Support NeoGAF

[Kevin Shields]

The ending was the worst part of the game imo. The repetitive encounter design started to be a problem several hours earlier, but the last stretch really made it obvious that they had delivered an overlong and badly paced experience. This is how the game length in Bioshock Infinite compares to two of the best first person shooters back then:

The competing games extensively supported stealth gameplay, had substantial optional content to explore, and impeccably mixed up encounter arenas with modifiers and other stuff to do. Bioshock Infinite needed to offer more than a string of encounter arenas mixed with story exposition to make sense as a 15 hour game.

Metro Last Light is top 5 shooter for me

The funny thing is is that at the mid point of both Bioshock 1 and 2 on this play through I checked how much I had left and got in a bit of a rut. I still finished both but I didn't feel that drive to go on. On infinite I couldn't stop playing. It may have had pacing problems but it's pacing kept me invested the whole way through so I guess it just didn't hit me. Again actually enjoying the combat this time around probably had a lot to do with that.

 

[rashbeep]

I remember that last boss fight being really annoying

 

[gogosox82]

How can you peeps not find Undertowing people off of ledges immensely satisfying?

Everyone saying story is nonsensical, can you explain? Is it nonsensical because world hopping, time traveling is nonsensical or did you find the logical ununderstandable? Recent show Frequency last year had the same basic logic with creating and cutting off branches and I feel like that's par for the course in tons of these time traveling stories. Of course there is the deepest movie ever. Back to the Future.

The story needs to be consistent to work. Infinite isn't consistent like how Elizabeth at one point basically says there are infinite worlds with infinite possibilities but then 20 minutes later she says she has to drown you and that one scenario will end everything and won't spawn 1,000 other scenarios because reasons( other than we need to end the game and this is the best we could come up with).

 

[Complicated]

I think a lot of people talk about the complexity of BI's story because a lot of the critique shows that people clearly missed something. Which is fine if you don't enjoy the Bioshock thing of considering every clue and environment to piece together what is going on. I need to play through it again for sure. It's been too long.

 

[xxracerxx]

Story was fine at the end...the game play was taffy stretching.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm still annoyed that the game clearly doesn't comprehend what "infinity" means.

Infinity is defined as bigger than any number you could ever think of or see. There aren't 1 trillion^one trillion versions of Comstock out there for Elizabeth to somehow deal with... There are infinitely many more Comstocks than the one trillion^one trillion number.

Elizabeth's task that she sets herself makes no sense.

To be fair, better art like Rick and Morty clearly doesn't understand this concept either, but it's just irritating every time I see it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I feel the opposite OP. One of the worst let downs in a game ever IMO.

You could tell Ghost mom was just a piece of their development hell cropping up, as she was actually supposed to be a passive enemy in the world, just like the handymen, the sirens and others...and they ended up only bein in there for one small segment of the game

 

[Soar]

The story needs to be consistent to work. Infinite isn't consistent like how Elizabeth at one point basically says there are infinite worlds with infinite possibilities but then 20 minutes later she says she has to drown you and that one scenario will end everything and won't spawn 1,000 other scenarios because reasons( other than we need to end the game and this is the best we could come up with).

I think my main beef is how the writing treated the concept of infinite worlds. You cannot have the agency to change things infinite worlds in a finite and distinct way, it is not logically compatible.

As an example, let's say you sit down at your kitchen table with a six-sided die. You have decided to play a game where you roll the die once (1-6) and the result of the die will inform you on how many times you will roll the die next to get the second number (6-36). Let's also assume that any number bigger than 20 is your target else you will be very cross. Unfortunately you ended with a paltry and disappointing total of 13. So you're thinking, hey what if I use my world jumping ability to convince your other self to use a twenty-sided die or go do something more fun like penning a silly reply on GAF?

If you succeeded, would that mean then that all possibilities of you getting a result on the second part of the has disappeared or changed? Not at all, because the very act of you convincing yourself to change your action is also one of the initial possibilities. In fact in other possible worlds you could be dancing on your kitchen table, or you don't exist, or earth got obliterated a few billion years ago.

In an infinite world possibility you can't prevent bad things from happening by pruning a branch of history because it's not a tree in the first place. It's nothing, and everything, however silly it sounds. This is why the story is pretentious, and totally spoilt it for me. I think if the writers actually established clearly that there are say a distinct number of worlds that got fractured from the main timeline due to some EVENT and the characters can fix it by doing something, it would be more coherent because as creators of the story they can decide on the laws that govern the world. They cannot however redefine the meaning of infinity, or simply ignore it.

 

[Sande]

Yeah, the story's problem is that it tries to have infinite universes and distinct branches from a single event simultaneously. Technically there's no contradiction but it's just so damn silly and overly convenient. It makes no sense to me that only very specific events could lead to certain kinds of universes.

Then there's the stuff where people start going crazy because they're dead in another universe... what!!? That's not how any of this works.

I started thinking about it a while ago and came to the conclusion that Lutece should have only found a link between 2 universes. Booker finding out that he's not in his own universe (and Elizabeth is his daughter) could be the mid game twist. After they defeat Comstock they think they're safe, but another Lutece has found a connection and now there's a different Comstock after Elizabeth. The rest of the game would be fighting this Comstock and finding a way to sever all connections from this universe because otherwise you'll never be completely safe.

Or something like that. In any case having a constraint like this would allow a coherent story instead of desperately stretching the concept of infinity in an attempt to have a convenient ending.

 

[Kevin Shields]

The story needs to be consistent to work. Infinite isn't consistent like how Elizabeth at one point basically says there are infinite worlds with infinite possibilities but then 20 minutes later she says she has to drown you and that one scenario will end everything and won't spawn 1,000 other scenarios because reasons( other than we need to end the game and this is the best we could come up with).

See I took at as one choice will spawn infinite scenarios and another choice will spawn infinite scenarios but you there is always one origin constant with millions of variables. Yea infinite is a word that prob shouldn't be used. Should be Bioshock Millions of Variables. Much more catchy that way to!

 

[Astral Dog]

I just remember an annoying kill alk enemies sequence and the twist ending

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

The last few hours of BioShock Infinite, aside from the actual ending, are the worst part of the game. The setpieces in those last couple hours tend to be either lame or frustrating (I'm looking at you, ghosts).

I loved the game overall, for the record.

 

[jett]

I'm gonna go with no.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

OP is entitled to his opinion and is likewise entitled to be completely wrong.

 

[Kevin Shields]

The last few hours of BioShock Infinite, aside from the actual ending, are the worst part of the game. The setpieces in those last couple hours tend to be either lame or frustrating (I'm looking at you, ghosts).

I loved the game overall, for the record.

Maybe I'm a slow player but like I said in OP, I mean everything that happened after Lady Comstock.

 

[Sande]

See I took at as one choice will spawn infinite scenarios and another choice will spawn infinite scenarios but you there is always one origin constant with millions of variables. Yea infinite is a word that prob shouldn't be used. Should be Bioshock Millions of Variables. Much more catchy that way to!

The problem here is that why is the baptism specifically worthy of spawning universes but not the infinite other similar situations/decisions happening every day? The game doesn't explain that any further than pointlessly repeating "constants and variables".

 

[Kevin Shields]

The problem here is that why is the baptism specifically worthy of spawning universes but not the infinite other similar situations/decisions happening every day? The game doesn't explain that any further than pointlessly repeating "constants and variables".

Because basically Elizabeth was going on a world hopping tour looking for the constant that made Comstock and baptism was it. All the other situations and decisions were variables that basically led to the same end.

Yea it's not hard and fast but I kind of got the logic and gave it some leeway.

 

[Vecks]

Didn't care for the ending myself. Did not find it fun in the slightest. Just finished it for the sake of it.

 

[semiconscious]

While I did enjoy my time with the game I was pretty mixed on the ending sections. The combat became an absolute chore and the enemies made it a slog to fight. Worse yet it felt like for all the high mindedness and out there thinking of the ending that a lot of it felt like they just wanted to end the game and tie up all those many different plot points as easily as possible.

Songbird for example was a complete red herring and barely in the game proper but lets just shove it in the ending battle and then kill it off unceremoniously so we don't leave that thread hanging. This is after tons of advertising and trailers made a huge deal about that character and its relationship to the world of Columbia and Elizabeth herself. It didn't feel clever or well earned and instead it felt piece meal and like its job was to clean up the very messy story and characters.

agree, especially with bolded. after playing the first 2 games, which i loved, i hadn't really been enjoying infinite all that much, but, man, for me, that final encounter just sucked the life out of whatever else was going on at the end. i no longer even cared ...

 

[UCBooties]

I think a lot of people talk about the complexity of BI's story because a lot of the critique shows that people clearly missed something. Which is fine if you don't enjoy the Bioshock thing of considering every clue and environment to piece together what is going on. I need to play through it again for sure. It's been too long.

It's not complex, it's poorly done. You can't argue that people have "missed* something if you can't actually articulate what that something is.

The original divergence point is the baptism where Booker does/does not become Comstock. This creates two distinct timelines that have, themselves, infinite variation.

α=Comstock timeline
β=Booker timeline

The Lutece from timeline α invents quantum tearing and contacts the Lutece from some other timeline, likely timeline β. Together they create a ton of quantum technology and help Comstock build Columbia. They work with Comstock for a while up to and including helping him buy/steal Elizabeth from Booker in timeline β.

After a while they get disillusioned with Comstock and some non-zero percentage of Luteces from timeline α recruit some non-zero percentage of Bookers from timeline β to come rescue Elizabeth.

That's the start of the game.

You, the player, are a Booker from timeline β brought to timeline α. All the events of the game take place within timeline α's main trunk.

Start of game = αA.

So player character Booker arrives in αA, meets Elizabeth and makes a deal with Daisy to take an airship in exchange for weapons. They go to the gunsmith only to find that they can't get what they need.

Elizabeth transports them to timeline αB where they can get weapons. In timeline αB the Vox are already in revolt, the Booker who started in αB was allied with Vox and has already died.

What would make sense at this point would be for for Elizabeth and Booker to return to timeline αA with the weapons in order to complete their deal with Daisy. Instead they stay in timeline αB and expect Daisy αB to honor the deal they made with Daisy αA even though the preceding events which led to this deal could not have happened. Where is Elizabeth αB? Who cares? The game certainly doesn't and seems to think you're too stupid to ask.

The plot continues in timeline αB until Elizabeth is captured by the Songbird (again, where is Elizabeth αB?). Booker gets pulled into the future of timeline αB by the old version of Elizabeth αA. She tells him how to stop the Songbird and rescue her past self so she doesn't end up evil and crazy. Booker returns to the "present" of αB and rescues Elizabeth and then kills Comstock αB.

They then escape the Songbird by jumping to Rapture in timeline who-gives-a-fuck, they have a chat about the infinite timelines and fill in the backstory and then return to when Booker did/did not become Comstock and drown him to stop Comstock from existing and Columbia from being created.

The entire story takes place in two branches of timeline α and there is one meaningful jump between them. It's not complex, it can be diagrammed with three lines.

Edit: Here, I did:

So the story unfolds the way that it does because the two protagonists fundamentally do not understand the implications of moving from timeline αA to timeline αB. And the writers seemingly forgot or didn't understand those implications because they never account for Elizabeth αB, have Daisy αB remember a conversation between Booker and Daisy αA, and generally treat timeline αB as an interchangeable continuation of timeline αA.

But that's not actually where they really fucked up. Did you catch it?

Booker returns to the "present" of αB and rescues Elizabeth and then kills Comstock αB.

Except he didn't. When he rescued Elizabeth he created timeline αC. Old Elizabeth αB is still in 1984. New York City αB is still destroyed by Columbia. Those events can't be prevented, you can only create a timeline where they don't occur.

This brings us to the ending. Even if we take the game at its word that killing Booker at the Baptism will prevent Columbia from ever existing (it won't it will just create a new timeline branch γ where Booker drowned) it still won't work. And the best example of that is because timeline αB, where the majority of the game takes place, would still fucking exist.

How? Well remember, you the player are playing a version of Booker from β who was brought to timeline αA. So let's call this Booker βA. So at the end of the game a number of different versions of Elizabeth show up to drown Booker βA who has presumably been merged with ”their" versions of Booker β to stop him from becoming/not becoming Comstock.

But what about the Booker who originally came to Columbia in timeline αB? What about Booker βB? Booker βB didn't go back to get drowned and stop his version of Comstock from branching off, Booker βB is already dead. What about the versions of Booker who never took the deal? What about the versions of Columbia that were annexed by the US government before Comstock could escape? What about the universes where Elizabeth decided to willingly follow in Comstock's footsteps and didn't go back to drown Booker?

In the words of Rick Sanchez, ”What about the universe where Hitler cured cancer? The answer is don't think about it!"

Even by the game's own rules, which split between quantum many worlds and stable time loop models even though they are not compatible narratively let alone scientifically, you can't actually stop Comstock and Columbia from being created, you can only stop certain versions of them from being created.

So no, again, the game is not some masterwork of time-travel fiction. It's sloppy and hopes that you're too wowed by the spectacle to realize that the underlying rules are a contradictory mess. And worst of all, it misunderstands its own premise so badly that it results in an ending that literally doesn't prevent most of the bad things from happening. Booker βA and Elizabeth αA literally would have been better off just escaping Columbia and going off to live in timeline αC because at least in that timeline Comstock is dead and Columbia has been neutralized as a threat.

 

[Ninjimbo]

It's definetly one of my favorite games of all time-and I don't understand the shit it gets.

I don't get the hate either. Part of me thinks that most of the initial hate came from console players who didnt experience the game at 60fps. The combat really shines when the game isn't chugging.

 

[JumpJeff84]

I don't get the hate either. Part of me thinks that most of the initial hate came from console players who didnt experience the game at 60fps. The combat really shines when the game isn't chugging.

I played this game on PC at 60fps the day it came out. Huge fan of the series.

Loved the beginning of the game, kinda tailed off from there. Found the gameplay boring, and to me the story was the most convoluted mess ever. Really did not like the game at all

 

[Kevin Shields]

It's not complex, it's poorly done. You can't argue that people have "missed* something if you can't actually articulate what that something is.

The original divergence point is the baptism where Booker does/does not become Comstock. This creates two distinct timelines that have, themselves, infinite variation.

α=Comstock timeline
β=Booker timeline

The Lutece from timeline α invents quantum tearing and contacts the Lutece from some other timeline, likely timeline β. Together they create a ton of quantum technology and help Comstock build Columbia. They work with Comstock for a while up to and including helping him buy/steal Elizabeth from Booker in timeline β.

After a while they get disillusioned with Comstock and some non-zero percentage of Luteces from timeline α recruit some non-zero percentage of Bookers from timeline β to come rescue Elizabeth.

That's the start of the game.

You, the player, are a Booker from timeline β brought to timeline α. All the events of the game take place within timeline α's main trunk.

Start of game = αA.

So player character Booker arrives in αA, meets Elizabeth and makes a deal with Daisy to take an airship in exchange for weapons. They go to the gunsmith only to find that they can't get what they need.

Elizabeth transports them to timeline αB where they can get weapons. In timeline αB the Vox are already in revolt, the Booker who started in αB was allied with Vox and has already died.

What would make sense at this point would be for for Elizabeth and Booker to return to timeline αA with the weapons in order to complete their deal with Daisy. Instead they stay in timeline αB and expect Daisy αB to honor the deal they made with Daisy αA even though the preceding events which led to this deal could not have happened. Where is Elizabeth αB? Who cares? The game certainly doesn't and seems to think you're too stupid to ask.

The plot continues in timeline αB until Elizabeth is captured by the Songbird (again, where is Elizabeth αB?). Booker gets pulled into the future of timeline αB by the old version of Elizabeth αA. She tells him how to stop the Songbird and rescue her past self so she doesn't end up evil and crazy. Booker returns to the "present" of αB and rescues Elizabeth and then kills Comstock αB.

They then escape the Songbird by jumping to Rapture in timeline who-gives-a-fuck, they have a chat about the infinite timelines and fill in the backstory and then return to when Booker did/did not become Comstock and drown him to stop Comstock from existing and Columbia from being created.

The entire story takes place in two branches of timeline α and there is one meaningful jump between them. It's not complex, it can be diagrammed with three lines.

Edit: Here, I did:

So the story unfolds the way that it does because the two protagonists fundamentally do not understand the implications of moving from timeline αA to timeline αB. And the writers seemingly forgot or didn't understand those implications because they never account for Elizabeth αB, have Daisy αB remember a conversation between Booker and Daisy αA, and generally treat timeline αB as an interchangeable continuation of timeline αA.

But that’s not actually where they really fucked up. Did you catch it?



Except he didn’t. When he rescued Elizabeth he created timeline αC. Old Elizabeth αB is still in 1984. New York City αB is still destroyed by Columbia. Those events can’t be prevented, you can only create a timeline where they don’t occur.

This brings us to the ending. Even if we take the game at its word that killing Booker at the Baptism will prevent Columbia from ever existing (it won’t it will just create a new timeline branch γ where Booker drowned) it still won’t work. And the best example of that is because timeline αB, where the majority of the game takes place, would still fucking exist.

How? Well remember, you the player are playing a version of Booker from β who was brought to timeline αA. So let’s call this Booker βA. So at the end of the game a number of different versions of Elizabeth show up to drown Booker βA who has presumably been merged with “their” versions of Booker β to stop him from becoming/not becoming Comstock.

But what about the Booker who originally came to Columbia in timeline αB? What about Booker βB? Booker βB didn’t go back to get drowned and stop his version of Comstock from branching off, Booker βB is already dead. What about the versions of Booker who never took the deal? What about the versions of Columbia that were annexed by the US government before Comstock could escape? What about the universes where Elizabeth decided to willingly follow in Comstock’s footsteps and didn’t go back to drown Booker?

In the words of Rick Sanchez, “What about the universe where Hitler cured cancer? The answer is don’t think about it!”

Even by the game’s own rules, which split between quantum many worlds and stable time loop models even though they are not compatible narratively let alone scientifically, you can’t actually stop Comstock and Columbia from being created, you can only stop certain versions of them from being created.

So no, again, the game is not some masterwork of time-travel fiction. It’s sloppy and hopes that you’re too wowed by the spectacle to realize that the underlying rules are a contradictory mess. And worst of all, it misunderstands its own premise so badly that it results in an ending that literally doesn’t prevent most of the bad things from happening. Booker βA and Elizabeth αA literally would have been better off just escaping Columbia and going off to live in timeline αC because at least in that timeline Comstock is dead and Columbia has been neutralized as a threat.

First off, Kudos on the symbols as it explained it well!

Now 2 push backs or questions.

Why do you assume that old Elizabeth can't send Booker back to aA or aB? She seems to be pretty much God so can't she have power to send someone back to already existing timelines. I assumed she sent back Boomer to aB.

Also wait a second, I thought the end represented Elizabeth's going back to all the timelines and drowning pre Baptising Accepting Booker/Comstock. If the game was trying to say only drowning our Booker would help everything then that would be pretty cra cra.

Is that what your thinking?

 

[Soar]

If Elizabeth is that all powerful then what is the point of Booker and everything that he does anyway? That's just deus ex machina dialed to 11, that's why the story only works as far as the spectacle is able to override your internal logic.

 

[UCBooties]

First off, Kudos on the symbols as it explained it well!

Now 2 push backs or questions.

Why do you assume that old Elizabeth can't send Booker back to aA or aB? She seems to be pretty much God so can't she have power to send someone back to already existing timelines. I assumed she sent back Boomer to aB.

Also wait a second, I thought the end represented Elizabeth's going back to all the timelines and drowning pre Baptising Accepting Booker/Comstock. If the game was trying to say only drowning our Booker would help everything then that would be pretty cra cra.

Is that what your thinking?

Thanks for reading! I think these are good questions so here goes.

1. Old Elizabeth did send Booker back to aB. Booker's action of rescuing Elizabeth is what creates the new timeline aC. That's the point of divergence.

2. So the real problem is that BI uses two incompatible models of time travel and switches between them when it's convenient.

Model 1 is quantum many-worlds. This posits an infinite number of time lines covering all possible variations of probability. This is the model at work when Booker/Comstock diverge.

Model 2 is stable time loop. This is the Back to the Future model. Changes in the past change the future instead of creating divergent time line. This is the model that Old Elizabeth is suggesting when she tells Booker that he can prevent her future by rescuing Elizabeth in the past.

These models don't work together because they react differently to changes.

So if Quantum Many Worlds is at work the ending doesn't work because there's no "original" Booker you can kill to prevent Comstock. Infinite Bookers did/did not become Comstock. It's literally infinite, you can't prevent it, you can only create a new branching timeline.

If stable time loop is at work then you can prevent Comstock from ever existing, but that doesn't work with multiple Elizabeths.

 

[Futaleufu]

With every year that passes this game loses another bit of reputation.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Ken Levine chose the shutdown the studio after BI.

 

[AmayaPapaya]

What was great about the ending was you could then replay the game and have a few OMG WTF moments as it reshaped the paradigm of the story. That's what made it strong, IMO.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Thanks for reading! I think these are good questions so here goes.

1. Old Elizabeth did send Booker back to aB. Booker's action of rescuing Elizabeth is what creates the new timeline aC. That's the point of divergence.

2. So the real problem is that BI uses two incompatible models of time travel and switches between them when it's convenient.

Model 1 is quantum many-worlds. This posits an infinite number of time lines covering all possible variations of probability. This is the model at work when Booker/Comstock diverge.

Model 2 is stable time loop. This is the Back to the Future model. Changes in the past change the future instead of creating divergent time line. This is the model that Old Elizabeth is suggesting when she tells Booker that he can prevent her future by rescuing Elizabeth in the past.

These models don't work together because they react differently to changes.

So if Quantum Many Worlds is at work the ending doesn't work because there's no "original" Booker you can kill to prevent Comstock. Infinite Bookers did/did not become Comstock. It's literally infinite, you can't prevent it, you can only create a new branching timeline.

If stable time loop is at work then you can prevent Comstock from ever existing, but that doesn't work with multiple Elizabeths.

Maybe I interpreted it wrong but isn't it both of those models. Isn't like Back to the Future on infinite scale since infinite Elizabeth's are drowning infinite Bookers but One Elizabeth is killing one Booker in each timeline. So it's infinite but they are still trying to change the future. So take instead of Mcfly changing future with dictator Biff, infinite Elizabeth's are changing future of infinite dictator Comstocks?

That was weird to write.

 

[KDC720]

Probably one of the most unforgettable videogame finales in recent memory.

I liked Infinite a lot when it first released, combat and all, and playing through the remaster recently cemented that for me.

It also allowed me to understand why so many also dislike the game, especially the way Irrational kind of threw the games early focus on more controversial and touchy subjects out of the window in favor of the dimension hopping sci-fi stuff. I think the endgame plot stuff was handled fairly well though, and combat isn't as bad as people make it out to be, although it certainly isn't a pinnacle of the genre and the first 2 games didn't exactly have astounding combat either.

 

[crazy monkey]

Never played 1 or 2 but finished infinite. Loved it. Did not know wtf was going in story wise but it was so much fun.

 

[xeroborn55]

I havent read through this entire thread but a lot of the issues with the game, to me anyway, can be explained away by the fact that rod ferguson was brought in to turn an unreleasable mess into a shippable game. You can tell they were aiming for something amazing but couldnt bring it together

 

[JCHandsom]

*snip*

This is all really good analysis, and I thank you for the effort you put forward in writing it all out. Frankly speaking however, I still don't see this as a problem. Bioshock: Infinite ends the same way T2 does: ambiguously. When Booker goes to the crib at the very end he is essentially testing whether or not Elizabeth's plan actually worked; if the baby is still there than he never sold her to pay off his debts and it worked, if not then he did and the plan failed. Guess what? We don't find out if she's there or not! Every argument claiming that the plan failed is simply arguing for a downer ending, not that the ending doesn't work. Given the whole theme of violence being cyclical, emotionally numbing, and inescapable on all levels, that's an ending that works well enough for me. I may have gotten the details wrong, but I know for sure BI is ambiguous as to whether or not things worked out like you thought they were "supposed" to.

 

[UCBooties]

Maybe I interpreted it wrong but isn't it both of those models. Isn't like Back to the Future on infinite scale since infinite Elizabeth's are drowning infinite Bookers but One Elizabeth is killing one Booker in each timeline. So it's infinite but they are still trying to change the future. So take instead of Mcfly changing future with dictator Biff, infinite Elizabeth's are changing future of infinite dictator Comstocks?

That was weird to write.

The problem is that it has to be one or the other. The two models can't coexist. So infinite Elizabeths are creating infinite new timelines. We know that changes have to create new time lines or else you never would have ended up with separate Booker and Comstock timelines. It would simply have been one or the other.

This is all really good analysis, and I thank you for the effort you put forward in writing it all out. Frankly speaking however, I still don't see this as a problem. Bioshock: Infinite ends the same way T2 does: ambiguously. When Booker goes to the crib at the very end he is essentially testing whether or not Elizabeth's plan actually worked; if the baby is still there than he never sold her to pay off his debts and it worked, if not then he did and the plan failed. Guess what? We don't find out if she's there or not! Every argument claiming that the plan failed is simply arguing for a downer ending, not that the ending doesn't work. Given the whole theme of violence being cyclical, emotionally numbing, and inescapable on all levels, that's an ending that works well enough for me. I may have gotten the details wrong, but I know for sure BI is ambiguous as to whether or not things worked out like you thought they were "supposed" to.

I don't object to the game having an ambiguous ending. I agree that an ambiguous ending would be thematically appropriate. Instead I am arguing that the inconsistent rules which underpin their story don't support that ending.

And I think I should clarify that my goal here is not to simply shit on Bioshock Infinite. I think it's an ambitious game with some great character work and stunning design. I also believe that it is a deeply flawed game and I'm trying to illustrate that some of those flaws are structural. Essentially, that the game's narrative is built on a very shaky foundation.

I'm also putting the lie to this oft-repeated claim that people who don't like Bioshock Infinite's story are just people who can't understand it's story. That's pure elitist apologia and it deserves no respect in a worthwhile discussion of the game's merits and flaws.

 

[Sande]

The problem is that it has to be one or the other. The two models can't coexist. So infinite Elizabeths are creating infinite new timelines. We know that changes have to create new time lines or else you never would have ended up with separate Booker and Comstock timelines. It would simply have been one or the other.

I don't think it's fair to apply existing time travel systems so strictly to Infinite. In Infinite new universes are created as time progresses naturally, but you can travel back in a specific universe without creating a branch. You can't say that every time anything changes for any reason should create a new universe because that's just not how it works in Infinite.

I still think Infinite's narrative has plenty of plot holes and inconsistencies but being able to change the past is not one of them.

Edit: It is a problem though that Infinite doesn't even acknowledge the time travel mechanics as a possible issue. It's a part of the overall disregard the game has for the way multiple universes work in it. They seemed to only care about infinite universes as a vehicle for the "you are Comstock and Elizabeth is your daughter" twist. Beyond that they don't give a shit and didn't think it through. And it shows.

 

[MatthewMungall]

Despite having played Bioshock I&II beforehand, I went into Infinite blind (didn't know any of the details, just that it was a Bioshock game) and was blown away by it's amazing intro hour ("Hallelujah" and the theme that plays after is some first class world setting).

However, those last three hours are amazing as well (maybe not the zeppelin fight, younger me was not a fan haha) but with those reveals are amazing;

. Elizibeth is your daughter
. That jumpscare in the asylum
. The realization that you are Comstock
. The Baptism

Having said that, there are a few points in the middle (Lady. Fucking. Comstock.) that slightly bring my placing of the game from all-time favourite down to great.

P.S Burial at Sea Parts 1&2 are amazing and are some of the best DLC I've played so far.

 

[nekkid]

It's a great game. Not as good as 1 or 2, but certainly better than most games.

 

[Shifty]

I enjoyed my time with the game when I played it on launch. Though for me, it dropped off at the "oh by the way I'm god and here's an expository dump leading up to your poorly-justified death" part.

The ideas within expository dump were very cool (lighthouses, parallel universes, etc.) but felt tacked-on rather than being well-integrated into the story.
It could have used another few hours of gradually weaving those themes into the narrative rather than "ZAP we're in the future morty! ZAP shit's bad, morty! also you need to die because we need a shocking end to our FPS game."

 

[Jimnymebob]

I liked the stuff after Lady Comstock, apart from the whole Zeppelin section, so the bits when you're moving up it, and the final fight.
I enjoyed the game as a whole, but it only really shone in the open, sky rail sections.

 

[Nev]

Well this is a much better game than Bioshock.

I don't understand how someone can play them both and come to the conclusion that the weightless unbalanced no-gameplay trash of the first one is better than an actually designed shooter.

I guess if you don't care about gameplay in your videogames, but even so, no, because Infinite's story is better than the pretentious 'I wanna be a classic movie look how classy and well-cultured we are' garbage in the first one.

 

[Killer Queen]

I would argue that the Blood Baron quest in The Witcher 3 is gaming at its best. I would even go so far to say that the Blood & Wine expansion is all gaming at its very best.

Bloody Baron? Yes
Blood and Wine? Eh I prefer hearts of stone

 

[Maximo]

This is a much better game than Bioshock.

I don't understand how someone can play them both and come to the conclusion that the weightless unbalanced no-gameplay trash of the first one is better than an actually designed shooter.

I guess if you don't care about gameplay in your videogames, but even so, no, because Infinite's story is better than the pretentious 'I wanna be a classic movie' garbage in the first one.

This post hurts me, if you think Infinites combat loop was better then I'm truly stumped.

 

[Nev]

This post hurts me.

Slogging through that overrated trash after reading mentions of System Shock spiritual sequel is what hurt me.

 

[Moobabe]

I appreciate the write up and like your reasons but I've got to disagree.

The Bioshock series as a whole, I think, is so much better when it's quieter, more intriguing and the combat is extremely personal, violent and intense.

The big "battle" showpieces really struggle to capture what makes Bioshock so great, and Infinite, of the three games, is the worst offender for that.

Having said that, had this thread been called "The First 3 Hours..." then I might agree with you. Completely enchanting, so confusing and extremely engrossing.

 

[CloudWolf]

Funny, I actually thought BioShock Infite became worse as it progressed. Lady Comstock, the Tower Defense-like ending, awful stuff. Though I will say that the Asylum stuff was good, mostly because it reminded me of the first game in its creepyness.

The ending itself was bloated and nonswnsical though. I get it Levine, you dislike religion, but making baptism being the defining factor in Booker's turn to evil is a little too on the nose. Elizabeth killing off "all the Bookers" also made no sense. With infinite universes and possibilities this wouldn't work anyway.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Can someone explain to me the end of Burial at Sea pt 1. As in, was this Elizabeth before drowning Comstock Bookers or was this a remaining Comstock? If so doesn't that contradict the ending of Infinite. How could one possibly escape "the purge"?

 

[Linkark07]

Can someone explain to me the end of Burial at Sea pt 1. As in, was this Elizabeth before drowning Comstock Bookers or was this a remaining Comstock? If so doesn't that contradict the ending of Infinite. How could one possibly escape "the purge"?

If I understood correctly, this Comstock evaded the erasure because he didn't consider himself Comstock anymore after killing baby Anna.

Since he was again Booker DeWitt after the Lutece Twins sent him to Rapture, he managed to survive and live until Elizabeth came for him.

As to why, you won't find your answer here. Infinite universes basically contradict Bioshock Infinite ending. Regardless of many Bookers Elizabeth drown in the baptism, there will always be Comstocks.

 

[UCBooties]

I don't think it's fair to apply existing time travel systems so strictly to Infinite. In Infinite new universes are created as time progresses naturally, but you can travel back in a specific universe without creating a branch. You can't say that every time anything changes for any reason should create a new universe because that's just not how it works in Infinite.

I still think Infinite's narrative has plenty of plot holes and inconsistencies but being able to change the past is not one of them.

Edit: It is a problem though that Infinite doesn't even acknowledge the time travel mechanics as a possible issue. It's a part of the overall disregard the game has for the way multiple universes work in it. They seemed to only care about infinite universes as a vehicle for the "you are Comstock and Elizabeth is your daughter" twist. Beyond that they don't give a shit and didn't think it through. And it shows.

Overall I agree with your edit. I wouldn't be so set on fitting Infinite into an existing model if it had established it's own internal rules and followed them. My problem with your proposed model is that it essential boils down to "things change except when they don't," or perhaps given the ending it would be more appropriate to render that as "things don't change... except when they do." It's essentially just writer's fiat at that point and returns to my issues with the plotting being sloppy.

Honestly the only reason this was so jarring for me was because of how badly the game threw my suspension of disbelief when the characters moved to a new timeline and then showed absolutely no interest in returning to their original timeline. Most of the plot holes that bothered me are simply extensions of that sloppiness .

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

Bioshock infinite is awesome , great reviews from critics and general public, but is hated at neogaf. I can't understand that

 

[UCBooties]

Bioshock infinite is awesome , great reviews from critics and general public, but is hated at neogaf. I can't understand that

I don't think the game is hated, generally speaking. I think that over time people have become less forgiving of its flaws. If you can't understand why, perhaps you should read some of the criticisms of the game. It might help you understand the other perspectives.

Amazing avatar, btw.

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

I don't think the game is hated, generally speaking. I think that over time people have become less forgiving of its flaws. If you can't understand why, perhaps you should read some of the criticisms of the game. It might help you understand the other perspectives.

Amazing avatar, btw.

I did read, and while I agree with some of them, they basically go overboard, literally trashing on the game