Support NeoGAF

[BruceLeeRoy]

Both theories are pretty much valid, especially since they end up at the same place. It's just that Elizabeth says "before the choice is made" in this video.

Elizabeths commentary makes me think she is definitely killing every Booker that shows up regardless of the choice.

 

[MNC]

Is it just me, or does Comstock house look super much like Rapture's Fontaine Tower/Hotel thing, and the final security room looks alot like the security room in Bioshock 2?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcD99s8L_Zc&feature=player_detailpage#t=286s This room resembles the main staircase bit a lot (IMO)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DDgwzUNzybc#t=270s This room resembles the elevator part on the first floor of Comstock House.

Stretches, probably, but they're the first things that came to mind.

 

[Dylan]

I thought Elizabeth only drowns Booker who accept the baptism, not before.

But she kills the player-controlled Booker at the end, who rejects it. I figure she just kills 'em all.

 

[Nori Chan]

I've been seeing this thread on the first page ever since I got this game and I know I would go straight to the thread once I beat the game and it really helped me understand a lot of what I just saw. Thanks to all the gaffers that complied this up. I definitely needed this.

needless to say i absolutely love this game. I also didn't realize there was a post credit scene. I just skipped it :\

 

[zkylon]

I thought Elizabeth only drowns Booker who accept the baptism, not before.

it's what ends up confusing me of the whole thing.

for comstock to exist, the choice of the baptism has to exist (because it would leave open the possibility of booker accepting the baptism in some other world), so she kills every booker right before the baptism is even a choice.

this creates a paradox in that for elizabeth to exist and kill pre-baptism booker, comstock has to exist and buy her off gambler booker, but since she's killed him, the following didn't happen, so she doesn't exist and comstock doesn't either. mindfucky stuff.

the universe goes kaput and cuts off the comstock branch of the timeline, leaving only the baptism rejected booker.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

Elizabeths commentary makes me think she is definitely killing every Booker that shows up regardless of the choice.

I think Coolio suggested the choice could be picking the name as opposed to the baptism itself and while I could certainly see the validity in this the only reason I don't think it's the case is because Elizabeth directly associates the word choice with before the baptism ("You chose to walk away, but in other oceans, you didn't, you took the baptism"). There's definitely a validity in either interpretation but as you've suggested with her commentary think there's a direct association with 'choice' to walking away or accepting, giving it ever so slightly more validity. Either way though, they reach the exact same conclusion with the same method. The specific point ends up with more of an argument over semantics.

EDIT: Zkylon, yep, that's pretty much it.

EDIT: I'm unfamiliar with adult baptisms so is the acceptance choosing the name and being submerged I imagine it is? If it is then it is definitely before the baptism.

 

[zkylon]

btw, since you seem to have a much better grasp on it than I have, this is my main problem with the theory (I'm not very good at this).

my problem with it is why is that the choice is necessary for comstock to exist, but why isn't it necessary for booker to exist. if she kills every booker before he makes the choice how is it that booker is still alive after the credits?

I'm thinking that the only booker that'd still exist would be one that didn't go to wounded knee, which bodes a lot better for anna as a father now that I think about it

 

[kurahador]

But she kills the player-controlled Booker at the end, who rejects it. I figure she just kills 'em all.

That's because she was putting Booker into his other self POV, just like how she was putting Booker during his attempt to get Anna back from Comstock.

The way I see it, if Liz kills Booker before the choice was made then the post credit ending is a plot hole.

 

[Dylan]

That's because she was putting Booker into his other self POV, just like how she was putting Booker during his attempt to get Anna back from Comstock.

The way I see it, if Liz kills Booker before the choice was made then the post credit ending is a plot hole.

Not necessarily a plot hole, if the female Letuce is correct, and you can't actually futz with the stream of time.

 

[The Xtortionist]

That's because she was putting Booker into his other self POV, just like how she was putting Booker during his attempt to get Anna back from Comstock.

The way I see it, if Liz kills Booker before the choice was made then the post credit ending is a plot hole.

Yep, it's a different Booker in a different timeline. You can hear the preacher ask what name Booker will take. This doesn't happen in the first baptism scene.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I think Coolio suggested the choice could be picking the name as opposed to the baptism itself and while I could certainly see the validity in this the only reason I don't think it's the case is because Elizabeth directly associates the word choice with before the baptism ("You chose to walk away, but in other oceans, you didn't, you took the baptism"). There's definitely a validity in either interpretation but as you've suggested with her commentary think there's a direct association with 'choice' to walking away or accepting, giving it ever so slightly more validity. Either way though, they reach the exact same conclusion with the same method. The specific point ends up with more of an argument over semantics.

EDIT: Zkylon, yep, that's pretty much it.

EDIT: I'm unfamiliar with adult baptisms so is the acceptance choosing the name and being submerged I imagine it is? If it is then it is definitely before the baptism.

Very very interesting.

 

[rohlfinator]

btw, since you seem to have a much better grasp on it than I have, this is my main problem with the theory (I'm not very good at this).

my problem with it is why is that the choice is necessary for comstock to exist, but why isn't it necessary for booker to exist. if she kills every booker before he makes the choice how is it that booker is still alive after the credits?

I'm thinking that the only booker that'd still exist would be one that didn't go to wounded knee, which bodes a lot better for anna as a father now that I think about it

I think it's because the turn to religion was necessary for Comstock to exist, but the rejection of religion wasn't necessary for Booker to exist. He was already a non-religious guy prior to the decision.

 

[Vire]

Was this posted?

Secret tune found by fast forwarding ambient sound:

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/04/05/bioshock-infinite-secret-background-music

No idea what it means.

EDIT: Just saw previous posts. Doh!

 

[kurahador]

it's what ends up confusing me of the whole thing.

for comstock to exist, the choice of the baptism has to exist (because it would leave open the possibility of booker accepting the baptism in some other world), so she kills every booker right before the baptism is even a choice.

this creates a paradox in that for elizabeth to exist and kill pre-baptism booker, comstock has to exist and buy her off gambler booker, but since she's killed him, the following didn't happen, so she doesn't exist and comstock doesn't either. mindfucky stuff.

the universe goes kaput and cuts off the comstock branch of the timeline, leaving only the baptism rejected booker.

IMO the act of Liz killing Booker happens "after" the whole thing, not "before" despite her not being existed yet during the baptism ceremony.

At least that's how I come to accept it. Pretty common in any time travel stories really.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

btw, since you seem to have a much better grasp on it than I have, this is my main problem with the theory (I'm not very good at this).

my problem with it is why is that the choice is necessary for comstock to exist, but why isn't it necessary for booker to exist. if she kills every booker before he makes the choice how is it that booker is still alive after the credits?

I'm thinking that the only booker that'd still exist would be one that didn't go to wounded knee, which bodes a lot better for anna as a father now that I think about it

This is going to be a brief reply and I'll edit it in the morning if it isn't satisfactory but basically, every Booker only dies if a single Booker accepts the baptism. Now the way the game is presented you're right in thinking 'but how can Booker make any choice if he is dead?' but the solution is that Booker never accepted the baptism in the first place. Every Booker always rejected (and every Booker drowned only prior to the choice if a single Booker accepted). If it's easier to imagine you could look at the game as a 'what if' scenario. As in, if Booker was able to accept, a chain of events would occur that would have led to his own non-existence before the chain of events began (the paradox). Booker can never, has never, and will never accept (because him accepting is a paradox due to the chain of events it will lead to) and as a result the post credit scene occurs.

I'm not sure if that's an easier way to explain things or if it complicates matters but, as I've said, if it's not I'll update this post in about eight to ten hours with another explanation (more in line with previous ones). The hardest part really is just understanding why Booker accepting wipes out the ability for Booker to have accepted in the first place. When you have that (and you do) it's just about that final "and this is why Booker must reject and isn't killed before rejecting". Ultimately, it just boils down to Booker accepting cancels itself out, therefore Booker can never accept and always rejects.

Edit: Rolfinator explained it pretty well and pretty concisely.

Edit: Sorry, that was written terribly the first time. The missing words were added now.

 

[QisTopTier]

Is it possible that Andrew Ryan is just the boy version of liz in alt versions of the timelines?

 

[The Xtortionist]

Is it possible that Andrew Ryan is just the boy version of liz in alt version of the timelines?

Ryan would be Comstock. They both built fantastical cities based on their personal ideologies.

Rapture-universe Liz would be the Little Sisters. They're both integral to the cities' plans and have protectors that are part man and part machine (Songbird/Big Daddies).

 

[QisTopTier]

Ryan would be Comstock. They both built fantastical cities based on their personal ideologies.

Rapture-universe Liz would be the Little Sisters. They're both integral to the cities' plans and have protectors that are part man and part machine (Songbird/Big Daddies).

Yeah that's what I was thinking at first, but wasn't rapture built later and andrew younger than booker?

 

[The Xtortionist]

Yeah that's what I was thinking at first, but wasn't rapture built later and andrew younger than booker?

They can exist at any point in a timeline. The constant is that a city, a lighthouse, and a man will exist at some point.

Like for example, a new Bioshock game that is set in a ideological man's city on the moon that's accessed with a techno-futuristic lighthouse would fit the bill.

 

[QisTopTier]

They can exist at any point in a timeline. The constant is that a city, a lighthouse, and a man will exist at some point.

Like for example, a new Bioshock game that is set in a ideological man's city on the moon that's accessed with a techno-futuristic lighthouse would fit the bill.

Ah ok

 

[zkylon]

This is going to be a brief reply and I'll edit it in the morning if it isn't satisfactory but basically, every Booker only dies if a single Booker accepts the baptism. Now the way the game is presented you're right in thinking 'but how can Booker make any choice if he is dead?' but the solution is that Booker never accepted the baptism in the first place. Every Booker always rejected (and every Booker drowned only prior to the choice if a single Booker accepted). If it's easier to imagine you could look at the game as a 'what if' scenario. As in, if Booker was able to accept, a chain of events would occur that would have led to his own non-existence before the chain of events began (the paradox). Booker can never, has never, and will never accept (because him accepting is a paradox due to the chain of events it will lead to) and as a result the post credit scene occurs.

I'm not sure if that's an easier way to explain things or if it complicates matters but, as I've said, if it's not I'll update this post in about eight to ten hours with another explanation (more in line with previous ones). The hardest part really is just understanding why Booker accepting wipes out the ability for Booker to have accepted in the first place. When you have that (and you do) it's just about that final "and this is why Booker must reject and isn't killed before rejecting". Ultimately, it just boils down to Booker accepting cancels itself out, therefore Booker can never accept and always rejects.

Edit: Rolfinator explained it pretty well and pretty concisely.

Edit: Sorry, that was written terribly the first time. The missing words were added now.

I think I've got it, my poor brain.

so to finally lay it out, the event of elizabeth killing booker before the baptism can't even happen because it'd trigger a paradox, since the very reason for that event to happen is booker accepting the baptism.

it's basically a very compelling way to dress up a "it was all a dream" plot twist, really.

 

[Guri]

Just thinking here, too bad that Courtnee had that session that Troy had to sccream at her and the scene wasn't in the game.

 

[Salamando]

I think I've got it, my poor brain.

If you think that hurts your brain...consider the following...in most multiverses, there's an infinite number of every person, with at least one making every choice there is to make. There's some Comstock out there who turned out decent, saw a tear of WW2, and had Columbia stop Hitler, just as there's some Booker who abused his Anna. We prevented the Comstock's we saw from committing their atrocities, but who knows what atrocities we caused?

 

[Trigger]

but who knows what atrocities we caused?

We'll just smother any other crazy people that pop up.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

If you think that hurts your brain...consider the following...in most multiverses, there's an infinite number of every person, with at least one making every choice there is to make. There's some Comstock out there who turned out decent, saw a tear of WW2, and had Columbia stop Hitler, just as there's some Booker who abused his Anna. We prevented the Comstock's we saw from committing their atrocities, but who knows what atrocities we caused?

That's the thing. Even though Comstock is made to never exist through Elizabeth's actions, the Booker DeWitt from the remaining rejection path could turn out to be all sorts of awful in all sorts of different universes anyways. I guess it's a kind of utilitarian mindset to say that Comstock would cause many more atrocities to many more people in many more universes than rejection path Booker would potentially cause, but I don't know.

In the end, all I was thinking was, "who cares about other universes, let's stick to ours" and wishing she would just open a tear to Paris or something.

 

[Salamando]

We'll just smother any other crazy people that pop up.

Oh yeah, that's a sustainable plan. We'll have some "Council of Elizabeths" who exist just to monitor all of probability space for any tyrants and smother them in their crib. They can have an army of Luteces go around and prod unwilling heroes to carry it out.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Elizabeths commentary makes me think she is definitely killing every Booker that shows up regardless of the choice.

I don't think this, since she says: "Before you are reborn", and taking baptism in the game is considered to be reborn.

There's something at the end, the way that Booker reacts to knowing that he could've become Elizabeth that makes him think that he deserves to be drowned, and so he was drowned.

But hey, this is just ONE perspective we're seeing, we did see several Bookers and Elizabeth's walking around the lighthouses, so it's very likely that others didn't choose to smother.

I think there's more interpretation we could do here.

EDIT: Also! The Luteces might have survived the interdimensional meddling, right? This could be interesting for future games.

 

[Trigger]

Oh yeah, that's a sustainable plan. We'll have some "Council of Elizabeths" who exist just to monitor all of probability space for any tyrants and smother them in their crib. They can have an army of Luteces go around and prod unwilling heroes to carry it out.

I like the way you think.

EDIT: Also! The Luteces might have survived the interdimensional meddling, right? This could be interesting for future games.

My gut says no, but then again Rosalind describes their state as being "spread across the possibility space". That phrase to me implies more than just the Comstock timelines.

 

[Borgnine]

Just finished. Great atmosphere, interesting world, fun encounters, awful story. Once you break out the Primer charts I'm done. Look like you guys are having fun with it though, enjoy.

 

[zkylon]

If you think that hurts your brain...consider the following...in most multiverses, there's an infinite number of every person, with at least one making every choice there is to make. There's some Comstock out there who turned out decent, saw a tear of WW2, and had Columbia stop Hitler, just as there's some Booker who abused his Anna. We prevented the Comstock's we saw from committing their atrocities, but who knows what atrocities we caused?

true, elizabeth just undid the one thing we know for certain was bad: comstock existence. because I mean, even if he turns out to be a good guy in another universe, he's still a bad one in the one in the game.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

My gut says no, but then again Rosalind describes their state as being "spread across the possibility space". That phrase to me implies more than just the Comstock timelines.

Exactly, if they are spread across the possibility space then it would mean that even though the events that make them into a omnipresent beings, they would only be restricted from going into some dimensions where the time paradox has happened, since well, those dimensions probably stopped existing.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well here.

 

[Rocwell]

Ryan would be Comstock. They both built fantastical cities based on their personal ideologies.

Rapture-universe Liz would be the Little Sisters. They're both integral to the cities' plans and have protectors that are part man and part machine (Songbird/Big Daddies).

Yeah I like how the scene in the tube in Rapture with the big daddy and the little sister in the distance mirrors the scene that follows in the lighthouse and bridge world with the alternate versions of Booker and Elizabeth.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

You know, I remember Irrational saying how they explored another angle of the Big Daddy/Little Sister relationship, and we tend to think that it was Songbird that they were referring to, but since Songbird barely appeared throughout the game, I'd say that the Big Daddy equivalent (in terms of theme) was Booker. After all, he was protecting his own child. He was the one who wanted to kill Comstock, just so Elizabeth wouldn't have to deal with that; he preferred to not repay his debt, and actually take Elizabeth to Paris.

Now that I think about it, the ending is sadder. Even if Booker could've gotten Anna at the ending, would she be able to see Paris? Would she retain that innocence as she had when she did not have any social interactions?

Argh, this ending.

 

[badnewsbeers]

I have to say - the surprise didn't catch me quite as much as Bioshock 1 did (the Luttece's? you knew something weird was going on there), but nevertheless that was impressive. I prefer to think of the end as sort of a reset on the choices made, giving Booker a blank slate.

 

[rohlfinator]

Exactly, if they are spread across the possibility space then it would mean that even though the events that make them into a omnipresent beings, they would only be restricted from going into some dimensions where the time paradox has happened, since well, those dimensions probably stopped existing.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well here.

Yeah, I think the Luteces would become paradoxical the same way that Elizabeth does and stop existing. Some version of each of them would still exist in alternate universes, but they probably aren't together since the event that caused male Lutece to cross dimensions (Comstock taking Anna) never happened.

 

[Duffyside]

Wait, there are two threads for this? Yikes... Ok, so again, I'm reposting and adding a better explanation.

I think Comstock was "killed in his crib," but not Booker. I think at the end "Lighthouses sequence" of the game, Booker was taken to the baptism by Elizabeth twice for a very specific reason pertaining to the one binary choice which determines Comstock's existence. It was the place where Comstock was born, but only in one branch out of two. So the first visit was the Booker path, in which he refused the baptism and lived, and the second visit was the Comstock branch, where he was killed. Thus, Booker realities continue, but not Comstock realities.

That's why I think Anna's back in her crib at the end. I don't buy into all this infinite loop, none-of-it-matters, you-can't-change-anything stuff. I think Elizabeth did find a way to fix things and make sure Comstock never exists, but she and her dad do.

After a week of reading and listening to a ton of people's thoughts, I still think I have it right. This makes the most sense to me.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

Undertow on the Hand of the Prophet is fucking divine.

 

[rohlfinator]

Wait, there are two threads for this? Yikes... Ok, so again, I'm reposting and adding a better explanation.



After a week of reading and listening to a ton of people's thoughts, I still think I have it right. This makes the most sense to me.

Yep, I think that's spot-on.

 

[Salamando]

Wait, there are two threads for this? Yikes... Ok, so again, I'm reposting and adding a better explanation.



After a week of reading and listening to a ton of people's thoughts, I still think I have it right. This makes the most sense to me.

How you interpret the ending depends on how you interpret multiverses to work. There are two theories here...First involves branching...for any choice, you start out with one universe, and end up with one for each outcome. The other involves starting out with infinite universes, where many follow the same exact paths for eons, until one choice causes some to go one way and others to go another. No universes are created, and for any given decision tree, there's infinite universes that have followed that path.

If you follow the "we started with infinite universes and no branching" multiverse, things are pretty simple. Elizabeth used her powers to drown Comstock at any Baptism he went through with (or potentially it was more of a "she had the priest hold him down for too long. In 20 years later in Columbia, he was good enough to (almost?) drown Booker). That leaves any universe where Comstock exists to not happen. Since it can't happen, Booker's timeline has errors, so it defaults back to the state it was at before other timeline interference.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Wait, there are two threads for this? Yikes... Ok, so again, I'm reposting and adding a better explanation.

After a week of reading and listening to a ton of people's thoughts, I still think I have it right. This makes the most sense to me.

But does Elizabeth see Paris?! I NEED TO KNOW.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Just finished it tonight after 30 hours. My brain hurts. Love it. There could be a whole college course on just this game. I love quantum physics, but it makes my brain hurt. I kind of figured out, though, that Booker was Comstock about halfway through the game. There are times when Comstock's voice is playing that there are suddle shifts where it's obviously Booker's voice in there too. Like, non-existent example, "I'm going to kill you Booker". The I'm going are in Comstock's voice, but the to kill you Booker are in Booker's voice. Again, that example doesn't happen in the game, but I noticed the voice work.

Also, if no one noticed it, in Comstock House in the section just before you are whisked away to Rapture,there's a record player with a record that has a "Rapture Records" label on it.

Just so I'm clear, Booker is Comstock (technically right?). How does he end up selling Anna/Elizabeth to himself? The scene where her finger is cut off.

So, basically, if Baptism occurs he becomes Comstock. If it doesn't occur, he becomes Booker?
But then future Elizabeth drowns pre-Baptism booker to make sure he doens't become Comstock? My head hurts.

 

[Salamando]

Had a random thought about the ending...what if Lizs didn't drown Booker to the point of death, but drowned him to the point of him being afraid of having his head held under water? Comstock can't exist, but Booker can, since there's zero chance of him accepting.

 

[The Xtortionist]

Had a random thought about the ending...what if Lizs didn't drown Booker to the point of death, but drowned him to the point of him being afraid of having his head held under water? Comstock can't exist, but Booker can, since there's zero chance of him accepting.

You can hear Booker's final breath if you listen closely.

 

[ziadoz]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I thought this video nicely summed up some of the stuff Infinite got wrong (mostly gameplay wise). After letting the game sink in for a week now I feel the same way, especially regarding the content that got cut from the final game, and the gameplay from the previous games being better overall.

Everything Bioshock Infinite Gets Wrong

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Just so I'm clear, Booker is Comstock (technically right?). How does he end up selling Anna/Elizabeth to himself? The scene where her finger is cut off.

So, basically, if Baptism occurs he becomes Comstock. If it doesn't occur, he becomes Booker?
But then future Elizabeth drowns pre-Baptism booker to make sure he doens't become Comstock? My head hurts.

Yes, Booker is Comstock, and not even technically, but actually Booker from another universe.

Comstock was rendered sterile because of the use of the Lutece Tear machine, but he wanted a heir to Columbia, and wanted it to be of his own flesh, hence he went to Lutece who suggested to utilize his brother from our Booker's universe to get him to sell him his own daughter. Booker, full of debt, and feeling he's not a good parent, accepts, however he regrets this and goes on to stop them from leaving. This is when Elizabeth loses her finger and gives her powers to create tears.

And yes to your second question. Booker, who had arrived from the Massacre of Wounded Knee felt guilty because he himself slayed Native Americans because he was called an 'Indian supporter', he was offered a baptism, to cleanse him of his sins and be reborn (hence the change of name to Comstock). Comstock, who took the baptism, lost his guilt, yet he did not think that what he had done was wrong, he took it as a necessity to be reborn (or something similar), and so he glorified it (which explained the the small writing when you entered Columbia). While Booker, our Booker, considered himself to be irredeemable, that simply washing himself at a river wouldn't erase the atrocities he had done, and so walked away from the baptism. He was able to live with it, and actually grow from this, becoming a better person (way better than Comstock to be honest).

EDIT: Damn, forgot the last point. Since Elizabeth now has the knowledge of knowing every universe and every outcome, she understands that in an infinite amount of universes where Booker decided to take the baptism, the world will be at war with Columbia, and so decides to end his life in the universes where Booker decides to become Comstock (this is referenced by the appearance of several Elizabeths before Booker is drowned). Booker also understands this and allows himself to be drowned. It was said earlier in the thread that this is really not our Booker we're seeing being killed, but a Bookers who decided to become Comstock (I'm still trying to figure this out, mind you), which is referenced because when each Elizabeth grabs Booker and say: "It's Comstock", and the other says "It's Booker", Booker just says: "No, I'm both", which all in all could mean that this Booker could actually become a Comstock. Elizabeth to make sure that there is no possibility of a world where Columbia destroys the world, drowns this Booker, creating a time paradox, killing that universe's Elizabeth.

Anyway, what happens after the credits, is the Booker that did not decide to become Comstock, and since the universes where Comstock lives do not exist, he can keep Anna.

Pretty cool, huh?

 

[Guevara]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I thought this video nicely summed up some of the stuff Infinite got wrong (mostly gameplay wise). After letting the game sink in for a week now I feel the same way, especially regarding the content that got cut from the final game, and the gameplay from the previous games being better overall.

Everything Bioshock Infinite Gets Wrong

Yeah this really resonates with me as well. Thanks for posting.

 

[Apophenia Overload]

Totally gets it right about "Infinite Worlds and Possibilities" being stuff to help you fight. A real game about the multiverse would be more like Scribblenauts. Now that'd be a shooter!

 

[Salamando]

Totally gets it right about "Infinite Worlds and Possibilities" being stuff to help you fight. A real game about the multiverse would be more like Scribblenauts. Now that'd be a shooter!

They could've made it like the last level of Half-Life 2, where your gravity gun got supercharged. The games mostly beat, so it's time to have some fun. Elizabeth's free from the siphon, let her loose. Tyrannosaurus Rex? Imitation Sentai fighters? A Big Daddy? Why not?

 

[steven28]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I thought this video nicely summed up some of the stuff Infinite got wrong (mostly gameplay wise). After letting the game sink in for a week now I feel the same way, especially regarding the content that got cut from the final game, and the gameplay from the previous games being better overall.

Everything Bioshock Infinite Gets Wrong

I agree with this..especially the points about elizabeth's powers being under developed..probably the biggest disappointment for me.

 

[DatDude]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I thought this video nicely summed up some of the stuff Infinite got wrong (mostly gameplay wise). After letting the game sink in for a week now I feel the same way, especially regarding the content that got cut from the final game, and the gameplay from the previous games being better overall.

Everything Bioshock Infinite Gets Wrong

I wonder how many people have actually played Bioshock in recent days.

I feel so many people have this "image" of what Bioshock was, and honestly should just replay it.

I bought a ps3 copy for myself during the holiday season at bestbuy. It was SOOOO disappointing.

I know all of locations and all of the narrative, so it was incredibly dull, especially when relying just on the gameplay to keep you entertained.

It's clunky, and just standard fair overall. Seriously guys, PLAY IT AGAIN.

Also, almost every level is one giant fetch quest. Fuck, Neptunes Bounty, find a camera for old Mr. Peachy before he can let you into the submarine bay.

So you go to various parts of Neptune Bounty find a camera, NOW, you have to take pictures all of sudden of Splicers for Mr. Peachy! Yay.

Or how about Arcadia? Oh NOEEEE toxic gas has been released by Mr. Ryan, we got to find a way to stop it! So now we have to take the dead lady Lazarus Project, collect all the missing pieces and put it together to get rid of the gas! YAY!

Oh, now Fort Frolic! Oh shit a crazy artsy guy wants us to all of a sudden finish his masterpiece. He won't let us get to Ryan don't chayaknow? So now we have to go through all of these levels taking various death pictures to help Cohen put his masterpiece together! YAY!!!!!

Oh hephustus! Oh shit, Ryan has Hephustus on self destruct! We have to turn off all of the blowup pieces so we won't die! YAY!

I mean come on now. Bioshock was nothing BUT fetch quests..but for some reason when it happens in Infinite it's like UGH WORST GAME EVER!! DEVS HOW CAN YOU DO DIS SHIT MAN!

Just feel like there are incredible double standards when it comes to Infinite's flaws, and Bioshock flaws.