give their hard earned money "for the greater good"; and individualism be damned. And I'm sure you'd agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy if you lived in communist Russia and experienced this first hand.
@nicoboggs1517
7 жыл бұрын
I'd love for you to do similar videos for Bioshock 2 and Infinite! This was great!
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
Interestingly, I read on TV Tropes that Bioshock was only going to have one ending, which was the evil ending. However, the execs demanded that they have a happy ending thrown in.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Matthew Campbell Really? Now that's interesting. It certainly would have meant something quite different, though exactly what would depend on how they go about it. I do hope they planned to flesh out the evil ending a bit more though, because as it stands it's incredible weak.
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
Games As Literature I'd imagine the moral would be something along the lines of "Humans are bastards", which is something the people at Irrational seem to think. According to Levine, his interpretation of the evil ending was something along the lines of "Rapture becomes a third superpower, and turns the Cold War into a 3-way conflict". Which could contain interesting stories in its own right.
@MatthewCampbell765
9 жыл бұрын
Games As Literature I think the Execs were right this time. In fact, even Levine seems to prefer the good ending, given that it was officially made canonical.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Matthew Campbell True, that would be interesting. And yeah, Irrational does kind of seem to think that, though it doesn't help that all their games have been about dystopian societies ruled by one brand or another of political extremism. Which is fine--that's what makes them interesting--but certainly means they portray a lot of terrible people being terrible.
@WorthlessWinner
3 жыл бұрын
I think it critiques Objectivism than it could have said, because the city falls to people failing to adhere to it rather than as a direct result of it ("weak men" brought it down as Ryan would say). But if it's not meant to be a critique of objectivism but extreme ideologies that makes sense. LOL at you saying Act 2 and act 3 are both mistakes - but still like the game
@Meade556
8 жыл бұрын
Also for me when I played the game I chose not to kill them even though I knew it would bring me greater rewards because even if I had a more difficult experience, I wanted to be able to sleep at night, especially as there is no reason to kill the Little Sisters and they always strike you as victims, even the Big Daddies not as monsters.
@ApplesandDragons
2 жыл бұрын
This is the first video I've seen from this channel and it's phenomenal. Video games have been worthy of this kind of attention for a long time now, so it warms this gamer's little heart to find a knowledgeable and well spoken person taking it on. I never would have made the connection between Ryan's philosophy and Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I think you're absolutely right that they're the same. The only noteworthy disagreement I have is in your take on the Andrew Ryan scene. I don't think he's redeeming himself, not even in his own eyes. I think he's choosing to die with his failed philosophy, and that he's doing it because, after a lifetime of staking everything on that philosophy, the philosophy became a more significant part of his identity than even his own life. It's really quite feeble and sad. So Ryan's suicide takes the appearance of something noble, a masterminded and principled F you to the protagonist and the player, but it's really only disguising that what is happening in Ryan's mind is that he's so unable to admit that his philosophy was bad that he would rather die than admit it. His audio logs demonstrate his unwillingness to admit that his vision of the world is at odds with the truth. In the same log Ryan refers to a necessity to defeat his opponent, indicating that his inability to admit he was wrong is rooted in a macho insistence that defeating an opponent is more important than his philosophy. This macho insistence perfectly reflects the obvious shortcoming in his philosophy as portrayed by the A Man Chooses A Slave Obeys formulation. It's a formulation that cannot account for the man who chooses to obey, which is precisely what good men are doing in societies that are mostly peaceful and functioning. Men are capable of freely choosing to tolerate one another's philosophical differences with the understanding that all people are never going to reach complete agreement, and the best we can do is find majority agreement on the big stuff such as 'don't hurt people in the pursuit of science, industry and art.' Ryan's adherence to his philosophy was so extreme that it was intolerance of different philosophies, and it had allowed too many people to be harmed. That's why the introduction of a different philosophy, the bible, appealed to much of the population and brought the city down. Andrew Ryan and Ayn Rand share this idealistic and romanticized view of men, that manliness means being perfectly rational all the time. It's interesting to me that the attitude emerged in Ryan, too, because I had always seen Rand's view as tangled up in the misunderstands of men that she brought forth into adulthood from childhood, a girl's idealized view of her father. Ryan being male and having brought forth the same idealized view of men into adulthood reflects the broader truth that both girls and boys idealize their fathers. It's perhaps another meta commentary that can be derived from Bioshock. If manliness means being perfectly rational all the time, what would that mean about the person playing the game? Playing a game is not a terribly rational thing to do when we all know there are more important things to be done. So men and rationality are not perfectly opposed, but still far from synonymous.
@jeremytaylorfrancisgleaves3854
5 жыл бұрын
This problem with Ayn Rand is she got human nature wrong. I agree with her "self-interest" argument, but the fact is that people do want to do good in the world and contribute to something greater than themselves (although no doubt their self-interest may be stronger overall).
@garthmarenghi9040
2 ай бұрын
I'm quite late to the conversation, but another way in which Bioshock criticizes objectivism is through its worldbuilding: Ryan's spurning of the working class who built Rapture created a resentment that proved fatal when they fought against him in the civil war. Yes, Atlas/Fontaine was using them and gloats about how easy they were to manipulate, but he wouldn't have been able to rally them against Ryan had not followed his objectivist beliefs that made desperate and destitute. The argument here is that a society built on Objectivism is self-destructive: its callous disregard of the poor and vulnerable creates a block of people for a demagogue, revolutionary, or grifter to leverage in toppling that society.
@0Letten0
9 жыл бұрын
I love this format. are you going to cover bioshock infinite as well?
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Thanks! And yeah, I will eventually; I'll probably tackle the series in order (and possibly with an episode about DLC like Burial at Sea and Minerva's Den), but considering the sheer amount of time it took to make this episode, I might wait until I have enough Patreon support to justify taking a day or two off work to do it. Besides, it's good to space these things out. The show isn't called Bioshock 101, after all; so I'll probably tackle one of them each year, perhaps. We'll see.
@udittlamba
9 жыл бұрын
This was brilliant... loved ever second of it. PS: ADAM and EVE syringes have an apple on them. :P
@fanboy58
9 жыл бұрын
This deserves WAY more views. Some great analysis, a helpful overview of objectivism, and just a generally well-presented discussion of Bioshock. I love this game, and I'm now a total fan of your channel. Keep it up!
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
fanboy58 Glad you enjoyed it! This one was an absurd amount of work, but I enjoyed making it. And hey, if you think it needs more views, share it! This series is growing, but it's growing quite slowly. I wouldn't mind any help speeding the process along. :)
@sirvanscoy
10 ай бұрын
Of course story meaning can go completely contrary to authorial intent... I've known that ever since I saw the best condemnation of war within the gundam franchise come from an author who, as I recall, was supposedly meant to be a pro-war story written by an imperialist... (Gundam Unicorn) The only thing it does that makes any war justified to any extent is it gives the start of the revolution for spacenoid independence a leg of legitimacy through a retcon, while also making the "hero faction" from the original gundam (the Federation) seem much less good overall, which is all stuff that deepens the narrative of the Gundam Universal Century timeline and honestly just made Gundam the Origin more necessary and valuable to watch... (Which in turn added more complexity to Char Aznable)
@GerinoMorn
2 жыл бұрын
"much, much longer..." - he says, and I check the runtime. 1 hour?! - I exclaim, shocked. How can you condense a videogame to a single hour? Let me tell you about The Oblivion.... ;))))
@jeremytaylorfrancisgleaves3854
5 жыл бұрын
41:16 Pleasure junkie!!!! Fanboy!!!! Just sayin cause I used to be one but absolutely awesome video lol
@ianomalley6100
4 жыл бұрын
I play this game every 3 years or so. I want to stop but i cant. ITS MY CURSE ITS MY FUCKINNG CURSE
@OGR-4394
8 жыл бұрын
It's really dumb that you nod and shake the character's head in response to the dialogue, for the sake of this video you should have kept it still.
@runswithbears3517
2 жыл бұрын
The Andrew Ryan plot twist is amazing, but I agree the story doesn't follow up very well to this. How could it, really? It essentially shatters the idea of man living in society altogether, implying that man in society is little more than a slave to the power of suggestion (or societal indoctrination). How do you follow up on that? Note that the chains on Jack's wrist stay there regardless of the ending. He remains but a slave.
@leilahnicki2111
7 жыл бұрын
I don't think Pure objectivism would lead to such an insane and chaotic world without fail every time... It's very much the creation of these powerful scientific discoveries that were beyond human control that led to the destruction of the society. I like how in there desire to create a game world that makes sense they were essentially forced to admit that pure objectivism opens doors to human discovery. But they try and argue that this discovery must be too much for us therefore bad... I think the philosophy of the game is somewhat sloppy personally. And as a result some people have no fucken idea what point is trying to be made here. What the game says about player choice ended up being far more interesting in the end. And I think the funny thing is that this was probably unintended. I think the story board was much more clever than the world designer's personally. Without the twist, this game is kind of shit... At that point in the game I had begun to get bored and wanted it to end, then the revelation came and kind of saved the game in a lot of ways. Definately saved the story.
@leilahnicki2111
7 жыл бұрын
I feel I should say that I disagree with pure objectivism. I believe that helping other people does reduce how much they personally develop, but it allows people to share the gains to personal development from problems among more than one person. So while one person doesn't learn as much, in total the gains the two people gain, outway in total benefit. If that makes sense. It's like this, with 1 person in your party you get 50 xp for each person. With 6 people in your party you get 15 xp for each person. 6x15 = 90. 90 > 50... Do you see what I'm saying?
@tom4aot
Жыл бұрын
I hated English in highschool, at best we'd watch movies I'd never watch on my own time because at least then I could zone out, or reading logs, because at least I could choose something interesting. Now, if my English teacher had done a literary review of game plots, I might have actually given a shit. This is English class done right.
@MrGatonegroish
9 жыл бұрын
The only discordant note when I played Bioshock was that, as you mention, Jack's motivation is haphazard and pre-assumed at best. Infinite fixes it, giving you a clear goal ("Bring us the girl..."), but in Bioshock I felt I had to listen go here and there to, basically, move the plot along. Nevermind the final plot-twist -- which I think is undermined by the gameplay, giving you no other option than obeying Atlas --, I felt for much of the way that I was being dragged along.
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Gato Negro See, Jack's motive makes enough sense to me; he has to get out of there. Pretty sure the Bathysphere wasn't going to just go back up the way it came, and Atlas offered him a way out. So yeah, it's kind of pre-assumed, but makes just enough sense that your average player just kind of goes along with it without thinking twice, which was kind of the point.
@udittlamba
9 жыл бұрын
+Games As Literature Sort of like Gordan Freeman in Half Life and Isaac in Dead Space 2 ( Didn't play Dead Space 1 and Dead Space 3 had an objective for him , I think)
@kickster4u
8 жыл бұрын
I thought he would mention cool stuff like the parallel of this game and the bible. so many comparisons. also I thought he'd cover themes and symbols and motifs and what they would mean. BioShock is a game worthy of literary merit. a long ass summary barely scratches the surface. I liked the video as a whole though.
@lunavarion
8 жыл бұрын
+Brandon Moore He did say there was more to the game than what he covered--so much so that he may need to return to it in future videos.
@christopherfleetwood5252
2 жыл бұрын
So at 42:30 let me make sure I have this right… the deal is ‘Give us the girl, and wipe away the debt’?! Wow… chills man, chills.
@vitorcca
9 жыл бұрын
I loved the videos, very nice work man I too think its appaling you not having more visibility. One thing regarding the bioshock twist that I was sure you were going to touch on, but didnt. Killing ryan was actually Jack's choice, not fontaine's in the end. Pay attention to ryan's speech. He ends up taking control of Jack, telling him to run, stop, etc using the WYK phrase. When he puts the club back in jacks hand, he does not say would you kindly kill me, he just says Kill. He never commanded jack to do it. at this point the order to kill ryan was no longer active, because ryan had took control of him, so jack could choose not to do it. Another thing, in ryans office after you kill him, there is a vita chamber. when you go there, the description says that it is deactivvated. it is the only one like that in the game, making the case stronger for ryan wanting to stay dead, and not having this way out, after all he could merely turn that chamber on and rezz right after jack kills him. Keep doing this awesome content man, expect a patreon from me soon. You deserve it.
@lunavarion
8 жыл бұрын
+Vitor Araujo I don't think that Jack chose to kill Ryan, despite Ryan not saying 'would you kindly.' After all, by this point, Jack was still under Atlas' (Fontaine's) order to kill Ryan. Ryan adding a few new short commands wouldn't have overridden the older one, I think--not until it was completed, at least. Having this in mind, I think another video on the topic of the illusion of choice in Bioshock and Spec ops: The Line would be a great idea--if this guy does that kind of thing.
@vitorcca
8 жыл бұрын
+Lunavarion Ryan could at any point override the command. He was showing jack that he as free, he could do whatever he wanted, but he didnt want to comeo ut and say it, he wanted him to be able to choose. A man chooses, a slave obeys. The last command jack had was an open command, "Kill" and not "WOuld you kindly kill". Throught the entire game we seen jack only following one command at a time. Every chapter is one commadn only, so I am sue he was free when he killed Ryan.
@lunavarion
8 жыл бұрын
Vitor Araujo I think I understand your point, and yet, Jack was sent there to kill in the first place. I think we need to accept that there is no clear answer to this since the extent of the programming was never explained in-game. Maybe Jack could deal with only one command at a time. Maybe he could have more than one at once. We can't say for sure one way or another.
@vitorcca
8 жыл бұрын
what we know for sure is that Andrew could have sotpped him, just by commanding him to kill Atlas instead. Or have him kill himself. And he didnt, to prove a point. Best character ever
@lunavarion
8 жыл бұрын
Vitor Araujo I think it was said either in the video or in another comment here that Ryan didn't command Jack to stop simply to illustrate the difference between being a man and being a slave. Ryan chose to die while Jack was following an order to kill.
@hueyfreeman8852
7 жыл бұрын
you actually do get rewarded with more Adam by 280 if you harvest every little sister. the extra 280 is worth it to me cuz the gifts suck
@noone-pf5zq
5 жыл бұрын
only altruistic objectivism can lead to a societys success and prosperity....simply acting in ones self interest does not work...civilization does not run on a single individual....and altruism is simply foolish....self sacrifice with no benefit isn't kindness...its stupidity....but one cannot simply focus on ones own prosperity because as I said societys are not kept by single individuals...it is not a king who keeps the kingdom running...it is its people...those that do the regular mundane day to day tasks that keeps things working....as fontaine himself said...every sap that went to rapture thought he was going to run the place and be a big success...but somebody still needs to clean the toilets....an overseers job is to make sure the populace continues functioning smoothly and things are still meeting the status quo...ryan forgot to account for the fact that the parasites far outweigh the producers and when parasites become destitute and restless they start revolting,killing and destroying...he does not believe in regulating or moral limitations...but if those things do not exist then what is stopping an individual from simply taking things by force as he pleases...he failed to regulate fontaine and the adam spread unstifled,it led to addiction and madness,he failed to account for the lesser of rapture...the ones who kept the thing running...ryan did not build anything...he did not place a single piece of metal during raptures construction...and yet once his city was built he simply left the ones that did build it to rot...and the whole reason adam,plasmids and insanity and mutation ran rampant in the first place...because they did not allow morality to interfere in clearly inhumane processes in its making aside from the blatant idiocy of not putting a stop to it once the very dangerous side effects of plasmids became abundantly clear....ryan is clearly not a fan of history....do you know how man started out...free...and do you know what they did with that freedom...they butchered each other,murdered,stole,ate each other....do you know who it was that brought order into the world...tyrants...ruthless merciless killers who subjugated their lesser through fear...and through that fear and control came structure and order...because you see you cannot expect a man to be good,sensible and abide by an established set of standards of their own accord..no...you give them a reason to be afraid of breaking an established order...a consequence....and thus kings and laws were born...some better than others...you see man started with freedom and that freedom only led to chaos and anarchy....and only through fear and subjugation was order established....one cannot act solely in ones self interest...society simply cannot accommodate such parasitism....but to give your all to a society or a cause without anything in return...well that only makes you a slave or a fool....so neither objectivism nor altruism are correct...and no saving the little sisters is not altruism...you are not saving them without reward...you are rewarded with adam every time you rescue one....you can go through the entire game without ever fighting a single big daddy or rescuing or harvesting any little sister should you choose to...but doing so leaves you with a very limited plasmid supply...so rescuing or harvesting saving a little sister is objectivism all the same...one is simply a less heartless objectivism....so yes even altruism can serve objectivist purposes...because sometimes helping someone else or something else advance and better itself will ultimately benefit you as well in the long run....and kindness and charity need not only be done in self interest either....if it requires little to no self sacrifice of any sort then why not show a bit of kindness every now and then....a past kindness can one day return to benefit in the future
@MrZerosami2
7 жыл бұрын
You only give when you want to You don't love all the people but only who you determine who deserve it You don't sacrifice self for better of all You do good because you want to not as church or society demands it You love the ones who deserve your love Your a rational being so don't get manipulated Why she was an atheist What ruined rapture in my opinion is Andrews suppression of outside trade which created opportunities for atlas(fountaine when presumed dead) to establish a black market and have the monopoly to gather leverage And power This betrays Andrews ultranisim vision as he killed outside world trade as in it self binds society to obey on the surface level but turn to anyone who is strong enough to get the required goods also proving thats like Minded individuals iTunes pushed will deviate Form Their stances giving into their animalistic side
@BlackPhillip-sw8xf
7 жыл бұрын
I've download the game played it a little and it is boring as fuck! But I'm interested in the story though. I think I'm gonna watch only the analysis.
@emilyreilly5374
9 жыл бұрын
It is absolutely criminal how underrated this channel is. Captivating and wonderfully written analysis! Kudos, dude. :)
@GameProf
9 жыл бұрын
Emily Reilly Thanks! The channel has been growing slowly, so that's getting fixed. Slowly, but surely.
@0fficer47
8 жыл бұрын
It can be mentioned that, yes Parents do sacrifice for the sake of the child. At the same time though, the child is a biological mash-up of the female and male, the passing of the mother's and father's genes. Long story short, it is out of self-love that the child is produced.
@RenaDeles
8 жыл бұрын
the good ending still gets to me, it's short but still makes me tear up.
Пікірлер: 640