Support NeoGAF

[MMBosstones86]

If the Elizabeth s kill Booker, and no longer exist, wouldn't that also mean that they would no longer exist to kill Booker in the first place, therefore, they would still be alive?

Exactly!

You need to allow some liberties when things like time travel come up. By your theory, the story would never have happened because Liz was going to drown Booker > meaning she never existed > meaning Comstock never stole her > etc.

Just think of time like a river...if you damn up part at the beginning...it'll take time to flow down to the end.

 

[ScOULaris]

I think it's bigger than just Booker/Liz. It's about preventing Comstock/Columbia/NukingNewYork and the only way to ensure that doesn't happen across all universes is to prevent Comstock from coming into existence. Hence, drowning him BEFORE the baptism to prevent Booker from making his choice.

I guess maybe it is as simple as that. Constants and variables. Even though infinite variables could be tweaked between the baptism the the eventual attack on NYC, those beginning and end points remain constant? It's a little shaky, but that kind of inevitability is maybe slightly plausible within the confines of the game's logic.

The only reason she exists is because of Comstock. To eliminate Comstock, she would also be eliminating herself, as she exists due to Comstock building Columbia and using the Lettuce twins tear machine, where Comstock becomes infertile and wants a daughter (Anna, who grows to be Elizabeth). Although, this elimination results in Booker getting a second chance with Elizabeth, but she would be baby Anna again.

That still doesn't make sense to me. Booker being in that apartment with baby Anna comes after he rejected the baptism. Her killing him before he could either reject or accept the baptism should have also eliminated the thread of him ever having gone on to have her in the first place. That scene at the end throws a wrench into everything.

 

[electricpirate]

I think it's bigger than just Booker/Liz. It's about preventing Comstock/Columbia/NukingNewYork and the only way to ensure that doesn't happen across all universes is to prevent Comstock from coming into existence. Hence, drowning him BEFORE the baptism to prevent Booker from making his choice.

I also had this weird thought at the end, you aren't just preventing NY getting destroyed, you are basically playing to undo everything you just did. By cutting off this timeline you have effectively prevented yourself from murdering thousands of people in a floating city.

 

[Red]

It's not just about preventing NYC's destruction... That's the only city shown but we can safely assume it's not the only target. The idea is preventing Comstock/Columbia from winning. That includes its ideals and its violence. Allowing Comstock to exist leads to a future dominated by a racist megalomaniac and dystopian class separation, at the very least. The arbiter of justice worldwide is a floating supercity with big ass cannons commandeered by said megalomaniac. There's more to it than "saving New York."

Plus there's the personal aspect of atoning for your sins, and preventing Liz's captivity and torture. In a sense, Booker is taking back his decision of giving up his daughter by ensuring he's never placed in a situation in which he has to.

I think Booker realizes he is not a good guy. He's the very definition of an antihero. Letting his future be wiped out is probably a result of coming to terms with how shitty he is.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

After beating the game and letting the ending sink in and finally understand most of the plot thanks to that chart in the OP, I'm going to have to agree with Evilore and his thread on the game. It's ashame it took awhile for the plot to kick in, because looking back now, the action was secondary while the plot was the primary focus.

I think the game could've worked as an exploration-only while looking for clues to the story. Then you have one final battle at the end, similar to a finale like in ICO. Nothing to grandesque.

 

[kurahador]

Still to Booker, it's all about undoing his action of selling Liz.

 

[Dylan]

2) The woman doesn't recognize Elizabeth as Annabelle. It was a ploy to get Liz to identify herself. She could have called Liz Lady Gaga and got the same result. The name thing is a coincidence until we get some further proof.

Eh? Camaan, this is Bioshock. There are no coincidences.

Are we saying that the woman is a Comstock spy to see if Elizabeth is boarding the First Lady? If so, perhaps she was instructed to use the name Annabelle, because Comstock is trying to figure out how much Booker remembers (and thus what he has told Elizabeth so far)?

edit: Here's the scene: http://youtu.be/ytuCT7gy0cE?t=1m30s

The woman identifies herself as "Esther".

double edit: I love how Booker takes a knife straight though his hand and instantly picks up his pistol and reloads it like it ain't no thang.

triple edit: turns out this is Battleship Bay.

 

[MMBosstones86]

Still to Booker, it's all about undoing his action of selling Liz.

I have to believe it's more than just that. Him drowning basically undo's a whole ton of shit. The actual act of selling Liz/Anna is a VERY small part of that.

 

[Red]

I have to believe it's more than just that. Him drowning basically undo's a whole ton of shit. The actual act of selling Liz/Anna is a VERY small part of that.

... In as much as lighting a fuse is a small part of blowing up dynamite.

 

[Sonicbug]

I can't tell if the game is actually explained by everything in this article about time travel and paradoxes, or if it's all coincidence.

I didn't remember the Annabelle thing, that is weird.

 

[Salamando]

I have to believe it's more than just that. Him drowning basically undo's a whole ton of shit. The actual act of selling Liz/Anna is a VERY small part of that.

Eliminating Comstock from history was all about preventing him from causing the wrongs that he did. Peking doesn't get carpet bombed, Lady Comstock doesn't get strangled, a number of scientists don't get cancer from working on a siphon, there isn't a very bloody revolution, Anna doesn't have to grow up isolated from everyone, Booker doesn't have to sink even deeper into depression, the Luteces aren't killed, and so on.

 

[Mr. F]

I'm not sure why Songbird and his death resonated so much with people, I never got the feeling the game wanted me to care.

Me neither. Songbird was antagonistic throughout the entire game, using him as a Zeppelin killer for all of 5 minutes didn't really make me feel particularly attached all of a sudden. Cool for those who did though. Also I was too busy freaking out over being in Rapture again.

 

[GCNemesis]

In looking into other symbolism present in this game, like the Hummingbirds, I started looking into historical ties and now I'm wondering if Anthony Comstock, proponent of Victorian morals, was any influence on the Comstock character.

In looking into his background, his opposition with civil liberties groups, and how things like religious morality and the clash between the upper/elite and the middle class tie into the Victorian beliefs he followed, I can't help but think that some aspects of this individual had some bearing on the development of Comstock's character.

Perhaps I'm reaching, but I thought it was an interesting correlation.

 

[traveler]

After reading through this thread, I think I pretty much have a solid comprehension of this game's story and themes. That being said, it's a shame that such an interesting world and concept had to be translated into slaughtering endless waves of enemies 80% of the time during the game. That has already been discussed to death, I know, but this game is another perfect example of the cognitive dissonance issue that continues to plague games that try to have believable characters and intriguing stories.

That being said, the Songbird noise in BioShock 1 is simply insane. Someone needs to ask Levine about this. How could he have even had that sound recorded back then?

What? This is an example of a game that does NOT do that. The conflict in other games lies between the supposedly good/everyman nature of the protagonists and the horrible acts they perpetrate. The entire storyline in BioShock Infinite makes it clear that Booker, on the other hand, is not a good person and would have no issues whatsoever killing lots of people. (he even has a line specifically to that effect)

I don't get the attitude that a story is wasted is if it's for a game where killing is a primary objective. There is a great FPS here to appreciate, regardless of what genre you wanted the game to be.

 

[Guevara]

Here's some cognitive dissonance: Elizabeth freaks out once or twice at the violence at specific points; for the rest of the game you can and do murder 400 people and she doesn't care at all. She just walks around occasionally saying "oh" or "hmm" and cheerfully picking locks.

 

[traveler]

Here's some cognitive dissonance: Elizabeth freaks out once or twice at the violence at specific points; for the rest of the game you can and do murder 400 people and she doesn't care at all. She just walks around occasionally saying "oh" or "hmm" and cheerfully picking locks.

Yup. The game writes it off by having Booker supposedly convince her in a matter of seconds that the violence is a necessary evil and by having her occasionally show remorse for the impact their actions are having on the city, but, all in all, it's just a little too easy to be convincing.

 

[TheChillyAcademic]

Me neither. Songbird was antagonistic throughout the entire game, using him as a Zeppelin killer for all of 5 minutes didn't really make me feel particularly attached all of a sudden. Cool for those who did though. Also I was too busy freaking out over being in Rapture again.

For me it wasn't the fact that he became your BFF on the Hand of the Prophet for 15 minutes it was the fact that he was so tragic a character. There is a great Kotaku (SHOCK) article that attempts to explain the world that Songbird saw at it actually makes a good deal of sense.

Songbird is not an uber advanced super computer filled mechanical guardian. He was a simple creature whos reason for living was to protect Elizabeth. He knew nothing else. In a matter of speaking he raised her. The moments I grew attatched to him was when he was interacting with Elizabeth. For example when he "finds" you before going to Comstock House and she stands in front of him to protect you...he doesn't at first want to listen to her, he pushes her aside. His feelings are hurt, he cared for her and was worried about her.

The worst part of his death is that he doesn't understand whats happening. He's confused and clearly scared and it is at that moment, when Elizabeth consoles him, lets him know everything is gonna be okay and that she loves him...I absolutely lost it. I'm losing it now lol

<<emotional much.

 

[Mr. F]

Here's some cognitive dissonance: Elizabeth freaks out once or twice at the violence at specific points; for the rest of the game you can and do murder 400 people and she doesn't care at all. She just walks around occasionally saying "oh" or "hmm" and cheerfully picking locks.

The cheerful lockpicking was a bit weird in places, especially coming off the heels of a dramatic exchange. Also the occasional taking issue with melee kills, when I shoot lightning out of my hands that makes heads explode.

For me it wasn't the fact that he became your BFF on the Hand of the Prophet for 15 minutes it was the fact that he was so tragic a character. There is a great Kotaku (SHOCK) article that attempts to explain the world that Songbird saw at it actually makes a good deal of sense.

Songbird is not an uber advanced super computer filled mechanical guardian. He was a simple creature whos reason for living was to protect Elizabeth. He knew nothing else. In a matter of speaking he raised her. The moments I grew attatched to him was when he was interacting with Elizabeth. For example when he "finds" you before going to Comstock House and she stands in front of him to protect you...he doesn't at first want to listen to her, he pushes her aside. His feelings are hurt, he cared for her and was worried about her.

The worst part of his death is that he doesn't understand whats happening. He's confused and clearly scared and it is at that moment, when Elizabeth consoles him, lets him know everything is gonna be okay and that she loves him...I absolutely lost it. I'm losing it now lol

<<emotional much.

That's all fair enough. To be clear I wasn't actively hating Songbird at the end of the game, just didn't feel too strongly one way or another. However I find him a really interesting aspect of the lore of Columbia, looking forward to seeing his background fleshed out in greater detail if the DLC rumours hold true.

 

[GoddyofAus]

TotalBiscuit does Bioshock: Infinite

I usually agree with a lot of what TB says, but his cherry picking in this 1 HOUR AND 13 MINUTE PREVIEW VIDEO is off the scale. Dropping to 50 fps during the load stuttering is a technical disaster, apparently.

 

[Snakeyes]

That still doesn't make sense to me. Booker being in that apartment with baby Anna comes after he rejected the baptism. Her killing him before he could either reject or accept the baptism should have also eliminated the thread of him ever having gone on to have her in the first place. That scene at the end throws a wrench into everything.

Not necessarily. AFAIK, Booker never states that he got married and had a kid as a direct result of rejecting the baptism. If all the multiversal Bookers who chose to attend the baptism drown, the only ones remaining are those who never decided to go there in the first place. It is entirely possible that one of those Bookers went on to meet his wife and have a girl named Anna, which is what we see in the epilogue.

 

[LiK]

biggest twist is if Elizabeth was her own mother. Fanfic time.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

I enjoyed the game a lot, I would love to play through a second time down the road. It really stuck out to me early on that Booker mistook Elizabeth for Anna, and even a NPC as someone mentioned earlier called her Anna as well. In the game the tears in Columbia are well documented before Elizabeth comes to Columbia, and obviously exist afterwards. What if NPCs from other dimensions made their way over and the Elizabeth they see is actually Anna, thus confirming that there are dimensions where Booker and Anna stay together?

 

[Salamando]

Not necessarily. AFAIK, Booker never states that he got married and had a kid as a direct result of rejecting the baptism. If all the multiversal Bookers who chose to attend the baptism drown, the only ones remaining are those who never decided to go there in the first place. It is entirely possible that one of those Bookers went on to meet his wife and have a girl named Anna, which is what we see in the epilogue.

The crazy thing that if it's possible for Anna to exist during a series of events that don't involve the baptism, then it's possible for Comstock to exist through a series of events that don't involve that particular baptism. Liz only stopped one branch where Booker becomes a tyrant, where there are likely infinite more.

 

[MNC]

Whats even obvious in the battlebay ambush is that the hotdog vendor is so bad at doing his job, he's obviously a soldier.

 

[yankeehater]

Eliminating Comstock from history was all about preventing him from causing the wrongs that he did. Peking doesn't get carpet bombed, Lady Comstock doesn't get strangled, a number of scientists don't get cancer from working on a siphon, there isn't a very bloody revolution, Anna doesn't have to grow up isolated from everyone, Booker doesn't have to sink even deeper into depression, the Luteces aren't killed, and so on.

If you believe that she is Bookers wife in the non-baptisim timeline then she dies in child birth, I am not really sure if that is an improvement.

 

[Neiteio]

I'm on another playthrough, at Soldier's Field now, taking screenshots left and right, and I've uploaded like 500 to Steam so far. At this rate I'll have like 3,000 by the end of the game, lol. This is such a beautiful game, so much so it's overwhelming at times.

 

[CornBurrito]

Has this video been discussed at all in this thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2cSKBFBDQ

 

[Guevara]

Has this video been discussed at all in this thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2cSKBFBDQ

Despite being full of spoilers it was in the OT.

This video and the other critical one posted yesterday really get it as far as I'm concerned. I agree almost entirely.

 

[Aaron]

If you believe that she is Bookers wife in the non-baptisim timeline then she dies in child birth, I am not really sure if that is an improvement.

That seems incredibly unlikely since Booker and Comstock are such divergent characters. They wouldn't have known the same people.

 

[Salamando]

If you believe that she is Bookers wife in the non-baptisim timeline then she dies in child birth, I am not really sure if that is an improvement.

Anna's mom died in childbirth.

Lady Comstock was first forced to raise a kid she thought was illegitimate. Then she was strangled to keep it a secret. After death, her image was used as propaganda to motivate the people. Then she was ultimately ressurected as a ghost-thing through some wibbly-wobbly time stuff. And she never had a kid of her own.

One of those fates seems far worse than the other.

 

[Teggy]

Sorry if this has been covered somewhere in the mass of pages, but there is one bit that still isn't making sense for me.

At the end of the game, is Elizabeth somehow moving Booker's consciousness around, and not actually Booker? If it's actually 40 year-old Booker going from place to place, how does killing him do anything? He is already past the decision point. You would have to kill 20 year old Booker, and 20 year old Booker would have no idea who Elizabeth was or know about anything that happened to 40 year old Booker.

 

[yankeehater]

That seems incredibly unlikely since Booker and Comstock are such divergent characters. They wouldn't have known the same people.

I wish I could find the post but someone posted a theory in this thread that they were the same person. Hopefully the DLC will go into details about Lady Comstock and Bookers wife so we can know for sure. Booker meeting her could be a constant, and could have happened before the baptism. Maybe they dont fall in love until after the either accepts of declines the baptism though.

 

[DatDude]

So in my history class we were learning about Jones Town, and Cults in general, and for some reason I felt a large relation to Comstock, and Jones Town.

A blind prophet, creating a cult based on his religious ideals, forming a city away from the masses in the sky, living by his strain and control.

Really paints a perfect example of religious idealism taken to far extremes. Agree, disagree?

 

[TheChillyAcademic]

Is it significant that booker was killed by being drowned and so was, in effect, Songbird?

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Has this video been discussed at all in this thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2cSKBFBDQ

I don't know.. does the game really want to "SAY" something? a lot of journalists and fans are turning it into some statement on racism and religion but the actual game hardly touches on that and the game has more to do with narrative and choice then anything else. I also get frustrated when people complain that it has too many shooting elements. If you want a movie or a novel look there.

Levine himself has pretty much said the same. Its a game.. and on top of that its a FPS.

maybe I am way off base?

 

[Mr. F]

I don't know.. does the game really want to "SAY" something? a lot of journalists and fans are turning into some statement on racism and religion but the actual game hardly touches on that and the game has more to do with narrative and choice then anything else. I also get frustrated when people complain that it has to many shooting elements. If you want a movie or a novel look there.

Levine himself has pretty much said the same. Its a game.. and on top of that its a FPS.

maybe I am way off base?

I feel the same way. I don't feel an experience having certain social, religious, or political elements as a part of its backdrop is mutually exclusive with making explicit statements on those things beyond whatever serves the narrative.

I disagree with a majority of the guy's criticisms. While some encounters did feel forced or included to pad out the game here and there, I didn't take issue with the combat itself (and in fact preferred it to Bioshock 1's). Also not sure where the criticism of lack of exploration comes from - Columbia didn't feel that linear to me. Most of the Voxophones are found off the beaten path in areas only accessible through thorough exploration.

 

[Rapstah]

If the point in time when Booker is killed is what matters for Comstock ever existing, why do we see rifts/portals leading freely across time as well as dimensions? Is the "baptism dimension" the one that Booker is also originally from but 20 years before the game starts (from his point of view) or are time/dimension entirely irrelevant, meaning it's the symbolism of Elizabeth killing Booker in the baptism dimension that somehow causes all alternative Bookers to also infinitely refuse the baptism?

Edit: What the fuck did I just write?

 

[Hot Coldman]

OK what the FUCK did I just play

 

[Lmo911]

Is it significant that booker was killed by being drowned and so was, in effect, Songbird?

All of Elizabeth's "keepers" were drowned in the end: Comstock, Songbird, Booker. In fact booker is constantly drowned throughout the game. Baptism, getting into Columbia, Battleship Bay, Drowning Comstock, drowning himself. Baptism and birth/death by water is a pretty heavy theme in the game. Rapture even plays into that.

 

[spekkeh]

In looking into other symbolism present in this game, like the Hummingbirds, I started looking into historical ties and now I'm wondering if Anthony Comstock, proponent of Victorian morals, was any influence on the Comstock character.

In looking into his background, his opposition with civil liberties groups, and how things like religious morality and the clash between the upper/elite and the middle class tie into the Victorian beliefs he followed, I can't help but think that some aspects of this individual had some bearing on the development of Comstock's character.

Perhaps I'm reaching, but I thought it was an interesting correlation.

I can see the relationship with Comstock; even though there's nothing about sex in Columbia, at least he clearly wanted to impose Christian morals. But if Zachary Comstock is a reference to Anthony Comstock, then you'd expect Booker DeWitt to be a reference to someone as well, and that one has been eluding me for quite some time.

I don't see anything in the history of DeWitt Clinton to warrant a reference. There's one really famous De Witt, the grandpensionary ('leader') of the Dutch Republic ca. 1650. The Dutch Republic was the first (influential) modern day republic, a country effectively run by middle class merchants when the rest of the world was governed by kings and theocrats. The political philosophy that he championed, called 'true freedom' meant that basically a country would be best off with no one leader, forcing the constant need for compromise. As such I'd say it's actually a better fit for Bioshock 1 (no gods no kings). Applying it to B:I seems really far fetched; or it would indicate that you have the lower class (vox populi), the upper class (Columbia) and Booker deWitt as a champion of the middle class, but that's even more far fetched.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Fantastic work, OP.

I wish there were more tears leading to the near-past. Hearing "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" might have been my favourite part of the game. :lol

 

[NullPointer]

OK what the FUCK did I just play

Hahahahahahha - my exact same reaction when I was done.

So damn beautiful tho.

I wish there were more tears leading to the near-past. Hearing "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" might have been my favourite part of the game. :lol

I wish you could see interesting stuff through the tears, and that telescopes had actual magnification, and that this game had a new game+ mode with subtle random changes in the world each time.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

If the point in time when Booker is killed is what matters for Comstock ever existing, why do we see rifts/portals leading freely across time as well as dimensions? Is the "baptism dimension" the one that Booker is also originally from but 20 years before the game starts (from his point of view) or are time/dimension entirely irrelevant, meaning it's the symbolism of Elizabeth killing Booker in the baptism dimension that somehow causes all alternative Bookers to also infinitely refuse the baptism?

Edit: What the fuck did I just write?

At the bolded, welcome to this entire thread .

I'm going to repost an image, slightly editted, that I used earlier to help explain the same thing:

Since time is relative to each universe, and there are an infinite amount of timelines, you can view any probability at any time, hence the tears to different time periods. This is related to the female Lutece's belief that time is an ocean. It's an ocean because every time period is occuring simultaneous while similarly all heading straight forward. It's also worth noting EatChildren's alternate belief that time is cyclic which similarly would result in a similar resolution concept of everything happening at once.

Elizabeth can cut off every Booker at the baptism, since the baptism occurs at the same time in every relevant universe (even though each universe can occur at different times). Since she can open all doors, she can just go to that specific point in time in every universe and cut the accept timelines all off before anything after that specific time can occur (erasing all accept timelines from existence). This is indeed symbolised by multiple Elizabeths drowning Booker at the end at the baptism.

 

[Rapstah]

So it's each Elizabeth's purpose to prevent her respective Booker from turning into Comstock in the respective universe? Is that what the ending is supposed to mean?

 

[Divvy]

So it's each Elizabeth's purpose to prevent her respective Booker from turning into Comstock in the respective universe? Is that what the ending is supposed to mean?

Basically yes I believe

 

[Snakeyes]

I can see the relationship with Comstock; even though there's nothing about sex in Columbia, at least he clearly wanted to impose Christian morals. But if Zachary Comstock is a reference to Anthony Comstock, then you'd expect Booker DeWitt to be a reference to someone as well, and that one has been eluding me for quite some time.

Pretty sure he's a reference to Bryce DeWitt.

He systematically approached the quantization of general relativity, in particular, developed canonical quantum gravity and manifestly covariant methods that use the heat kernel. B. DeWitt formulated the Wheeler-deWitt equation for the wavefunction of the Universe with John Archibald Wheeler and advanced the formulation of the Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. With his student Larry Smarr he originated the field of numerical relativity.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Anyone know why in the name of fucking God Booker would ever change his baller-ass name to "Comstock"?

 

[The One Who Knocks]

So it's each Elizabeth's purpose to prevent her respective Booker from turning into Comstock in the respective universe? Is that what the ending is supposed to mean?

I believe (as in the original post, sorry if I'm retreading ground but the original post contains a much more comprehensive overview of each theory related to it) that Elizabeth, after becoming omnipotent (capable of altering the entire multiverse), simultaneously (the ending is symbolic of this as opposed to lots of Bookers reaching the ending) erases Comstock from ever existing, erasing the timelines where Booker ever accepts, erasing 'her' (as we know her) existence so Booker always rejects the baptism (but she will still exist as Anna [but not as we know her] in these timelines). As a result, in the end, we see one the infinite Bookers that rejected the baptism (now a constant), became an alcoholic gambler with debt, and had Anna.

I'm not sure if that's what you were saying or clarifies anything.

 

[Snakeyes]

The crazy thing that if it's possible for Anna to exist during a series of events that don't involve the baptism, then it's possible for Comstock to exist through a series of events that don't involve that particular baptism. Liz only stopped one branch where Booker becomes a tyrant, where there are likely infinite more.

Good point. The whole conclusion is pretty wonky if you really start digging deep into the many-worlds interpretation of QM.

 

[TheChillyAcademic]

So do we know if Levin is considering another Bioshock game?