Loved this. The last paragraph kills me. Are there any more like this for other games?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bioshock Infinite | Official Spoiler Thread |
- Thread starter BruceLeeRoy
- Start date
BlastProcessing
Member
If it makes you feel any better, there is probably an alternate dimension where Bioshock Infinite is your favorite game!
Not sure why you're confused.
1) Rosalind Lutece in Timeline 1 breaches a portal to Robert Lutece in Timeline 2.
2) Robert crosses over to join Rosalind.
3) Fink attempts to kill the Luteces.
4) They are now scattered and can travel freely amongst the multiverse.
Does any given timeline (beyond the timelines from whence they came) have its own version of Lutece, still intact? Probably. After all, Booker and Elizabeth cross over into the Vox revolution timeline, which a recording indicates has its own Elizabeth, meaning both Elizabeths were in the same timeline at the same time (but that Elizabeth was moved from Monument Tower to Comstock House before Martyr Booker arrived).
I'm confused because in the INFINITE universes that exist, somehow only two Luteces were performing this experiment at the same time to be able to communicate with one another? Why aren't there thousands of Luteces who were doing this, why didn't at least some percentage of those come up with a similar plan to do what game's two Luteces did?
I'm not saying the game needs to explain it, tons of the time shit in this game doesn't make sense, I'm just wondering if there was a good explanation or not
I'm sure they were, and they were intercepting all of the Bookers that were with all of the Elizabeths that showed up to drown pre-baptism Booker at the end. Remember that for every Lutece pair scattered in such fashion, there would've been as many Elizabeth and Bookers to preoccupy them in parallel realities.
BlastProcessing
Member
Why do you assume you are seeing the same two Letuces each time?
Well these particular two Luteces seem to have a consistent narrative, including having seen a Booker at least 123 times and maintaining a count of coin flips, for example. I'm just wondering why more didn't cross into this universe if stopping him turning into Comstock is such a big deal; after all, surely many other Luteces must have come to the same conclusion.
This is what I was going with in my head, basically, that even though it seems really important to stop Comstock, is it really so important? These scenarios seem to be playing out a infinite number of ways, who cares if in some universes things go south?
I actually kind of like the mystery of the Luteces. The game only gives us this:
I assumed that being "scattered" across the "possibility space" gives them some form of omniscience, but then I'm not quite sure what Rosalind means when she says that. Is the "possibility space" just her way of saying multiverse? And if they're scattered across the multiverse then how does that apply to other versions of themselves? It's all speculative since the game doesn't elaborate further.
I assumed that being "scattered" across the "possibility space" gives them some form of omniscience, but then I'm not quite sure what Rosalind means when she says that. Is the "possibility space" just her way of saying multiverse? And if they're scattered across the multiverse then how does that apply to other versions of themselves? It's all speculative since the game doesn't elaborate further.
They're all heading to the same conclusion, though: creating a paradox wherein all versions of the universe in which Comstock exists is obliterated from existence, so only the timelines where non-Comstock Booker remains.
Excellent analysis, good sir.
They all have a lab somewhere on the edge of probability where they watch all Bookers and take bets on everything he does. BI wasn't really about stopping Comstock, it was all a giant experiment they put into motion.
Somewhat agree. But it'd be interesting to see the whole thing pans out from their point of view.
And we still not sure why Robert grow conscience and decided to "help" Booker.
Uh, they were killed. They want to undo that.
Their plan was put in place before they were killed. It's why they were killed.
Not really. Rosalind's voxaphone implies she's fine with it, but Robert don't.
Exactly, she was happy because she was together again with Robert.
Ros is fine chillin with her
The lack of Robert voxophones makes it hard to know if what he wants to undo is their death or the whole enabling a psychotic-cult-leader-to-kidnap-a-baby-and-raze-the-world thing.
One Voxophone goes "Our contraption shows us the girl is the flame that shall ignite the world. My brother says we must undo what we have done. But time is more an ocean than a river. Why try to bring in a tide that will only again go out?". If the timestamps on IGN's voxophone transcripts page are accurate, it was recorded two months before their death.
Apophenia Overload
Member
Baron_Calamity
Member
A couple of things I want to comment on and see if anyone else thought the same thing. I doubt my theories have anything to do with what Irrational had in mind. Its just how I saw the events.
At the very beginning of the game, the Letuces were discussing rowing and the Rosalind said DeWitt doesn't row. The first thing that leaped into my head is DeWitt is a coxswain. A person who sits at the stern of a boat and steers. The adventure at Columbia end with Elizabeth at the bow of the ship. She is the bowman, responsible for stability. DeWitt is completely responsible for the course, the Letuces are there to just keep things moving along and Elizabeth is there just to prevent the canoe (all space and time) from capsizing.
I believe Anna didn't exist. Somehow the universe created Elizabeth as a response to the tears created by Comstock using Rosalind's machine and fighting against his time line. The subject manufactured memories. Since DeWitt and Comstock are one in the same, possibly the whole kidnapping began as an implanted memory. Only the Lutuces know for sure. Rosalind points out "I told the poor woman the truth: that the child was a product of our little contraption."
Which leads me to this theory: There is still one universe out there where DeWitt still became Comstock. Rosalind says "Why does this Comstock decay, while a Comstock in another world remains fit? If genetics are destiny, what accounts for the difference? Perhaps exposure to the contraption?" In that universe, Comstock chose not to use Rosalind's machine. He did not get cancer. He did not become sterile. He still built Columbia (Rosalind was already researching the technology, he had Elizabeth with Lady Comstock, and that child grew up to wage war. When Comstock became sterile, there is probably another fork. One where he lets go and goes on childless. The other, the third Comstock, couldn't let it go. He, with the Letuces, began looking at different universes to get his Elizabeth. This is when everything went to hell as far as the universe is concerned. The universe created Anna, sent through Rosalind's machine.... DeWitt and Comstock started manufacturing memories.
I suspect that everything before DeWitt waking up in Columbia was manufactured. Thus Elizabeth isn't some kidnapped girl with the power of space and time, it is the universe in girl form trying to guide humans into fixing their mess.
At the very beginning of the game, the Letuces were discussing rowing and the Rosalind said DeWitt doesn't row. The first thing that leaped into my head is DeWitt is a coxswain. A person who sits at the stern of a boat and steers. The adventure at Columbia end with Elizabeth at the bow of the ship. She is the bowman, responsible for stability. DeWitt is completely responsible for the course, the Letuces are there to just keep things moving along and Elizabeth is there just to prevent the canoe (all space and time) from capsizing.
I believe Anna didn't exist. Somehow the universe created Elizabeth as a response to the tears created by Comstock using Rosalind's machine and fighting against his time line. The subject manufactured memories. Since DeWitt and Comstock are one in the same, possibly the whole kidnapping began as an implanted memory. Only the Lutuces know for sure. Rosalind points out "I told the poor woman the truth: that the child was a product of our little contraption."
Which leads me to this theory: There is still one universe out there where DeWitt still became Comstock. Rosalind says "Why does this Comstock decay, while a Comstock in another world remains fit? If genetics are destiny, what accounts for the difference? Perhaps exposure to the contraption?" In that universe, Comstock chose not to use Rosalind's machine. He did not get cancer. He did not become sterile. He still built Columbia (Rosalind was already researching the technology, he had Elizabeth with Lady Comstock, and that child grew up to wage war. When Comstock became sterile, there is probably another fork. One where he lets go and goes on childless. The other, the third Comstock, couldn't let it go. He, with the Letuces, began looking at different universes to get his Elizabeth. This is when everything went to hell as far as the universe is concerned. The universe created Anna, sent through Rosalind's machine.... DeWitt and Comstock started manufacturing memories.
I suspect that everything before DeWitt waking up in Columbia was manufactured. Thus Elizabeth isn't some kidnapped girl with the power of space and time, it is the universe in girl form trying to guide humans into fixing their mess.
Ah, well stick a beard on me and call me Comstock. I suppose that clears it up.
I have a question, but you sound like some lit major?
Finished the game last night. All I know is that I'm still blown away. I read the stuff in the OP here and this excellent thematic analysis, and I agree with pretty much all of it. In regards to the apparent paradox and causality loop of Booker's death, I prefer to stick with the one mentioned in the OP, that it doesn't destroy all Booker futures, only those that result in Comstock and Elizabeth's existence (without Comstock, she's free to be Anna).
At this point, I need to go through it again to try to figure out some of the more subtle things like the Luteces. While their story is important (and interesting), it's not central.. they set it in motion, now it's up to Booker to play it out.
In terms of straight facts, I was able to determine most of it based on the ending and putting the pieces together from what I remembered during my playthrough. The only thing that stuck out at me afterwards was how Comstock knew about the brand on Booker's hand. I can only assume that he saw that future in one of his "foretellings" (aka "looking through a tear").
At this point, I need to go through it again to try to figure out some of the more subtle things like the Luteces. While their story is important (and interesting), it's not central.. they set it in motion, now it's up to Booker to play it out.
In terms of straight facts, I was able to determine most of it based on the ending and putting the pieces together from what I remembered during my playthrough. The only thing that stuck out at me afterwards was how Comstock knew about the brand on Booker's hand. I can only assume that he saw that future in one of his "foretellings" (aka "looking through a tear").
DangerStepp
Member
Fuck me if someone has noted this but this line caught my hear while watching my wife play:
From Comstock on his flagship:
"Look at DeWitt, child. There's just something you can't put your finger on"
Or did he mean 'pinky'? ;-)
From Comstock on his flagship:
"Look at DeWitt, child. There's just something you can't put your finger on"
Or did he mean 'pinky'? ;-)
The whispers heard when you use Possession is lines from Romeo and Juliet being played backwards. Neat.
http://youtu.be/JnLfQPZBSC4?t=33s
http://youtu.be/JnLfQPZBSC4?t=33s
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
I have to say 1999 is easier than Survivor difficulty in Bioshock 1. That is one pain in the ass, specially without Vita Chambers.
Who says they're not several Luteces at once? We don't know how this aspect of the universe works so being scattered through the space of possibility could mean that they fused with the Luteces who were killed from other universes. Maybe that's why we saw many Booker attempts, because the Luteces knew who were the most likely to get Elizabeth (took them 123 tries though! The first one probably died at the lighthouse, and that's why they killed him).
Who says they're not several Luteces at once? We don't know how this aspect of the universe works so being scattered through the space of possibility could mean that they fused with the Luteces who were killed from other universes. Maybe that's why we saw many Booker attempts, because the Luteces knew who were the most likely to get Elizabeth (took them 123 tries though! The first one probably died at the lighthouse, and that's why they killed him).
There is at least one other as she describes seeing another little girl version of herself as a child
Amazing, thank you.
That is a good analysis. I like the idea that it is at once both an intensely personal story and a wide-ranging philosophical and political argument about the ideals and actuality of America. There should be multiple ways of approaching and analyzing a game like this, and I think that nitpicking the mechanics or little plot annoyances, while fun and occasionally constructive, can sometimes lose sight of the bigger narrative ideas in play.
Ha ha ha... No.
Your insatiable curiosity as to why I overthink a video game will never be satisfied. It will haunt your thoughts as you are slowly driven mad by a quandary you neither understand nor could ever hope to answer. You will live the rest of your days clawing at your padded walls screaming, "WHY? WHY! WHY MUST HE BE THAT WAY!?! IT IS SO ANNOYING!!" And I, reclining comfortably in my velour smoking jacket, enjoying the faint crackle and warm glow of my fireplace, will simply take a puff on my pipe, raise my left eyebrow a quarter inch in a half knowing, half mocking smile and say, "Because bite me. That's why."
Oxymoron. Got it!
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Those are three more letters than I'd use
Spring-Loaded
Member
Reading that was like crawling through a thorn bush.
I was hoping for a moment/fight where you're running through multiple tears in quick succession like that part from Timesplitters: Future Perfect with the multiple Cortezs
I was hoping for a moment/fight where you're running through multiple tears in quick succession like that part from Timesplitters: Future Perfect with the multiple Cortezs
After thinking more and more about the story Im starting to think Booker is actually worse than Comstock....besides the old timey racism, comstock wasnt any worse than any other man for his time.... in fact he had a pretty good society up there (given the time period)
He was essentially giving Elizabeth a better life, he was taking her away from a drunkard living in a shitty area.... and his whole plan for world domination or the city in the first place would never had worked had it not been inspired by his vision of Booker.... in fact I would go as far to say that the unbaptised Booker is the one to cause all of the issues, not Comstock
I got to think on this a bit more, but Im starting to think you are playing the role of the bad guy in Infinite.
He was essentially giving Elizabeth a better life, he was taking her away from a drunkard living in a shitty area.... and his whole plan for world domination or the city in the first place would never had worked had it not been inspired by his vision of Booker.... in fact I would go as far to say that the unbaptised Booker is the one to cause all of the issues, not Comstock
I got to think on this a bit more, but Im starting to think you are playing the role of the bad guy in Infinite.
Wouldn't killing the Letuces be an easier solution than killing Booker? I mean, they are the ones that really set in place the events of the game. Without them, Comstock wouldn't be able to get Anna, and none of the future events would happen. Not to mention that they are the ones behind the technology that allows Columbia to exist. So without them none of this would happen.
Missing the point.
Booker hated Comstock with a passion for what he did to Elizabeth. Booker wanted him dead. Elizabeth asked if that is really what he wanted, and Booker said yes. So Elizabeth took him to Comstock's "birthplace" - the baptism, and killed him before he could be born. Smothered him in the crib, so to speak.
It's not just about stopping Elizabeth's suffering, it's about Booker wanting to kill Comstock, and Elizabeth obliging.
Which is exactly my point. Without the Letuces, Comstock doesn't even know Anna exists.
Constants and variables man. You can't really break that cycle without going to the source of Comstock himself. Things would still be set in motion even if they had ended the Leteces.
But Comstock wouldn't be Comstock without them. He wouldn't be able to steal Anna and Columbia wouldn't exist without them. The constants in the story are only there because of their actions. They are a variable. Going back and killing them would stop everything from happening.
I searched but couldn't find anything, thought this was worth posting if it hasn't been already. I figured it's full of spoilers so this might be the best place for it. It's Bioshock Infinite (part of it anyway) as a text adventure. It's fairly critical of the game...
Bioshoot Infinite +1
I enjoyed Infinite but don't think this is too far off the mark. I've seen some backlash against criticism and I don't get it. If you loves games and you want them to be more than toys for kids that get blamed for every tragedy caused by young males you should welcome the kind of criticism Bioshock gets. Obviously a lot of it is hyperbolic but the same is true for some of the praise. Every game that aspires to be more than just a toy should hope people observe it with a critical eye.
I think addressing the dissonance of Booker in the role of hero while being a murderous psychopath is valid. His past is irrelevant because you don't know the full truth of it until pretty much the end of the game. At the start you're killing people with no motivation other than erasing a completely unrelated gambling debt and doing it with ease in gruesome fashion. Even after you become aware of Booker's past as a Pinkerton and some of his involvement in Wounded Knee the dissonance remains because more than ever you're led to believe you're playing the role of the good guy. He's no longer going to give them the girl. It only serves to highlight the inherent flaw of using the player character as an unreliable narrator. The player is being asked to suspend their suspension of disbelief, deny immersion, and acknowledge the player character as separate from the player after the game has taught them to do the opposite. When people talk about Elizabeth they say "She gives money to me," and the game is designed to make them feel that way. It's in first person. You can explain away dissonance after the fact in non-interactive mediums but not in video games. Once it exists the player has already experienced it and it needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. The reveal happens too late in the game to explain Booker's behavior to the player.
Bioshoot Infinite +1
I enjoyed Infinite but don't think this is too far off the mark. I've seen some backlash against criticism and I don't get it. If you loves games and you want them to be more than toys for kids that get blamed for every tragedy caused by young males you should welcome the kind of criticism Bioshock gets. Obviously a lot of it is hyperbolic but the same is true for some of the praise. Every game that aspires to be more than just a toy should hope people observe it with a critical eye.
I think addressing the dissonance of Booker in the role of hero while being a murderous psychopath is valid. His past is irrelevant because you don't know the full truth of it until pretty much the end of the game. At the start you're killing people with no motivation other than erasing a completely unrelated gambling debt and doing it with ease in gruesome fashion. Even after you become aware of Booker's past as a Pinkerton and some of his involvement in Wounded Knee the dissonance remains because more than ever you're led to believe you're playing the role of the good guy. He's no longer going to give them the girl. It only serves to highlight the inherent flaw of using the player character as an unreliable narrator. The player is being asked to suspend their suspension of disbelief, deny immersion, and acknowledge the player character as separate from the player after the game has taught them to do the opposite. When people talk about Elizabeth they say "She gives money to me," and the game is designed to make them feel that way. It's in first person. You can explain away dissonance after the fact in non-interactive mediums but not in video games. Once it exists the player has already experienced it and it needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. The reveal happens too late in the game to explain Booker's behavior to the player.
I feel like the big dissonance came due to the fact that we were killing HUMAN beings.
In Bioshock 1, we KILLED thousands upon thousands of splicers, but no one raised this disonance issue.
I feel same holds true with columbia. If these were just mutants, none of these questions would be raised.
Which brings up the question, are games cornered to having enemies soley be mutants/zombies/monsterous creatures.
Or is there actual room for games to kill human (that isn't a war game)?
I mean it's funny..but in Indiana Jones, this guy killed hundreds of people throughout his treasure hunting adventure, and no one really bats an eye at that. I think it's due to the fact that people realize, it's a fictitious film, and that killing has to happen in some fashion, and really don't pay attention in that regard (similar to Infinite I guess)
GTA.....
More screens I took tonight on my second playthrough, from Finkton on through the Good Times Club. Liz struck some excellent poses! (A few of the ones posted below were taken during my first playthrough.)
I love how all of the job duties are changed to "Kill the False Shepherd" in the last shot, lol.
There's still a large dissonance created with GTA. Even playing as some "thug", were still killing bystanders, police officers, and other thugs in the thousand range. Can a GTA game ever be made where we don't kill people?
Once again, beautiful as always, but you already know that
No, it can't. The vast majority doesn't love GTA because of the open world exploration, they love it because you can do whatever the fuck you want to do. For most people, that means destroying shit.
Awesome easter egg!
Jon Blow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGTV8qLbBWE
EDIT: Sorry, I don't remember the timestamp, but I highly recommend this lecture if you enjoy commentaries on the medium itself (which many Bioshock fans seem to).
Passive Assassin
Member
Just beat the game. What the fuck.
ReeseHoward
Banned
I haven't paid attention to these threads in ages. Is there a working theory as to why
?
Honestly though, I thought the ending felt forced.
Booker never merges with Comstock when he jumps between universes
Honestly though, I thought the ending felt forced.