Sterling: In regard to Andrew Ryan (BioShock's villain), which sounds like a play on Ayn Rand, and the dystopic concepts presented within the game, would you say that BioShock is an indictment of objectivist ideology?
Ken Levine: Here's my favorite thing in the world about BioShock: I was on the forums; I think it was Slashdot or something that someone pointed me toward. There was one guy saying, "this asshole! This communist asshole! He's taking down objectivism!" There was another saying, "I don't want to play a game that's some sort of Republican screed about free-market bullshit!" I really love the fact that two people can look at the game and take away two totally different opinions on it. The game is not about answering questions and coming up with solutions; it's about asking questions. When you start the game and ride down the bathysphere and you see Ryan's short film asking, "is man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" that's a hard question to say no to. And, I dig it. But then there's Rapture, and I like that sort of opaqueness in storytelling, because I don't think there are black and whites.Patrick: I know there's the big issue on the Internet because you "can't kill" Little Sisters, which is technically incorrect, but it's everywhere.
Ken Levine: You mean, the Internet misinterpreted something?Patrick: Not the Internet! My God! What's your feeling on this; we've discussed it a bit on the podcast, but there seems to be some people misinterpreting the fact that you can't shoot the Little Sisters in gunfights, even though you can, in fact, kill them or choose not to. But it's a choice that's in the hands of the player as opposed to "oh, I shot a Little Sister; now I can't advance through the level," or "I got through the level, and I killed a little girl without any of the decision-making aspects." I know it's a long lead-in, but how well do you feel that the moral elements of the game made it into the core gameplay?
Ken Levine: It was an easy decision for us to make, because when you engage in a battle with a Big Daddy, as both of you just did, then it's very easy for a Little Sister to get stuck in the crossfire of that. It wouldn't be possible for one to stay out of it, and that harms the other element of the game. There's a fictional explanation in the game for why we wanted that right in the player's face. Those sequences are either more moving than you would expect, or brutal, depending on which path you take. It's not prurient violence; it's not about the action, but really the decision that you've made.
I really want it to be right there, and it's nothing you can hide from. It's right in my face, and honestly, I can't do it. I think that the media is a place where we can play with the darker side of things, of humanity. For example, "Schindler's List." When you watch the film and see Amon Goeth, Ralph Fiennes' character, you are participating in that guy's mind. For a period of time, there is a vicarious experience of going down that road with him and understanding him in that movie. And listen, I say this as a Jew. I think that it's a very important thing to do, to go down into dark places. That's one of the purposes of art.
Of course, in any new media, it always becomes something like Reverend Lovejoy's wife saying [impersonating Mrs. Lovejoy] "what about the children? Somebody do something for the children." And frankly, it's not for children. We never intended this game to be made for children. It's an M-rated game, and it's a fairly hard M. I don't think our media should be in a ghetto in which we're scared to take on certain issues, but at the same time, if we take them on, we should do it in a way that is powerful and meaningful, and not exploitative or strictly prurient. It's not about getting guns and taking down children; it's about this moral choice that's right in front of you.
