|
I love how the guy playing in that Blip link just has his face in his hands for half the ending. I feel the same way, pal. I feel the same way. 
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
GenoCanSing posted:Ehh, I enjoyed Bioshock more the second time through, knowing the twists. What sold me on both Bioshocks was the environment, and I think Columbia will be just as fun to explore. I sincerely doubt you 'side' with either faction in any meaningful way, before the vox attacked the zeppelin in that level the player was killing Comstock's men and then killed Comstock himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I love how the guy playing in that Blip link just has his face in his hands for half the ending. I feel the same way, pal. I feel the same way. He was probably tired as poo poo, if you note the timestamps in the chatlog, he had started that final fight before midnight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:It's not and that's kind of what gets me. Regardless of who well it is or isn't executed, a lot more was promised. Nothing new, but still dissapointing nonetheless. I like Levine and most of his games I've been exposed to, but he has a tendency to exaggerate when interacting with the press.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I like Levine and most of his games I've been exposed to, but he has a tendency to exaggerate when interacting with the press. I understand when Molyneux or Levine exaggerate and then people go, "Well, you should know by now not to trust these people," but at the same time, that's completely unacceptable. I mean, obviously this is different from Molyneux's straight up lies, but I just feel let down by the narrative that formed around this game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
God drat, the way Elizabeth goes full exposition mode bugs the poo poo out of me. This is the most revolutionary thing I have ever seen! Now I understand why the one team member almost quit! I am shocked and awed by the power of this ending! I'm also very, very bored! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
I like how generic endings have become extremely appealing again after these last few years of awful video game endings. Yet another video game protagonist dead at the end of the game. It's officially a tired trend now. Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Just finished watching the whole thing instead of just reading a synopsis and... Yeah. Yeah, this basically is Silent Hill: Homecoming's bad ending. The main character is being drowned in a "for the greater good" sacrifice because otherwise EVERYONE will be pretty much doomed. The main character in question (Booker, Alex) is drowned at the hands of someone else because, according to their words, it is the right thing to do. For being so shocking and amazing this is really really unfulfilling and unoriginal! Way to loving go Ken! 
CJacobs fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Just finished watching the whole thing instead of just reading a synopsis and... Yeah. Yeah, this basically is Silent Hill: Homecoming's bad ending. The main character is being drowned in a "for the greater good" sacrifice because otherwise EVERYONE will be pretty much doomed. The main character in question (Booker, Alex) is drowned at the hands of someone else because, according to their words, it is the right thing to do. What game ended with the protagonist dying surrounded by the women he saved? Bioshock 1. What game ended with the protagonist dying to protect their daughter from themselves? Bioshock 2. In Bioshock Infinite, Booker's daughter murders Booker before Booker fathers a daughter. This is asinine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Obviously the next game is going to take it a step further and have the main character's daughter kill the main character while also killing themselves to close a time loop and prevent any of history from actually happening because that's just the way it has to be! This time it takes place in a series of underground mines that are really really dangerous believe us! Also, Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are there! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:For being so shocking and amazing this is really really unfulfilling and unoriginal! Way to loving go Ken! Clearly you're just too entitled and homophobic to see the true genius behind this compelling and daring narrative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
I don't get how killing one Brooker does anything about all the other Brookers/Comstocks that exist in the hundreds of different worlds the game suggest exists. What exactly does drowning him accomplish? EDIT: I also don't get why they ended up in Rapture for a minute. Internet Kraken fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
Internet Kraken posted:I don't get how killing one Brooker does anything about all the other Brookers/Comstocks that exist in the hundreds of different worlds the game suggest exists. What exactly does drowning him accomplish? They take him back to a certain point in the criss-crossing timelines where he hasn't yet become either of the potential men he can be. Thus killing him at that point unravels all the poo poo that happened as a result. I think drowning him in that glade/area is just how they chose to do it, because of it's significance with the whole baptizing the child/becoming Comstock/remaining Booker connection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
But that still doesn't really jibe with Elizabeth's whole "There are an absolute shitload of worlds!" type thing. If they go back and kill Booker at the point where he would split between Booker and Comstock... then why does that kill off every single world where Booker goes either way when there are an infinite number of them? Wouldn't it just close off the one they're currently occupying? If they go back before any splits happen and kill Booker, the original result can still happen in a world where they didn't do that! And to that effect, why does Booker suddenly become the same person as the one he was in the past when they go to that world? He's the same person, as evidenced by him being basically ethereal when talking to Elizabeth... but why does he occupy a different Booker's body just because it's a different world? Even if it's the SAME world and they're just in the past, they still time traveled! Shouldn't he still be, y'know, himself? It's like, if Booker carved AD into the back of his hand, why would the other Bookers suddenly have that? Wouldn't only the ones that carved it into their hand have it? God drat it, Irrational. These are the same problems I had with Looper and you're bringing them up again! CJacobs fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Does the multiverse happen only when Booker T. DeWitt gets baptised? Maybe if they go back before he was baptised there's only one universe. Mods please change thread title to "Bioshock Infinite SPOILERS Thread: Irrational Games"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
My main theory was that Elizabeth could only take Booker as far as her own existence. As in, taking Booker back to when she was a baby was the extent of it and they could go no further just because she didn't exist before that. But that would only sort-of-kind-of make sense... which I suppose would fit well with the ending as is! If there is a world created for every variation of what happens after either choice, then why does going back to the moment before it happened in one world stop it from happening in other worlds? It just doesn't quite make sense to me that there are hundreds of hundreds of worlds that just suddenly exist, spanning off of this one choice of Booker becoming Comstock or not. That would further imply that they went back to the first time it happened in the first world where it happened, which would not work because killing the Booker that went through the game would not kill the Booker that became Comstock or didn't, because they aren't the same person! What I guess I'm saying here is that her drowning 'you', the player's Booker, does not work because you aren't the same Booker as the one that made the choice. The majority of the reason it doesn't make sense is because the ending takes place from the first person when 'your' Booker should be the one watching it from the outside perspective. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:My main theory was that Elizabeth could only take Booker as far as her own existence. As in, taking Booker back to when she was a baby was the extent of it and they could go no further just because she didn't exist before that. But that would only sort-of-kind-of make sense... which I suppose would fit well with the ending as is! Congratulations, in the 24 hours or so that this information has been available, you have already thought more about the plot than Ken Levine and the gang did in five years. I think anyone who has read my posts in the other thread would agree that I have tried to give this game the benefit of the doubt, but all the plot information is seriously depressing. I was prepared to forgive the hopelessly clunky looking combat if it was in service of an interesting and unique story. Instead we evidently have Looper: Steampunk Edition (Now with Extra Plotholes). Very depressing. It could have been so much more than this, Ken 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
Thinking about it more, I supposed the idea is that Elizabeth has been elevated to some godlike state due to her powers. So when she drowns you in the river, it could mean she is suing her powers to simultaneously kill all Bookers across all worlds. Which is a really lovely way to end a story in my opinion. I was skeptical of the plot to this game because I heard about Elizabeth's weird reality distorting powers and was convinced it was going to lead to a really dumb ending like this. I'm biased against any story that goes down the multiple worlds with multiple versions of the same person route though, so maybe that is just clouding my judgement. Even if it made perfect sense I still probably wouldn't like it. Really though, where the gently caress does Rapture fit into this? It feels like they just threw in a reference to that game out of the blue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Rapture/Jack/Andrew Ryan are just another way the events played out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
Ok, i've been thinking about it more and as i'm not going to buy this game could someone who watched the stream explain these parts for me. 1. What was the deal with the brother and sister, earlier in the thread someone said that they discovered interdimensional travel in their respective dimensions and helped Comstock kidnap the baby then later were 'killed' and scattered to the multiverse. At what point in time did this all happen and was it them who brought you to the Columbia dimension and sent you after Comstock as revenge for being 'killed'? 2. Was Elizabeth born before or after the Baptism? If after did Comstock want to kidnap her because he thought he thought he would be a better Dad than Booker? Did he know she would have god like powers? When Comstock kidnaps her is he the same age as Booker or is there time travel involved in the kidnapping? If she was born after the Baptism how does Booker killing himself save her, wouldn't she never exist? 3. How does Booker killing himself in the water where he was baptised stop all Comstocks and Bookers from existing? Is there some explanation like the multiverse only started existing when it was discovered/when Elizabeth was born? If not, how does going back to that time period in one timeline stop all the Comstocks and Bookers? Would there not be other near identical timelines which splintered off the day before when he tied his shoes wrong which could then get baptised and become Comstock? Are we to assume from the multiple Elizabeths standing next to each other that she used her wibbly wobbly timey wimey powers to collapse all the timelines into one so she could kill him in all of them? I guess those are my main questions. The easiest way to answer them would probably be to play the game, but i'm struggling to see how they could answer them before the twist without spoiling what the twist would be before the player gets to the end of the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
I just don't get what Ken Levine's fascination is with 'your guy has to die at the end so that the aftermath is out of his hands'. Yeah, it's a nice trope, you have used it for all three games jesus christ we get it. Bioshock 1 was nice by inverting it, having you live out the rest of Jack's life on fast forward. Bioshock 2 had Eleanor absorb Delta's thoughts, his memories, his powers... or not, depending on how you played the game. But this one just, like... You don't even have any choice. The only thing you're given is "you killed the big bad guy, but you ARE ALSO the big bad guy, therefore there is literally no other alternative and you must die even though with the big bad dead and the city practically in ruin everything has already been resolved." It's a weird inversion on the previous games in the series, which put so much emphasis on the fact that there ARE other alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Something I don't get: does Elizabeth know all this going in? Is she the best actress ever and is using Booker? Or does she somehow realize it all at the end? Also, is she born before the baptism? If so, why does Comstock need to kidnap her - wouldn't she already be her daughter. If she's only born to Booker, then the ending also must kill her, right? And why does Booker even need to die? Where does the time loop come in? I can see multiple dimensions happening at the same time, but the events are linear and are pretty completed by the time you finish the game. So how does it restart?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Apparently the siphon was sort of an inhibitor to Elizabeth's powers, and she finally realized their full potential (and I guess figured out the truth somehow) after the Songbird blew it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Spite posted:Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Elizabeth doesn't know all of this is going on because there's a machine inside Monument Island which keeps her powers in check. She's born before any baptism. Comstock kidnaps her because his daughter was stolen from him and probably for some religious reasons. Think of like this: There's a Comstock that steals Booker's daughter, leading him to the baptism. He either chooses A) to become Comstock or B) become Booker. Comstock from A goes and steals Anna from one of the Bookers created from scenario B. This goes on in an infinite loop. The Bookers from the "B" scenario are all approached by Robert Lutece to "save the girl, wipe away the debt" and (presumably) they fail. When he is transported to the universe in which Comstock exists (B to A), however, his memories are all scrambled and he makes up the story of the gambling debt. The loop is broken because Elizabeth takes a Booker produced in one of the "B" scenarios "outside of space and time" to a hub universe/center of the multiverse. Here the baptism is about to take place, but instead of choosing A or B, Elizabeth(s) decides to drown Booker and break the cycle. This has the effect of collapsing the entire time line, resetting everything back to the moment when Booker gave up his daughter in the first place. Booker is drowned, but because Elizabeth disappears, he is never drowned in the first place. Some quantum fuckery goes on, and the loop breaks, resetting everything back to the moment where Booker would have given up his daughter to Lutece and Comstock. Happy (but ambiguous, as we never see Anna) ending. It's not supposed to make much sense. KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Elizabeth doesn't know all of this is going on because there's a machine inside Monument Island which keeps her powers in check. I thought I had a grasp on the ending, but now I have no idea. Hopefully playing the game proper clarifies its laws of causality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
I think the ending would be much, much more effective if they didn't throw the "By the way: YOU ARE COMSTOCK" thing at you right at the very end. I mean, it's pretty sloppy to drop like 10 reveals on you in a 15 minute exposition dump. But the twist of Booker giving away Elizabeth is good enough on its own - though they probably need to reveal it differently. Making Booker become Comstock is an interesting idea but it kind of cheapens everything you went through beforehand. And it doesn't answer the question of why you want to go back in time to prevent it. Sure, Booker messed up his daughter's life but at the end of the game they can at least move on. It's not a time loop, it's the same pattern happening simultaneously. Booker initially thinks killing Comstock will mean he never sells his daughter so they she can actually grow up. But the reveal throws that away and means that neither of them exist, which isn't really what they want. I do like loops and cycles generally, but this seems kind of sloppy. Do they ever explain why Elizabeth has her powers? And Comstock losing his daughter is a big, big plothole. Which will probably be addressed in DLC? I dunno. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So there's a problem with what you said: if Comstock steals the daughter before the baptism, then that's the branching point, not the baptism. Since we know that Booker has his daughter and Comstock does not. Spite fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Here's a crude but as far as I can tell accurate image making the rounds that may or may not answer some of the questions floating around in the thread v  v
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
No Mods No Masters posted:Here's a crude but as far as I can tell accurate image making the rounds that may or may not answer some of the questions floating around in the thread v I think this is a plausible interpretation and I think it would have been easier to come to this conclusion if Elizabeth didn't suddenly become a cryptic omnipotent being that whisks you off to Rapture and starts jabbering about doors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Rapture/Jack/Andrew Ryan are just another way the events played out. Could someone elaborate? Did something Elizabeth/Booker/Comstock did in a parallel universe in some nebulous way contribute to the formation of Rapture? Because that seems like a tenuous connection. Rinkles fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Wait, so Booker sells Elizabeth/Anna to Comstock before the baptism? Where is that made clear? The ending I watched made it seem like that occurs after the baptism, when Booker refuses it. Though the entire loop makes more sense if it occurs afterward - if he thinks he's buying his daughter from his earlier self. That's really not clear from the presentation though. And Booker is never offered a chance to go to Columbia and save Elizabeth to erase his sins - he makes that up himself. Also, the Rapture connection seems really, really tenuous. It could just be some other reality unrelated to this story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia could you clarify how the twins tie into this. If they're from different dimensions, how can Comstock always (in each universe) kill both? Is it because for every Comstock universe (where Booker takes the baptism) there's a Booker universe (where he doesn't), and hence, two Lutece per Comstock. But Booker's decision shouldn't have a bearing on Lutece's gender. Also, what would happen to the twins (or "twin"?) after the reset?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
No Mods No Masters posted:Here's a crude but as far as I can tell accurate image making the rounds that may or may not answer some of the questions floating around in the thread v The game does not support this theory. At the baptism flashback, Booker remarks, "I was here, it must have been...twenty years ago. Right after Wounded Knee." After Booker sells his daughter, the scene shifts forward in time and Elizabeth notes, "you shared this room with your regret for almost 20 years...till one day, a man came to you..." Booker sells Elizabeth after the baptism. Rinkles posted:Could someone elaborate? Did something Elizabeth/Booker/Comstock did in a parallel universe in some nebulous way contribute to the formation of Rapture? Because that seems like a tenuous connection. It's a half-baked attempt at meta-commentary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Merry Magpie posted:The game does not support this theory. The man Elizabeth is referring to, I think, is the Lutece twin when he hires Booker to save the adult Elizabeth, not the time when he comes to take the child. I think the former encounter (hiring) might be a figment of his distorted memories as he changes universes, or the twins otherwise loving with Booker's mind. He lost Anna twenty years ago, spent twenty years sulking in his apartment until Lutece visited him (a second time, after twenty years) at the beginning of the game (presumably, haven't seen that part). At least that's how I understood it. Could someone that saw the beginning clarify how Booker set off and decided to free Elizabeth? Was it Lutece? That's what I gathered from bits in the ending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
The Lutece twins do it, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:The Lutece twins do it, yeah. Does he go through a rift (though I'm not certain why he'd have to because I thought Columbia was contemporary to him)? Otherwise, I'm not certain what to attribute the dysfunctional memory to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
I don't know if he specifically goes through a rift, but the circumstances of him coming to Columbia are because of the Lutece twins working some magic, I'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Does he go through a rift (though I'm not certain why he'd have to because I thought Columbia was contemporary to him)? Otherwise, I'm not certain what to attribute the dysfunctional memory to. He goes through a rift and has his memories scrambled (see the opening quote of the game). Remember, in the universe in which Booker exists initially, there's no such thing as Columbia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Does he go through a rift (though I'm not certain why he'd have to because I thought Columbia was contemporary to him)? Otherwise, I'm not certain what to attribute the dysfunctional memory to. I might not have understood what exactly happened but I think Booker sells Elizabeth to Comstock via a time rift, then the Lutece twins pull Booker through another time rift to have him go rescue Elizabeth from Comstock. Booker forgets about the time travel nonsense when he goes through the rift though. EDIT: This all seems like a very roundabout and confusing way to create an ending in which the two main characters kill themselves. I can't help but imagine most of the impact that would have is going to be diminished due to people not being able to understand what is going on in the last 15 minutes. Internet Kraken fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Infinity Gaia could you clarify how the twins tie into this. If they're from different dimensions, how can Comstock always (in each universe) kill both? Is it because for every Comstock universe (where Booker takes the baptism) there's a Booker universe (where he doesn't), and hence, two Lutece per Comstock. But Booker's decision shouldn't have a bearing on Lutece's gender. As far as I can understand, by tampering with the dimensional bullshit they did, they somehow simultaneously erased and became all of their potential selves. I have no idea what would happen to them post-reset. I only watched this in a stream, so I could have missed some details, but the game didn't seem too concerned with explaining their fate. Also the deal with the Lutece's gender is entirely separate. I think at some point in the past one of the Lutece dies in an unexplained manner, either the brother or the sister, different per universe. Then the sister Lutece brings over brother Lutece from a universe in which he survived but she didn't. They're those weird kinds of twins that seem like they can't properly live without each other, and that was in fact the entire reason behind the research. Everything else was secondary, to the point sister Lutece is perfectly content even in dimension-spread-existence-state. Brother Lutece is the one that kept trying to fix the timeline, over and over again. You can see that they tried this a lot by a scene where they ask you to flip a coin and it's always heads, brother Lutece is wearing a scoreboard on him showing how many times it came up heads, and there's hundreds and hundreds of marks. A lot of non-player-character Bookers died before the situation got just right enough for Godhead Elizabeth to come into existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Rinkles posted:The man Elizabeth is referring to, I think, is the Lutece twin when he hires Booker to save the adult Elizabeth, not the time when he comes to take the child. I think the former encounter (hiring) might be a figment of his distorted memories as he changes universes, or the twins otherwise loving with Booker's mind. He lost Anna twenty years ago, spent twenty years sulking in his apartment until Lutece visited him (a second time, after twenty years) at the beginning of the game (presumably, haven't seen that part). At least that's how I understood it. Yes, that's what I said. Were you confused by my explanation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:10
|
|