158 réponses à ce sujet

[Mylia Stenetch]

OdanUrr wrote...

The problem is that, according to the multiverse theory, there are realities where even if you were baptized, you don't build a Columbia, or you don't kidnap Anna, or you don't destroy New York. In other words, your baptism (in some universes you weren't even offered the chance to be baptized) leads to ruin in some universes but doesn't in others.

There is a possibilty for it, just like if you never went to Wounded Knee and became a merchant instead of a pinkerton or a fanatic. They were basing at the point of baptism if you did or not and the worlds that were made from it which caused massive trauma through those worlds. With you being gone at that point those worlds are not moot, and you save the girl to save the world.

So while you can push the idea that I can do whatever, everything was already set in motion already down the path of death before you could change it. This is compouned once you do a playthough two of the game and the amount of foreshadowing of what is going to happen and the entire push of from the "twins" discussion.

[OdanUrr]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

The problem is that, according to the multiverse theory, there are realities where even if you were baptized, you don't build a Columbia, or you don't kidnap Anna, or you don't destroy New York. In other words, your baptism (in some universes you weren't even offered the chance to be baptized) leads to ruin in some universes but doesn't in others.

There is a possibilty for it, just like if you never went to Wounded Knee and became a merchant instead of a pinkerton or a fanatic. They were basing at the point of baptism if you did or not and the worlds that were made from it which caused massive trauma through those worlds. With you being gone at that point those worlds are not moot, and you save the girl to save the world.

So while you can push the idea that I can do whatever, everything was already set in motion already down the path of death before you could change it. This is compouned once you do a playthough two of the game and the amount of foreshadowing of what is going to happen and the entire push of from the "twins" discussion.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. What I'm trying to say, in a nutshell, is that trying to kill Booker at the point of his baptism is pointless because there will still be universes where Booker becomes the "evil" Comstock.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 28 mars 2013 - 08:56 .

[Mylia Stenetch]

OdanUrr wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

The problem is that, according to the multiverse theory, there are realities where even if you were baptized, you don't build a Columbia, or you don't kidnap Anna, or you don't destroy New York. In other words, your baptism (in some universes you weren't even offered the chance to be baptized) leads to ruin in some universes but doesn't in others.

There is a possibilty for it, just like if you never went to Wounded Knee and became a merchant instead of a pinkerton or a fanatic. They were basing at the point of baptism if you did or not and the worlds that were made from it which caused massive trauma through those worlds. With you being gone at that point those worlds are not moot, and you save the girl to save the world.

So while you can push the idea that I can do whatever, everything was already set in motion already down the path of death before you could change it. This is compouned once you do a playthough two of the game and the amount of foreshadowing of what is going to happen and the entire push of from the "twins" discussion.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. What I'm trying to say, in a nutshell, is that trying to kill Booker at the point of his baptism is pointless because there will still be universes where Booker becomes the "evil" Comstock.

Right now how the game is fortelling us through the infinite realms, is that there has been a finite attempts to complete this one point where Booker becomes with Comstock or the Vox Populi martyr. Any other dimensions that could be are not touched since there is no guarentee that Comstock be around in another version, espically on who is evil and makes columbia. There could be many other Comstocks who die early, become a good guy etc. Still in this realm we are only dealing with two main Bookers, and a third due to the end.

Also who says he has to become Comstock to be evil? He would become evil in any point in time which we have not seen yet. It is just the two dimensions we see that we are told the story of Booker Dewitt as the sinner and saint.

[OdanUrr]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Right now how the game is fortelling us through the infinite realms, is that there has been a finite attempts to complete this one point where Booker becomes with Comstock or the Vox Populi martyr. Any other dimensions that could be are not touched since there is no guarentee that Comstock be around in another version, espically on who is evil and makes columbia. There could be many other Comstocks who die early, become a good guy etc. Still in this realm we are only dealing with two main Bookers, and a third due to the end.

Okay, I think I understand what you're trying to say now. Basically, that the ending deals with an infinite number of realities (but not all the realities there have been, are, and will be) where Booker was offered the chance to be baptized, and that his drowning would simply erase these realities?

Also who says he has to become Comstock to be evil? He would become evil in any point in time which we have not seen yet. It is just the two dimensions we see that we are told the story of Booker Dewitt as the sinner and saint.

I agree, that's why I used quotation marks.

[ejustinp]

We've actually seen Comstock be evil in 3 different dimensions.

The Columbia reality the game starts off in, then the second reality where the gunsmith is alive and finally the last reality where the Vox have successfully started a revolution. Comstock is the ruler/villain of those realities so it seems likely there are more evil Comstock worlds out there.

Modifié par ejustinp, 28 mars 2013 - 09:37 .

[OdanUrr]

ejustinp wrote...

We've actually seen Comstock be evil in 3 different dimensions.

The Columbia reality the game starts off in, then the second reality where the gunsmith is alive and finally the last reality where the Vox have successfully started a revolution. Comstock is the ruler/villain of those realities so it seems likely there are more evil Comstock worlds out there.

Of course there are! There's probably an infinite number of realities where Comstock's evil and an infinite number of realities where he's not. What I'm saying is that you can't destroy any of those realities.

[ejustinp]

On another note for anyone who has played Bioshock 2:

Booker and Elizabeth= Subject Delta and Eleanor Lamb

OdanUrr wrote...

ejustinp wrote...

We've actually seen Comstock be evil in 3 different dimensions.

The Columbia reality the game starts off in, then the second reality where the gunsmith is alive and finally the last reality where the Vox have successfully started a revolution. Comstock is the ruler/villain of those realities so it seems likely there are more evil Comstock worlds out there.

Of course there are! There's probably an infinite number of realities where Comstock's evil and an infinite number of realities where he's not. What I'm saying is that you can't destroy any of those realities.

These realities weren't so much destroyed as they were regressed back to prior the baptism and altered.

[OdanUrr]

ejustinp wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

ejustinp wrote...

We've actually seen Comstock be evil in 3 different dimensions.

The Columbia reality the game starts off in, then the second reality where the gunsmith is alive and finally the last reality where the Vox have successfully started a revolution. Comstock is the ruler/villain of those realities so it seems likely there are more evil Comstock worlds out there.

Of course there are! There's probably an infinite number of realities where Comstock's evil and an infinite number of realities where he's not. What I'm saying is that you can't destroy any of those realities.

These realities weren't so much destroyed as they were regressed back to prior the baptism and altered.

The point is that there will still be realities where Comstock's evil no matter what anyone does.

[ejustinp]

Well isn't that the point of the multiple Elizabeth's at the finale. There are literally an infinite number of Elizabeth's to kill the infinite number of Booker's at the baptism.

Elizabeth at the end is essentially God in terms of ability and scope so the rules of the multiverse do not apply to her so there will ALWAYS be an Elizabeth to drown Booker all throughout the various realities.

[OdanUrr]

ejustinp wrote...

Well isn't that the point of the multiple Elizabeth's at the finale. There are literally an infinite number of Elizabeth's to kill the infinite number of Booker's at the baptism.

Elizabeth at the end is essentially God in terms of ability and scope so the rules of the multiverse do not apply to her so there will ALWAYS be an Elizabeth to drown Booker all throughout the various realities.

Why? In some realities Booker never had a child and could have become Comstock anyway, couldn't he?

EDIT: I think we may be going around in circles here.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 28 mars 2013 - 09:52 .

[ejustinp]

The game has a multiverse but it is not totally chaotic.

Remember that Elizabeth and the Lutace's both explain that there are constants and variables. Booker's hand might or might not get stabbed. He might pick up heads or tails. You might pick a cage or a bird for Elizabeth.

However, there is always a man and a city and a light house and it is always  Booker and Elizabeth together. The coin you flip always comes up heads, Comstock's are always bad. They are always infertile and they always kidnap Elizabeth from Booker which results in his arrival in Columbia.

The final constant is the one that Elizabeth creates which is the drowning thus overriding the others.

Modifié par ejustinp, 28 mars 2013 - 10:08 .

[OdanUrr]

ejustinp wrote...

The game has a multiverse but it is not totally chaotic.

Remember that Elizabeth and the Lutace's both explain that there are constants and variables. Booker's hand might or might not get stabbed. He might pick up heads or tails. You might pick a cage or a bird for Elizabeth.

However, there is always a man and a city and a light house and it is always Booker and Elizabeth together. The coin you flip always comes up heads, Comstock's are always bad. They are always infertile and they always kidnap Elizabeth from Booker which results in his arrival in Columbia.

The final constant is the one that Elizabeth creates which is the drowning thus overriding the others.

So BioShock's theory of parallel universes is different from our own theory of parallel universes, is that it?

[ejustinp]

Yes, I believe that's it.

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

whew, just finished it. ending is radical and whatnot, though i would argue that the true emotional payoff is the part where booker meets old elizabeth and then rescues young elizabeth.

a pity we know as much about Comstock at the end as at the beginning, and elizabeth's powers are never truly explained...

[Northern Sun]

Just finished the game. Loved it, but there's a bunch of stuff I couldn't figure out or missed.

1. If DeWitt and Comstock are the same person, how were they both existing at the start of the game? How was he both baptized(Comstock) and not baptized(DeWitt)? Shouldn't only one exist per dimension/universe/whatever you call it?

2. What's the science behind vigors? I recall plasmids having some sort of explanation involving sea slugs, but recall nothing about vigors.

3. Not really an ending thing, but was there any difference between the bird or cage brooch for Elizabeth, beyond the looks?

As a personal note, during the game I'd been hoping for Booker and Elizabeth to escape to Paris together and have a romantic happily ever after. Which with the ending is a tad unsettling in hindsight.

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

Northern Sun wrote...

Just finished the game. Loved it, but there's a bunch of stuff I couldn't figure out or missed.

1. If DeWitt and Comstock are the same person, how were they both existing at the start of the game? How was he both baptized(Comstock) and not baptized(DeWitt)? Shouldn't only one exist per dimension/universe/whatever you call it?

2. What's the science behind vigors? I recall plasmids having some sort of explanation involving sea slugs, but recall nothing about vigors.

3. Not really an ending thing, but was there any difference between the bird or cage brooch for Elizabeth, beyond the looks?

As a personal note, during the game I'd been hoping for Booker and Elizabeth to escape to Paris together and have a romantic happily ever after. Which with the ending is a tad unsettling in hindsight.

Oldboy, a korean movie. Creepy.

My biggest question is that the ending reveals the true meaning of the phrase "Bring us the giral and wipe away the debt", as it actually pertains to Booker giving baby Anna away. So what prompted him to start this whole adventure about rescuing Elizabeth then? Is is about Booker filling in the blanks in his head?

Edit: Regarding your first question, It is entire possible, with the help of Lutece, that Booker has already travelled to the alternate universe (where he originally got baptized and then turn into Comstock) right before the game began. Actually, this will explain why we see Booker with the Lutece twins right at the very start of the game.

Modifié par ithurtz, 29 mars 2013 - 12:27 .

[OdanUrr]

Northern Sun wrote...

Just finished the game. Loved it, but there's a bunch of stuff I couldn't figure out or missed.

1. If DeWitt and Comstock are the same person, how were they both existing at the start of the game? How was he both baptized(Comstock) and not baptized(DeWitt)? Shouldn't only one exist per dimension/universe/whatever you call it?

2. What's the science behind vigors? I recall plasmids having some sort of explanation involving sea slugs, but recall nothing about vigors.

3. Not really an ending thing, but was there any difference between the bird or cage brooch for Elizabeth, beyond the looks?

As a personal note, during the game I'd been hoping for Booker and Elizabeth to escape to Paris together and have a romantic happily ever after. Which with the ending is a tad unsettling in hindsight.

1. I agree, there can only be one Booker per universe, either as Booker or Comstock. It's possible that at the start of the game you're already in a different universe or that the capsule you board transports you to a parallel reality. I'm still skeptical that BioShock Infinite didn't introduce something like Stargate's entropic cascade failure. After all, how can there be two Bookers in the same reality?

2. It's presumed they stole that tech from a parallel reality (so there would be no need to explain it).

3. Not a clue, but I suspect it doesn't change a thing.

Well, I blame the narrative that forces me to do silly things.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 29 mars 2013 - 12:36 .

[ejustinp]

The Lutece's brought you over to Comstock's reality.

Modifié par ejustinp, 29 mars 2013 - 12:42 .

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

Got this from the irrational forum. As good an explanation as we're gonna get for now, at least.

Originally Posted by JoseonOne:
I agree with a lot of your interpretation, but this one point is where I think you extrapolate a little too much. Why does our Booker get to stand in for all the Comstock-Bookers? For that matter, how does he get to stand in for any Comstock-Bookers? Really, the answer, I think, comes down to "because the writer says so" which makes it a pretty big weak point in the narrative.

Anyway, I've seen a lot of pre-game plot summaries, but they all felt off for me. Here's as clean a summery of the plot as I can make it. I have the Limited Edition Guide Book, so I read all the voxphones. Here is what I could piece together.

1. The true beginning of the story is Booker at the baptism, before he had Anna\\Elizabeth.

2. Booker(1) goes through with the baptism and is "born again," going so far as to take the new name of Zachery Comstock. Booker(2) doesn't go through with the baptism and keeps his name.

3. Booker(1) meets Rosalind Lutece with her quantum gate machine. Fueled by his trans-formative religious experience, Booker(1) interprets the tears created by the machine as prophecies from God. He sees Columbia, his "daughter" Anna\\Elizabeth, and how they remake the world into a new Eden.

Booker(2) marries, has Anna\\Elizabeth, loses his wife in the process, and winds up a degenerate gambler.

3. Booker(1), with the technology of Lutece and the industry of Jeremiah Fink, create Columbia. Through the tears, he can see that it is his daughter who fulfills his dreams of destroying the sinful world, yet exposure to Lutece's machine has rendered him sterile. With the help of Rosalind and Robert Lutece, Booker(1) is able to buy\\abduct Anna\\Elizabeth from Booker(2).

4. Booker(1) attempts to kill the Luteces by sabotaging their quantum machine, because he doesn't want anyone to know that Elizabeth is not his true daughter. What he ends up doing is causing both of the Luteces to become "unstuck in time and space" (think of the main character in Kurt Vonnegat's Slaughterhouse 5.) Robert Lutece insists on returning Elizabeth back to her own universe, and so they (maybe with the help of the older Elizabeth) bring Booker(2) into Booker(1)'s universe.

5. The game begins.

[TheClonesLegacy]

OdanUrr wrote...


1. I agree, there can only be one Booker per universe, either as Booker or Comstock. It's possible that at the start of the game you're already in a different universe or that the capsule you board transports you to a parallel reality. I'm still skeptical that BioShock Infinite didn't introduce something like Stargate's entropic cascade failure. After all, how can there be two Bookers in the same reality?

Dude they legit showed the portal Booker went through to Comstocks Earth. What do you think this is?

[OdanUrr]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...


1. I agree, there can only be one Booker per universe, either as Booker or Comstock. It's possible that at the start of the game you're already in a different universe or that the capsule you board transports you to a parallel reality. I'm still skeptical that BioShock Infinite didn't introduce something like Stargate's entropic cascade failure. After all, how can there be two Bookers in the same reality?

Dude they legit showed the portal Booker went through to Comstocks Earth. What do you think this is?

Yeah, I remember that, but I liked the capsule idea better.

[OdanUrr]

ithurtz wrote...

Got this from the irrational forum. As good an explanation as we're gonna get for now, at least.

Originally Posted by JoseonOne:
I agree with a lot of your interpretation, but this one point is where I think you extrapolate a little too much. Why does our Booker get to stand in for all the Comstock-Bookers? For that matter, how does he get to stand in for any Comstock-Bookers? Really, the answer, I think, comes down to "because the writer says so" which makes it a pretty big weak point in the narrative.

That's the gist of it for me, at least for the moment. Like I said, unnecessarily complex.

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

Yup, I do get the feeling they bit off a lot more than they can chew. Bioshock's (the original) twist has a very elegant simplicity to it, while they are trying a little too hard here. Then again, nowadays I'm content so long as a video game doesn't pull of a ME3 ending.

[OdanUrr]

ithurtz wrote...

Yup, I do get the feeling they bit off a lot more than they can chew. Bioshock's (the original) twist has a very elegant simplicity to it, while they are trying a little too hard here. Then again, nowadays I'm content so long as a video game doesn't pull of a ME3 ending.

What I find odd is that not many reviewers are talking about the ending, or they simply say "brilliant" and move on. Considering that the endings to many blockbuster titles have been somewhat controversial recently (ME3, AC3, ACM, etc.) I would have expected that, for a while at least, the endings to every major release would be subject to intense scrutiny.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 29 mars 2013 - 12:59 .

[ejustinp]

People aren't paying enough attention or taking enough time to process what they are being shown.

Our Booker isn't making the choice for the other Booker's, every Booker that did not turn into Comstock and actually managed to rescue Elizabeth is making the same choice, hence why there are other Elizabeth's there. It is a group decision by the Booker's to wipe out the Comstock's. The moment you are seeing is the Divergent moment in which the split happened - it is something that not any one Booker or Elizabeth are experiencing but rather all.

Modifié par ejustinp, 29 mars 2013 - 01:37 .