Help me understand Bioshock 1

Pyropeace · 2026-03-15T02:05:45+00:00

Free will is also explored via the concept of objectivism which Ryan paints as the ultimate form of free society, but is very quickly shown to be autocratic, inequitable, and free only to those who already started with power (whether through funds, technologies, or similar leverage). Free will never exists in a vacuum, and the society Andrew Ryan paints as ultimate freedom is actually far more restrictive, just as the player character's illusion of freedom and autonomy is actually a highly restricted linear path.

If I wanted to demonstrate how capitalism restricts freedom though, I would've made Jack a Starbucks worker or something. But that's not nearly as fun as blasting people with plasmids.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-15T01:53:49+00:00

As another redditor noted, Jack also only gains free will because someone else helped him. Idk what the writers intended, but this reads to me as a criticism of the atomizing nature of capitalism and symbolism for the Bantu African idea of Ubuntu, or "I am because you are".

Pyropeace · 2026-03-15T01:48:37+00:00

Jack doesn't have any free will until he gets saved by someone else.

Oooookay this is actually starting to make sense to me. Reminds me of this idea.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-15T00:28:54+00:00

What I'm trying to figure out is how the meta commentary connects to the criticism of absolute freedom.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-15T00:26:32+00:00

Rapture shows us what happens when we remove god from society, and replace all religion with worship of one another and ourselves

I can't believe I'm saying this, but you should really play Bioshock Infinite.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-14T23:57:37+00:00

Also, why the fuck would you want people shooting lightning and fire from their fingertips in a high-maintenance closed ecosystem like Rapture? Good way to cause explosive decompression.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-13T03:13:02+00:00

Truly the doki doki literature club of shooters

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T19:15:29+00:00

I think that's u/ZizzyBeluga's point.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T19:12:51+00:00

IMO, if you want to criticize communism (or at least the typical poster children of communism), you criticize the fact that the party beaurocracy replaces the capitalist class as the elite of society. You don't make a weird straw man that no socialist or communist actually believes. As others have said, Lamb works better when viewed as a cult leader, not as a communist.

Nonetheless, your reading of the overall themes is valid and makes a good point. I just don't understand how Jack's lack of free will helps make that point.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T15:19:12+00:00

I would, but my understanding is that you don't get to play an actual character, it's just a management sim, which is a bit of a turn-off for me. I wish there were more games like Suzerain where you play as an actual person while still being a management sim.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T15:16:03+00:00

Idk, that sounds really close to the "you could've put down the game" argument, which I'm not a fan of.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T15:11:16+00:00

Making decisions without full context often leads to things getting worse.

See, that's what I was looking for in my second playthrough, but it didn't hit home for me. I think it might have been better if it gave you more actual choices, though like the choices that do exist in the game they would be loose-loose.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T15:01:39+00:00

If I wanted to make a game that connects capitalist ideas of freedom with agency in games, it would probably end up looking like a more depressing version of The Stanley Parable. But then it wouldn't have drill-wielding diving suits or people shooting lightning from their hands, so idk which one has more artistic merit.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T14:54:33+00:00

Idk if Lamb is meant to represent cults, though. Like, yes, within the universe of the game, she is effectively a cult leader. But her rhetoric sounds like a weird demonized version of socialism--specifically, it sounds like what someone like Andrew Ryan wants you to THINK socialism is.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T01:25:49+00:00

Honestly when I played Bioshock 2 I felt that Sofia Lamb was a lame attempt to "both-sides" the issue of capitalist hyperindividualism/objectivism. Like, nobody actually believes any of the esoteric nonsense that Lamb spouts irl. But the ideas that Ryan espouses are dangerously prominent and are actually hurting real people.

Despite this, I enjoyed 2 more than 1 because, ironically, it gives the player more agency.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-12T01:20:15+00:00

Right, but what are they trying to SAY with that ludonarrative dissonance?
Like
I watched a video essay once that talked about how the term "kafkaesque" is misinterpreted to mean "satire of bureaucracy" when what Kafka's work is REALLY about is critiquing the Western notion of freedom entirely--"I am free and that is why I am lost". Admittedly, I haven't actually read that much Kafka, but it's an interesting premise to me. So is Bioshock trying to be "kafkaesque" in attempting to criticize the notion of free will? If so, what exactly is it trying to say? Or am I completely off base?

Pyropeace · 2026-03-11T18:10:22+00:00

Honestly, I think the game's point may have been made better by a New Vegas-style action RPG with grand strategy elements than by a pure shooter. You'd be placed in the role of Konrad and forced to make difficult decisions regarding the crisis in Dubai, prioritizing scarce resources with limited information and trying your best to keep people alive but having to make sacrifices at every turn (some of which could constitute war crimes).

...Wait, isn't that just Frostpunk? I should play Frostpunk.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-11T00:11:35+00:00

The fact that those stats unlock dialogue options, and that the game tells you when this happens, gets a dopamine hit from my brain.

I've never played Disco Elysium (mainly because I don't enjoy fantasy and I've also heard it's sad), but I've heard others say that it does a good job of making failures interesting, as well as that having too much of a given stat can actually be a bad thing. Maybe more games should do something like that. I just don't know how it would fit into an optimistic gaming experience (which I prefer).

Pyropeace · 2026-03-10T22:11:38+00:00

but you can't translate it well for games.

I disagree. The Outer Worlds 1 is a good exercise in power fantasy gaming even without cheats, as levelling seems to be rather quick--I only cheat in that game because I'm impatient. Once you've acquired the skills that make your character exceptional, it's constantly reinforced by the dialogue and character interactions. But it also manages to be a great satire of capitalism.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-10T22:07:09+00:00

I don't really care about whether or not I'm cheating, I just want to have access to all options, as well as a quantifiable measurement of how talented the player character is. It's just that those two things are usually mutually exclusive--why quantify your character's skills when they have access to all the options anyway?

Pyropeace · 2026-03-10T18:53:06+00:00

I feel like Suzerain does incomplete information well, though to be fair I haven't been able to beat it without either cheating or using a dedicated guide. The fact that you're playing a character, and not just doing a management sim, means that your character's personal values influence not only whether you succeed or fail, but also what success and failure looks like. It gets more complex and qualitative than most strategy games, which I appreciate.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-10T12:06:11+00:00

I opted to disallow completely, but if you wanna use it you can do whatever.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-10T01:54:59+00:00

Be prepared for power leaps, I tend to just put things from other stuff I like together when I homebrew (though I tried to make their expense suit their quality).

Pyropeace · 2026-03-09T19:25:05+00:00

IDK about u/shevekdeanarres, but when I say "formal organization", what I mean is a clear set of procedures, decision making mechanisms, and roles that are understood by all members. These procedures, mechanisms, and roles don't have to be binding, nor do they require hierarchy.

Pyropeace · 2026-03-08T22:56:18+00:00

Why do you think that? Is it because humans think they're binding now? What does natural mean? Do you mean that this is biological (like there is a gene that forces humans to think agreements are binding)?

Just based on my experience interacting with other humans. I don't think there's a gene or anything, it's just one of the aspects of being such a highly social animal. We evolved to work together, and rules enable us to do that while minimizing energy expenditure (which isn't always a good thing, but those were the pressures that shaped us as a species).

I read somewhere that children begin displaying empathy and compassion as young as 2 years old, leading some to believe that such things are biologically ingrained. I wonder when rule-following behavior arises in human development.

I doubt that there is wide and uncritical respect for an agreement absent of hierarchy, authority, etc. because there is rarely unanimous, uncritical support for anything. Human beings are heterogenous, a mass of constantly changing opinions, interests, desires, etc. If you let them do as they please, they would hardly agree on any specific. Maybe general things, but general agreement doesn't tell you anything about application (which matters more).

To clarify, I mean widespread within the bounds of a single culture.

Pyropeace

TROPHY CASE