Support NeoGAF

[Neiteio]

I love monsters (favorite director is Guillermo del Toro), and Songbird is a beautiful monster, indeed. A case where his monstrous nature -- the inability to relent in his pursuit of Liz -- belies what is a delicate attachment to her. It makes it sad when his nature leads him to his death, yet his heart still feels for Liz even as he drifts off into the abyss.

 

[Alucrid]

utilizing the same assets but different objectives seems like a pretty easy DLC for them.

oh man, i kinda wish one of the DLCs is based on the dudebro cover Booker where he's a complete dick and he dies 10 minutes in.

Ugh, I hope it's not that. Sounds like all fighting sequences...not what I expected when I bought the season pass.

 

[televator]

There are Fitroy recordings in the game where she spells out her intention to violently stamp out the other side and form her new society where the white man is put in his place. Fitroy started with good intentions but her hatred ultimately got the best of her, which coupled with power led down the usual route of ideological corruption. Thus, once armed they overdid it -- they become indiscriminate in their killings, which is why we find the corpses of mothers and children who had the misfortune of living in that society at a time of revolt.

Again, this is not some strange concept invented by Levine. It has happened many times in the past. A group is persecuted, then the tide turns in their favor, and they kill anyone they perceive to be party to their persecution. Which sadly, almost always includes innocent people.

But it wasn't for sure what exactly she was going to do and the Vox hadn't done those things yet. Booker already making up his mind about her is really weird and even more so if you miss a lot of voxophones.

Also labels aren't so arbitrary. Columbia oppressing blacks doesn't make the Vox the "anti-racists group" If they turn to hating whites and killing them indiscriminately (which they did eventually) that's because they've also become racists themselves. It makes no sense for someone to kill people because of their race and be "non-racists".

 

[thetrin]

Yeah, I mean I got that. From the player perspective it's a nice clue. From Slate's perspective it seems odd. I mean he'd know that he got baptized and changed his name, probably.

I guess unless he didn't know that at all.

Hmm.. I suppose that does make some sense. Comstock still kept his same history, fluffed it up, but no one knew specifically who he was in those events. So people who were in them didn't necessarily know for a fact he was there.

In the end, though that all does seem kind of forced that he didn't know this stuff, specifically because he'd then have to basically reveal it to the player.

He wouldn't know. If Slate isn't surprised at all that Booker shows up in Columbia, that means he has no idea that Comstock is Booker.

 

[BeekleMatter]

...we are, at least, the 123rd Booker to reach the coin flip and thus are at least the Luteces' 123rd attempt to reset the timeline. Jacksepticeye has noted that the lighthouse combination at the beginning is 1-2-2. Whether this is just coincidence, a reference, or more, is never specifically stated.

Wow. My mind is just continuing to get blown.

 

[Neiteio]

But it wasn't for sure what exactly she was going to do and the Vox hadn't done those things yet. Booker already making up his mind about her is really weird and even more so if you miss a lot of voxophones.

Aside from being strong-armed by Daisy to get guns under the heavily implied threat of death, and finding recordings by her where she signaled her intent to kill and put the white man in his place, there is also the possibility Booker has an eye for character, and he can tell a "mob boss" when he sees one. Booker's take on Daisy is actually meant to inform our own; while the Vox are clearly within reason to feel mistreated, Booker is telling us he senses their leader, ultimately, is the same sort of corruptible dictator as Comstock. And in the revolution timeline, we see this is the case: She has her followers kill anyone even remotely opposite her regime.

Also labels aren't so arbitrary. Columbia oppressing blacks doesn't make the Vox the "anti-racists group" If they turn to hating whites and killing them indiscriminately (which they did eventually) that's because they've also become racists themselves. It makes no sense for someone to kill people because of their race and be "non-racists".

Not sure what you mean. Maybe I'm misunderstood. My interpretation of events is, the Vox are a group of people that include minorities but also disenfranchised whites, who are bound in the common ideology that they've been wronged by the well-off white folk above. And their beliefs become so intense that they essentially spare no one in their uprising. If you're not one of them when the revolution occurs, you're dead.

 

[RDreamer]

He wouldn't know. If Slate isn't surprised at all that Booker shows up in Columbia, that means he has no idea that Comstock is Booker.

Yeah, I realize he wouldn't know specifically who Comstock would have been, but logically Comstock does talk about his baptism and rebirth in his sermons. One would think that you could parse out from that that he changed his name, and was a different person at the time he was supposedly fighting with Slate.

Aside from being strong-armed by Daisy to get guns under the heavily implied threat of death, and finding recordings by her where she signaled her intent to kill and put the white man in his place, there is also the possibility Booker has an eye for character, and he can tell a "mob boss" when he sees one. Booker's take on Daisy is actually meant to inform our own; while the Vox are clearly within reason to feel mistreated, Booker is telling us he senses their leader, ultimately, is the same sort of corruptible dictator as Comstock. And in the revolution timeline, we see this is the case: She has her followers kill anyone even remotely opposite her regime.

I must have missed that one voxophone.

Which reminds me that I really hate that you can miss such crucial character development

 

[pakkit]

I think what happened with Fitzroy would have been mostly fine had they not literally stated she's just as bad as Comstock. I think that's what partially throws it over the edge, since it's stated before she does go over the edge.

Actually that part of the game was weird to me. They were going hard on Fitzroy, when she hadn't really done much except incite a revolution against oppressors at that time. It was after Elizabeth equating the two that she really went bonkers.

Elizabeth's tears are initially a form of wish fulfillment (i.e. she can only open ones that reflect her immediate desires). You'll see Elizabeth gets more and more sympathetic to Fitzroy's plights as they go through the tears, reaching a peak when they travel to the ghetto. But all the tears have a yin-yang, so she goes to through a tear where the Vox have too much power. This whole section offers commentary on violent rebellion, and the people on both sides who can get caught in the middle - but it also serves to prepare the gamer for the time-bending that soon becomes the central focus of the game. You'll notice that a strong visual motif throughout Finkton is the use of clocks, to highlight both the strenuous work ethic he demands and visually represent the time-twisting that occurs.

 

[GDJustin]

When Booker and Elizabeth walk through a couple tears mid-game, never to return, are we just to accept these moments as big plot holes? These bits bothered me to no end, but the plot keeps steamrolling forward without looking back so I was forced to just roll with them.

You're walking into ANOTHER WORLD :/ ... from the halfway point of the game through to the end you aren't even in the same Columbia you started in! Doesn't that mean there's some Columbia (Columbia Prime)... where Booker is sent on a mission to retrieve guns from Chen Lin, but then he just disappears, never to be seen again? Doesn't this also mean that in the "Chen Lin white wife" world there is another Elizabeth (and maybe booker) running around? And where is the other Elizabeth in the Vox Uprising/Booker martyr world?

I kept waiting for them to get back to the main Columbia... the one you spend the first half of the game in. But it's just gone for good.

The motivation of the characters doesn't even make sense, in these moments. "Oh no! Chen Lin's dead! Let's just tear into this other world to continue. I'm going to ASSUME (for some reason?) that in this world I still made a deal with Fitzroy... I guess?" They're LEAVING THEIR WORLD FOREVER. This should be a huge fucking deal for them, but they give it a moment's (poor) consideration before moving on.

I kept imagining them hopping into a new world, completing their mission and then Fitzroy saying "I have no idea what you're even talking about."

 

[Neiteio]

I must have missed that one voxophone.

Which reminds me that I really hate that you can miss such crucial character development

If nothing else, you would've heard the dialogue exchange where Booker says he perceives Daisy to be no better than Comstock. This is telling us what we should've observed anyway in the scene where the Vox board the zeppelin and force Booker to get the guns. Daisy isn't pulling any punches; she wants blood, and she's high on power as the head of a populist movement. What do you think she was going to do with those guns? From her demeanor to her forcefulness, she struck me as the typical revolutionary blinded by her own rage. Her taking over wasn't going to bring peace and justice. It was going to bring revenge.

 

[RDreamer]

Elizabeth's tears are initially a form of wish fulfillment (i.e. she can only open ones that reflect her immediate desires). You'll see Elizabeth gets more and more sympathetic to Fitzroy's plights as they go through the tears, reaching a peak when they travel to the ghetto. But all the tears have a yin-yang, so she goes to through a tear where the Vox have too much power. This whole section offers commentary on violent rebellion, and the people on both sides who can get caught in the middle - but it also serves to prepare the gamer for the time-bending that soon becomes the central focus of the game. You'll notice that a strong visual motif throughout Finkton is the use of clocks, to highlight both the strenuous work ethic he demands and visually represent the time-twisting that occurs.

That's an interesting point. Her view of wish fulfillment is merely that she's opening up the timeline that's closest to what she wants at that time. So, yeah, she sympathizes so much with the Vox and so absolutely little with Columbia and the people there that she basically opens up the timeline where they've gone so far to the other direction that they're actually evil, and also very powerful. In a way it's a commentary on wish fulfillment in that way, along with the obvious commentary on violent rebellions going so far that they abandon the original ideals.

 

[SuperBonk]

There's no "false equivalence" between the Founders and the Vox. Both hurt innocent people. The game handled this well.

Doesn't matter if the violence of one started with the oppression of the other. At the end of the day, the Vox didn't have to slaughter innocent children, etc. But they did, and there is real-life precedent for this, where regime change brings violence just as bad as what came before (I.E. Pol Pot's regime during the Cold War). And that's the point -- ideology, taken to extremes, hurts innocent people. This cuts both ways -- racist and non-racist, conservative and progressive.

It reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman wants the Wii and freezes himself, winding up in a future where religion is gone... but in its place are three squabbling factions who are killing each other over the exact wording of what they call their atheist beliefs. ANY ideology is dangerous when taken to extremes.

It's a "false equivalence" because the game goes out of its way to make the two groups equivalent. The scene where Fitzroy tries to murder the child felt incredibly forced, especially for a character that was so poorly developed. There was an opportunity to have some better commentary about race/class relations but instead it becomes, in my opinion, a lazy "both groups are equally bad!" message.

It's all irrelevant compared to the greater plot, but I kind of wish it wasn't.

 

[Neiteio]

It's a "false equivalence" because the game goes out of its way to make the two groups equivalent. The scene where Fitzroy tries to murder the child felt incredibly forced, especially for a character that was so poorly developed. There was an opportunity to have some better commentary about race/class relations but instead it becomes, in my opinion, a lazy "both groups are equally bad!" message.

It's all irrelevant compared to the greater plot, but I kind of wish it wasn't.

I didn't think the child bit was forced. Daisy was backed into a corner, her army on the cusp of victory but herself confronted with the possibility she might not live to see it. So she took a hostage. We'll never know if she was going to really hurt the kid. That's never what made her "bad." What paints an unfavorable picture about Daisy is the fact she led an army that didn't discriminate when it came to fighting its war; it killed anyone who wasn't a Vox, including women and children who had no part in the proceedings. As someone else noted, they're rebels so swept up in their bloodlust that they've lost sight of their original ideals.

Given that was probably Fink's kid, though, I wouldn't be surprised if she was going to kill him, too.

 

[SuperBonk]

I didn't think the child bit was forced. Daisy was backed into a corner, her army on the cusp of victory but herself confronted with the possibility she might not live to see it. So she took a hostage. We'll never know if she was going to really hurt the kid. That's never what made her "bad." What paints an unfavorable picture about Daisy is the fact she led an army that didn't discriminate when it came to fighting its war; it killed anyone who wasn't a Vox, including women and children who had no part in the proceedings. As someone else noted, they're rebels so swept up in their bloodlust that they've lost sight of their original ideals.

Given that was probably Fink's kid, though, I wouldn't be surprised if she was going to kill him, too.

I never really interpreted the scene as her taking the kid hostage. It seemed much more about revenge than about a fear of not living to see the revolution succeed.

I know why she was evil and on the same level of Comstock, I just think the game goes out of its way to make that happen. Comstock is portrayed as a reprehensible person in pretty much every mention of him in the entire game. Fitzroy and the Vox are portrayed as equally bad only to make it more convenient.

Elizabeth's tears are initially a form of wish fulfillment (i.e. she can only open ones that reflect her immediate desires). You'll see Elizabeth gets more and more sympathetic to Fitzroy's plights as they go through the tears, reaching a peak when they travel to the ghetto. But all the tears have a yin-yang, so she goes to through a tear where the Vox have too much power. This whole section offers commentary on violent rebellion, and the people on both sides who can get caught in the middle - but it also serves to prepare the gamer for the time-bending that soon becomes the central focus of the game. You'll notice that a strong visual motif throughout Finkton is the use of clocks, to highlight both the strenuous work ethic he demands and visually represent the time-twisting that occurs.

That's an interesting point. Her view of wish fulfillment is merely that she's opening up the timeline that's closest to what she wants at that time. So, yeah, she sympathizes so much with the Vox and so absolutely little with Columbia and the people there that she basically opens up the timeline where they've gone so far to the other direction that they're actually evil, and also very powerful. In a way it's a commentary on wish fulfillment in that way, along with the obvious commentary on violent rebellions going so far that they abandon the original ideals.

This is definitely an interesting way to interpret it and I can justify it being a good commentary. But in a medium where race relations are pretty much never mentioned, it's just unfortunate that this game had the chance to but would instead opt to make a sort of "meta" commentary about wish fulfillment.

Edit: I also like the parallel the game draws to the French Revolution but I still wish it was something more.

 

[televator]

Aside from being strong-armed by Daisy to get guns under the heavily implied threat of death, and finding recordings by her where she signaled her intent to kill and put the white man in his place, there is also the possibility Booker has an eye for character, and he can tell a "mob boss" when he sees one. Booker's take on Daisy is actually meant to inform our own; while the Vox are clearly within reason to feel mistreated, Booker is telling us he senses their leader, ultimately, is the same sort of corruptible dictator as Comstock. And in the revolution timeline, we see this is the case: She has her followers kill anyone even remotely opposite her regime.

If there' was a threat of death can you show me where? I just rewatched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8pfu1rZ-LM

But I didn't hear a death threat. I also don't recall her overtly stating that she'd kill white people without discretion. Regardless of Booker having whatever intuition about Daisy, there was still no rational reason behind equating her with Comstock AFAIK.

Not sure what you mean. Maybe I'm misunderstood. My interpretation of events is, the Vox are a group of people that include minorities but also disenfranchised whites, who are bound in the common ideology that they've been wronged by the well-off white folk above. And their beliefs become so intense that they essentially spare no one in their uprising. If you're not one of them when the revolution occurs, you're dead.

My confusion comes from your use of other examples like "racist = anit-racists" and you allude to there being real life examples. I'd still like to know what you mean by anti-racists and/or progressive regime changes and where they've gone astray in a way that makes them analogous with the Vox.

 

[Neiteio]

If there' was a threat of death can you show me where? I just rewatched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8pfu1rZ-LM

But I didn't hear a death threat. I also don't recall her overtly stating that she'd kill white people without discretion. Regardless of Booker having whatever intuition about Daisy, there was still no rational reason behind equating her with Comstock AFAIK.

She has a bodyguard restraining Booker against his will while she leans in and says, "Who's side are you on," before throwing him out of the airship with the orders to fetch her weapons. Booker clearly wasn't given a choice; Booker was told what to do. This scene has played out in many a movie, where a suave crime lord all but says he's going to kill someone if they don't follow his orders.

My confusion comes from your use of other examples like "racist = anit-racists" and you allude to there being real life examples. I'd still like to know what you mean by anti-racists and/or progressive regime changes and where they've gone astray in a way that makes them analogous with the Vox.

There have been a billion such cases throughout history, from Mexico to the Middle East, where those who are oppressed rise up and overthrow their oppressors, only for the leader who rallied them to this cause to turn around and start doing equally bad things to the group that's been overthrown.

The example I use is Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, out of Cambodia circa the Cold War. One-quarter of Cambodia's population died in a Vox-like uprising. They actually make a reference to this in Infinite, where an NPC makes a comment about killing anyone with glasses, which refers to Pol Pot's agrarian uprising, where they targeted anyone perceived as urban or intellectual.

You should read up on that particular conflict, btw. It's like a Holocaust that no one seems to know about, including myself until just recently. One of those things that gets sidelined a bit, in American education, at least.

 

[Mik_Pad]

I don't know if this has been discussed but I was thinking about the reason why you need to be baptized to enter Columbia. I was thinking maybe Comstock made it a requirement to delay the arrival of the false prophet since Booker refused to be baptized the first time, like some sort of filter reducing the probability of Booker ever entering Columbia.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I don't even think that commercial is that good. Both Elizabeth and Booker have very Uncanny Valley sort of faces there.

Booker looks like an aged boxer and Elizabeth's hair is bizarrely proportioned. It's a bad ad.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I don't know if this has been discussed but I was thinking about the reason why you need to be baptized to enter Columbia. I was thinking maybe Comstock made it a requirement to delay the arrival of the false prophet since Booker refused to be baptized the first time, like some sort of filter reducing the probability of Booker ever entering Columbia.

Columbia is a theocratic regime. When that Booker took the baptism, he became a reborn Christian in the most extreme of senses. To even enter the city you have to embrace the Christian way of life. Or at least make the motions.

 

[pakkit]

This is definitely an interesting way to interpret it and I can justify it being a good commentary. But in a medium where race relations are pretty much never mentioned, it's just unfortunate that this game had the chance to but would instead opt to make a sort of "meta" commentary about wish fulfillment.

Edit: I also like the parallel the game draws to the French Revolution but I still wish it was something more.

It's not a game about racism, but it is a game that addresses racism. Compared to the side-stepping of so many other time pieces (see: L.A. Noire, Assassin's Creed 3), I prefer this approach. That said, I love to see more games that really sink their talons into the issues.

 

[Jest Chillin]

If there' was a threat of death can you show me where? I just rewatched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8pfu1rZ-LM

But I didn't hear a death threat. I also don't recall her overtly stating that she'd kill white people without discretion. Regardless of Booker having whatever intuition about Daisy, there was still no rational reason behind equating her with Comstock AFAIK.

It's pretty overtly a threatening scene. Daisy tells him that the fight has already started and that either Booker is for or against The Vox. She lets him go only on the prospect of him possibly bringing her the weapons she needs. I'd even go as far as saying that she mentions the fair only as a way of letting Booker know that's the only reason she's giving him a chance.

 

[sn00zer]

has anyone cracked open the files for unused assets?

 

[FlutterPuffs]

I think most forget that the Vox Populi didn't only consist of black people, but Irish, Asians, disenfranchised whites, etc. They had more in common with the French / Russian / Chinese Communist Revolution than the Black Panther Movement.

I agree that they skimmed through the Vox Populi's storyline, but they reminded me of the Revolutions I stated so much that I knew it was going to end terribly and didn't find the results surprising. They were radicals, and they sought to fully destroy the caste system so much, by any means necessary.

 

[AgentOtaku]

Just finished it this morning

I'm assuming the Fringe and

Spoiler

Dragon's Dogma

comparisons have already been made?

 

[televator]

She has a bodyguard restraining Booker against his will while she leans in and says, "Who's side are you on," before throwing him out of the airship with the orders to fetch her weapons. Booker clearly wasn't given a choice; Booker was told what to do. This scene has played out in many a movie, where a suave crime lord all but says he's going to kill someone if they don't follow his orders.

Looking back at it there were some parts where there was no ground and hanging a man from a window (even after the fresh air had woke him up) and asking him to join you is a funny way of asking someone to join you. Okay, I'll give you that.

There have been a billion such cases throughout history, from Mexico to the Middle East, where those who are oppressed rise up and overthrow their oppressors, only for the leader who rallied them to this cause to turn around and start doing equally bad things to the group that's been overthrown.

The example I use is Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, out of Cambodia circa the Cold War. One-quarter of Cambodia's population died in a Vox-like uprising. They actually make a reference to this in Infinite, where an NPC makes a comment about killing anyone with glasses, which refers to Pol Pot's agrarian uprising, where they targeted anyone perceived as urban or intellectual.

You should read up on that particular conflict, btw. It's like a Holocaust that no one seems to know about, including myself until just recently. One of those things that gets sidelined a bit, in American education, at least.

I get that there are many examples of the oppressed becoming oppressors, but it's quite often because the oppressed end up becoming more like their former oppressors. You brought up some other examples and equated them I'd say quite falsely to a counter example. You said racists and "anti-racists" for one, which perplexes me.

 

[DatDude]

Just finished it this morning

I'm assuming the Fringe and Dragon's Dogma comparisons have already been made?

Fringe, yes.

But dragons dogma? Wut?

 

[Sblargh]

Just finished it this morning

I'm assuming the Fringe and Dragon's Dogma comparisons have already been made?

Fringe, yes.

But dragons dogma? Wut?

And put the spoiler tags when talking about Dragon's Dogma because I haven't played it, yet.
Thanks. ;****

 

[John Rabbit]

goddamnit songbird. what a sad moment.

and then i turned around and WTF.

 

[DatDude]

Okay, wtf, off topic a bit but whatever. Butterfly Effect..which I thought was kind of similar to Infinite in a few ways...has a 30..yes let me spell it out for you..T...H..I..R..T..Y on metacritic. Da fuck? Really? What? Am I really the only one who actually LOVED this movie? I mean what's going on here?

 

[MormaPope]

Okay, wtf, off topic a bit but whatever. Butterfly Effect..which I thought was kind of similar to Infinite in a few ways...has a 30..yes let me spell it out for you..T...H..I..R..T..Y on metacritic. Da fuck? Really? What? Am I really the only one who actually LOVED this movie? I mean what's going on here?

This world is not a fair place.

 

[Oublieux]

You're walking into ANOTHER WORLD :/ ... Doesn't this also mean that in the "Chen Lin white wife" world there is another Elizabeth (and maybe booker) running around? And where is the other Elizabeth in the Vox Uprising/Booker martyr world?

This definitely bothered me a lot too. The reason they went for going into another world was so wishy washy; they didn't even consider the gravity of the situation. And, I have NO idea what happens to the other Bookers/Elizabeths; this is also another conundrum that no one has brought up.

 

[Paganmoon]

This definitely bothered me a lot too. The reason they went for going into another world was so wishy washy; they didn't even consider the gravity of the situation. And, I have NO idea what happens to the other Bookers/Elizabeths; this is also another conundrum that no one has brought up.

Maybe they "replace" their other selves everytime they switch realitys? Like Booker dying in the martyr-reality (probobly just as Elizabeth/Booker whent through the tear?).
So whenever they jump realitys, they only do it into realities where they never existed, or where they die.

Not sure if I explained it well enough...

/P

 

[CyclopsRock]

I was just having a little think whilst having my coffee, and it occured to me...

How do the Lettuce's open up voids? I understand Fink tried to kill them by messing with their machine and they got stuck in the void, but you never seem to see any tears, yet their powers look even greater than Elizabeth's (at least, until you smash the statue). That bit where they're playing baseball on the way to ... Comstock house, was it? They can basically time travel and rip holes through space without even having to mess about with tears. So why do they even need to involve Booker at all? Couldn't they just go back and drown him (and all the versions of him at the baptism) so that he couldn't do it?

Edit: and another thought - the same paradox that forces the Elizabeth's to disappear would also make the Brother Lettuce disappear... surely? The only reason they're together is because Comstock wanted to steal Anna etc.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I found Butterfly Effect to be inadvertently hilarious a number of times.

 

[Nome]

Maybe they "replace" their other selves everytime they switch realitys? Like Booker dying in the martyr-reality (probobly just as Elizabeth/Booker whent through the tear?).
So whenever they jump realitys, they only do it into realities where they never existed, or where they die.

Not sure if I explained it well enough...

/P

It's implied that you replace the other self to an extent.

This is why the ending "works" at all, although it's still contrived (in that Elizabeth didn't need to kill the Booker who helped her... just the bazillion ones who turned into Comstock).

 

[spekkeh]

I was just having a little think whilst having my coffee, and it occured to me...

How do the Lettuce's open up voids? I understand Fink tried to kill them by messing with their machine and they got stuck in the void, but you never seem to see any tears, yet their powers look even greater than Elizabeth's (at least, until you smash the statue). That bit where they're playing baseball on the way to ... Comstock house, was it? They can basically time travel and rip holes through space without even having to mess about with tears. So why do they even need to involve Booker at all? Couldn't they just go back and drown him (and all the versions of him at the baptism) so that he couldn't do it?

Edit: and another thought - the same paradox that forces the Elizabeth's to disappear would also make the Brother Lettuce disappear... surely? The only reason they're together is because Comstock wanted to steal Anna etc.

Sister Lutece, because the Brother was in Booker's timeline, not in Elizabeth's. But yeah, the Luteces are kind of a MacGuffin.

 

[Truant]

Any tips for the hidden room in the graveyard? I managed to light the two torches on my first playthrough by spamming Devil's Kiss, but I can't get it to work the second time.

 

[masterkajo]

Any tips for the hidden room in the graveyard? I managed to light the two torches on my first playthrough by spamming Devil's Kiss, but I can't get it to work the second time.

I found that aiming way above the gate did the trick. I managed to light one flame by spaming but managed to light both on the first try when I tried to aim at the roof.

There's a hidden room?

Lord, more stuff I missed.

Yes, but the room isn't really hidden. Its right behind the Lutece's graves. A simple gate is blocking the entrance and you can see a gear item instide.

 

[Trigger]

There's a hidden room?

Lord, more stuff I missed.

 

[Captainbob]

Maybe it has already been answered, but there are still some things that bother me:

(For the sake of simplicity I'll use timeline names from this chart http://i.imgur.com/MaHNjLo.jpg)

- In the "A2 blue timeline", why are Comstock and Songbird searching for Elizabeth?
Since this timeline is branching from the "A1 green one", its Elizabeth version is already held prisonner in Comstock house. After our Elizabeth is captured by Songbird, Comstock should possess 2 Elizabeth in the "A2 blue timeline", while in the game, there is only one.
Am I missing something or this part of the chart is wrong?
The only way that would make sense is that our "A2 blue timeline" is actually a D timeline, in which Elizabeth successfully escaped Comstock house and fleed to another dimension (one of the Elizabeth we see in the ending).

- Why does Elizabeth insist on the fact that Booker needs to be killed before the baptism? If the "paradox theory" is actually what she(and Levine) aims at, it makes no difference whether Booker is killed before or after baptism. The only prerequisite to create the paradox is Elizabeth killing Booker (daughter killing her father before she was born), no matter when or where.

Any ideas?

 

[LiK]

During my replay, I found the guitar part. I missed the entire bar that as there for some reason. Cute scene but extremely outta place and too short.

 

[mocolostrocolos]

Regarding Rapture in Bioshock 1.

What's the canon?

It's just another timeline, sunken Columbia or what?

I'd rather think that it follows a timeline where DeWitt has twins, and the one who isn't Anna follows Comstock's path and follow his dream underwater.

 

[Trigger]

Maybe it has already been answered, but there are still some things that bother me:

(For the sake of simplicity I'll use timeline names from this chart http://i.imgur.com/MaHNjLo.jpg)

- In the "A2 blue timeline", why are Comstock and Songbird searching for Elizabeth?
Since this timeline is branching from the "A1 green one", its Elizabeth version is already held prisonner in Comstock house. After our Elizabeth is captured by Songbird, Comstock should possess 2 Elizabeth in the "A2 blue timeline", while in the game, there is only one.
Am I missing something or this part of the chart is wrong?

The timeline is correct. This is a plot hole. We don't know what happened to A2 Elizabeth, and why she's absent. All we have is Martyr Booker's voxophone to confirm that she at least exists. Also note that Comstock wasn't searching for Liz in this timeline. Presumably he knows where A2 Liz is at, and he knew our Liz was trying to get to Comstock House. Songbird's pursuit of Liz may just be a habit. It was built to protect and stalk her. There's no way to know if it can even distinguish two different versions of her.

The only way that would make sense is that our "A2 blue timeline" is actually a D timeline, in which Elizabeth successfully escaped Comstock house and fleed to another dimension (one of the Elizabeth we see in the ending).

This is a distinct possibility. Heck, she might not have even escaped this timeline. In theory, A2's Liz could have also gained a boost in her abilities at the same time as Our Liz did in the ending.

- Why does Elizabeth insist on the fact that Booker needs to be killed before the baptism? If the "paradox theory" is actually what she(and Levine) aims at, it makes no difference whether Booker is killed before or after baptism. The only prerequisite to create the paradox is Elizabeth killing Booker (daughter killing her father before she was born), no matter when or where.

Any ideas?

Killing him at the baptism erases only Comstock Bookers from existence whereas killing him before the baptism branching occurs could erase other non-Comstock timelines. It's also much easier to do it at this one branch point vs visiting Comstocks afterwards where they could be anywhere and harder to subdue.

Just my 2 cents. ;p

 

[Truant]

I think you guys are taking the "killing" of Booker way too literally.

 

[MMBosstones86]

- Why does Elizabeth insist on the fact that Booker needs to be killed before the baptism? If the "paradox theory" is actually what she(and Levine) aims at, it makes no difference whether Booker is killed before or after baptism. The only prerequisite to create the paradox is Elizabeth killing Booker (daughter killing her father before she was born), no matter when or where.

Any ideas?

I think it has to do with the choice. As long as the CHOICE exists (to take or not take the Baptism), there is a Chance for Comstock to exist. Even if Liz killed the Booker's that accepted the Baptism, there would still be a chance somewhere, in some other dimension where Comstock could be created.

Basically...as long as the choice exists, so does Comstock. She eliminates all Bookers before the Baptism and prevents and branches from occurring.

Or something like that.

 

[Nymerio]

I was just having a little think whilst having my coffee, and it occured to me...

How do the Lettuce's open up voids? I understand Fink tried to kill them by messing with their machine and they got stuck in the void, but you never seem to see any tears, yet their powers look even greater than Elizabeth's (at least, until you smash the statue). That bit where they're playing baseball on the way to ... Comstock house, was it? They can basically time travel and rip holes through space without even having to mess about with tears. So why do they even need to involve Booker at all? Couldn't they just go back and drown him (and all the versions of him at the baptism) so that he couldn't do it?

Edit: and another thought - the same paradox that forces the Elizabeth's to disappear would also make the Brother Lettuce disappear... surely? The only reason they're together is because Comstock wanted to steal Anna etc.

I just assumed that when the female Lutece said they're scattered in the probability space that they're not part of any universe anymore at all. I guess this also gives them the ability to open tears and so on. So the brother shouldn't vanish when the timeline resets.

 

[Trigger]

I think you guys are taking the "killing" of Booker way too literally.

It's not a paradox if the killing wasn't literal. Booker can't will himself out of existence.

 

[Truant]

It's not a paradox if the killing wasn't literal. Booker can't will himself out of existence.

No, but Elizabeth can.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Regarding Rapture in Bioshock 1.

What's the canon?

It's just another timeline, sunken Columbia or what?

I'd rather think that it follows a timeline where DeWitt has twins, and the one who isn't Anna follows Comstock's path and follow his dream underwater.

It's just another city; another lighthouse. I don't think it explicitly has anything to do with Booker or Elizabeth.

 

[LiK]

It's just another city; another lighthouse. I don't think it explicitly has anything to do with Booker or Elizabeth.

Correct. And another Man.