Support NeoGAF

[GuitarAtomik]

I believe I am getting a better comprehension of it. Just took a bit more thinking

So explain to me in a little more detail why only one instance of Booker being killed before the baptism creates a paradox. Other universes still exist with Comstock.

That is hinged on the fact that Elizabeth is the one who kills him.

From the OP:

In addition, every Booker killing himself is not the same thing as every Booker being drowned by Elizabeth. The former would become a constant and would contradict the after credits scene, no Booker could ever survive the baptism, and every relevant Booker goes to the baptism. If every Booker is drowned by Elizabeth, that is a paradox and a paradox cannot exist.

So if Booker had killed himself, that technically would have been a choice he made, which leaves the probability that he decided not to, which creates a brand new branch.

By making Elizabeth kill him, it creates a paradox because for even the possibility of him being killed by Elizabeth at the baptism, he has to become Comstock, steal her from (a rejected baptism timeline) Booker who had her, which would create an omnipotent Elizabeth, who could then come back in time to kill him. But that has become an impossibility because if Booker is killed by Elizabeth at the drowning BEFORE he ever becomes Comstock, how could a Comstock steal Anna, where she would become omnipotent Elizabeth and come back in time to kill him. She can't because omnipotent Elizabeth is no longer a probability. All they need to do it is once and it WILL happen once as long as it's a variable.

Again from the OP:

A single Booker must accept the baptism so the probability of Booker becoming Comstock exists so that the probability of buying Anna exists so that the probability of Elizabeth becoming omnipotent and murdering every Booker exists which means a single Booker must accept the baptism so the probability of Booker becoming Comstock exists so that the probability of buying Anna exists so that the probability of Elizabeth becoming omnipotent and murdering every Booker exists and so on. It's all one big paradoxical loop.

EDIT:
Take note of the fact that they are probabilities. As long as the probability exists, it has happened/is happening/has happened. By throwing a paradox in there it can no longer happen or else the probability of the paradox is still there. So what once was a variable that could end up in a paradox (Booker accepting the baptism and becoming Comstock) has to become a constant (Booker ALWAYS rejects the baptism and never becomes Comstock.). So no Comstocks exist after the paradox.

 

[SteeloDMZ]

Has it been confirmed that that song bird cry is indeed on Bioshock 1?

 

[Ferrio]

That's interpretation number 1.

I don't know how it's only an interpretation. She says multiple times in game that they must do it before the choice is made.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

I don't know how it's only an interpretation. She says multiple times in game that they must do it before the choice is made.

The 'interpretation' is related to the alternative theory proposed that the choice refers to the choosing of a name as opposed whether to accept or reject (although if you want to really get into semantics you could argue that accepting is the same as choosing the name). I still think it's the latter since as you've mentioned there is an association made by Elizabeth between the word 'choice' and walking away or acceptance ('you chose to walk away, but in other oceans, you didn't, you took the baptism') but either interpretation seems like it is equally as valid and, since they both result in the same conclusion, via the same thing, it's simply semantics as to which is what happens.

 

[RDreamer]

I don't know how it's only an interpretation. She says multiple times in game that they must do it before the choice is made.

I realize this, and it's a bit wonky, or perhaps even a cop-out by Ken, but I don't think "before the choice is made" means what you'd initially think it to mean. I think Elizabeth zeroes in a bit more on the subset that accept the baptism only.

The fact that Booker says "This is different" when he gets to the end signifies to me that it's a different scenario. They went through a different door. It wasn't the one that lead to rejection. It was the one that led to acceptance. Coupled with that, the ending shows, to me anyway, that the rejection Booker still survives. It only targeted the acceptance Booker.

Realistically it does make some kind of sense. It wasn't just the act of accept or not. It was a mindset difference in the two. One mindset accepts that you can erase sins through a baptism, and the other one does not. That's why the later baptism on the "rejection" Booker doesn't work. He believes it doesn't work.

It's that split second before the actual baptism. That's where she kills him. That's where the switch is turned. She kills him in that other mindset, that's why he feels differently. She kills him through the other door. The one that leads to Comstock.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I realize this, and it's a bit wonky, or perhaps even a cop-out by Ken, but I don't think "before the choice is made" means what you'd initially think it to mean. I think Elizabeth zeroes in a bit more on the subset that accept the baptism only.

The fact that Booker says "This is different" when he gets to the end signifies to me that it's a different scenario. They went through a different door. It wasn't the one that lead to rejection. It was the one that led to acceptance. Coupled with that, the ending shows, to me anyway, that the rejection Booker still survives. It only targeted the acceptance Booker.

Realistically it does make some kind of sense. It wasn't just the act of accept or not. It was a mindset difference in the two. One mindset accepts that you can erase sins through a baptism, and the other one does not. That's why the later baptism on the "rejection" Booker doesn't work. He believes it doesn't work.

It's that split second before the actual baptism. That's where she kills him. That's where the switch is turned. She kills him in that other mindset, that's why he feels differently. She kills him through the other door. The one that leads to Comstock.

Ohhh Cool. Never picked up on that.

 

[DatDude]

I'm right there with you man. I think we all want the logic of the ending to line up perfectly so we can have this awesome validation from the game, but in reality it just doesn't make complete sense. The justification for her drowning Booker and undoing all kinds of things (including herself) is weak considering how many infinite possibility spaces and timelines exist. What do a few possible timelines matter to her when she can basically see where all roads lead, including roads to completely alternate universes where neither Comstock nor Booker existed? And since she can travel to other realities and continue to exist in them, regardless of whether or not she originally existed in them, she can basically pick which reality to live in.

Of course I applaud this game for reaching for such lofty story concepts, but I think time will show that it never tied everything together perfectly.

Like the quote from Lutece went: "The mind of the subject (player) will desperately struggle to create memories (rationalizations) where none exist..."

She did it to unbreak the circle. It reset the timeline, where Anna never sold booker away.

 

[MMBosstones86]

You're looking at 'killed' too literally. If every Booker is killed before the baptism, no Booker accepts, no Booker becomes Comstock, no Elizabeth exists, no Elizabeth exists to kill Booker before Booker accepts or rejects. This only happens, if a single Booker accepts. If no Booker accepts, no Booker is killed; ever. This is the exact same thing as only Bookers that accept being killed is. The entire events of the game never happened, they simply don't exist. No Booker was, will or ever are killed at the baptism. All that 'actually' happens, is every Booker rejects, and one of these Bookers become a gambler, become an alcoholic and have Anna. No Booker literally dies.
EDIT: Again, if visualising this makes it easier to understand why they're the same thing: http://i.imgur.com/mLDw5iL.png (slightly editted version of the set diagram above), the Red Circle cancels out the existence of the others, if there is no red circle, there is no cancellation. If Booker rejecting is, was, always will be a constant, nothing ever happened to him. The main problem is simply about finding the explanation that makes it clear, since each person may 'learn' (interpret things?) differently and it's about finding the explanation that suits the person best.

EDIT: At the above, the ending is symbolic, the multiple Elizabeths representing Elizabeth 'drowning' every single Booker at the baptism (whether it's those who accept, all Bookers, whatever; it's the same thing in conclusion) in every single infinite set of timelines simultaneously; removing the entire branch to accept (because that would lead to its own inexistence before its existence).

I thought the drowning scene was supposed to take place Before the choice was even made. (Liz says something about 'before the choice') If there is no choice, it becomes a constant, right?

I get that that basically erases Anna, but if you think of time like flowing water...it seems logical (Back to the Future?).

I realize this, and it's a bit wonky, or perhaps even a cop-out by Ken, but I don't think "before the choice is made" means what you'd initially think it to mean. I think Elizabeth zeroes in a bit more on the subset that accept the baptism only.

The fact that Booker says "This is different" when he gets to the end signifies to me that it's a different scenario. They went through a different door. It wasn't the one that lead to rejection. It was the one that led to acceptance. Coupled with that, the ending shows, to me anyway, that the rejection Booker still survives. It only targeted the acceptance Booker.

Realistically it does make some kind of sense. It wasn't just the act of accept or not. It was a mindset difference in the two. One mindset accepts that you can erase sins through a baptism, and the other one does not. That's why the later baptism on the "rejection" Booker doesn't work. He believes it doesn't work.

It's that split second before the actual baptism. That's where she kills him. That's where the switch is turned. She kills him in that other mindset, that's why he feels differently. She kills him through the other door. The one that leads to Comstock.

I actually can get on board with this...but during her speech at the end, Liz says something about having to happen before the choice is made. What choice is she referring to then?

 

[ScOULaris]

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it have made more sense if Elizabeth had drowned some other version of Booker? The one that she kills in the end is technically the same one that you played through most of the game with (after the last time he "died"). Whenever they jumped through tears during the game, they emerged with all of their memories still intact. They were the same people, only existing in different realities. Why didn't their memories get replaced during all of the tear jumps over the course of the game like Booker's did when he was first dragged through the initial tear by Lucete to kick off the whole game?

When they travel somewhere, it doesn't seem like they replace the version of themselves that existed in that reality. Hence, in order to make everything that followed the baptism choice cease to exist, Elizabeth would have had to time travel back to that point and kill that particular Booker. The one she killed isn't the same as the one that made the choice all that time ago.

Does anyone follow my logic here? It's terribly inconsistent in terms of how jumping through tears effects the characters and the timelines, themselves.

 

[Salamando]

I realize this, and it's a bit wonky, or perhaps even a cop-out by Ken, but I don't think "before the choice is made" means what you'd initially think it to mean. I think Elizabeth zeroes in a bit more on the subset that accept the baptism only.

The fact that Booker says "This is different" when he gets to the end signifies to me that it's a different scenario. They went through a different door. It wasn't the one that lead to rejection. It was the one that led to acceptance. Coupled with that, the ending shows, to me anyway, that the rejection Booker still survives. It only targeted the acceptance Booker.

Realistically it does make some kind of sense. It wasn't just the act of accept or not. It was a mindset difference in the two. One mindset accepts that you can erase sins through a baptism, and the other one does not. That's why the later baptism on the "rejection" Booker doesn't work. He believes it doesn't work.

It's that split second before the actual baptism. That's where she kills him. That's where the switch is turned. She kills him in that other mindset, that's why he feels differently. She kills him through the other door. The one that leads to Comstock.

Booker's drowning has to occur before he made whatever final choice it was to make the baptism. The game strongly hints that whenever a choice is made, the universe copies itself, with one universe per outcome. This is something that would hold true for every entity or random event in that universe. If the choice was made to "accept" the baptism even a millisecond before he actually accepted, there would have been an infinite number of other choices or random events happening everywhere in the universe, resulting in an infinite number of Comstocks.

This may or may not be a problem depending on your interpretation of Liz's power level. If she can alter all realities at will, she can kill all Baptism-acceptance easy. If she's still relatively mortal, she has to manually kill Booker to kill Comstock.

The fact that Booker was conflicted about the baptism enough to reject it infers that there are multiple points of rejection. He rejected the idea before breakfast that morning, he rejected on the way there, he rejected weeks in advance. They only need to cut off the one "accept" branch, the most immediate one before the actual acceptance.

 

[Calamari41]

Is it possible that the timelines all converge into one point any time an event which is a constant happens? So from Elizabeth's perspective in her "omnipotent" state, its not like she has to go into an infinite number of streams that contain the baptism, but just go in at the one point where they all converge, that point being the moment before Booker makes his decision?

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it have made more sense if Elizabeth had drowned some other version of Booker? The one that she kills in the end is technically the same one that you played through most of the game with (after the last time he "died"). Whenever they jumped through tears during the game, they emerged with all of their memories still intact. They were the same people, only existing in different realities. Why didn't their memories get replaced during all of the tear jumps over the course of the game like Booker's did when he was first dragged through the initial tear by Lucete to kick off the whole game?

When they travel somewhere, it doesn't seem like they replace the version of themselves that existed in that reality. Hence, in order to make everything that followed the baptism choice cease to exist, Elizabeth would have had to time travel back to that point and kill that particular Booker. The one she killed isn't the same as the one that made the choice all that time ago.

Does anyone follow my logic here? It's terribly inconsistent in terms of how jumping through tears effects the characters and the timelines, themselves.

Yeah, basically asked this question last page and I would like it expanded on if someone could. The only conclusion that I came to was that Liz had the ability to make tears where people (or anything really) are replaced like the part in the 15 minute gameplay preview where she tried to save the horse.

 

[MMBosstones86]

Booker's drowning has to occur before he made whatever final choice it was to make the baptism. The game strongly hints that whenever a choice is made, the universe copies itself, with one universe per outcome. This is something that would hold true for every entity or random event in that universe. If the choice was made to "accept" the baptism even a millisecond before he actually accepted, there would have been an infinite number of other choices or random events happening everywhere in the universe, resulting in an infinite number of Comstocks.

This may or may not be a problem depending on your interpretation of Liz's power level. If she can alter all realities at will, she can kill all Baptism-acceptance easy. If she's still relatively mortal, she has to manually kill Booker to kill Comstock.

The fact that Booker was conflicted about the baptism enough to reject it infers that there are multiple points of rejection. He rejected the idea before breakfast that morning, he rejected on the way there, he rejected weeks in advance. They only need to cut off the one "accept" branch, the most immediate one before the actual acceptance.

Spoiler

Exactly

 

[The One Who Knocks]

I thought the drowning scene was supposed to take place Before the choice was even made. (Liz says something about 'before the choice') If there is no choice, it becomes a constant, right?

I get that that basically erases Anna, but if you think of time like flowing water...it seems logical (Back to the Future?).

This is being accounted for *see set diagram above*. This all goes back to the paradox. The paradox is:

Booker Accepts -> Probability of Comstock -> Probability of Elizabeth -> Probability of Omnipotent Elizabeth -> Probability of Booker never accepting due to being drowned -> No probability of Comstock -> No probability of Elizabeth -> No probability of Omnipotent Elizabeth -> No probability of every Booker (accepting or otherwise) being drowned and due to this: -> Probability of Booker accepting etc.

The paradox, is the loop. The last event, Booker being drowned, is reliant upon the first event, Booker accepting. Booker, never accepted, never will accept, and never accepts, ever.

Booker rejects -> Probability of becoming an alcoholic gambler -> Probability of having Anna.

No Booker never dies before making the choice in this chain of events. If the other chain never happens, and it doesn't happen because it's inherently paradoxical, then there is no problem here. The constant that's created is Booker rejecting the baptism; not Booker being murdered by Elizabeth (unless you want to look at it like 'Accept = Paradox throughout the multiverse therefore probability = 0' becoming a constant). I hope I've not complicated the issue.

EDIT: Most of this is just a rehash of material from the original post though and it's more comprehensive there with multiple explanations.

As for your edit, the two possible choices refer to either Booker accepting/rejecting or Booker picking a name (these could be argued as the same thing but you'd really have to be going into semantics for this to be argued, it doesn't really matter). Both result in the same conclusion via the same method.

 

[Salamando]

Is it possible that the timelines all converge into one point any time an event which is a constant happens? So from Elizabeth's perspective in her "omnipotent" state, its not like she has to go into an infinite number of streams that contain the baptism, but just go in at the one point where they all converge, that point being the moment before Booker makes his decision?

It's largely irrelevant. Even if the baptism occurred on infinite timelines simultaneously, each Liz only needs to drown one Booker - the one at her branch's root baptism. An infinite number of Liz's can easily drown an infinite number of Bookers.

 

[RDreamer]

Yeah, basically asked this question last page and I would like it expanded on if someone could. The only conclusion that I came to was that Liz had the ability to make tears where people (or anything really) are replaced like the part in the 15 minute gameplay preview where she tried to save the horse.

The whole ending is basically that. Booker is reliving the past in a way, and thus "replacing" his former self. Like when he had to give up the baby. He wasn't an additional Booker in that time. He was that Booker that made that decision at that time. That's why Elizabeth knew he would, and why you had to in order to advance. Because he did.

I think it's the difference between merely opening a tear (a direct link between the two), and sort of stepping outside of things and into the doors (which represent choices and turning points). When you step into a door in the ending you are stepping into that point in time again. When you step through a tear, you are stepping through just as your self.

I'm not entirely sure why the difference exists theoretically, but that seems to be what the game was portraying at the end.

 

[Lakitu]

You can hear that Songbird squeal in the Comstock Center Rooftops (whilst exploring/backtracking in Montgomery Residence).

 

[DangerStepp]

Just a random thought, but on the subject of memories that are constructed based upon what universe you're currently inhabiting...

If Female Lutece is promiscuous then does the Male Lutece suddenly remember banging a bunch of dudes upon his entrance into Columbia as we know it?

 

[Divvy]

Just a random thought, but on the subject of memories that are constructed based upon what universe you're currently inhabiting...

If Female Lutece is promiscuous then does the Male Lutece suddenly remember banging a bunch of dudes upon his entrance into Columbia as we know it?

Why do you think he wants to fix the timeline so badly?

 

[DangerStepp]

Well, now we know the real reason.

The "fixing the war before it happens" and "returning the girl to her rightful place" were just righteous excuses.

 

[suikodan]

Wow, just finished the game and watched/read stuff about it (including the great OP of this thread) to clear things up.

I don't know if it's because I have kids but my eyes got so wet when you find out that Liz is your daughter that you sold to another "born-again" version of yourself and got separated from.

I kind of expected that Liz would equal to Anna but DeWitt being Comstock? I did not expect that.

But it's crazy on how the final game changed from the video in the OP. It's almost another parallel universe.

Big props to Irrationnal Games!

 

[Pro]

Just finished the game myself last night. Big thank you to the OP for expanding on and clearing some things up. It makes the game/story/ending that much better than what I had already thought. Great great game.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

The whole ending is basically that. Booker is reliving the past in a way, and thus "replacing" his former self. Like when he had to give up the baby. He wasn't an additional Booker in that time. He was that Booker that made that decision at that time. That's why Elizabeth knew he would, and why you had to in order to advance. Because he did.

I think it's the difference between merely opening a tear (a direct link between the two), and sort of stepping outside of things and into the doors (which represent choices and turning points). When you step into a door in the ending you are stepping into that point in time again. When you step through a tear, you are stepping through just as your self.

I'm not entirely sure why the difference exists theoretically, but that seems to be what the game was portraying at the end.

Yeah, this is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[Truelize]

The whole ending is basically that. Booker is reliving the past in a way, and thus "replacing" his former self. Like when he had to give up the baby. He wasn't an additional Booker in that time. He was that Booker that made that decision at that time. That's why Elizabeth knew he would, and why you had to in order to advance. Because he did.

I think it's the difference between merely opening a tear (a direct link between the two), and sort of stepping outside of things and into the doors (which represent choices and turning points). When you step into a door in the ending you are stepping into that point in time again. When you step through a tear, you are stepping through just as your self.

I'm not entirely sure why the difference exists theoretically, but that seems to be what the game was portraying at the end.

This, this, this!!! The bolded part. When you step through a door you are that Booker now. Every time you die and open that door to continue playing you are a different Booker. And everything you go through a door at the end of the game you are stepping into that timeline.
The tears provide a visible passage into a new timeline. Much like how Elizabeth is able to pull items into your current world for you to use during battles.

 

[TheChillyAcademic]

The fact that Songbird might potentially be another Booker from a different timeline makes the character, or creature, less tragic to me.

Need some DLC stat.

 

[Salamando]

This, this, this!!! The bolded part. When you step through a door you are that Booker now. Every time you die and open that door to continue playing you are a different Booker. And everything you go through a door at the end of the game you are stepping into that timeline.
The tears provide a visible passage into a new timeline. Much like how Elizabeth is able to pull items into your current world for you to use during battles.

Great, now I'm imagining DLC setup like Quantum Leap. Elizabeth detects something wrong in the past, so Booker leaps to the body of someone there, taking control of his actions to right what needs righting. Luteces obviously play the role of the adviser invisible to everyone else.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Is this legit?

Bioshock Infinite - not only is Wounded Knee a real event, Booker and Slate were real troopers

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1c1kas/bioshock_infinite_not_only_is_wounded_knee_a_real/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

Wounded Knee is in 7th grade history, dude.

 

[Divvy]

Wounded Knee is in 7th grade history, dude.

Well not everyone is from the US.

 

[Calamari41]

Can somebody explain the evidence behind the theory that Songbird is another version of Booker? That's not making apparent sense to me. Is it that in a certain timeline Booker was captured, and they used him in the experiment that made Songbird? And then sent him back in time/to every other Comstock reality?

 

[Divvy]

Can somebody explain the evidence behind the theory that Songbird is another version of Booker? That's not making apparent sense to me. Is it that in a certain timeline Booker was captured, and they used him in the experiment that made Songbird? And then sent him back in time/to every other Comstock reality?

I don't think there's any evidence at all.

 

[Truelize]

Great, now I'm imagining DLC setup like Quantum Leap. Elizabeth detects something wrong in the past, so Booker leaps to the body of someone there, taking control of his actions to right what needs righting. Luteces obviously play the role of the adviser invisible to everyone else.

I would play that. But I think in this time travel tale that breaks the rules.

I really loved the intricacies of the story. There are so many hidden elements.
I kept fishing for someone to comment on it, so I will say it again.
I just had this pop into my brain last night.

I feel it's possible that Elizabeth is actually committing suicide when she drowns Booker. In the scene where she puts Booker's hand around her neck she says she would rather die than go back to that. And now that she realizes that that loop through time always has her in that spot, caged up and controlled and that once she is free from the chains of the siphon she becomes evil and all powerful she realizes that there is nothing she can do. So she ends Booker's life to end her own sorrow.

 

[Korey]

Can somebody explain the evidence behind the theory that Songbird is another version of Booker? That's not making apparent sense to me. Is it that in a certain timeline Booker was captured, and they used him in the experiment that made Songbird? And then sent him back in time/to every other Comstock reality?

There's no evidence. Just speculation.

And by speculation I mean it's literally just "songbird theory: [insert person here]"

A theory that your mom is songbird has just as much evidence.

 

[Calamari41]

I don't think there's any evidence at all.

There's no evidence. Just speculation.

And by speculation I mean it's literally just "songbird theory: [insert person here]"

A theory that your mom is songbird has just as much evidence.

Ok that's what I thought, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

 

[Korey]

If we assume that the multiverse goes for the easiest path out of a paradox, which seems to be how people are explaining the way the paradox of Elizabeth killing all Bookers works out, why does the game happen at all? Wouldn't the default state of the multiverse be that the game has already happened and therefore can't happen?

People are only explaining it that way because there's no better solution. It's definitely not the one Ken Levine intended, so it's moot

 

[zkylon]

just find out jennifer hale voices rosalind lutece.

the luteces are so fucking awesome lol

 

[UltimaPooh]

Quick background I made that is spoilerific!

I had loftier goals for it but I can not find a decent picture of Zachary Comstock.

 

[Drago]

Is there a video that fully explains everything that happened in the ending and the main story itself?

 

[UltimaPooh]

Sorry! Just posting for the new page!

Quick background I made that is spoilerific!

I had loftier goals for it but I can not find a decent picture of Zachary Comstock.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Someone extracted a bunch of songs from BioShock Infinite, great quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDBO9BqGB18

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Is there a video that fully explains everything that happened in the ending and the main story itself?

Though the guy's voice is a little grating and his mic isn't mixed high enough against the game's audio, this video does a pretty good thorough analysis of the ending and it's themes.

 

[UltimaPooh]

I have another question.

At what point do we lose our Liz in the ending. I know at the very final moments Booker recognizes it as not her. Is there an instance in the gameplay where we see it's not her anymore? Anyone see anything like that on a second play through?

 

[28 Posts Later]

I have another question.

At what point do we lose our Liz in the ending. I know at the very final moments Booker recognizes it as not her. Is there an instance in the gameplay where we see it's not her anymore? Anyone see anything like that on a second play through?

Just before you step through the final door she asks "is this what you want?", or something to that effect, and the camera clearly focuses on the pendant you chose [Bird or the Cage]. Upon turning around to question why they're "back here" after stepping through the final door the pendent is noticeably missing. I assume that's the indicator.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Just before you step through the final door she asks "is this what you want?", or something to that effect, and the camera clearly focuses on the pendant you chose [Bird or the Cage]. Upon turning around to question why they're "back here" after stepping through the final door the pendent is noticeably missing. I assume that's the indicator.

And what is the significance of this new Liz.

 

[dyergram]

One thing that's bugging me, at the battle of wounded knee there is only dewit correct? How can slate remember both dewit and comstock from the battle? Sorry if this has already been addressed.

 

[UltimaPooh]

One thing that's bugging me, at the battle of wounded knee there only dewit correct? How can slate remember both dewit and comstock from the battle? Sorry if this has already been addressed.

He doesn't remember Comstock at the battle.

 

[90TilInfinity]

One thing that's bugging me, at the battle of wounded knee there is only dewit correct? How can slate remember both dewit and comstock from the battle? Sorry if this has already been addressed.

He believes Comstock is lying about being at Wounded Knee and getting undeserved praise while he, who was in battle, gets none. He only remembers DeWitt.

 

[Drago]

Drowning Booker creates a paradox.

Booker accepts baptism->Liz drowns him->Booker is dead so no Bioshock Infinite->Liz doesn't exist to drown him->etc...

As a paradox, this scenario is obliterated by nature so the only remaining timelines are where Booker refuses baptism. These timelines don't involve any tampering with spacetime and everyone lives happily ever after.

So, the crux of it all, is accepting that:

When the universe encounters a paradox due to a choice, it systematically wipes out all timelines associated with that choice, and only allows the timelines with an alternate choice to be made.

Therefore, since Booker accepting baptism and becoming Comstock always winds up in a paradox, the universe goes, "No", wipes those timelines out, and only allows timelines featuring baptism rejection to exist.

Hence, the post-credits scene.

I FINALLY UNDERSTAND

Damn, what a game. Not the greatest game, definitely flawed in some areas (I'd give it an 8-8.5), but I'm very glad that I played it. My GOTY so far. I have to play Bioshock 1 and 2 eventually.

 

[Psykotik]

did anybody else run into a red colored tear with the actual cyndi lauper girls just wanna have fun song blaring through it?

 

[Toa TAK]

did anybody else run into a red colored tear with the actual cyndi lauper girls just wanna have fun song blaring through it?

Yes. Love that song. Found it in Fink's brother's house, right?

 

[Drago]

did anybody else run into a red colored tear with the actual cyndi lauper girls just wanna have fun song blaring through it?

Yeah I did, I remember going "What?!" when I heard that.

I assume that tear leads to when Fink stole the original song from the future or something like that?