well, they can't do that again. It was definitely cool but Infinite is so much more.yeah, i fucking loved it, i thought it was cool how the plot had a theme of explaining the gaminess of the situation.
well, they can't do that again. It was definitely cool but Infinite is so much more.yeah, i fucking loved it, i thought it was cool how the plot had a theme of explaining the gaminess of the situation.
Wat?
I think in the other universe she's just born a male.
But I thought the two starring universes (one with Booker and one with Comstock) don't diverge until Booker's decision with the baptism, after Lutece is born.
Did they ever explain why comstocks voice sometimes has a dark demonic overtone to it?
No, I got the impression it's a SS2 callback to The Many.
Her finger being cut off and left behind in the universe apparently caused her powers. She was split between universes.
yeah, i fucking loved it, i thought it was cool how the plot had a theme of explaining the gaminess of the situation.
Who says male-Lutece is from on one of those two universes?
where was that explained?
the Bioshock 1 twist was good in a videogame context
I liked the would you kindly because it's funny how you just do stuff you're being asked in games. I also remember back when I was playing it even going like "why the hell would you go down there without asking any questions and doing what this guy says?" but still didnt see the manchurian candidate coming
I do think though that Infinite also plays at that sort of meta level by giving you plenty of typical videogame choices thinking you're gonna somehow affect the outcome of the game and realizing that the whole point is that no matter the choice the result is always the same
I very curious as to what is actually Ken's intent and what is left up to audience interpretation.
if this is the case though then i have to wonder what the point of that moral is. it's only ever true in videogames currently, unless the game is trying to say something about living with regret or how seeking redemption doesn't change the past.
Who says male-Lutece is from on one of those two universes?
yea, even Shawn Elliot said in OT that he will not come into this thread to discuss the story. It's up to us.leaving it up to audience interpretation is Ken's intent!
well I think other themes in the game are meant to reflect something about the real world metaphorically, but that the choice aspect certainly worked even better for being in a game. Same exact thing with the sleeper agent in Bioshock.
I'd be wary of worrying too much about the details in Rapture. I don't think anything they see or do there is meant to be taken as "real", per se.
but then what is the game trying to say about choice?
well, they can't do that again. It was definitely cool but Infinite is so much more.
but then what is the game trying to say about choice?
well I mean, I think it's there to show how the plot of this game also relates to Bioshock
always a city, always a man, etc etc. Basically there's an in-game explanation inside this game as to why Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite are so alike, it's the same story in different places. Hamcock and Andrew Ryan, Big Daddies and the Songbird and so on.
the rapture part works in there to better reflect on this point
I dont think that particular aspect is meant to have any other deeper meaning besides being sort of meta when it comes to videogames. Clearly the "real world" themes within the game happen in Columbia. I think Bioshock was the same way.
I think they did do it again though. In Bioshock they addressed the players lack of choice given the linear nature of a games narrative with would you kindly. In Infinite they address how all gamers have different experiences and do things differently during gameplay yet all end up in the same place given the linear narrative in the scene when you see thousands of other Bookers running across the bridge to the lighthouse. It's much more subtle but the scene's better for it once the light-bulb flicks and it creates a more rounded commentary of the experience that games offer.
do i have this part right?
comstock, aka sterile booker, wanted a kid so he made a tear to get the child he never had from non baptised booker?
do i have this part right?
comstock, aka sterile booker, wanted a kid so he made a tear to get the child he never had from non baptised booker?
Oh I just meant in terms of trying to come up with explanations as to why Bathyspheres work.
Yes, Comstock knew of Booker's debts and offered to pay them off in exchange for the child he could never have.
was that tear also through time? explaining the age difference?
but then what is the game trying to say about choice?
sure, tear can go anywhere anytime
Comstock being another version of Booker is all kinds of mind fuckery. What a warped ending.
was that tear also through time? explaining the age difference?
Well trying to wrap my head a round a few bits. Had a scan through the last 20 pages and coming to the conclusion there is a underlying theme of trauma and memory regression steaming from Booker.
Though not stated implicitly is more than likely his experience from wounded knee. This traumatic experience then leads to the pivotal baptism scene where depending on which reality splits in one of 2 ways (yeah maybe more but the game only really shows 2) one that goes through with the baptism and is absolved of his guilt or burden and through other events becomes Comstock while the other doesn't go through with it and becomes/continues to be Booker who ends up exchanging Anna for his 'debt'.
Might be well off there but seams plausible without too much over thinking. Ah sod it I'm just going to watch Vertigo as there seams to be so many parallels there.
maybe, but combstock aged faster because of the tear experiments.
That choice is irrelevant.
maybe, but combstock aged faster because of the tear experiments.
That choice is irrelevant.
what's funny is that the twist is one of those that you could easily just throw as a wild guess and be right because the "everyone's related" thing tends to happen so much in stories
"I bet he and the bad guy are the same guy!" "I bet she's his daughter!"
but it's handled in a way here that makes it work and still surprise you
"Because he doesn't row."
"He doesn't row?"
"No. He DOESN'T row."
Am I close?
Comstock being another version of Booker is all kinds of mind fuckery. What a warped ending.
You're there.
what's funny is that the twist is one of those that you could easily just throw as a wild guess and be right because the "everyone's related" thing tends to happen so much in stories
"I bet he and the bad guy are the same guy!" "I bet she's his daughter!"
but it's handled in a way here that makes it work and still surprise you
"Because he doesn't row."
"He doesn't row?"
"No. He DOESN'T row."
Am I close?
what's funny is that the twist is one of those that you could easily just throw as a wild guess and be right because the "everyone's related" thing tends to happen so much in stories
"I bet he and the bad guy are the same guy!" "I bet she's his daughter!"
but it's handled in a way here that makes it work and still surprise you
ok, well you know what, that little bit of clarity raises the ending a few notches but there's still a lot of hokeyness in my mind, ill think it out some more though.
oh shit, that's actually cool.