Bioshock Infinite edning and story is a total cop out and unfair (some spoilers)

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

 

You sound to like pretentious and childish assh*le that is bitching over the ITERNET about grammar.Really? In SW?The troll hub of gamespot.Its really pathetic. And my english is not as nearly as bad as you are trying to make it look.

 

beganoo

Or a troll, I won't rule out that possibility. 

Again, use spell check.

I'm reallyg getting tired this.I think I'm gonna have to be the mature one and just let it go.Its just a time wasting cycle. I wont say anything else even if I want to because it will just lead in to more post and more wasted time.I wish you the best.

I see this thread has gone to the birds.>.>

I see this thread has gone to the birds.>.>

Wanderer5

Hmm, I just got done with the game so I'm still processing stuff whilst also being fresh off it. Reading some stuff here also clears some things up. In the end though, I had the same feeling TC did when the multiverse scenario stated popping up. That they could essentially pull whatever they wanted and easily cover it up. Reminds me of the maligned dream endings where an author ends a story with the character waking up from the whole thing being a dream. He can push the story however he wants, because the dream end covers his bases. Infinite is no where as abrupt and so no where as bad, but it leaves you having to accept whatever is thrown at you.

I'm probably biased, as I've had a story at the back of my mind utilising a multiverse concept, and I naturally feel mine is a better story, so I'm not all enamored by Bioshock Infinite's story. Still, it was fun watching it unfold. Doesn't help though that they gave away so many hints where for instance I immediately assumed Booker was Liz's father once they mentioned that he had a child (where he kind of just trails off when he mentions his family).

The absolute ending where Liz drowns Booker/Comstock is pushing it a bit. Disregarding the fact that that one incident in one universe(or the multiverse converges there or something) apparently gave birth to all child-stealing Comstocks (my initial thought was that it maybe only affected a few universes, that's why we only had a few Lizs; other Lizs had to do something similar in other universes), the fact that Liz says nothing to Booker and just lets him open the door into his death kind of feels nasty. It's not like Booker wasn't grasping the concept of multiverse, so she could have just told him beforehand. To force him to experience becoming Comstock and then to kill him feels, over the top. She's killing the good Booker to kill the bad Booker/Comstock. Also, it feels more 'ghostly'/weird given that no one else aside from the priest was at the baptism, and a bunch of Lizs together should freak people out if there were others(or maybe that's why no one was there).

The other thing about the ending, is that it is the first time that 'time' is being manipulated in the game(at least, if I remember right). The past is being changed. Every other universe leap doesn't mess with the flow of time. I know that Booker gets pulled 70 years into the future near the end, but he doesn't change anything. All the other multiverses he went to near the end to show him losing his child, you couldn't manipulate the outcome. Apparently the only time it was possible, was during the baptism. I can accept that, it's just kind of..'meh'.

Overall, the latter and more personal part of the story was way more interesting than the beginning and middle. The political and religious problems were pretty mediocre and dealt with in a mediocre fashion. Pretty black and white portrayals, where everyone is crazy. That part doesn't hold a candle to The Witcher games. No one cares about it now because of the multiverse ending too. I also thought Songbird was very underwhelming. I also think the story is wasted on an FPS linear game. The concept, both the position of Columbia and the multiverse thing, could've been expanded with an open RPG-esque game. Even The Witcher 1 toyed with the idea, although it was less involved than in Bioshock Infinite.

Not story related, but the gameplay was very tepid to me. Barely serviceable. That probably didn't help me get into the story. Ok, now for a rest...

Ah **** it, was trying to be mature and back off but I think I'm gonna go for one more.Good job on trolling me btw... not bad.

Vaasman could not dissprove some of  he plot holes I've pointed out yesterday so he started to blame my grammar or whatver even tho my points were fairly simple and quite understandable.

Hes a just big baby that doens't know how to lose.He wants to get some fake satisfaction of "winning" or something so he started to attack my english.The guy is a joke.

You need to learn to love yourself man.

I still dare you do dissprove the points I made before btw. Thats 3th time I asked and you still haven't done it because you have noting to say.

1. Why does killing the Booker we've played the entire game work? Why don't they need to kill that orignal booker, the one that made the choise for the 1st time.

2. Why is it that wen they go to the starting point, the orignal unvierse where the first baptism took place there no two bookers.The orignal one and the one we played in the game.

Oh I don't want some vague bulls*it.You've said yourself everything is explained in game.Go on then.Lets hear it. Eather that or shut it because if I'm making a fool of myslef you are not far behind.

Ah **** it, was trying to be mature and back off but I think I'm gonna go for one more.Good job on trolling me btw... not bad.

 

Vaasman could not dissprove some of  he plot holes I've pointed out yesterday so he started to blame my grammar or whatver even tho my points were fairly simple and quite understandable.

 

Hes a just big baby that doens't know how to lose.He wants to get some fake satisfaction of "winning" or something so he started to attack my english.The guy is a joke.

You need to learn to love yourself man.

I still dare you do dissprove the points I made before btw. Thats 3th time I asked and you still haven't done it because you have noting to say.

 

1. Why does killing the Booker we've played the entire game work? Why don't they need to kill that orignal booker, the one that made the choise for the 1st time.

2. Why is it that wen they go to the starting point, the orignal unvierse where the first baptism took place there no two bookers.The orignal one and the one we played in the game.

Oh I don't want some vague bulls*it.You've said yourself everything is explained in game.Go on then.Lets hear it. Eather that or shut it because if I'm making a fool of myslef you are not far behind.

beganoo

Edit: Also maybe you could say, "Sorry please excuse me, English is not my native language some of this might seem odd."

And then I would say, "That's ok, I can value your opinion anyway because you let me know in advance that something was off and you were polite about it."

You know, a little humility? I really don't care that English is your second language, but if you're going to post a lengthy conversation, the least you could do is be smart and/or polite about it.

Someone probably posted this,but posting it again.Nice explanation.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bioshock/comments/1b4fmx/my_detailed_ending_explanation_my_attempt_at_the/

Hmm, I just got done with the game so I'm still processing stuff whilst also being fresh off it. Reading some stuff here also clears some things up. In the end though, I had the same feeling TC did when the multiverse scenario stated popping up. That they could essentially pull whatever they wanted and easily cover it up. Reminds me of the maligned dream endings where an author ends a story with the character waking up from the whole thing being a dream. He can push the story however he wants, because the dream end covers his bases. Infinite is no where as abrupt and so no where as bad, but it leaves you having to accept whatever is thrown at you.

I'm probably biased, as I've had a story at the back of my mind utilising a multiverse concept, and I naturally feel mine is a better story, so I'm not all enamored by Bioshock Infinite's story. Still, it was fun watching it unfold. Doesn't help though that they gave away so many hints where for instance I immediately assumed Booker was Liz's father once they mentioned that he had a child (where he kind of just trails off when he mentions his family).

The absolute ending where Liz drowns Booker/Comstock is pushing it a bit. Disregarding the fact that that one incident in one universe(or the multiverse converges there or something) apparently gave birth to all child-stealing Comstocks (my initial thought was that it maybe only affected a few universes, that's why we only had a few Lizs; other Lizs had to do something similar in other universes), the fact that Liz says nothing to Booker and just lets him open the door into his death kind of feels nasty. It's not like Booker wasn't grasping the concept of multiverse, so she could have just told him beforehand. To force him to experience becoming Comstock and then to kill him feels, over the top. She's killing the good Booker to kill the bad Booker/Comstock. Also, it feels more 'ghostly'/weird given that no one else aside from the priest was at the baptism, and a bunch of Lizs together should freak people out if there were others(or maybe that's why no one was there).

The other thing about the ending, is that it is the first time that 'time' is being manipulated in the game(at least, if I remember right). The past is being changed. Every other universe leap doesn't mess with the flow of time. I know that Booker gets pulled 70 years into the future near the end, but he doesn't change anything. All the other multiverses he went to near the end to show him losing his child, you couldn't manipulate the outcome. Apparently the only time it was possible, was during the baptism. I can accept that, it's just kind of..'meh'.

Overall, the latter and more personal part of the story was way more interesting than the beginning and middle. The political and religious problems were pretty mediocre and dealt with in a mediocre fashion. Pretty black and white portrayals, where everyone is crazy. That part doesn't hold a candle to The Witcher games. No one cares about it now because of the multiverse ending too. I also thought Songbird was very underwhelming. I also think the story is wasted on an FPS linear game. The concept, both the position of Columbia and the multiverse thing, could've been expanded with an open RPG-esque game. Even The Witcher 1 toyed with the idea, although it was less involved than in Bioshock Infinite.

Not story related, but the gameplay was very tepid to me. Barely serviceable. That probably didn't help me get into the story. Ok, now for a rest...

Sphire

I thought the beastie boys song at the beginning was pretty cleaver foreshadowing.

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

Ah **** it, was trying to be mature and back off but I think I'm gonna go for one more.Good job on trolling me btw... not bad.

 

Vaasman could not dissprove some of  he plot holes I've pointed out yesterday so he started to blame my grammar or whatver even tho my points were fairly simple and quite understandable.

 

Hes a just big baby that doens't know how to lose.He wants to get some fake satisfaction of "winning" or something so he started to attack my english.The guy is a joke.

You need to learn to love yourself man.

I still dare you do dissprove the points I made before btw. Thats 3th time I asked and you still haven't done it because you have noting to say.

 

1. Why does killing the Booker we've played the entire game work? Why don't they need to kill that orignal booker, the one that made the choise for the 1st time.

2. Why is it that wen they go to the starting point, the orignal unvierse where the first baptism took place there no two bookers.The orignal one and the one we played in the game.

Oh I don't want some vague bulls*it.You've said yourself everything is explained in game.Go on then.Lets hear it. Eather that or shut it because if I'm making a fool of myslef you are not far behind.

Vaasman

Edit: Also maybe you could say, "Sorry please excuse me, English is not my native language some of this might seem odd."

And then I would say, "That's ok, I can value your opinion anyway because you let me know in advance that something was off and you were polite about it."

You know, a little humility? I really don't care that English is a second language, but if you're going to post a lengthy conversation, the least you could do is be smart and/or polite about it.

Thats pretty funny. I actually did that.Quite earley on too. In one post I siad something in the lines of "I can't express myself and explain some of my ideas the way I want to because english is not my native". Right after that  however someone attacked me pretty hershey in a post(you I'm pretty sure, and yes you called me stupid  before I did.) and I edited my orignal post because it felt too apologetic after reading your post.

I really don't give a sh*t anymore tho.Do it think I'm right ? You bet I do but at this point I don't care at all if others agree.All I want do is drop all this.I tired to wrap it up and I wished you all the best but ofcourse in the next post you are talking about my "meltdown" just to troll me and maybe get a response out of me (?).Well good job. But please lest keep it classy, atleast now and be done with it.

If you enjoy it that much keep going but I think I'm really done with this thread now.

As far as the plotholes I pointed out, don't bother if you gonna take it from the edning . My point is exactly that those explanations are not good enough.Is as simle as that.

Also you know very well I'm not alone on this.In this thread in other forums, in youtube playthrough people see it the way I do.

And fianlly so you can have peace of mind I'm sorry if I was overlay rude.It just doesn't seem as serious and offesive to me since its not my native and I'm kinda overly used and numb to it from all the american mature entertainment I've been expirancing over the years.Here your humility. Now lets be done with this.It really is a waste of time.

Edit: Never said everything was stupid.I liked it quite some  of it actually.The plot was quite interesting and intriguing for the most part.Especially in the first half of the game.The resolution , some parts of the story and especially the main plot device that was moving the story forward after the first half of the game (that being the multiverse) however... well you know what I think about that.

Finished game and judging by the TC's issues with the game's ending it sounds like he just didn't pay enough attention to the dialogue/think about how it all fits together enough. That entire list of complains was addressed in the game - didn't even require extrapolation of the dialogue like a game like Demon's Souls/Dark Souls did. Great story IMO.

Did anyone watch past the credits?

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

Ah **** it, was trying to be mature and back off but I think I'm gonna go for one more.Good job on trolling me btw... not bad.

 

Vaasman could not dissprove some of  he plot holes I've pointed out yesterday so he started to blame my grammar or whatver even tho my points were fairly simple and quite understandable.

 

Hes a just big baby that doens't know how to lose.He wants to get some fake satisfaction of "winning" or something so he started to attack my english.The guy is a joke.

You need to learn to love yourself man.

I still dare you do dissprove the points I made before btw. Thats 3th time I asked and you still haven't done it because you have noting to say.

 

1. Why does killing the Booker we've played the entire game work? Why don't they need to kill that orignal booker, the one that made the choise for the 1st time.

2. Why is it that wen they go to the starting point, the orignal unvierse where the first baptism took place there no two bookers.The orignal one and the one we played in the game.

Oh I don't want some vague bulls*it.You've said yourself everything is explained in game.Go on then.Lets hear it. Eather that or shut it because if I'm making a fool of myslef you are not far behind.

beganoo

Edit: Also maybe you could say, "Sorry please excuse me, English is not my native language some of this might seem odd."

And then I would say, "That's ok, I can value your opinion anyway because you let me know in advance that something was off and you were polite about it."

You know, a little humility? I really don't care that English is a second language, but if you're going to post a lengthy conversation, the least you could do is be smart and/or polite about it.

Thats pretty funny. I actually did that.Quite earley on too. In one post I siad something in the lines of "I can't express myself and explain some of my ideas the way I want to because english is not my native". Right after that  however someone attacked me pretty hershey in a post(you I'm pretty sure, and yes you called me stupid  before I did.) and I edited my orignal post because it felt too apologetic after reading your post.

I really don't give a sh*t anymore tho.Do it think I'm right ? You bet I do but at this point I don't care at all if others agree.All I want do is drop all this.I tired to wrap it up and I wished you all the best but ofcourse in the next post you are talking about my "meltdown" just to troll me and maybe get a response out of me (?).Well good job. But please lest keep it classy, atleast now and be done with it.

If you enjoy it that much keep going but I think I'm really done with this thread now.

As far as the plotholes I pointed out, don't bother if you gonna take it from the edning . My point is exactly that those explanations are not good enough.Is as simle as that.

Also you know very well I'm not alone on this.In this thread in other forums, in youtube playthrough people see it the way I do.

And fianlly so you can have peace of mind I'm sorry if I was overlay rude.It just doesn't seem as serious and offesive to me since its not my native and I'm kinda overly used and numb to it from all the american mature entertainment I've been expirancing over the years.Here your humility. Now lets be done with this.It really is a waste of time.

"Yet you are the only one complaining about my grammar. Post is quite understable.Wtfs your problem?Stop being a snobby bitch.Its an international forum as far sa I'm concerned. If grammer is so important  to you F*CK OFF from the iternet  dipsh*t.

 Now  would you kindly go and f*ck yourslef."

"Recretae the moment? WHAT? This must be the stupidest thing I've read in this topic so far.When did they ever talked about recreteing anything and even if they did how will that help anything.They need the original reality not create a NEW one.What are you even thinking ?

You really are lost and have no idea what the w f*ck you are talking about right now do you. Sigh... just shut up.

Maybe I should shut up too and just be done with this waste off a plot divice.Its trash and its a waste of time to even think about it."

It's hardly trolling, I just stated what happened. Me and Darklink gave our opinions and you started to lose your mind. Or would you argue that these are excerpts taken from the voice of a calm and rational speaker? I mean, hey, you're free to be dickish, just don't expect any real conversation. Civility or lack thereof will not be lost on those you're trying to talk to.

Anyway this was close enough. Now for those two questions, it's important that you see Elizabeth is not moving you into new time lines, she is dropping you into old ones. Each time you pass through her doors, it basically drops you into and out of old Booker. Matrix style. When he's dropped into the old time line, neither you nor Elizabeth changes the events. This is demonstrated multiple times, when you can move around, but neither you nor Elizabeth is making any change to what is going on story-wise. When you pick up Anna, Elizabeth tells you you can stay there as long as you like, but eventually you hand her over. In the initial scene with the baptism, when you have no control, Booker acts the way he did at that moment in time, but then when we see Elizabeth pull him out, he gets mad and justifies his actions. It isn't explicitly said, but it is demonstrated. Anyway that's question 2.

For Question 1, think of it like this. There are 3 Bookers. Booker A, then he splits into Booker B and Booker C at the baptism. There's no reason to kill Booker A, he is just a man living a hard life. If you kill him as Booker A, you are just flat out killing all Bookers, baptized or no. Booker B, he lives with his sins, and continues living his hard life. There is no reason to kill Booker B. Other than living with quite a few problems, he is a good guy with a daughter. Booker C, the one we are dropped into at the end, he's the bad Booker. Booker C always becomes Comstock at this point in the timeline, because he is a Booker who wants to be absolved.

What you suggested in that question was that they kill Booker A when one of his roads leads to him living as a normal man. That would be kind of a dick move, which is why they don't.

As for the 3 plot holes you posted earlier.

"1st they clearly state that wen you move in to a new dimension the personalities and memories (not sure about physical form) merge.

We'll guess what.Booker and Comstok are the same person but nothing like this happend wen booker 1st entered the columbia world. Hes nose wasn't bleeding, he wasn't cofused and he didn't get any new memories."

This one is actually one of the scenes you are moved though as it ends. Elizabeth takes you to the point where the Luteces pull you through, and you are shown the scene where Booker has the staticky vision and is rebuilding his memories. The Luteces make several comments on your condition as you're being dragged across the dock. So it's not only not a plot hole, it's a very main part of the story. No exploration or interpretation required.

"Plot hole number 2.. Wen they kill him in the end they kill a Booker that has the meomories and expiriance of columbia and everything that happend. Knowing everything EVEN if that (our) Booker took that baptism right there and then, thanks to the hole columbia experience he would never have become Comstock baptisim or not.That means that there is no way for this moment to be the starting ponit."

I'm guessing the logic behind this is that you really think there should be an alternative where no version of Booker dies. Anyway, Booker does not have control at that point, Elizabeth does. That one goes back to what I was saying before about how she is guiding you through certain events but only taking control during some of them. And it goes back to the point that you are supposed to come up with some parts of this on your own. From what I gathered, it is likely that Booker would eventually become Comstock while left at that point, as his memories would become Comstock's eventually, given everything we know about how people's minds adapt when moving through universes.

...I'm not actually sure I can explain this one completely. While it makes sense in my head, writing about it is starting to confuse me.

I guess I'll explain it  from a more cynical, simple, storytelling perpective. She has to take Booker there because otherwise we wouldn't have any clue why the game suddenly ended as our version of Booker ceased to exist. We would never have the satisfaction of seeing 'Comstock' die. And it has far, far less impact on the player if you are just watching some guy die who they say is you.

 "Plot hole number  3 and thats a BIG ONE. There are many ways to prevent the baptism to begin with. They could have killed the priest, destory the location with futuristing  c weaponry from  another dimension and many many other things.Why did they feel the need to choke him and not look for another option.Elizabeth must be a f*cking **** to kill her father who loved her without trying anything else.Someone wanted some extra drama at the end, DERP."

Elizabeth, Booker, and the Luteces all agree that Comstock HAS to die, at the point where he begins to exist as we know him, to guarantee completely that there is no way he will come to be. As the Lutece's point out, things can still get set in motion. If you just stop this baptism, who's to say he doesn't go elsewhere for it? Who's to say he doesn't consider it a sign from god that he should start his own religion and that actually expedites the process of getting Columbia in the sky? The only way they can be 100% sure is if they remove him completely from the picture.

It sounds confusing reading it back to myself, but that's pretty much how I see it. If you're still confused, or get it but still don't like it, well sorry. Just don't rage about it or swear or say I'm stupid. At this point, you have nowhere to go but up, but you could just as easily coast at the lowest point if you would prefer.

I can't really go into great detail about this story as it's riddled with time travel and alternate dimensions which is one of the reasons I hated FFXIII-2 because it just pulled random crap out of it's arse and blamed it on time paradoxes or some baloney.  Anyway why does this game presume it's okay to go around playing god?   I mean, why must every Comstock in every dimension die?   Arent there like millions of dimensions?  How the hell did Booker assume he could go around every one of them to kill Comstock?     Why is Elizabeth so god damn greedy,  you killed one Comstock in your own dimension that you where born in, leave the other dimensions out of this.    Go live a happy life with your father who isn't an arsehole anymore. How does  killing Booker in one paticular dimension some how erase every Comstock in the millions of other dimensions?  Doesn't erasing booker/comstock from existance have some kind of effect on other peoples lives as well?    Too many questions for a game that has so much padding in between.   I kind of get where TC is coming from.  You could probably answer most of the questions he presented but only by giving vague hints and suggestions.  It was still an interesting story and all.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

Sounds like someone didn't listen to any of the voxophones.

What weren't you clear on? Maybe take a look at this and it will help you wrap your brain around the games ideas. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw

beganoo

Yeah got 77 in my 1st playthrough.Listend to all of them

What I'm not clear on ? Ok heres a few.

Why would killing one of Booker kill all of them (very ending).

Why were they only like 5 Elizabeths if there are millions of them.

Why all the gateways are lighthouses.

Why did booker torchered hes daughter if he loved her so much.

What was the purpose of the syphon.

Why did the gunsmith die in the 3th world if he helped the VOX.

Why did people form demetrios shared thoughts wihtout really traveling between them (the nose bleeding).

What was the deal with the ghost of the 1st lady.

Why did elizabeth said she could wish thigs to happen but then it turns out that the things are just there in million worlds.

Why would she have controll over all dimensions and gates if she has parts in only two dimensions.

Why would haveing parts in differnt dimations give you power.Does it work on blood, booker blead all over those worlds.

How can her normal human brain comprehend billions of dimensions.

Why did booker went  compleatley  insane and wanted to invade NW. Because he took a baptism at some point ?That stupid a ***.

I can keep going

Did you even pay attention to the story? :?

Did anyone watch past the credits?

Promised_Trini

You're obviously right, people are hyped right now, but months from now more people will point out how stupid the games back to the future logic is. And how it basically gives itself all the freedom in the world by allowing tears anywhere and everywhere in a million dimensions, blah blah.White_Dreams

[QUOTE="Promised_Trini"]

Did anyone watch past the credits?

Crossel777

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

 

Yeah got 77 in my 1st playthrough.Listend to all of them

 

What I'm not clear on ? Ok heres a few.

 

Why would killing one of Booker kill all of them (very ending).

Why were they only like 5 Elizabeths if there are millions of them.

Why all the gateways are lighthouses.

Why did booker torchered hes daughter if he loved her so much.

What was the purpose of the syphon.

Why did the gunsmith die in the 3th world if he helped the VOX.

Why did people form demetrios shared thoughts wihtout really traveling between them (the nose bleeding).

What was the deal with the ghost of the 1st lady.

Why did elizabeth said she could wish thigs to happen but then it turns out that the things are just there in million worlds.

Why would she have controll over all dimensions and gates if she has parts in only two dimensions.

Why would haveing parts in differnt dimations give you power.Does it work on blood, booker blead all over those worlds.

How can her normal human brain comprehend billions of dimensions.

Why did booker went  compleatley  insane and wanted to invade NW. Because he took a baptism at some point ?That stupid a ***.

 

I can keep going

beganoo

-They aren't killing Booker, they are killing Comstock. You think of them too literally as the same person. They shifted to the point in time where Booker was reborn as Comstock, and killed him there before the event ever happened. That singular moment was what lead to the existence of Comstock and Columbia, and by drowning him, Comstock ceases to exist in any universe.

-That's a stupid question honestly. Would you prefer they filled the screen with a million billion Elizabeths, all slightly different? Actually maybe that would have been cool, to see a swarm of Elizabeths smother him like a zombie hoard.

-The game says there are always constants between the universes. There is always one lighthouse, one man, and one city. I really don't see how it's a plot hole even if that weren't mentioned. Maybe they just are lighthouses, does it really matter in the scheme of things? If the door was a block of cheese then yea I might be confused. The lighthouse was an iconic starting point for both main Bioshock games, so it seems like a reasonable choice for a universal door. 

-Comstock tortured his daughter, not Booker. They are the same person, yes, but the split in the line causes them to develop wildly different personalities. After becoming born again as Comstock, he basically becomes a whackjob, as they clearly demonstrate. Booker learned to live with his sins instead of turning himself into a nutty phophetsor. Comstock only sees her as fulfilling his vision, and he has no real regard for what that takes.

-It suppresses and uses Elizabeths powers. Seriously that one was obvious, it was in the main dialogue a lot near the end.

-Because the Vox are douches? Either that or Comstock's forces took him out only after the weapons were created, I can't quite remember. Does this really matter in any way to the overarching plot? He's such a minor character, his only real purpose is to show how people change between universes after manipulation. If you want to consider it a contrivance then sure, but it's hardly a plothole.

-The mind fills itself with memories where none exist. Replay the opening. When Booker sees the posters of himself as a hero, he remembers being that hero because thats what happened in that new universe and he's coping with the new reality. When Elizabeth asks about her finger, he is hearing about what originally happened in his universe, and it conflicts with the story his mind created. It just seems like something to help normal minds cope with the jumps in reality. When the characters die, they go insane while their minds catch up to the reality where they weren't dead.

-They said in the game that Elizabeth created her, unintentionally because of the mini-siphon, and her anger at her own mother during the creation was what made her feral and incorporeal.

- She just has less strength her abilities. I thought it was pretty obvious she was gaining more and more control over it by the end when she turns the entire lab into a cornfield with a roaring tornado, and she moves Booker across 60 something years of time. In the beginning she struggles to make a small portal to Paris.

-The accident afflicted her the same as the Luteces'. Inappropriate exposure to the devices allowed them to exist in any time and space the same way she does at the end. It doesn't really have to do with her being in 2 universes at once, it has to do with her being exposed to the machinery.

-Your English is abysmal. I don't even know what you're saying here. No wonder you're failing to grasp anything.

- I don't know jack about how eyes work, does that mean I can't see or blink? You don't have to fully comprehend a latent ability to harness it. Just because she can move between universes freely at the end, doesn't mean she's omnipotent and must process the information of infinite universes and possibilities all at once.

Also, she's smart as hell. Did you not see the scene where she knows the coordinates to New York and knows Booker is taking her to the wrong place, even though she's never been outside her room and has no reason to know that kind of information?

-Being baptized lead him down a completely different path in life, he meets different people and develops certain unhealthy ideaologies that he does not when he isn't baptized. The whole idea of the game is that a small change can make a huge difference. It wasn't the baptism itself necessarily.

I recommend you look up the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. To just give the gist of it, a cat sits in a box, and there is a 50/50 chance that it will be poisoned. Quantum physics says that the cat is both alive and dead until the box is open and you find out. That's basically what's going on.

Your spelling and grammar are so bad that it makes me think it all just went right over your head. You're making mountains out of molehills and looking for problems where there aren't any. You took what abiguity was there and didn't put the slightest bit of thought into it.

There are problems with the plot, yes, but they come more from the paradoxes creating by manipulations of the timelines than anything. The grandfather paradox is presented in particular, when Elizabeth kills the baptized Booker. If Comstock never exists, then none of the events would have happened, and therefore Elizabeth wouldn't have gone back and stopped the baptism because she wasn't capable, which means he would exist, and so on and so forth.

My english is bad becuase I'm really tired after beating the game and its not my native but whatever.

 

Btw thanks for your wall of speculation and bullsh*t.

 

lets go over it again.

1. Nope, not how it works.There is no "singular" moments in a multiverse theory. Writers made it up and pulled it out of their a*s.Its a plot hole.Do your f*cking homework.

 

2. So yeah, plothole.

 

3. Whriters pulled it out of theirs ass for the purpose of thier story.

 

4. Really now?One baptism can turn people in to H*tler ?

 

5./6. Ok fine.

 

7. Again, she pulled just him and her through the portal. Why would other people  be getting new memories.They never moved.

 

8.Yes they did say that .Since when does Elizapeth has the power to create "things" out of thin air? Wasn't it just rifts  and interdimensional travel.Is she just  Dr Manhattan now? Not really explained how it works at all. Another plothole.

 

9. Go back to 8.

 

10. It didn't effect them in the same way. One was just a portal "cut" and the other was a sabotage of the entire device.Also people keep saying its the body parts in different worlds so you answered nothing really.

 

11. Then why does she know what to exactly do to "stop booker" without anyone telling her ? After the syphon went down she got information from somewhere and a lot of it. From where anyway?

 

12. She said she had a lot of time to read wen she was locked up.. dones't mean shes smart. Anyone can memorize.

 

13. Ok it did change hes life but I still fail too see how it made him so f*cking awful.Butterfly effect or not they explained nothing.

 

14. Mock my english all you want but you seem to not have the slightest idea how the multiverse theory works and you just  listen to the game... which is completely full of plotholes.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="Crossel777"]

I think the game could of a done without all alternate dimension bullshit and just kept it simple.    As soon as I started traveling through these tears into alternative realities it really just screwed with my mind from that point on.   Then the game dragged on and on(which don't get me wrong was fun) then all of a sudden I'm being drowned by multiple variations of my daughter because she wants to wipe out my very existance.  What a bitch.   Call me shallow minded but I was hoping to just gtfon the zeplin, set the course for Paris and fly off into the sunset for some super fun happy times.

texasgoldrush

But then where would the link to Bioshock come from? Rapture is one of those alternate realities. Booker is Jack. Comstock is Andrew Ryan. Fontaine is Fitzroy. Elizabeth the little sisters. Songbird the Big Daddies etc etc

Only Andrew Ryan could operate the bathyspheres when Rapture was on lockdown. Jack could as well as he was Ryans illegetimate son. Booker could also operate it at the end of Infinite. He is Jack, and Comstock is Ryan as they both have a relation to the character you play (father / post-baptism). Elizabeth is the equivalent of the little sisters (look at the way they dress, they both wear blue and white), and just like how the Big Daddies protect the little sisters, Songbird protects Elizabeth.

I'm not saying it doesn't relate to Bioshock 2 either, but it definitely relates to the first.

I'm think some people, op included, lack the cognative skills to process this games plot.

I loved and hated the ending if that's possible. The ending made sense to me and answered every question that I had. 

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

 

Thats pretty funny. I actually did that.Quite earley on too. In one post I siad something in the lines of "I can't express myself and explain some of my ideas the way I want to because english is not my native". Right after that  however someone attacked me pretty hershey in a post(you I'm pretty sure, and yes you called me stupid  before I did.) and I edited my orignal post because it felt too apologetic after reading your post.

 

I really don't give a sh*t anymore tho.Do it think I'm right ? You bet I do but at this point I don't care at all if others agree.All I want do is drop all this.I tired to wrap it up and I wished you all the best but ofcourse in the next post you are talking about my "meltdown" just to troll me and maybe get a response out of me (?).Well good job. But please lest keep it classy, atleast now and be done with it.

 

If you enjoy it that much keep going but I think I'm really done with this thread now.

 

As far as the plotholes I pointed out, don't bother if you gonna take it from the edning . My point is exactly that those explanations are not good enough.Is as simle as that.

 

Also you know very well I'm not alone on this.In this thread in other forums, in youtube playthrough people see it the way I do.

 

And fianlly so you can have peace of mind I'm sorry if I was overlay rude.It just doesn't seem as serious and offesive to me since its not my native and I'm kinda overly used and numb to it from all the american mature entertainment I've been expirancing over the years.Here your humility. Now lets be done with this.It really is a waste of time.

Vaasman

"Yet you are the only one complaining about my grammar. Post is quite understable.Wtfs your problem?Stop being a snobby bitch.Its an international forum as far sa I'm concerned. If grammer is so important  to you F*CK OFF from the iternet  dipsh*t.

 Now  would you kindly go and f*ck yourslef."

"Recretae the moment? WHAT? This must be the stupidest thing I've read in this topic so far.When did they ever talked about recreteing anything and even if they did how will that help anything.They need the original reality not create a NEW one.What are you even thinking ?

You really are lost and have no idea what the w f*ck you are talking about right now do you. Sigh... just shut up.

Maybe I should shut up too and just be done with this waste off a plot divice.Its trash and its a waste of time to even think about it."

It's hardly trolling, I just stated what happened. Me and Darklink gave our opinions and you started to lose your mind. Or would you argue that these are excerpts taken from the voice of a calm and rational speaker? I mean, hey, you're free to be dickish, just don't expect any real conversation. Civility or lack thereof will not be lost on those you're trying to talk to.

Anyway this was close enough. Now for those two questions, it's important that you see Elizabeth is not moving you into new time lines, she is dropping you into old ones. Each time you pass through her doors, it basically drops you into and out of old Booker. Matrix style. When he's dropped into the old time line, neither you nor Elizabeth changes the events. This is demonstrated multiple times, when you can move around, but neither you nor Elizabeth is making any change to what is going on story-wise. When you pick up Anna, Elizabeth tells you you can stay there as long as you like, but eventually you hand her over. In the initial scene with the baptism, when you have no control, Booker acts the way he did at that moment in time, but then when we see Elizabeth pull him out, he gets mad and justifies his actions. It isn't explicitly said, but it is demonstrated. Anyway that's question 2.

For Question 1, think of it like this. There are 3 Bookers. Booker A, then he splits into Booker B and Booker C at the baptism. There's no reason to kill Booker A, he is just a man living a hard life. If you kill him as Booker A, you are just flat out killing all Bookers, baptized or no. Booker B, he lives with his sins, and continues living his hard life. There is no reason to kill Booker B. Other than living with quite a few problems, he is a good guy with a daughter. Booker C, the one we are dropped into at the end, he's the bad Booker. Booker C always becomes Comstock at this point in the timeline, because he is a Booker who wants to be absolved.

What you suggested in that question was that they kill Booker A when one of his roads leads to him living as a normal man. That would be kind of a dick move, which is why they don't.

As for the 3 plot holes you posted earlier.

"1st they clearly state that wen you move in to a new dimension the personalities and memories (not sure about physical form) merge.

We'll guess what.Booker and Comstok are the same person but nothing like this happend wen booker 1st entered the columbia world. Hes nose wasn't bleeding, he wasn't cofused and he didn't get any new memories."

This one is actually one of the scenes you are moved though as it ends. Elizabeth takes you to the point where the Luteces pull you through, and you are shown the scene where Booker has the staticky vision and is rebuilding his memories. The Luteces make several comments on your condition as you're being dragged across the dock. So it's not only not a plot hole, it's a very main part of the story. No exploration or interpretation required.

"Plot hole number 2.. Wen they kill him in the end they kill a Booker that has the meomories and expiriance of columbia and everything that happend. Knowing everything EVEN if that (our) Booker took that baptism right there and then, thanks to the hole columbia experience he would never have become Comstock baptisim or not.That means that there is no way for this moment to be the starting ponit."

I'm guessing the logic behind this is that you really think there should be an alternative where no version of Booker dies. Anyway, Booker does not have control at that point, Elizabeth does. That one goes back to what I was saying before about how she is guiding you through certain events but only taking control during some of them. And it goes back to the point that you are supposed to come up with some parts of this on your own. From what I gathered, it is likely that Booker would eventually become Comstock while left at that point, as his memories would become Comstock's eventually, given everything we know about how people's minds adapt when moving through universes.

...I'm not actually sure I can explain this one completely. While it makes sense in my head, writing about it is starting to confuse me.

I guess I'll explain it  from a more cynical, simple, storytelling perpective. She has to take Booker there because otherwise we wouldn't have any clue why the game suddenly ended as our version of Booker ceased to exist. We would never have the satisfaction of seeing 'Comstock' die. And it has far, far less impact on the player if you are just watching some guy die who they say is you.

 "Plot hole number  3 and thats a BIG ONE. There are many ways to prevent the baptism to begin with. They could have killed the priest, destory the location with futuristing  c weaponry from  another dimension and many many other things.Why did they feel the need to choke him and not look for another option.Elizabeth must be a f*cking **** to kill her father who loved her without trying anything else.Someone wanted some extra drama at the end, DERP."

Elizabeth, Booker, and the Luteces all agree that Comstock HAS to die, at the point where he begins to exist as we know him, to guarantee completely that there is no way he will come to be. As the Lutece's point out, things can still get set in motion. If you just stop this baptism, who's to say he doesn't go elsewhere for it? Who's to say he doesn't consider it a sign from god that he should start his own religion and that actually expedites the process of getting Columbia in the sky? The only way they can be 100% sure is if they remove him completely from the picture.

It sounds confusing reading it back to myself, but that's pretty much how I see it. If you're still confused, or get it but still don't like it, well sorry. Just don't rage about it or swear or say I'm stupid. At this point, you have nowhere to go but up, but you could just as easily coast at the lowest point if you would prefer.

Yes they need to kill booker "C" and they don't.They kill the booker we played.And no it doesn't drop you in and out of Booker each time you travel to a new dimension "matrix style".If it did you should have dropped in to Comstok in the begining of the game or Comstok should have dropped in to you wen he came to take Anna in your dimension.Thats the proof. It is clearly esablished there could  be two of the same person in a sigle parallel universes.
That means that there should have been another Booker at the end of the game.If they went to the right time and place there must have been.The one that wated to be absolved for the first time.

I'm pretty sure you know theres a plothole there and yet you won't admit it for some reason.Oh well...

Hopefully that was polite enough for you.Polite or insulting. Bad garammer or not, excuses or not I'm right and you are not.There are plotholes  and the game doesn't explain evrything  properly.

Also this.

You're obviously right, people are hyped right now, but months from now more people will point out how stupid the games back to the future logic is. And how it basically gives itself all the freedom in the world by allowing tears anywhere and everywhere in a million dimensions, blah blah.White_Dreams

Ciao to all.Jiz.

I loved and hated the ending if that's possible. The ending made sense to me and answered every question that I had. 

xOMGITSJASONx

I'm think some people, op included, lack the cognative skills to process this games plot.

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"]You're obviously right, people are hyped right now, but months from now more people will point out how stupid the games back to the future logic is. And how it basically gives itself all the freedom in the world by allowing tears anywhere and everywhere in a million dimensions, blah blah.ShoulderOfOrion

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

I'm think some people, op included, lack the cognative skills to process this games plot.

White_Dreams

 

Yes they need to kill booker "C" and they don't.They kill the booker we played.And no it doesn't drop you in and out of Booker each time you travel to a new dimension "matrix style".If it did you should have dropped in to Comstok in the begining of the game or Comstok should have dropped in to you wen he came to take Anna in your dimension.Thats the proof. It is clearly esablished there could  be two of the same person in a sigle parallel universes.
That means that there should have been another Booker at the end of the game.If they went to the right time and place there must have been.The one that wated to be absolved for the first time.

I'm pretty sure you know theres a plothole there and yet you won't admit it for some reason.Oh well...

Hopefully that was polite enough for you.Polite or insulting. Bad garammer or not, excuses or not I'm right and you are not.There are plotholes  and the game doesn't explain evrything  properly.

beganoo

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

 

Yes they need to kill booker "C" and they don't.They kill the booker we played.And no it doesn't drop you in and out of Booker each time you travel to a new dimension "matrix style".If it did you should have dropped in to Comstok in the begining of the game or Comstok should have dropped in to you wen he came to take Anna in your dimension.Thats the proof. It is clearly esablished there could  be two of the same person in a sigle parallel universes.
That means that there should have been another Booker at the end of the game.If they went to the right time and place there must have been.The one that wated to be absolved for the first time.

I'm pretty sure you know theres a plothole there and yet you won't admit it for some reason.Oh well...

Hopefully that was polite enough for you.Polite or insulting. Bad garammer or not, excuses or not I'm right and you are not.There are plotholes  and the game doesn't explain evrything  properly.

Vaasman

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

 

Yes they need to kill booker "C" and they don't.They kill the booker we played.And no it doesn't drop you in and out of Booker each time you travel to a new dimension "matrix style".If it did you should have dropped in to Comstok in the begining of the game or Comstok should have dropped in to you wen he came to take Anna in your dimension.Thats the proof. It is clearly esablished there could  be two of the same person in a sigle parallel universes.
That means that there should have been another Booker at the end of the game.If they went to the right time and place there must have been.The one that wated to be absolved for the first time.

I'm pretty sure you know theres a plothole there and yet you won't admit it for some reason.Oh well...

Hopefully that was polite enough for you.Polite or insulting. Bad garammer or not, excuses or not I'm right and you are not.There are plotholes  and the game doesn't explain evrything  properly.

White_Dreams

Elizabeth takes you to them? Silly question. She has full mastery over her ability to move through the multiverse when it ends.

Vaasman

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]The ending is not the same process as being pulled through a tear, thats why you are wrong. The game is showing you multiple events as young Booker. If they are demonstrating to you that that is what has happened, then that is the same as telling you, unless you've been blinded. If you really need them to say that out loud, then you were never going to get anything from the ending anyway. You are wrong.

Vaasman

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"]How do you get to the multiple events as young booker?White_Dreams

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]Elizabeth takes you to them? Silly question. She has full mastery over her ability to move through the multiverse when it ends.

padaporra

[QUOTE="padaporra"]

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"] So like, I'm current booker, but when she takes me back, I'm young booker?White_Dreams

[QUOTE="padaporra"]

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"] So like, I'm current booker, but when she takes me back, I'm young booker?White_Dreams

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

I'm think some people, op included, lack the cognative skills to process this games plot.

padaporra

These are the most inane things I've heard people complaining about ina  Sci-Fi story.

It's Sci-Fi. It will be loosely based on science, but eventually, magic will need to happen. What makes a good story is when the universe and it's rules are planned out and stuck to. It doesn't matter if what's happening violates the laws of physics (There aren't warpdrives in the real world and no one complains about them in Star Trek, for example), so long as the established rules aren't violated within the story. The tears into other universes are these story's warp drives.

I didn't see anythign obviously broken int he way the story was told, and I  enjoyed the ending a lot.

These are the most inane things I've heard people complaining about ina  Sci-Fi story.

 

It's Sci-Fi. It will be loosely based on science, but eventually, magic will need to happen. What makes a good story is when the universe and it's rules are planned out and stuck to. It doesn't matter if what's happening violates the laws of physics (There aren't warpdrives in the real world and no one complains about them in Star Trek, for example), so long as the established rules aren't violated within the story. The tears into other universes are these story's warp drives.

 

I didn't see anythign obviously broken int he way the story was told, and I  enjoyed the ending a lot.

Kinthalis

OP is a massive rant by a five year old who found out about Wikipedia confirmed.

Don't get your jimmies too rustled now, sweetheart.

Seems like it just went over most peoples heads. I thought it was brilliant.Miketheman83

Same here. I can't imagine it being any better. I was immensely satisfied upon finishing it. And immediately started a new game in 1999 mode. Goin for that Scavenger Hunt achievement. :D

It's been pretty brutal.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

These are the most inane things I've heard people complaining about ina  Sci-Fi story.

 

It's Sci-Fi. It will be loosely based on science, but eventually, magic will need to happen. What makes a good story is when the universe and it's rules are planned out and stuck to. It doesn't matter if what's happening violates the laws of physics (There aren't warpdrives in the real world and no one complains about them in Star Trek, for example), so long as the established rules aren't violated within the story. The tears into other universes are these story's warp drives.

 

I didn't see anythign obviously broken int he way the story was told, and I  enjoyed the ending a lot.

White_Dreams

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

 

Yes they need to kill booker "C" and they don't.They kill the booker we played.And no it doesn't drop you in and out of Booker each time you travel to a new dimension "matrix style".If it did you should have dropped in to Comstok in the begining of the game or Comstok should have dropped in to you wen he came to take Anna in your dimension.Thats the proof. It is clearly esablished there could  be two of the same person in a sigle parallel universes.
That means that there should have been another Booker at the end of the game.If they went to the right time and place there must have been.The one that wated to be absolved for the first time.

I'm pretty sure you know theres a plothole there and yet you won't admit it for some reason.Oh well...

Hopefully that was polite enough for you.Polite or insulting. Bad garammer or not, excuses or not I'm right and you are not.There are plotholes  and the game doesn't explain evrything  properly.

Vaasman

Lets get this out of the way.I entirely uderstand what you are saying.

Now let me quote myself from my first post:

 

 

 The writers can do anything, whrite anything, have a TON of plotholes (and they do ofcorse) and excuse it with Quantum Physics/Theories.

 

 

beganoo

The explanations you are talking about are those excuses I was talking about.The fact that those "explanations" are in the game dosn't mean they are not plain stupid and none sensical TO ME.I get the idea, I just don't think its  a good idea.I call them plot holes because I think those explanations are stupid and nonsensical.Also I've never said this is not my opinion and I'm stating facts.It very much was and still is my opinion.It can't be any other way having in mind what we are talking about.That being the very subjective topic of the quantum physics theory.

Things like that the first  tears work this way the they work differently or are something else entirely in the end.That Elizabeth becomes a demigod just because she wosn't her figer in to another dimension and many many more.

Bottom line is this.You think its smart I think its stupid. I can't convince you its stupid and you can't convince me its smart.It is what it is.

We have nothing else to tell each other.Have a nice day.