Rationalization is, as far as I can work out, pure art game. There is, as far as I can work out, not much game actually there. If you’ve no interest in this kind of thing, don’t follow the link, as it’s totally not for you. It’s also not, as far as I can work out, particularly great. I link to provide something for those of a certain mindset to chew over as they start the week. Go give it a shot, think about your interpretation. You’ll find mine beneath the cut, but don’t cheat. The one clue: according to the creator he made it to “to help me think through some philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand”.
Okay. The aim of the game is to collect all the items. Two are possible, the third is separated by a divide which you can’t cross by any discernible normal method. You can give up at any time and leave through the door, where you’re told that “You Live On Earth” and it’s the first of two endings.
But there’s something else going on. There’s someone else in the area with you, who you can approach. If you do so, he spouts a series of pro-community/rationality cliches (“United we stand, divided we fall”, “Justice is fairness”. The sort of thing Rand is 100% against, basically) and advises you try a special move. When you do this, an overlay of other paths fades into view, which move as you move, but – as you eventually realise – you can’t interact with whatever. The advice has no meaningful effect in the world.
Eventually, you submit and go and end the game. The point being, that there is no second ending. The world is the world and we have to live in it, and anyone saying anything contrary to that is full of the proverbial shit. 1=1 and all that. It’s point is hammered home by small things like the identity of the person you’re trapped with’s identity changing on re-play – on time an artist, the next a medicine-man. Point being, that anyone who says this kind of thing is full of shit.
That’s my take anyway. It’s strength is that it actually uses the medium – in that it’s reliant on that final leap from yourself. You need someone to play it and think about it. It’s a philosophical argument you interact with. The final leap isn’t in the game – it’s in your head.
The problem is that I think the game actually holds its contrary thesis. Yeah, there almost certainly isn’t a way to get that third item… but we don’t know for sure. I’m writing this half expecting someone to say “no, you have to do this”. I know that’s clearly anti-Objectivist, but it’s there. Even in a simulation reduced as far down to the basics as Rationalization is, to try and show you this is how the world is it doesn’t prove it. In fact, the opposite. It just makes you feel there must be a way through, in defiance of all logic. Without actually having some knowledge of Rand, I suspect that’s the message I’d have taken from it. John – who doesn’t – gave it a shot and just left immediately thinking it an annoying webgame. In other words, it lacks clarity unless you’re already talking to the converted (or, at least, those like me who are aware of what the converted think).
It’s simplification hits on its other problem – one which Rand shares. In cutting to these fundamentals, the opposition is reduced to a pure straw man.
EDIT: Oh, be sure to read the comments here. It’s kind of proving my point.
Related Stories:
Thanks for the comments/interpretations everyone!
To clarify, this game is not an ode to Objectivism (I am a fan, though not a full subscriber). Though it’s certainly not a refutation, and is mostly just my spin on her beliefs. It is primarily an exploration/explanation/rationalization of what I see going on around me (in most areas of my personal and professional life). I agree that it is pretty simplistic, but it (sadly) reflects my current understanding of what is going on. However, there are some apparently subtle messages that I haven’t heard brought up yet pertaining to “achieving Oneness.” I’ll probably write up a full description pretty soon.
Also, Hi5 to @PeopleLikeFrank for catching the Deleuze & Guattari quote/dis.
“As far as I can work out,” this article needs an editor. Seriously – repeating that phrase 3 times in the first paragraph did not create any worth while effect.
However, I do agree with Gillen that, since Rationalization is so minimally abstract, it can bear multiple interpretations, including their converses.
Kieron’s take on the game is ruggedly individual.
I’m pretty sure the “as far as I can work out” thing was intentional emphasis. It’s a repetition in threes thing that is actually a pretty common technique in literature as a form of emphasis. It is supposedly more likely to stick in the mind. It’s akin to alliteration.
I’m pretty sure my old english lang/lit teacher would have a fit, but i can’t remember the term for it I’m afraid.
IMHO, this can be generalized into any school of thought/religion, but I got more of a Buddhist vibe out of it. As you keep repeating the “mantras”, you see different layers of the world which were always there, just out of sight. The first and two mantras are somewhat straightforward, but the third one contains both the first and the second mantras, making things quite trippy. Then you either fall back into “reality”, get lost or successfully navigate your way into enlightenment.. and see no layers at all, not even the “reality” from which you started.
I was actually of the opinion that you couldn’t interact with it at all and was trying to figure out what the hell that meant.
I refreshed and my arrow keys started working, though, so I’m glad it wasn’t some sort of deconstruction game-not-game-it’s-art-you-can’t-play-it installation.
How does reaching a gold piece in another reality help me to reach the third gold piece in reality? If my goal was unreachable by any means, merely dreaming about finding it does not help me reach it in the material world, unless it inspires an actual physical solution.
To become lost in a delusional dream, or pretending the world exists only in the way you want, doesn’t effect reality, only your perception of it… This truly is rationalization.
“I’m pretty sure my old english lang/lit teacher would have a fit, but i can’t remember the term for it I’m afraid.”
Yeah, there’s probably a phrase for it. God knows what.
KG