Why is this thread 29 pages? It's a tgr thread. Do people ever learn?

Seabas989

Don't know, guess it gave me a bit of a rush.

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]

[QUOTE="TheDevKit"]

Because people have personal preferences.

ReadingRainbow4

There wasn't even anything postive about Bioshocks gun combat, specially the upgrade system which was painful dull with your standard +% of ammo clip and dmg, unless it was vigors which was pretty entertaining. What made Infinite unique was Elizabeths AI, the interaction between Booker and Elizabeth and the interactions with the Luteces which made Infinite.

and Elizabeth running ahead of you into rooms of mobs :P

I really wish she would have done more with tears, the way they handled it was such a waste.

Yeah, I wish they would've done some thing a bit more unique with tears. Oddly enough it seemed like they had some great concepts in the demos.

Money - gaming media cannot review a game without permission. If they give it a bad score, they will no longer have access to the content to write about. Not to mention the racial and politcal themes of bioshock are so artsy. (sarcasm). It got 10s because of its slightly veiled caricature of white conservative americans.

consoletroll

I'm having doubts you've played the last half of the game, or didn't understand the context of it. 

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]MLL also looks way better as well!

ReadingRainbow4

Touche, I might be the only one who thinks this but I actually like the gun combat a lot more in MLL than in Infinite.

I couldn't possibly see how anyone would prefer bioshocks in that regard.

But stranger things have happened I guess.

Because people have personal preferences. 

[QUOTE="TheDevKit"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] i don't think he knows what he's talking about. there is no paradox if booker accepts the baptism, he becomes comstock, crosses into a dimension that has anna, buys her, and that booker hunts him down. The paradox that is actually made is when elizabith kills booker at the baptism. Elizabeth can't exist without comstock buying her, therefor if elizabeth kills all comstocks she wouldn't be able to exist to stop him. Also when they cross dimensions there is a massive plothole. Booker dies in that universe, and elizabeth is never escapes captivity, but the song bird is still hunting you and elizabeth.texasgoldrush

There's a possibility Songbird can dip into any reality at will.

When Liz and Booker leave Monument tower, they fall into Battleship Bay where Songbird follows. This results in Songbird's right eye being cracked.

We already know that Elizabeth can flip between worlds and realities where things would have played out differently. If that precise sequence of events to escape had happened differently, Songbird would not have a busted eye. Yet Songbird's eye remains cracked every time you see it after that cutscene, no matter the universe.

The scene where Elizibeth opens a tear for the first time in the lift is interrupted by Songbird swooping in. Upon closer inspection, there is only a searchlight coming from its left eye, meaning that the right must be damaged.

When you are in the third universe Songbird is still hunting you and still has a cracked eye. Given that this version of Elizabeth supposedly never left the tower and was instead transferred to Comstock House, how does it have the crack in its eye that could only happen in the events of the first universe? Because it is the same Songbird.

There are not infinite Songbirds as there are Bookers, there is only one. Songbird can go into any reality it needs to because that is the only way someone with access to all the realities could be caged. Until Songbird fell, Elizabeth could never leave Columbia.

And to totally ruin your theory.....why would ONE songbird guard an infinite amount of Elizabeths?

Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly, there's multiple Songbirds. He is a constant, not a variable. Songbird has abilities akin to that of Lutece device, not Elizabeth. The assumption that Songbird has these abilities is enforced by Bookers failure to rescue Elizabeth from Columbia in all instances except those in which he received intervention from the Luteces.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]hand wave Ilovegames1992

Stop hand waving him you hand waver.

Hand wave.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

[QUOTE="TheDevKit"]

 

Here's a link to r/bioshock. They should be able to answer a majority of your questions in regards to the game.

Honestly, the only legitmate plot hole I could think of was the grandfather paradox. But that was answered on the subreddit yesterday. If you're interested, I've posted it in the quote below.

 

[Quote=" "]So after her powers are released by the destruction of the siphon, (the )Elizabeth(s) is(are) able to drown Booker before he becomes Comstock, but without Comstock She would never have developed the abilities to move between worlds in the first place. So yeah. How?savagetwinkie

Elizabeth murders every Booker (not just every Booker that accepts, EVERY Booker). Bookers that attend Wounded Knee and survive always go to the baptism, this is a constant. There are no relevant Bookers to the story that don't go to the baptism. Because Elizabeth murders every Booker, she creates a paradox. The paradox that exists is that:

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

To escape the paradox ever existing, it means that every Booker that ever attends/attended/will attend the baptism must always reject it. If even a single Booker out of an infinite Bookers accept, a paradox is created where every Booker is murdered by their in conceived daughter before making a choice. As a result, a destruction resolution to the paradox occurs, where the probability of any Booker accepting the baptism is removed, and every Booker must reject the baptism

To put it very simply: Before the events of the game Constant: The Baptism

Variables: Accept = Probability of Comstock = Probability of Elizabeth Reject = Probability of Booker selling Anna to Comstock.

After the events of the game Constant: The Baptism.

What used to be variables becomes certainties (rejecting baptism) and impossibilities (accepting baptism): A Single Booker Accepts = Paradox in every timeline. If even a single Booker can ever accept, the paradox exists where Booker died before making the choice. The probability of a paradox is zero percent. It's an impossibility, not a probability. As a result, the probability of any Booker making this choice becomes 0%. If not every Booker was murdered, this wouldn't be a paradox, it would just be another timeline, but that's not the case. Something that occurs 0% of the time is an impossibility/improbability. It never happens. Therefore, Booker can never accept.

Every Booker Rejects = Nothing unusual. Booker lives out his life as he normally would. This choice never leads to a paradox. Because the probability of the other variable is 0%, the probability of this variable becomes 100%. Something that occurs 100% of the time is no longer a variable, it is a constant. Booker rejecting the baptism becomes a constant.

Now, you may think, "but how can Booker always reject if every Booker is already dead!? Surely this means you're saying only those that accept are drowned?" and this is the easiest way to explain how this can happen: Think about what would happen if, before the game, every single Booker rejected. What would happen? Nothing, Booker would live out his life with Anna, because since we are imagining the events of the game didn't happen, and we're imagining rejection is a constant already, then Comstock can never exist and thus Elizabeth can never drown every Booker before the baptism. This is the situation that the end of the game forces and that's what we see in the after credits sequence.

Honestly, the game is anything but sloppy story telling. It's actually incredibly well written.

Nevermind you didn't even address the other issue I have with the story.....the handwaving. Not only did bioshock Infinite in excess uses the handwave, it uses the handwave in key parts of the plot.....that is bad storytelling. Sometimes a handwave definitely is necessary in storytelling, but it should be done a) as few times as possible b) as more of a setting set up or something not really important to the plot C) while still flimsy, it should not be completely and utterly ridiculous....Sorry, but Infinite not only excessively use handwaving to ridiculous levels (sorry but the story on how Liz gets utter deus ex machina level powers is utterly ridiculous), it handwaves key aspects of the plot. The absolute worst handwave is definitely "constants and variables" A better storyteller would explain the why behind everything, why Comstock is always evil, with depth, and why we must drown him. They don't rely on the handwave.

So you can dwell in "how" things happen all you want, but the problem with the game is how it handles the "why"...the thematic stuff. Which is something Spec Ops The Line and both Metro games nail....the thematic elements. Hell the first two Bioshocks, especially the second, nailed the theme.

There's a possibility Songbird can dip into any reality at will.

When Liz and Booker leave Monument tower, they fall into Battleship Bay where Songbird follows. This results in Songbird's right eye being cracked.

We already know that Elizabeth can flip between worlds and realities where things would have played out differently. If that precise sequence of events to escape had happened differently, Songbird would not have a busted eye. Yet Songbird's eye remains cracked every time you see it after that cutscene, no matter the universe.

The scene where Elizibeth opens a tear for the first time in the lift is interrupted by Songbird swooping in. Upon closer inspection, there is only a searchlight coming from its left eye, meaning that the right must be damaged.

When you are in the third universe Songbird is still hunting you and still has a cracked eye. Given that this version of Elizabeth supposedly never left the tower and was instead transferred to Comstock House, how does it have the crack in its eye that could only happen in the events of the first universe? Because it is the same Songbird.

There are not infinite Songbirds as there are Bookers, there is only one. Songbird can go into any reality it needs to because that is the only way someone with access to all the realities could be caged. Until Songbird fell, Elizabeth could never leave Columbia.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Only explains memories, not physical merge...try again. Nevermind even the memories merge bit is a big giant flimsy handwave. Concept art doesn't mean canon.....you realize that a lot of it was cut. You can't use cut content to prove your theory. If they put it in a story DLC, I will retract a plot hole, but the hole still stands.texasgoldrush

Here's a link to r/bioshock. They should be able to answer a majority of your questions in regards to the game.

Honestly, the only legitmate plot hole I could think of was the grandfather paradox. But that was answered on the subreddit yesterday. If you're interested, I've posted it in the quote below.

So after her powers are released by the destruction of the siphon, (the )Elizabeth(s) is(are) able to drown Booker before he becomes Comstock, but without Comstock She would never have developed the abilities to move between worlds in the first place. So yeah. How?

Elizabeth murders every Booker (not just every Booker that accepts, EVERY Booker). Bookers that attend Wounded Knee and survive always go to the baptism, this is a constant. There are no relevant Bookers to the story that don't go to the baptism. Because Elizabeth murders every Booker, she creates a paradox. The paradox that exists is that:

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

To escape the paradox ever existing, it means that every Booker that ever attends/attended/will attend the baptism must always reject it. If even a single Booker out of an infinite Bookers accept, a paradox is created where every Booker is murdered by their in conceived daughter before making a choice. As a result, a destruction resolution to the paradox occurs, where the probability of any Booker accepting the baptism is removed, and every Booker must reject the baptism

To put it very simply: Before the events of the game Constant: The Baptism

Variables: Accept = Probability of Comstock = Probability of Elizabeth Reject = Probability of Booker selling Anna to Comstock.

After the events of the game Constant: The Baptism.

What used to be variables becomes certainties (rejecting baptism) and impossibilities (accepting baptism): A Single Booker Accepts = Paradox in every timeline. If even a single Booker can ever accept, the paradox exists where Booker died before making the choice. The probability of a paradox is zero percent. It's an impossibility, not a probability. As a result, the probability of any Booker making this choice becomes 0%. If not every Booker was murdered, this wouldn't be a paradox, it would just be another timeline, but that's not the case. Something that occurs 0% of the time is an impossibility/improbability. It never happens. Therefore, Booker can never accept.

Every Booker Rejects = Nothing unusual. Booker lives out his life as he normally would. This choice never leads to a paradox. Because the probability of the other variable is 0%, the probability of this variable becomes 100%. Something that occurs 100% of the time is no longer a variable, it is a constant. Booker rejecting the baptism becomes a constant.

Now, you may think, "but how can Booker always reject if every Booker is already dead!? Surely this means you're saying only those that accept are drowned?" and this is the easiest way to explain how this can happen: Think about what would happen if, before the game, every single Booker rejected. What would happen? Nothing, Booker would live out his life with Anna, because since we are imagining the events of the game didn't happen, and we're imagining rejection is a constant already, then Comstock can never exist and thus Elizabeth can never drown every Booker before the baptism. This is the situation that the end of the game forces and that's what we see in the after credits sequence.

Honestly, the game is anything but sloppy story telling. It's actually incredibly well written.

[QUOTE="TheDevKit"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] so where is the hard evidence to where that universe's Liz just "disappears" from Comstock House when our Liz enters the reality? This is the point I am getting. Sorry but even with all the scotch tape, Infinite's story is full of holes, especially thematically.texasgoldrush

1. The guards in the Good Time Club say things like "I hate one of me... Who do I hate?" and "Can't tell which one, two in here... who's the I?". They're saying that there are two people sharing one body, and their memories/thoughts are conflicting.

2. Chen Lin is seen operating his tools, even though his tools aren't there. This is because one part of him remembers having the tools in his workshop.

3. Booker remembers burning down the Hall of Heroes with Slate, but he also remembers killing (or sparing) Slate.

4. This is concept art from the Bioshock Infinite art book, showing the physical effects of crossing through tears. People would merge with themselves in the new universe, and their bodies would be caught between two physical states. Clearly Irrational played with the concept of merging, and that they changed it from physical to mental in the final game.

And there's more where that came from. Want evidence for the merge theroy? Play the game and stop complaining about it on a forum. 

Seriously? Leave no stone left unturned than. Everything in a story must be explained, lest it be a plot hole. 

[QUOTE="TheDevKit"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] So....doesn't get rid of the plot hole and make the writing less stupid and contrived. Doesn't support your merge theory at all. Doesn't explain how people's memories merge or even their bodies. All you said is that she can pull objects from one universe to another. And you really don't get the concept of the "hand wave".texasgoldrush

Really, the guards bleeding don't support the merge theory? Or that the story is contingent on the theory after the instance with the weapon smith?

Nope, let's just disregard half the game.

1. The guards in the Good Time Club say things like "I hate one of me... Who do I hate?" and "Can't tell which one, two in here... who's the I?". They're saying that there are two people sharing one body, and their memories/thoughts are conflicting.

2. Chen Lin is seen operating his tools, even though his tools aren't there. This is because one part of him remembers having the tools in his workshop.

3. Booker remembers burning down the Hall of Heroes with Slate, but he also remembers killing (or sparing) Slate.

4. This is concept art from the Bioshock Infinite art book, showing the physical effects of crossing through tears. People would merge with themselves in the new universe, and their bodies would be caught between two physical states. Clearly Irrational played with the concept of merging, and that they changed it from physical to mental in the final game.

And there's more where that came from. Want evidence for the merge theroy? Play the game and stop complaining about it on a forum.