158 réponses à ce sujet

[Luxorek]

But that doesn't make any goddamn sense. The Booker we play is 37 years old, gave Anna away and was then brought into the reality where Comstock and Columbia exist. What purpose is there in killing him ? Unless Elizabeth not only jumps dimensions, but time itself and brings Booker into the moment right before the baptism, which again doesn't make any goddamn sense because we play as one who rejected the baptism already.

[Fishy]

Dune01 wrote...

The ending can really be 'explained' by the whole Infinite world theory. You just can't imagine the endless array of possibilities that can and will occur. As the twins said it's more of a question of was, is or will, than how.

Booker(or should I say, all prebaptism Bookers) decides to kill himself before the baptism so Comstock can never ever create Columbia and therefore the whole Bioshock infinite storyline simply ceases to exist. Perhaps, like it never happened. Hence Booker/Anna postcredits scene. Although that would only make sense if Booker had Anna before the baptism. Anyone think that this crude and short explanation makes sense?

By the way, don't you just enjoy it when a book/game(one of the first in my case)/ film makes you think like this?

EDIT: Just thinking a bit more, I now think that Booker by killing himself is actually 'erasing' himself from all the universes. And by doing that, he erased both Anna/Liz, Columbia and the whole Infinite storyline.

EDIT 2.0: Oh god, I don't know what to think anymore.

yes yes yes . but at end of infinite ... Booker killed Comstock and save  his Daugher.. So why not continue to live ? He wonn SOOOOO .. Whythe drowning .. That make no sense and it's contradictory of Anna/Elizabeth personality.

Also .. How can you erase infinite ? You don't. I don't accept the drowning. Elizabth Would not do it to his father that just rescued her .. You can't save everyone, but at least you can live the best you can.

I was so pissed when the Elizabth started drowning Booker. I wanted to kick some asses.

Modifié par Suprez30, 29 mars 2013 - 11:10 .

[IllusiveManJr]

There was a post-credits scene? I didn't know.

[OdanUrr]

IllusiveManJr wrote...

There was a post-credits scene? I didn't know.

Here you go:



That reminds me I need to check the dates.

[OdanUrr]

Dune01 wrote...

By the way, don't you just enjoy it when a book/game(one of the first in my case)/ film makes you think like this?

An interesting question. Yesterday, as I was reading GameFront's review of BioShock Infinite, something in the review caught my attention:

At its best, the city, like Rapture, suggests what can happen when an ideologue goes off the rails and convinces thousands to follow him. Columbia is a cult unto itself, and the game often looks as if it’s poised, like the original BioShock, to make a serious comment on reality. The city’s patriarch, Father Comstock, is a self-proclaimed prophet who seems to have the chops to back up the claim. His brand of religion is a mixture of intense Christianity, the literal deifying of the American creation myth, and institutionalized racism. Writer and Director Ken Levine looks as if he has something to say.

But BioShock Infinite never quite says anything.

Having read this and your question, I wondered, why is it that I'm only focusing on the physics of the ending? Is this the only thing that the game's left me with, pondering the complexities of quantum mechanics and how they apply to Infinite's conclusion? Why is it I'm not left dwelling on the issues of racism, blind obedience, social inequalities, etc.?

Modifié par OdanUrr, 30 mars 2013 - 03:25 .

[Cyberarmy]

Found this one;

http://i.imgur.com/NiystAV.jpg

[Giltspur]

I don't think it's the case Bioshock Infinite doesn't say anything.  It's just not a polemic.  So what it's saying is less obvious.

They could have made the Vox Populi the good guys and had a happy ending when the Vox Populi overthrew their evil oppressors.  But they didn't do that.  They showed Daisy Fitzroy hold a handgun to a white child's head while talking about the need to burn out all the weeds.

They could have had the prophet be some crazy man.  Instead he was a man looking for the second chance offered by baptism after a life of regret that had included, among other things, slaughtering American Indians at the Wounded Knee Massacre.  In general, there's evidence that the soldiers hunted down fleeing women and children and killed them as far as two miles from the site of the "battle". That sort of psychological torment helped make Comstock and helped him be the kind of "forgiving" man that Lady Comstock would continue to feel a loyalty for even after she started to be troubled by the truth about him.  At least that's my take.  It's up to you I suppose to think about what transitioned Booker to Comstock.

They could have had Elizabeth want to escape to Paris.  And she did want that early in the story.  But as she becomes more experienced, she no longer wants that.  Why is that?  Why does Elizabeth help Booker do the things he does at the end?

I don't think there's some sentence or lesson that you use to summarize Bioshock Infinite.  But I think it's presentation and perspective is admirable enough that it's worth exploring and asking questions about.  

Modifié par Giltspur, 30 mars 2013 - 04:15 .

[Luxorek]

Well... Season Pass promises "More Stories, More Weapons, More Characters". I coudn't care less about the weapons, but I'm eager to see what they intend to do with the story. I imagine ending is well... permanent and we will just get new sections to explore during the story and perhaps a chance to meet some characters from voxophones [like that bounty hunter guy that eventually switched sides].

Then again "All Season Pass content will be available for individual purchase by March 2014" - that's a helluva long time to wait. Damn...

[Giltspur]

Maybe March 2014 will be the release of the third DLC.  That way first DLC could come out this summer.

One good thing, since there's no multiplayer, they pretty much have no choice but to make story DLC.  

[Bayonet Hipshot]

 There are 3 timelines present in infinite.

1) Booker accept sthe Baptism and becomes Comstock2) Booker declines the Baptism and stays the same3) A time line where Booker does not give Anna away, and lives his life straight  and just fine


The thing with different dimensions is that even the most minute details can make a huge impact... so there are an infinite amount of Booker Dewitts

Thus why this is called Bioshock Infinite, because there are infinite dimensions

[Dune01]

OdanUrr wrote...

Dune01 wrote...

By the way, don't you just enjoy it when a book/game(one of the first in my case)/ film makes you think like this?

An interesting question. Yesterday, as I was reading GameFront's review of BioShock Infinite, something in the review caught my attention:

At its best, the city, like Rapture, suggests what can happen when an ideologue goes off the rails and convinces thousands to follow him. Columbia is a cult unto itself, and the game often looks as if it’s poised, like the original BioShock, to make a serious comment on reality. The city’s patriarch, Father Comstock, is a self-proclaimed prophet who seems to have the chops to back up the claim. His brand of religion is a mixture of intense Christianity, the literal deifying of the American creation myth, and institutionalized racism. Writer and Director Ken Levine looks as if he has something to say.

But BioShock Infinite never quite says anything.

Having read this and your question, I wondered, why is it that I'm only focusing on the physics of the ending? Is this the only thing that the game's left me with, pondering the complexities of quantum mechanics and how they apply to Infinite's conclusion? Why is it I'm not left dwelling on the issues of racism, blind obedience, social inequalities, etc.?

I think that for now we are only focusing on the ending, simply because it was the last, not really dummy explained and the most striking point of the game. You have to think about it to fully understand it's (lack of) brilliance.But when someone asks you about Infinite, about the things you liked about it, loved about it, you sure as hell won't say the ending, but the whole package. Just my 2 cents, anyway.

[Blooddrunk1004]

The Sin wrote...

 There are 3 timelines present in infinite.

1) Booker accept sthe Baptism and becomes Comstock2) Booker declines the Baptism and stays the same3) A time line where Booker does not give Anna away, and lives his life straight  and just fine


The thing with different dimensions is that even the most minute details can make a huge impact... so there are an infinite amount of Booker Dewitts

Thus why this is called Bioshock Infinite, because there are infinite dimensions

The third timeline only appears post credits.

Booker becomes Comstock after he accepts baptism in another realm and in other he refuses it and remains the same Booker DeWitt who we were playing through the whole game. Booker we are playing is the one who sold his daughter to Comstock (himself).

You can see how many times when Booker blacks out he receives visions of his past:
(knocking on the door, giving his daughter to Comstock, trying to get her back, Anna/ Elizabeth's pinky finger)
By allowing Elizabeth to drown him he stops both events that happened in "infinite" dimensions.

Post credits scene is pretty much like any other vision Booker has when he is knock cold.
BUT there is a difference. This is not a vision. We only hear baby and music box, we don't hear knocking on the doors or Lutece talking that he has to pay the debt. Also there are no other characters there either, (like when we saw Elizabeth in our office before) . It's just Booker and Anna which means that it worked.

The only question i have is if Booker remembers anything after he wakes up in his office... considering he immediately decides to check on baby and the way he says Anna it sounds like he is wondering if she is there.

I see nothing wrong with ending, unlike Mass Effect 3 it makes sense and it explains the entire background around Booker and Elizabeth. They don't need to fix anything especially something that is not even broken.
What i want from new DLC is the focus on Songbird, this character is awesome but he only gets like 5 min of his own moments.

Modifié par Blooddrunk1004, 30 mars 2013 - 08:57 .

[Blacklash93]

It made sense to me. There's just plenty of ways to interpret it in addition to the post-credits scene.

Did she kill all Bookers? Did she only kill the Bookers that would become Comstock? Did she erase herself and Booker? Did she only erase Elizabeth and the infant Anna still survives? Did she succeed in stopping this loop? Was the post-credit scene a new timeline where Comstock never lived to take Anna? A flashback? Is Booker forever doomed to repeat these same events?

All answers to these questions are viable. It's admirably ambiguous and not something you see in videogames often. This isn't a cheap conclusion like ME3. It's deliberately open to multiple theories about what the last scenes really meant. Trying to impose one theory of how that last scene effect Booker and Elizabeth would be foolish, as multiverse logic is a very subjective one. I pick the most hopeful outcome theory, obviously.  I thought it was a satisfying conclusion for Booker and Elizabeth, but...

The issue I did have with the story is that quite a few aspects are underutilized. Daisy Fitzroy is killed quickly and the Vox become nothing more than an annoyance from that point. I didn't feel I knew that much about Comstock or Columbia at the end. Songbird's screen-time is minimal to say it politely. Half of the "Heavy Hitter" enemies were criminally absent from most of the game and there wasn't as much variety to Elizabeth's tears as I hoped (even though they were very useful), as far as missed opportunities in gameplay go.

I think this is a case of a 10-12 hour game with very iterative development biting off more than it can chew. Still, it's a good game well worth playing.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 30 mars 2013 - 09:23 .

[Luxorek]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...
I see nothing wrong with ending, unlike Mass Effect 3 it makes sense and it explains the entire background around Booker and Elizabeth. They don't need to fix anything especially something that is not even broken.
What i want from new DLC is the focus on Songbird, this character is awesome but he only gets like 5 min of his own moments.

I doesn't make much sense in my opinion, but its all questionable logic anyway. Just like Inception or any other movie/game/book where we dabble into hypothetical pseudoscience. Ken Levine can just say "Well, it's open to interpretation" and we can all talk ourselves to death. Besides no one here is talking about fixing anything. What happened happened and now those of us with SP are just waiting for new stories. I hope they adress the issue of Songbird - because they essentially made him a gimmick instead of a plot point that he supposed to be.

[Dune01]

 Just saw this, it has been pretty helpful in fully understanding the ending and the whole storyline: Infinite Timeline

[wafflez]

I just finished the game and I just wanted to clear some stuff up, are these the timelines we visit during the game?

1) The universe the Booker we play comes from, where he refused the baptism and Anna was taken away.
2) The universe where Booker accepted the baptism and became Comstock, this is the universe our Booker's daughter was taken to and the one we start the game in.
3) The universe where Chen Lin is still alive and his machines are gone, the Vox have also almost been completely crushed, as shown by all the guys locked up.
4) The universe where the Vox revolution has started, and Booker is dead and has become a Martyr. It's also the one we finish the game in before going to the multiverse.

[Dune01]

wafflez wrote...

I just finished the game and I just wanted to clear some stuff up, are these the timelines we visit during the game?

1) The universe the Booker we play comes from, where he refused the baptism and Anna was taken away.
2) The universe where Booker accepted the baptism and became Comstock, this is the universe our Booker's daughter was taken to and the one we start the game in.
3) The universe where Chen Lin is still alive and his machines are gone, the Vox have also almost been completely crushed, as shown by all the guys locked up.
4) The universe where the Vox revolution has started, and Booker is dead and has become a Martyr. It's also the one we finish the game in before going to the multiverse.

 
Pretty much, yes. There is also the one with the granny Elizabeth.

[Kathleen321]

I wasn't seriously upset by the ending.
However I just don't quite see why Booker dieing solves everything. Does he survive in the other universes? Every time I try to think about all the loose ends of a multilayered infinite story my head spins.
But maybe that is the point. Is "infinite" a concept that can be understood? I know people don't like being told they "can't understand and that is why it makes sense" because that is insulting. But infinite possibilities was kind of the theme. The problem is how does one action solve a problem in infinite realities? Can one action really stop all the chaos? it doesn't seriously trouble me compared to Mass Effect's ending but I can see why it bothers people.

[Sidney]

Booker dying "solves" things because it stops Comstock from being born. The theory I guess is that while there are infinite variations there are some sort of chokepoints, decisions where things turn. Comstock's birth is one The game lays it out, Comstock needs to die in his crib. The baptism is the crib and Comstock is thus smothered before his birth.

The sad thing about that is while we are busy killing Comstock we also kill Elizabeth because if Comstock never exists then neither does Elizabeth - Anna continues to exist but the girl who became the Elizabeth we know never does exist.

To me, the games cheats a bit by having different VA's for Comstock and Booker. I also find it odd no one notices any resemblance - age and beard not withstanding.

The guy I do not "get" is Slate. Maybe I missed the vox recordings but does he know that Comstock = DeWitt?

[Sidney]

Blacklash93 wrote...


The issue I did have with the story is that quite a few aspects are underutilized. Daisy Fitzroy is killed quickly and the Vox become nothing more than an annoyance from that point. I didn't feel I knew that much about Comstock or Columbia at the end. Songbird's screen-time is minimal to say it politely. Half of the "Heavy Hitter" enemies were criminally absent from most of the game and there wasn't as much variety to Elizabeth's tears as I hoped (even though they were very useful), as far as missed opportunities in gameplay go.

I think this is a case of a 10-12 hour game with very iterative development biting off more than it can chew. Still, it's a good game well worth playing.

Fitzroy is actually not all that interesting. I didn't the the Vox to comment on what I was seeing. I understoof the injustices as presented. Daisy and the Vox just became a heavy handed way of driving that home. I think you are right that a bigger focus on Comstock/Columbia would ahve helped - plus the art and visuals were light years more interesting in the non-Vox Columbia.

I thought the tears worked and there was enough variety to them. I just never felt the combat was all that free flowing. It felt, clunky. I never felt like the transitions from air to ground to powers and guns were fluid enough. It felt very segemented, oddly I felt Bioshock 2's combat was better mechanically (the only thing BS2 had over either 1 or Infinite).

[Luxorek]

Sidney wrote...

The guy I do not "get" is Slate. Maybe I missed the vox recordings but does he know that Comstock = DeWitt?

No, he doesn't. He clearly remembers Booker [and his involvement in the army], but is actually furious that Comstock claims to have been part of the battle of Wounded Knee. Slate thinks that the Prophet is a liar and just made up his whole military service, which proves he doesn't know that Booker is Comstock.

[Sidney]

Luxorek wrote...

Sidney wrote...

The guy I do not "get" is Slate. Maybe I missed the vox recordings but does he know that Comstock = DeWitt?

No, he doesn't. He clearly remembers Booker [and his involvement in the army], but is actually furious that Comstock claims to have been part of the battle of Wounded Knee. Slate thinks that the Prophet is a liar and just made up his whole military service, which proves he doesn't know that Booker is Comstock.

He knows "Comstock" wasn't there but does he think Comstock is a different man than DeWitt or does he know he is a different personality than DeWitt...if that makes sense. I find it hard to belive that Slate served with DeWitt, knew him pre-Comstock, but didn't recognize him as Comstock. Nothing in his dialog/voxes makes it clear only that he doesn't like "Comstock" as a liar.

[IllusiveManJr]

OdanUrr wrote...

IllusiveManJr wrote...

There was a post-credits scene? I didn't know.

Here you go:



That reminds me I need to check the dates.

Thanks, I'll watch it in-game also when I do a 1999 mode playthrough next month.

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...

Booker dying "solves" things because it stops Comstock from being born. The theory I guess is that while there are infinite variations there are some sort of chokepoints, decisions where things turn.

The problem with that is that you just get the shooting your dad in the face timeparadox. If Comstock is erased from existence, then he never kidnaps Anna. There are two solutions: (i) time is linear and past changes don't impact future events, but in that case Elizabeth drowning Booker is useless; and (ii) this is contradicted in-game anyway when the various Elizabeths start to fade out of existence - clearly killing Booker erases their existence. 

So then there's never an Elizabeth to drown Booker. Not to mention that this ignores the temporal shenanigans of how exactly Booker that drowns = Booker that was going to either become Comstock or Booker. 

To me, the games cheats a bit by having different VA's for Comstock and Booker. I also find it odd no one notices any resemblance - age and beard not withstanding.

I thought Comstock straight up tells you what you two are the same person while he's taunting you when you're running after Elizabeth. 

The guy I do not "get" is Slate. Maybe I missed the vox recordings but does he know that Comstock = DeWitt?

He seemed to know DeWitt in that segment, and was talking to your character as if he were a separate person from Comstock in his timeline. 

[Mylia Stenetch]

Dune01 wrote...

 Just saw this, it has been pretty helpful in fully understanding the ending and the whole storyline: Infinite Timeline

Also on the Hand of the Prophet, in the third floor after, once you can enter Comstocks personal rooms. On one of the chalk-boards is a timeline (I am assuming very highly it is) with all the dimensions he looked through and altered. I got a screencap of it and will put it up later today.