Voice of Reason
Banned
It didn't? What gave you that impression. He says "it is finished" for the loop closing and one of the timelines finally got to the end. Comstock foresaw this.
SPOILER Bioshock Infinite SPOILER discussion
- Thread starter thomasmahler
- Start date
It didn't? What gave you that impression. He says "it is finished" for the loop closing and one of the timelines finally got to the end. Comstock foresaw this.
Why doesn't the last Liz not fade away like the others when Booker is drowned? She is still there before the screen goes black. Shouldn't she fade as well if that were the case?
Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
I know games don't need a happy ending, and I really did think every Booker who went to the baptism, whether he accepted or not is now dead, but I don't get how the Booker who rejects gets drowned. He would never be under the water and there's no threat of him being Comstock. The baptism is a constant, but only the Comstocks would be anywhere near shoving their head underwater. That still leaves the matter of how an unbaptized Booker acts for all the Bookers to follow.
This is all fairly ridiculous.
This is all fairly ridiculous.
CuckFupertino
Banned
I agree as well. The whole tone of the scene is that all Bookers have to die in order to stop Comstock from ever being "created." It really cheapens the entire scene if we're to believe that only "bad" Bookers are killed. He's killed before he can decide; therefore no Booker is supposed to exist after 1890. Therefore every permutation of Elizabeth disappears.
As far as the post credits scene? No idea what that's supposed to be. But I may have just had an epiphany as I typed those words. Here it is, for your consideration:
Let's call the Booker DeWitt you play as "Booker Prime." No idea why he needs to be Prime, it just sounds cool. (Maybe in this reality he's related to Optimus?) Booker Prime is from a universe (or multiverse) where he chooses NOT to be baptized, and doesn't become Comstock. Instead he has Elizabeth/Anna, but then gives her up to Lutece when Comstock comes through to Prime's reality. 20 years go by, right? It's 1912. Booker Prime is then brought into Comstock's multiverse by the Luteces. The year here is actually something like 1930 or 1940, because Comstock is ~20 or 30 years older than Booker Prime.
Booker Prime does all the crap in BS: Infinite, and we get to the endgame. You start slipping through multiverses with Elizabeth/Anna. First time you go to the baptism, you DON'T get baptized. Now, this is where it gets tricky - during this portion of the game you see the baptism from Booker's eyes. According to the "rules" of multiverse travel (i.e. that Booker Prime and Comstock may both exist in a multiverse), you should be seeing through the eyes of Booker Prime whom promptly just appeared in 1890. Instead, you see this baptism (or "not baptism") from the eyes of who we shall call "Booker Not." Booker Not is a version of Booker who chooses not to become baptized. The case could be made that Booker Prime is a future version of Booker Not, and this would be true. In order for any Booker to become Booker Prime, that Booker must choose not to accept the baptism (and thus become Comstock).
Now that we've got that out of the way, it does little to explain why we see the NOT baptism from Booker Prime's eyes. One could posit that the player simply becomes Booker Not instead of Booker Prime, but I don't believe this since no telegraph is given to player that he is "switching" Bookers, so to say. I've got two theories about how and why you see the NOT baptism from Booker Prime's eyes:
1. You're not really seeing it as it's taken place. When Booker Prime steps through the tear into the 1890 where he doesn't accept the baptism, he relives it. In his mind. In reality, what Booker Prime would REALLY see if he wasn't having a flashback, would be Booker Not refusing a baptism. He'd see himself. But you, the player, through the eyes of Booker Prime, do not see that because he's having a flashback/hallucination/recalling it or whatever.
OR
2. When you, Booker Prime, step through the tear into an 1890 where you don't become Comstock, or see the NOT baptism (as I've taken to calling it), you "become" Booker Not. This makes little sense in terms of the "rules" by which the multiverses function, but does raise an interesting point which I'll come back to in a minute. You "become" Booker Not because Booker Not becomes Booker Prime. Remember, to be Booker Prime, Booker must have not accepted the baptism - otherwise he becomes Comstock. Every Booker who chooses not to accept the baptism is Booker Not. By some whacky-ass rules, Booker Prime replace Booker Not because Booker Not's experiences match Booker Prime's exactly, except for the fact that Booker Not obviously has no experience past 1890.
Now, if we believe #2 to have been the case, there's one glaring flaw: Booker Prime is 40ish years old. Booker Not was 20 or so. That suggests that by the time 1912 comes around, when Booker Prime sets off to Columbia to rescue Elizabeth, Booker would have to be in his 60s. Roughly the same age as Comstock. Perhaps this somehow explains that it is actually 1912 in Columbia when Booker Prime gets there, and Comstock is so old because he went back in time (before he went foward?). I'll admit this mechanic makes little sense but perhaps someone else can suss it out.
Now, going back to my #1 theory - where Booker merely "imagines" himself refusing the baptism, or relives it if you will - this would help explain the Booker, or Booker Prime, at the end of the credits. You see, if we accept that Booker Prime wasn't actually being baptised/refusing baptism when he comes back with Elizabeth to 1890, then neither was it Booker Prime who was killed by the Elizabeths/Annas at the very end. Instead, it was some other Booker, and Booker Prime was merely "remembering" it happening - just like the Asian gunsmith guy (name escapes me. Chin Li? Not gonna guess!) "remembers" dying, even though he's alive in this alternate universe.
So when you see Booker drowning in the end, it's not really Booker Prime, the Booker you played the entire game as. Instead, it's some other Booker. Booker Prime is merely "remembering" him/them dying. I don't believe it's every Booker who becomes Comstock - I just think it's every Booker in 1890. So then, the Booker at the end of the credits? That's you, Booker Prime. You never died. Why are you back in 189x with baby Elizabeth/Anna? Who knows. Maybe you took a "door" to then so you could stop yourself from handing her over. That's the ultimate win-win scenario, right? Don't become Comstock, don't give Anna up. So maybe Elizabeth just sends you there. I don't really know.
After writing all this I have a headache. Hopefully it makes sense. Someone else has already probably come to the same conclusions. If you have objections/need me to clarify things lemme know.
Because it helps bring home the fact that Rapture is essentially Columbia in another reality.
Elizabeth saying "there's always a man, always a city" etc would have tipped it off, but actually taking you there goes the extra mile in driving this point.
Its what makes you further connect the dots and realize that all the similarities between this game and Bioshock have a reason for being.
A note plays to symbolise each Liz disappearing. That note plays as the screen turns black, which means we can presume that the last Liz is also gone. Perhaps as nobody remains there, there is nobody remaining to see anything (hence cut to black)?
jacksepticeye
Member
We kinda get hints at constants. She says there's always a lighthouse, always a city and always a man. Those to me are some of the constants, how it all plays out are the variables. But the big question is if the ending to scenarios are variables or constants. It would sure seem like their constants from the heads or tails experiment and the illusion of choice
José Mourinho
cocknose
One of those long videos where some guy, Ian something or other, explains the plot. He says that Booker killing Comstock basically produces a new Comstock in Booker. It's rubbish.
Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
Comstock aged prematurely because he kept walking around and looking through tears. He's supposedly the same age as Booker.
I don't know what voxophones support this though, just read it in this thread.
I don't know what voxophones support this though, just read it in this thread.
Yeah, that's stupid. Comstock was always Booker.
jacksepticeye
Member
Like the end of the Sopranos when Tony supposedly gets killed and doesn't see people walking through the door anymore
Link me up? cos that sounds really dumb
Ok i've had a bit of time to think about it, and this is just the quick explanation of what I think happened and why the post credits scene can exist, it's clear that Lutece has seen Booker attempt the rescue, the denial, the baptism etc multiple times, and they want to whipe what they've done clean, they want a pure timeline, now at the end of the game, where you ultimately accept the baptism and are drowned, the doorway you walk into to get there, takes you to the FIRST time that Booker ever had a choice about the baptism, before he ever made a yes or no decision about it, you saying yes means that the original baptism was accepted and you are drowned, whiping out all the bookers, all the anna's and all the comstocks. BUT just because everything after Booker is whiped away, does not mean that Bookers parents cannot conceive as it merely whiped out everything from Bookers timeline/timelines. Thus a pure timeline is created just like the Lutece wanted, Bookers parents conceive their child and booker is born, which is why after the credits he walks in to Anna's room and the crib is there, that is their pure timeline, if you get into the nitty gritty of course there are an infinite number of timelines, an infinite amount of Bookers and Comstocks, but THIS is the pure timeline that the Lutece, and ultimately you and Anna wanted, this is the one thats guarenteed to be pure
Sorry for the wall of text but I was just writing down as my mind thought about it, but that would allow everything to exist, everything to happen, and not only that, but for a happily ever after to exist in that one timeline at least, too...
Sorry for the wall of text but I was just writing down as my mind thought about it, but that would allow everything to exist, everything to happen, and not only that, but for a happily ever after to exist in that one timeline at least, too...
Remachinate
Member
I said this about 14 pages back, but I think you guys might be confused about the timelines concept. There aren't just two universes, there are infinite universes, divided into two subsets: one set producing Comstock, and the other producing DeWitt, and both subsets are all identical up until the decision is made. The final pond scene doesn't represent *one* universe, it represents all of them. That's how Comstock is eliminated across all universes. But you can't visit only the Comstock subset at a time before he becomes Comstock, because the choice hasn't been made yet--you can only visit both subsets simultaneously. And if you eliminate the man before he becomes either Comstock or Booker, he ceases to exist as either in all of those universes.
SkyTurnsRed
Banned
Has anyone read The Dark Tower? My friend claims that there are a lot of similarities between the two. Granted, he isn't done (he's at the Comstock House) but it does have me interested.
I don't know why people find it so difficult to wrap their heads around an older Comstock and a younger Booker.
The Lautrecs could have pulled Booker from a younger time as well.
Remember its all about When.
After Wounded Knee, it took Comstock decades to develop Columbia and the Tears. Plus about 20 years for Elizabeth to grow up.
Really it only took Booker a couple years to work for the Pinkertons, get drunk, and have Elizabeth after Wounded Knee.
The Lautrecs could have pulled Booker from a younger time as well.
Remember its all about When.
After Wounded Knee, it took Comstock decades to develop Columbia and the Tears. Plus about 20 years for Elizabeth to grow up.
Really it only took Booker a couple years to work for the Pinkertons, get drunk, and have Elizabeth after Wounded Knee.
I think it's one of the last two in Comstock's bedroom/office. I'll go check now.
Voice of Reason
Banned
Nevermind, I keep getting confused. You're right, and I already talked about how it's probably a Booker before baptism as that event is now deleted from the infinite multiverse.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
jacksepticeye
Member
So you're saying there's only two types of Booker. Normal Booker and Comstock across all the infinite universes? The how do YOU see the after credits scene? As I understand from your post he's letting himself die to kill all the possible versions of himself. Or did I misunderstand?
between lutece and letuce, this is probably the most interesting spelling for the pair
jacksepticeye
Member
between lutece and letuce, this is proably the most interesting spelling for the pair
Lautrec? like from Dark Souls? lol
mickcenary
Member
Yep. Alrighty. Thanks for the clarification!
between lutece and letuce, this is probably the most interesting spelling for the pair
I have yet to get it right, just ignore my spelling.
Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
There's one constant universe, the baptism, and infinite universes branch off from there. By changing the baptism so that Booker dies, none of those universes can exist because Booker is gone. Right? I thought we established that, but then we get hung up on the after credits scene.
CuckFupertino
Banned
ALSO I JUST REALIZED SOMETHING THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
Okay sorry for the caps.
Bear with me here, and this is why we desperately need a timeline of sorts:
Elizabeth's age is relative to Booker's. In other words, whatever age gap the two had in Booker's original multiverse stays constant throughout the game with the Elizabeth you play with. Shes' roughly 20 in the game, you're roughly 40. You had her when you were roughly 20. This is made clear to the player when Elizabeth talks about the 20 years Booker spent holed up in his apartment after he gave up Elizabeth/Anna. That being said, how old is the Comstock that comes back to take Elizabeth/Anna? He looks to be roughly the same age as Booker, just with a beard. Maybe I'm dead wrong and he's older? What year is he from?]
If we assume the Comstock that comes back to take Anna away from Booker is from the same year (as it is in Booker's universe that he takes Anna from), then Comstock and Booker are obviously the same age.
But when Booker gets to Columbia, Elizabeth is 20 and Comstock is 60. What?
Comstock aged ~40 years while Elizabeth aged ~20.
This could be explained if Comstock were said to have spent years in another multiverse, but it's never really implied that he does. He just looks through them to get his visions, steal technology, etc.
So, can anyone explain that contradiction in a reasonable manner?
Okay sorry for the caps.
Bear with me here, and this is why we desperately need a timeline of sorts:
Elizabeth's age is relative to Booker's. In other words, whatever age gap the two had in Booker's original multiverse stays constant throughout the game with the Elizabeth you play with. Shes' roughly 20 in the game, you're roughly 40. You had her when you were roughly 20. This is made clear to the player when Elizabeth talks about the 20 years Booker spent holed up in his apartment after he gave up Elizabeth/Anna. That being said, how old is the Comstock that comes back to take Elizabeth/Anna? He looks to be roughly the same age as Booker, just with a beard. Maybe I'm dead wrong and he's older? What year is he from?]
If we assume the Comstock that comes back to take Anna away from Booker is from the same year (as it is in Booker's universe that he takes Anna from), then Comstock and Booker are obviously the same age.
But when Booker gets to Columbia, Elizabeth is 20 and Comstock is 60. What?
Comstock aged ~40 years while Elizabeth aged ~20.
This could be explained if Comstock were said to have spent years in another multiverse, but it's never really implied that he does. He just looks through them to get his visions, steal technology, etc.
So, can anyone explain that contradiction in a reasonable manner?
between lutece and letuce, this is probably the most interesting spelling for the pair
I couldn't figure out why people were talking about lettuce earlier.
José Mourinho
cocknose
Think it's this one. It's weird, because his other video gives some good plot explanation.
Voice of Reason
Banned
The DLC should definitely involve the Landans.
Yeah, it turns out that tear and time travels makes you age more rapidly, and become sterile.
This is why Comstock appears older. Chronologically, they are the same age.
Good call on that edit, that makes things interesting.
there's two things going on, some people are saying that Comstock could be the same age as Booker and aged because of using/seeing through tears too much
where did you read he was 60 tho? dont remember that
as for my take: I dont see why Comstock has to be the same age as Booker only more aged. I think there's nothing that dictates that Comstock couldnt have gone back whenever the fuck he wanted to bring Elizabeth
maybe he was just 40 when he came back, why not? I really dont see Comstock's age being any sort of relevant equation
wether he's the same age as Booker when he takes her is irrelevant.
It's implied that the tears are what made him sterile but iirc there's nothing indicating he is exactly the same age as booker and just aged a shit ton because of them
Remachinate
Member
I'm saying there are only two types of Booker that sought out baptism, and both types are killed across all the universes at the end of the game. There are still infinite variations of Booker that never considered baptism as a viable path for atonement, some of which may still have married a woman that would give birth to Anna. My best interpretation for the ending at the moment is that the consciousness of the Booker that the player follows throughout the game is transferred to one of these "non-baptism" Bookers after being drowned by the Elizabeths to finally live a happy existence.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
my problem with this, like i said before, is that you cannot have such a radical random divergence at an arbitrary point in time. following this idea would mean:
exactly 1 universe and 1 booker for all previous time, and then infinity universes and infinity bookers at the moment of choosing to be baptised or not. that would mean that bookers decision created the multi verse itself.
And what is this reason for the similarities? I understand fink was influenced by raptures technologies - but what is the reason for the Ryan/Comstock or Rapture/Columbia similarities. I agree there are some, but why? If the reason is just the fact that there are 'infinite universes' - I didn't need bioshock to tell me that a monkey could write Shakespere over an infinite amount of time. Not trying to sound critical of the game I super enjoyed it, but to your original point I DO think the shout out to rapture was just merely a wink to the fans, not so much integral to the story.
BlastProcessing
Member
Smart ass answer: TIME TRAVEL!
Non-Smart ass answer: I interpreted it as the last thing that Booker sees as he drowns. His final redemption would be to see Anna in that crib, but he dies right before he can check.
I agree, Tears make the When of it completely irrelevant. The Lettuces keep beating this into you through what they say to you and their Voxophones.
Also, Columbia wasn't built in a day.
Booker? His downward spiral of drinking and gambling probably only a couple years.
CuckFupertino
Banned
Yeah okay I think you're right. Comstock could have been 40 when he came back to get Elizabeth. That explains my entire line of questioning there. I never read he was 60, just assuming. He's significantly older looking than Booker.
The Prophet is Dying
-Rosalind Lutece
December the 4th, 1907
Location: The Hand of the Prophet
The Prophet is dying. The metastasis has aged him so quickly. Why does this Comstock decay, while a Comstock in another world remains fit? If genetics are destiny, what accounts for the difference? Perhaps exposure to the contraption? Hm. It merits further study.
Voice of Reason
Banned
No, as everything preceding the divergence is preceded by another infinite timelines with infinitely different decisions.
jacksepticeye
Member
CuckFupertino
Banned
So somebody pointed this out earlier, about how the "decisions" you make during the game actually have no bearing on what happens at all - they're purely cosmetic, the reason being that the devs are making a statement that some decisions have no discernable impact on any mulitverse. Following this line of thought, perhaps Booker never made a decision pre-Wounded Knee that would have made a discernable impact in any multiverse. Sure, maybe in some multiverse he eats corndogs instead of fried chicken - but nothing else changes. I think that's the idea they're trying to communicate with the locket/coin toss stuff. Or at least that's somebody else's idea I stole and hamfisted into my own theory.
I've said this before in this thread, and I highly doubt it would happen.
But I would really like to see the original Bioshock remade in the Infinite engine.
Especially since the original PC version is so garbage. I know it won't happen, but I would love to see that.
Exactly.
I'm sure some Bookers never even fought in Wounded Knee, and those versions would never have sought baptism for their sins, or made any kind of impact on the world.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
then there must be an infinite number of ways that booker accepts the baptism OR there is an infinite number of bookers that decided not to go the baptism meeting.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
Just finished the game. Blown away. Amazing. First thing that came to my head is a movie quote:
haha it's from the 1973 movie mean streets. Immediately popped in my head.
haha it's from the 1973 movie mean streets. Immediately popped in my head.
Remachinate
Member
Exactly, at every point in time a new subset of universes is created, each containing every possible divergent chain of events. The concept of Booker "reviving" from death throughout the game is another demonstration of this. In one set of universes, one Booker dies to a Handyman or whatever; in another set, he dodges and kills the Handyman and moves on to the next level. We keep following the divergent universes where he survives to the end.
There's three sets: 1) Booker never goes to the meeting, 2) Booker accepts the baptism, 3) Booker rejects the baptism. At the end of the game, 2 and 3 get eliminated.
What's really interesting is that the idea of a consciousness existing outside of a single physical body and across universes is a very spiritual concept, which is not something I'd expect from Levine as an atheist.
Booker/Comstock was born in 1874. Their divergence doesn't occur until Wounded Knee in 1890. Meaning that Comstock could not possibly be older than 38. Rosalind explains that Comstock has decayed rapidly due to the use of the device. No idea why no one else has been affected.
This also explains why Comstock looked younger early in development of the game. Irrational probably thought we would figure it out, so they artificially aged him.
i made the same mistake
she does fade away, the final note.
Good call on that!
Similar threads
- Poll