1470 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

Robosexual wrote...

You wouldn't need to kill him at Wounded Knee, just stop him from joining the 7th Cavalry.

That won't remove Comstock. There wil always be a booker who DOES join the 7th Cavalry in an alternative universe.

Robosexual wrote...

Also Anna stops existing at the end of Infinite. Booker dies before she was conceived.

No she doesn't. Booker doesn't die at all in Infinite. He keeps living, and so does his daughter Anna, who is now with him and doesn't get sold to Comstock (because Comstock is now completely gone).

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 mai 2013 - 04:52 .

[Archonsg]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

As you saw from the end only one Booker was stopped, yet it stopped all Comstocks. Stopping Booker from ever getting to the baptism would stop all Comstocks too. If the situation never happens then Comstock can never be created, there's no "you can't stop events from happening", as the entire end of the game is them stopping events from happening. By stopping them at an earlier point of convergence (Wounded Knee) you stop the divergence from ever happening.

And you also saw Elizabeths from other realities too

Who all stopped existing upon the death of Booker, as stopping Booker stopped all Comstocks and Elizabeths in every reality.

Stopping him at Wounded Knee would stop all Comstocks and Elizabeths too.

Killing Booker at Wounded Knee makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Doing that would erase Booker (how he is now) and his daughter Anna too. Why would you want to do that? I don't want Booker or Anna to be gone, I only want Comstock to be gone.

You don't have to kill Booker.
You just have to remove the reason why he seeks redemption

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Archonsg wrote...

Never liked Arthur C Clarke much anyways.

Always preferred Heinlein.

Sagan is cool. Heinlein is good. Clarke is meh.

Wells is my all time favorite though.

[The Heretic of Time]

Archonsg wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Killing Booker at Wounded Knee makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Doing that would erase Booker (how he is now) and his daughter Anna too. Why would you want to do that? I don't want Booker or Anna to be gone, I only want Comstock to be gone.

You don't have to kill Booker.
You just have to remove the reason why he seeks redemption

And how would you do that without killing Booker at some point in time? It's not as if Booker sought redemption for one single little thing. He sought redemption for lots of sh*t he has done.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 mai 2013 - 04:55 .

[Clayless]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


That won't remove Comstock. There wil always be a booker who DOES join the 7th Cavalry in an alternative universe.

No she doesn't. Booker doesn't die at all in Infinite. He keeps living, and so does his daughter Anna, who is now with him and doesn't get sold to Comstock (because Comstock is now completely gone).

No there wouldn't. It's why killing Booker stops all Comstocks in all realities, it the entire point of the ending, it's the reason why they do everything they do: They kill Booker at the baptism, the point of creation for all Comstocks, to stop the creation of Comstock in every reality.

If they stopped Booker's involvement in Wounded Knee, the reason for getting baptised, then the creation of Comstock would never even happen in the first place. That choice would never be there. Comstock in all realities would never exist.

And no, Booker drowns at the end of Infinite, that's why the Elizabeth's disappear (they stop existing) and that's why Comstock never exists. They don't forcibly baptise him, they hold him down and drown him.

[The Heretic of Time]

Robosexual wrote...

No there wouldn't. It's why killing Booker stops all Comstocks in all realities, it the entire point of the ending, it's the reason why they do everything they do: They kill Booker at the baptism, the point of creation for all Comstocks, to stop the creation of Comstock in every reality.

If they stopped Booker's involvement in Wounded Knee, the reason for getting baptised, then the creation of Comstock would never even happen in the first place. That choice would never be there. Comstock in all realities would never exist.

You don't get it. The reason why killing Booker at the point where he would choose to get baptised removes all Comstocks is because it removes the entire decision, therefor removing any possible outcomes of that decision.

Booker not joining the 7th Cavalry is a decision in itself, which means there will be alternative universes where Booker DOES make the decision to join the 7th Cavalry. It wouldn't change a damn thing. To change anything, you need to remove the entire decision. The only way to do that is to render Booker unable to make that decision (e.g. killing him at the point before the decision is made).

In order to remove Comstock from the equation, you have to remove the decision that could result in Comstock from the equation. The only way to remove that decision, is to kill Booker at that point.

And no, Booker drowns at the end of Infinite, that's why the Elizabeth's disappear (they stop existing) and that's why Comstock never exists. They don't forcibly baptise him, they hold him down and drown him.

Have you even watched past the credits of the game?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 mai 2013 - 05:08 .

[Clayless]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You don't get it. The reason why killing Booker at the point where he would choose to get baptised removes all Comstocks is because it removes the entire decision, therefor removing any possible outcomes of that decision.

Yes. Remember that very carefully: It stops all Comstocks because it removes the entire decision. Remember what you said here.

Booker not joining the 7th Cavalry is a decision in itself, which means there will be alternative universes where Booker DOES make the decision to join the 7th Cavalry. It wouldn't change a damn thing.

No, as stopping Booker from ever making that decision would stop all Comstocks because it removes the entire decision. If that decision is never made, then the events that lead to the creation of Comstock wont happen, in any universe, just like above.

In order to remove Comstock from the equation, you have to remove the decision that could result in Comstock from the equation.

Yes. In order to stop Comstock you have to remove the decision, the baptism, that leads to his creation. Stop the events that lead to the baptism and you remove it. You stop Comstock from ever existing.

The only way to remove that decision, is to kill Booker at that point.

Have you even watched past the credits of the game?

No it's not, there are an infinite amount of ways to remove that decision, and not all of them involve killing Booker.

And yes.

[Iakus]

Hey, look! Mass Effect!

[AresKeith]

Here's the Bioshock thread use it http://social.biowar...996/40#16666193

[Archonsg]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Killing Booker at Wounded Knee makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Doing that would erase Booker (how he is now) and his daughter Anna too. Why would you want to do that? I don't want Booker or Anna to be gone, I only want Comstock to be gone.

You don't have to kill Booker.
You just have to remove the reason why he seeks redemption

And how would you do that without killing Booker at some point in time? It's not as if Booker sought redemption for one single little thing. He sought redemption for lots of sh*t he has done.

Without knowing the specifics, I can't say.

I would not be suprised though if a DLC is mafe based on the events at Wounded Knee and made as an alternative ending perhaps. /shrugs

[dreamgazer]

Alright, this thread has discussed the Joker and Bioshock Infinite.

Maybe I should start a pool about what'll be covered next.

[The Heretic of Time]

Robosexual wrote...

No, as stopping Booker from ever making that decision would stop all Comstocks because it removes the entire decision. If that decision is never made, then the events that lead to the creation of Comstock wont happen, in any universe, just like above.

And how would you stop Booker from making that decision, without killing him?

Remember, Booker NOT joining the 7th Cavalry is ALSO a decision, meaning there is STILL decision, meaning in an alternative universe, Booker still joins the 7th Cavalry.


Also, keep in mind the theme of BioShock Infinite: contant and variables.

It might very well be that Booker joining the 7th Cavalry is a contant, and not a variable. So far, ALL Bookers we have witnessed have joined the 7th Cavalry. It ALWAYS happens.

If Booker joining the 7th Cavalry is a constant (and it seems like it is), than you cannot change it.

No it's not, there are an infinite amount of ways to remove that decision, and not all of them involve killing Booker.

And yes.

No there isn't an infinite amount of ways. Constants and variables. Only variables result in alternative universes, and only by changing those will you be able to change the future and remove Comstock from existence.


And if you've seen past the credits, than you KNOW Booker and Anna are still alive.

[Clayless]

I'm fine with ending it here, I can take it to the other thread.

The tl;dr version basically was that Infinites end really isn't that hard to understand. I was actually quite surprised that two people accused me of not being able to understand it before they had even tried discussing it, I don't think I'd ever open an argument with "You must not understand it".

[Iakus]

So, bittersweet endings are apparantly bad.

Does that include DAO endings?  Many of them were, I thought bittersweet, yet there was no specuial amount of rage concerning them.

Could it possibly be there was something else about ME3's endings that people disliked?  Like maybe they were darker than simply "bittersweet'?

[Argolas]

iakus wrote...

So, bittersweet endings are apparantly bad.

Does that include DAO endings?  Many of them were, I thought bittersweet, yet there was no specuial amount of rage concerning them.

Could it possibly be there was something else about ME3's endings that people disliked?  Like maybe they were darker than simply "bittersweet'?

Bittersweet can be good, depressing can't...

[David7204]

A depressing ending can be fine if it's a depressing story.

[The Heretic of Time]

iakus wrote...

Could it possibly be there was something else about ME3's endings that people disliked? 

Yes it could very well be something else about ME3's ending that people disliked. I for one disliked the ******-poor quality of the writing in the ending.

I don't care if the ending is bittersweet, bitter, dark or even grimdark, as long as it's well written and makes sense. ME3's ending is not well written and it doesn't make sense.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 mai 2013 - 05:30 .

[The Heretic of Time]

J. Reezy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Alright, this thread has discussed the Joker and Bioshock Infinite.

Really? How do they fit into this?

Some guys brought it up to talk crap about the ending (of BioShock Infinite) to make the crappy ending of their beloved Mass Effect series look less crappy, or so I believe.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 mai 2013 - 05:32 .

[AresKeith]

J. Reezy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Alright, this thread has discussed the Joker and Bioshock Infinite.

Really? How do they fit into this?

The Joker? No clue

But someone did try to use Bioshock Infinite's ending in a post

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

A depressing ending can be fine if it's a depressing story.

But then it still needs a purpose.

[Mr.House]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Alright, this thread has discussed the Joker and Bioshock Infinite.

Really? How do they fit into this?

Some guys brought it up to talk crap about the ending (of BioShock Infinite) to make the crappy ending of their beloved Mass Effect series look less crappy, or so I believe.

It's funny though.

[dreamgazer]

J. Reezy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Alright, this thread has discussed the Joker and Bioshock Infinite.

Really? How do they fit into this?

I honestly lost track of how Bioshock: Infinite came into the equation. Endings with elaborate logic maybe?

The Joker discussion actually made some sense.  It was about the vagueness of villains and whether the Reapers' motives should've been left a mystery. 

[Gemini1179]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

"We'd never have imagined that as we ended the trilogy, all people would want to do was spend more time with the characters, sort of bathing in the afterglow - getting closure and just having some time to live in the universe that they fought to save."

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. We built up this universe from scratch and made you fall in love with it's characters, but we had no idea you would want to actually spend more time here.

Seriously? BioWare, please... get a ****ing clue.

^This. As frustrating as the ME3 fiasco was, I am getting some entertainment watching BioWare spin their wheels and spout as much meandering bs as possible to constantly avoid admitting they did not spend enough time, or do a thorough enough quality control pass on the game. The writing in the last act was garbage. The opening was garbage. There were a few good character moments and the gameplay was decent. The rest was forgettable.

Unless you remember it because it was so stupid. *cough* Kai Leng *cough*