Support NeoGAF

[ultron87]

I hit A during the credits and it took me to main menu. Did this skip the post credits scene or do you need to do something special?

 

[Sorian]

I hit A during the credits. Did this skip the post credits scene or do you need to do something special?

You skipped it. As far as I'm concerned, it'll just muddle your understanding of the story and you should just not go watch it. I wish I hadn't.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

Agreed. The drowning happens before the choice is made. This fits better with what she literally tells you, and the thematic message they were trying to end the game with.

However, this makes the post-credits scene not make sense. After reading a lot about this, there's just no good way to reconcile the two, unless the scene is a dream of some sort.

The post credits scene occurs because Elizabeth creates a paradox. Because of this paradox, rejecting the baptism becomes a constant, which means Booker can never accept the baptism because if, in even a single universe out of an infinite, Booker accepts the baptism, it means he will have died before the baptism occured. The paradox Elizabeth creates prevents the possibility of Booker ever accepting and thus we see Booker rejecting the baptism. Because he always rejects the baptism, Comstock never exists and can never interfere and the Luteces are never trapped in the probability space. Along this line of though, this goes into the specificities of believing this form of ending more thoroughly. In addition, the timelines present in Post 6046 makes this easier to visualise.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I hit A during the credits and it took me to main menu. Did this skip the post credits scene or do you need to do something special?

The credits were fun. Nice music. Nice messages from Irrational staff too. Nice behind the sceenes video as well. No idea why you'd skip.

I browsed GAF (mostly this thread) and let it play out.

...it was also the middle of the night, so I had little else to do,

 

[Sorian]

The post credits scene occurs because Elizabeth creates a paradox. Because of this paradox, rejecting the baptism becomes a constant, which means Booker can never accept the baptism because if, in even a single universe out of an infinite, Booker accepts the baptism, it means he will have died before the baptism occured. The paradox Elizabeth creates prevents the possibility of Booker ever accepting and thus we see Booker rejecting the baptism. Because he always rejects the baptism, Comstock never exists and can never interfere and the Luteces are never trapped in the probability space. Along this line of though, this goes into the specificities of believing this form of ending more thoroughly. In addition, the timelines present in Post 6046 makes this easier to visualise.

I don't understand your logic for the bolded. What makes the accepted timeline special that there is a paradox but the declined timeline not have a paradox? In either case, it is a paradox because he will have died before choosing.

The credits were fun. Nice music. Nice messages from Irrational staff too. Nice behind the sceenes video as well. No idea why you'd skip.

I browsed GAF (mostly this thread) and let it play out.

...it was also the middle of the night, so I had little else to do,

You also see a stressed looking Ken which made me sad lol Liz's voice actress is still gorgeous though.

 

[Teggy]

If the Handymen are just guys in metal suits, how come their heads are twice the size of normal people?

 

[Korey]

The post credits scene occurs because Elizabeth creates a paradox. Because of this paradox, rejecting the baptism becomes a constant, which means Booker can never accept the baptism because if, in even a single universe out of an infinite, Booker accepts the baptism, it means he will have died before the baptism occured. The paradox Elizabeth creates prevents the possibility of Booker ever accepting and thus we see Booker rejecting the baptism. Because he always rejects the baptism, Comstock never exists and can never interfere and the Luteces are never trapped in the probability space. Along this line of though, this goes into the specificities of believing this form of ending more thoroughly. In addition, the timelines present in Post 6046 makes this easier to visualise.

They specifically say that he's drowned before the choice is made. He never accepts or rejects the baptism because he's not alive to do it. In all universes (where there would have been a potential baptism involved), Booker DeWitt dies at the age of 20-something.

 

[SoulUnison]

I was just watching my brother play, and I noticed that one of the lady says "Annabel, is that you?" KEN WAS HINTING!

I thought this was even cuter because it's kind of a combination of "Anna" (Harhar, forshadowing,) and "Belle" (the Disney princess, who Elizabeth takes some design and animation cues from.)

 

[Sorian]

They specifically say that he's drowned before the choice is made. He never accepts or rejects the baptism because he's not alive to do it. In all universes (where there would have been a potential baptism involved), Booker DeWitt dies at the age of 20-something.

And promptly burns in hell if you believe that sort of thing. I liked the Booker I used in the game, still doesn't erase the fact that he was and is a terrible human being.

 

[ultron87]

The credits were fun. Nice music. Nice messages from Irrational staff too. Nice behind the sceenes video as well. No idea why you'd skip.

I browsed GAF (mostly this thread) and let it play out.

...it was also the middle of the night, so I had little else to do,

It wasn't really intentional. I have a strange fascination with testing what people decide is the threshold for when to skip stuff. A lot of credits require you to hit start st least. Strange that these are on a hair trigger like just tapping A especially if it skips the thing afterwards as well.

 

[Noray]

They specifically say that he's drowned before the choice is made. He never accepts or rejects the baptism because he's not alive to do it. In all universes (where there would have been a potential baptism involved), Booker DeWitt dies at the age of 20-something.

"The choice" can mean two things though: either the choice to get baptised at all (or not), or more specifically the choice to get baptised. I think it's intentionally ambiguous.

 

[MaximumFlipFlop]

I'm note sure if it's a joke due to the spelling which may suggest it's satrical in nature but in the event that it's not, when somebody crosses into another universe two things happen, the first is that they remember everything the other version of themselves did up to the point that they cross over. However, memories already exist in these locations. As a result, the memories conflict with one another and lead to both sets of memories becoming corrupted, suppressed, and or erased. Secondly, when one crosses over, to fill in the gaps left from this conflict, memories are created around important events. When somebody tries to remember something from before they crossed over an incredibly powerful cognitive dissonance occurs resulting in physical reactions, because different memories are conflicting with each other.

Simply. Stunning.
Incredible.

Bookmarking, screenshotting, youtubing, copy/pasting this mothafuckin post.

Revealing, well worded, above all, breathe taking. I will never forget this post.


Light clapping accompanied by an extremely light mist of tears.

 

[clav]

They specifically say that he's drowned before the choice is made. He never accepts or rejects the baptism because he's not alive to do it. In all universes (where there would have been a potential baptism involved), Booker DeWitt dies at the age of 20-something.

Then what was the point of the end credits?

Just to troll?

 

[The One Who Knocks]

I don't understand your logic for the bolded. What makes the accepted timeline special that there is a paradox but the declined timeline not have a paradox? In either case, it is a paradox because he will have died before choosing.

No.

See the red chain of events? They are a paradox. The paradox only exists because Comstock has the possibility of existing. The blue line has no paradox in it, the only paradoxical choice relies upon the existence of the first branch. Basically, Elizabeth murders every Booker before Anna is conceived. Elizabeth only exists and becomes omnipotent if Comstock exists. Without Comstock, Elizabeth cannot murder every Booker. If Comstock ever exists, it creates a paradox. A destruction resolution to a paradox is when they universe is simply destroyed to prevent the paradox. As EatChildren called it, a 'mini Big Bang' of sorts. A practical example of a destruction resolution is if you put a microphone to a speaker and make it so the speaker amplifies the volume and shout into it. A looping paradox forms, the microphone submits the noise, the speaker makes it louder and it goes into the microphone, the microphone then submits the noise to the speaker at the new, increased volume and the speaker outputs it higher, which the microphone submits the increased volume to the speaker which outputs it higher and so on. In reality, it doesn't go on infinitely, the noise infinitely increasing, feedback occurs and, if it isn't removed, the speaker is destroyed (it blows).

The upper, red fork, leads to the looping paradox and a paradox is not a probability. so the upper, red fork is no longer an option and Booker rejecting the baptism turns into a constant to avoid the paradox.

EDIT: In one line, the acception fork is destroyed in a feedback loop. The feedback loop is visible in EatChildren's timeline which shows the time loop.

They specifically say that he's drowned before the choice is made. He never accepts or rejects the baptism because he's not alive to do it. In all universes (where there would have been a potential baptism involved), Booker DeWitt dies at the age of 20-something.

Exactly, that's why the paradox works in creating the constant rejection at the baptism.

EDIT:

everyone gets my name wrong

Sorry .

EDIT: Bioshock Spoiler Thread: The Questions are Constant, The Answers are Variable.

 

[Sorian]

Then what was the point of the end credits?

Just to troll?

To appease 2K and their meddling, just like he had to do with the ending of Bioshock 1.

"The choice" can mean two things though: either the choice to get baptised at all (or not), or more specifically the choice to get baptised. I think it's intentionally ambiguous.

I'd agree with you except the quote is "before the choice is made" There is no question there, she drowns him before the choice is made. Clean cut and simple.

 

[Neiteio]

They specifically say that he's drowned before the choice is made. He never accepts or rejects the baptism because he's not alive to do it. In all universes (where there would have been a potential baptism involved), Booker DeWitt dies at the age of 20-something.

Really? I thought they went back to the moment before baptism, in the timeline where he'd choose to -accept- the baptism. And he did accept baptism -- only this time Elizabeth was there to drown him. So the unbaptised timeline can still persist, no?

And promptly burns in hell if you believe that sort of thing. I liked the Booker I used in the game, still doesn't erase the fact that he was and is a terrible human being.

He did horrible things. But with time, the unbaptised Booker came to regret them and wish he'd done differently. It's called the grey area of life. (Which is why a black and white afterlife never made sense, but that's religion for you!)

 

[NawidA]

I asked it before but why are constants constants and why are variables variables? Why isn't everything a variable?

 

[zkylon]

now that I think about it, I thought it was very fitting that comstock, booker and songbird all die of drowning when you think that in a parallel future the alternate version of themselves live in underwater rapture of all places.

Zyklon

everyone gets my name wrong

 

[Sorian]

Really? I thought they went back to the moment before baptism, in the timeline where he'd choose to -accept- the baptism. And he did accept baptism -- only this time Elizabeth was there to drown him. So the unbaptised timeline can still persist, no?


He did horrible things. But with time, the unbaptised Booker came to regret them and wish he'd done differently. It's called the grey area of life. (Which is why a black and white afterlife never made sense, but that's religion for you!)

To the top part, no, that is not my interpretation. My interpretation is that she brings him to a timeline that is unwritten, he may accept, he may not. She then drowns him there because that eliminates all forks in the road, including any possible Comstocks.

To the bottom part, I know he regretted (sometimes even instantly) but he was kind of a monster when it comes down to it.

 

[Sorian]

I asked it before but why are constants constants and why are variables variables? Why isn't everything a variable?

To make writing the story easier, I'd presume. Technically, everything should be a variable, but then the story would have plot holes. The baptism has to be a constant so that Elizabeth can work here magic there.

 

[Remy]

Might as well just pick a page and start reading Yoshi, like I told someone else earlier today, this thread is just an infinite loop of the same ideas over and over again. That guy said it worked and he started on page 88 (I assume on a 50 page count setting).

There's always a question about the necklace choice.
Always a post wondering about the timeline.
Always confusion about the Luteces.

 

[Sorian]

There's always a question about the necklace choice.
Always a post wondering about the timeline.
Always confusion about the Luteces.

Good man! I snuck that in there hoping for a quote and you didn't disappoint in your response either

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Might as well just pick a page and start reading Yoshi, like I told someone else earlier today, this thread is just an infinite loop of the same ideas over and over again. That guy said it worked and he started on page 88 (I assume on a 50 page count setting).

Haha, we have closed all paradoxes and now are doomed to repeat this one infinite circuit.

 

[beastmode]

I asked it before but why are constants constants and why are variables variables? Why isn't everything a variable?

Or something

 

[Korey]

Really? I thought they went back to the moment before baptism, in the timeline where he'd choose to -accept- the baptism. And he did accept baptism -- only this time Elizabeth was there to drown him. So the unbaptised timeline can still persist, no?

The game heavily implies that the "choice" was made precisely at the moment of baptism, when Booker gets cold feet and decides not to go through with it. But even if this weren't the case, and he "decided" a couple of minutes ago or whatever, it doesn't matter. They drown him before he chooses.

I asked it before but why are constants constants and why are variables variables? Why isn't everything a variable?

Constants are things like coin flips. The outcome is always the same because there's no choice involved. Variables are the choices, like choosing the brooch for Liz.

 

[Yoshichan]

What does the difficulty name "1999" refer to? System Shock?

 

[Zeliard]

Haha, we have closed all paradoxes and now are doomed to repeat this one infinite circuit.

Aww, no controversies?

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

The game heavily implies that the "choice" was made precisely at the moment of baptism, when Booker gets cold feet and decides not to go through with it. But even if this weren't the case, and he "decided" a couple of minutes ago or whatever, it doesn't matter. They drown him before he chooses.

Yeah it's the only way to remove every possible Comstock future.

 

[zkylon]

What does the difficulty name "1999" refer to? System Shock?

system shock 2

 

[Neiteio]

Here's the thing that's confusing:

We're dealing with two timelines, baptised Booker and unbaptised Booker.

Thing is, in any one timeline, he only made one decision.

Yet timelines for two decisions exist.

So Elizabeth can go and drown Booker and prevent future timelines from happening.

But it wouldn't prevent anything, because if a timeline exists for every -possible- choice, then there would be a timeline where Elizabeth brought Booker to the baptismal font -- and didn't drown him.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Aww, no controversies?

There are some pretty good controversies but the only one that has weight on both sides for me is Booker dying at each moment we wake up in the office / Were playing the one Booker who makes it all the way through.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

Here's the thing that's confusing:

We're dealing with two timelines, baptised Booker and unbaptised Booker.

Thing is, in any one timeline, he only made one decision.

Yet timelines for two decisions exist.

So Elizabeth can go and drown Booker and prevent future timelines from happening.

But it wouldn't prevent anything, because if a timeline exists for every -possible- choice, then there would be a timeline where Elizabeth brought Booker to the baptismal font -- and didn't drown him.

There cannot coexist sets of universes in which Booker fails and Booker succeeds, they're mutually exclusive and the 'succeed' version will always exist over the 'failure universe'. Why can't this be? Because Elizabeth can see all of the doors. If she can see every single infinite set where Booker and Comstock attend the baptism, she strangles Booker before the choice in every single timelines, even timelines where Booker fails. That means that if Booker succeeds even a single time, every other universe in which Comstock and Booker exists becomes a loop, a paradox.

 

[Yoshichan]

system shock 2

Well, that's pretty dumb :lol

 

[sappyday]

I just started my second playthrough (1999 Mode) and reached the part where some random lady calls Elizabeth "Annabelle." lol what a cocktease but these type of moments make a second playthrough much more enjoyable.

 

[Metroidvania]

Here's the thing that's confusing:

We're dealing with two timelines, baptised Booker and unbaptised Booker.

Thing is, in any one timeline, he only made one decision.

Yet timelines for two decisions exist.

So Elizabeth can go and drown Booker and prevent future timelines from happening.

But it wouldn't prevent anything, because if a timeline exists for every -possible- choice, then there would be a timeline where Elizabeth brought Booker to the baptismal font -- and didn't drown him.

The basic 'premise' behind getting around that arugment is that since our Liz is a Time Lord, she and her incarnations who have reached the same level of tear ability are able to see the potential devastation she can cause, and will thus always choose to prevent such a future from happening due to Comstock taking her from Booker.

 

[Dance Inferno]

Just finished the game, damn that story took some pretty weird turns towards the end. I had to go through this thread and find the post with all the timelines to finally understand what was going on. I have no idea how Ken Levine came up with this crazy story but I loved every second of it.

 

[Sorian]

Here's the thing that's confusing:

We're dealing with two timelines, baptised Booker and unbaptised Booker.

Thing is, in any one timeline, he only made one decision.

Yet timelines for two decisions exist.

So Elizabeth can go and drown Booker and prevent future timelines from happening.

But it wouldn't prevent anything, because if a timeline exists for every -possible- choice, then there would be a timeline where Elizabeth brought Booker to the baptismal font -- and didn't drown him.

*mind blown*

....

Not really but I hadn't thought about it before. To be honest though, after the siphon is destroyed, Elizabeth does not follow the rules of the universe any more. If she makes a decision, there is no splitting universe at that point, whatever she does it a constant.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Well, that's pretty dumb :lol

Why? SS2 is Irrational first game,

 

[B33]

I felt like he wasn't all that omnipresent though, just a conversational topic that came up every now and then. While you can interpret that as omnipresence, I didn't feel like it was. Of course, I'd assume Songbird would be searching for Elizabeth constantly instead of just appearing when he's called. Even if there was overheard dialogue from other characters saying "You seen the bird? He flies by every day like he's searching for something". That translates more to his character than "Oh he's a thing to be called"

It's implied that The Songbird is indeed constantly searching for Elizabeth throughout the principal set of events in BioShock Infinite.

Just because you don't explicitly see it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Comstock used The Songbird as a means to guard Elizabeth from the "false shepherd" as he vetted her to cede him because he wouldn't be able to live to accomplish his aspirations. There are many allusions and references made to The Songbird. He's an important character. I think he's present just enough, but you're entitled to disagree.

I think that such criticisms engender constructive thoughts for future endeavors.

 

[Zeliard]

There are some pretty good controversies but the only one that has weight on both sides for me is Booker dying at each moment we wake up in the office / Were playing the one Booker who makes it all the way through.

With an infinite set of possibilities then presumably a variation of Booker dies at every possible point along the journey through Columbia.

 

[Sorian]

Just finished the game, damn that story took some pretty weird turns towards the end. I had to go through this thread and find the post with all the timelines to finally understand what was going on. I have no idea how Ken Levine came up with this crazy story but I loved every second of it.

Welcome to the party! Cocktail? We have plenty of bucking brono left and our finest bottle of devil's kiss still remains unopen.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

With an infinite set of possibilities then presumably a variation of Booker dies at every possible point along the journey through Columbia.

That is definitely established what isn't is if Booker 123 is the last Booker to die or if by the time we reach the end were on Booker 129 or more.

Still can't stop thinking about this game. My mind just wanders to Booker and Elizabeth every second it can.

I am starting to think it might be the most impressive story I have ever gone through in a game because like all well thought out and well executed narratives it only gets better the more details you uncover. Playing through the game again and it's just a gold mine of details for you to connect together. It's very impressive what Levine pulled off.

 

[Neiteio]

The basic 'premise' behind getting around that arugment is that since our Liz is a Time Lord, she and her incarnations who have reached the same level of tear ability are able to see the potential devastation she can cause, and will thus always choose to prevent such a future from happening due to Comstock taking her from Booker.

So you're essentially saying Elizabeth's actions don't cause timelines where she does something differently.

That's kind of a cop-out, imo, a deus ex machina. If she's still human on any level, what she does would create an alternate timeline where she doesn't. Trying to remove herself from existence to negate the whole sequence of events in the first place wouldn't work, for she could never not exist. The whole "was, is, will be" deal. Even if she "is not" or "no longer," she still "was." And so a timeline crops up to accomodate that -- and every possibility for everything she does, and doesn't do.

Which would include bringing Booker to baptism, but NOT killing him... No?

 

[Sorian]

That is definitely established what isn't is if Booker 123 is the last Booker to die or if by the time we reach the end were on Booker 129 or more.

Still can't stop thinking about this game. My mind just wanders to Booker and Elizabeth every second it can.

I am starting to think it might be the most impressive story I have ever gone through in a game because like all well thought out and well executed narratives it only gets better the more details you uncover. Playing through the game again and it's just a gold mine of details for you to connect together. It's very impressive what Levine pulled off.

Well we are at least Booker 124 or 125 (depending on if you believe the songbird throwing through the window near the end was also a death), with 124 being songbird drowning you after finding Liz. Then of course you are Booker-XXX depending on how many times you died without Liz around.

So you're essentially saying Elizabeth's actions don't cause timelines where she does something diferently.

That's kind of a cop-out, imo, a deus ex machina. If she's still human on any level, what she does would create an alternate timeline where she doesn't. Trying to remove herself from existence to negate the whole sequence of events in the first place wouldn't work, for she could never not exist. The whole "was, is, will be" deal. Even if she "is not" or "no longer," she still "was." And so a timeline crops up to accomodate that -- and every possibility for everything she does, and doesn't do.

Which would include bringing Booker to baptism, but NOT killing him... No?

If you want to see it as a cop-out then that is fine but I believe that is the implication of her having full control of her power.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Well we are at least Booker 124 or 125 (depending on if you believe the songbird throwing through the window near the end was also a death), with 124 being songbird drowning you after finding Liz. Then of course you are Booker-XXX depending on how many times you died without Liz around.

Which was a lot in my case....Poor bastard

 

[Dance Inferno]

Welcome to the party! Cocktail? We have plenty of bucking brono left and our finest bottle of devil's kiss still remains unopen.

Haha yeah I plan to go through the past few pages to see what kinds of discussions are happening. I guess my main question at this point is, are the Luteces the game's main driving force? They were killed by Comstock and got stuck in the timeline, so as revenge they basically found a way to get Booker into Comstock's universe in order to find Elizabeth, destroy the tower to grant Elizabeth timeline omnipotence, and then kill all the Bookers who accepted the baptism?

 

[Korey]

I just now realized what the title of the game Bioshock Infinite meant. Holy shit.

 

[Neiteio]

If you want to see it as a cop-out then that is fine but I believe that is the implication of her having full control of her power.

My take is, she tried to negate every possible reality where Booker would exist... But because of the problem I outlined in my last couple posts, she failed to truly do so... Which is what I believe the post-credits sequence suggests.

At the end of the day, as Lutece said, time is an ocean, not a river, and you can't change its tide. But the takeaway is what we learned about human nature seeing Booker and Elizabeth try to do just that.

 

[Sorian]

Haha yeah I plan to go through the past few pages to see what kinds of discussions are happening. I guess my main question at this point is, are the Luteces the game's main driving force? They were killed by Comstock and got stuck in the timeline, so as revenge they basically found a way to get Booker into Comstock's universe in order to find Elizabeth, destroy the tower to grant Elizabeth timeline omnipotence, and then kill all the Bookers who accepted the baptism?

Got it in one, the only point I would nit pick is they didn't do it for revenge. A diary midway through the game says that the male twin felt that the muddling in space-time was wrong and that they should undo everything they have done. He offered his other self an ultimatum that she would help or never see him again and she accepted.

 

[Zeliard]

I absolutely loved how the scene where the Songbird reclaims Elizabeth and she reaches for you while crying mirrors the scene where she's taken through the tear as a baby.

I love so much about this game.

;_;