Support NeoGAF

[SpacePirate Ridley]

So I finished the game yesterday, was in the Fink industries part when I started at 10pm, anf finished at 6am lol. What a fantastic and ming provoking ending. The best thing of all is reading all this thread today and cacthing the small details I could have past in my game. Absolutely fantastic and without a doubt my game of the generation and one my favourite games ever.

Im sorry of some of the quotes are form 50 pages ago lol

I don't think you need to connect Rapture as another version of the Elizabeth/Booker/Comstock story in a literal sense; it's just the same ideas playing out in a very different fashion. There's hundreds of different versions of Columbia split by decisions and such, but there's probably also hundreds of different versions of Rapture playing out with different Jacks and Ryans.

Perhaps it's the case that this story is bound to repeat over and over again, but only in that sort of vague way - it won't be Columbia again, or Rapture again, but another would-be Utopia at another time, with those vague elements playing out again, rippling through the timelines.

Even with the loop closed, within that loop there's still a thousand different versions of that story playing out in a thousand different places, I think. Somewhere, in space, in the year 2500, there's a Mass Effect style Comstock/Ryan fighting a helmeted space marine Jack/Booker, and one in WW2, perhaps, and so on and so forth. It can be this rip in space time that permeates everything. The loop is closed, but the loop is also still going on within the loop, forever, because, well, it's a loop. What Elizabeth did, I think, stopped it from ever growing any larger, as it was getting more and more dangerous and leaking into more and more worlds by the moment.

As far as the connection between the games go, I think it makes it pretty clear that a lot of Columbia is borrowing directly from Rapture, so in that sense even though Columbia predates it, Rapture came 'first.' Fink talks in an audio log about observing a brilliant Biologist through a tear in order to create Vigors; what's the betting he was observing the people who created Plasmids? I feel that's likely, somehow, given the similarities between the worlds. I feel like through that connection Fink could've been taking from Big Daddies for Handimen and Songbird, too.

Of course, the viewing of Rapture would never have happened of Letuce hadn't opened the tears in the first place... so it's complex. Wibbly wobbly timey wimey, as another time manipulator would say...

Yes, ive seen people in this thread that still think that Columbia is in the same timeline that Rapture, and thats probably not the case. Yeah, as the time we know (like real time events we have experienced with similar art, architecture, people...), one ocurred in 1912 and the other in the 1950's, so its would seem plausible that they are in the same timeline, when thats really not the case. They are totally different universes from the lighthouses multiverse, after Columbia there is no Rapture and before Rapture there is no Columbia. The only similar thing is that this two universes seem to be build from a similar timeline as our universe (to facilatate the assimilation of topics, like presidents, racial history, countries... during the game), I will call it Earth Prime, like in DC universe. That means the Paris and New York we see during the game are not part of the "real" world as we know it (things like Revenge of the Jedi in the french cinema marquee tells you is only a parallel universe that looks a lot like our one, as Revenge of the Jedi was the original name of Return of the Jedi, but is not exactly the same, and this universe has a floating city called Columbia). Rapture is basically the same, an Earth that looked similar to ours, but that im pretty sure had also some differences. So we would have like Earth-Columbia and Earth-Rapture, that are two different universes, and as the lighthouse thing goes we could have also Earth-Animal City (where the characters are talking animals) or Earth-Alien City (were characters dont look anything like humans), etc... Thats why one universe can happen in 1912 and the other in 1950 and only interact by the tears, they all have similarities (the city, the man, the "big daddies", etc...) but some would have more differences than others, thats why there are also other universes that look a lot like Columbia BUT still with some differences.

Its the typycal multiverse theory, basically.

Last time I was so affected by an ending was Mass Effect 3, and that was for all the wrong reasons. Fuck the haters, the Sessler review did not gush at all. He hit everything spot on.

THIS, Just watched the sessler review and is spot on, at least of how I feel right now. Its so well crafted from beggining to end that the details, the characters, the society, the worl is what makes the story amazing at the end. It all works like the gears of a giant clock.

Lol, this was done by a friend of mine. Told to him Liz didnt have those bouncing tits anymore. He hasnt still played the game and that pose is taken from the first gameplay trailer they showed.

Favorite set piece anyone? I mean for me I think it was the showdown with slate with the wounded knee and boxer rebellion galleries. So well done.

All the game is absolutely fantatsic, but one of my more fond places in the game is without a doubt Battleship Bay and the Hall of Heroes Amussement Park. Im a huge fan of Disneyland and the americana architecture Walt made for Main Street USA, so yeah, its starts the game, and the trailers, and you already think the game is trying to emulate that, but is not until you arrive to the Hall of Heores when you see that ken Levine understands perfectly the vibe of Main Street USA at Disneyland (in a positive sense) and how a zealot guy like Comstock could have made a twisted version of it (for example Main Street USA was built by Walt to remember fond memories of the past, of the innocence parts of the american culture, while Comstock build something similar but twsited to make the kids think about hating other cultures and go to the army to fight for the prophet and the lamb when they grow up). Its interesting that it accomplishes perfectly what Warren Spector tried with Epic Mickey (and where he fails miserably) and perfect captures the sense of being on a twisted Disneyland. You can see that Levine is a huge fan also with all the details you see at the Hall of Heroes Main Street (the ice cream parlors, the map that is actually in the same colors as the first disneyland maps that were done and has a very similar distribution, the mechanized Patriots (Lincoln animatronic at Disneyland), the park model in one of the first buildings, just like you had it the first years of Disneyland, etc...).
Then (well, before) you have Battleship Bay, thats is a tribute to the Coney Island Amusement Parks like Steeplechase Park (the huge shark faces are very similar to the entrance of that park), Luna Park and Dreamland (the architecture is very similar to those), and all those parks were really famous during 1912, just at the same time Infinite takes place.
Really interesting that Levine captured perfectly the feeling of those types of parks in that part of the game.

 

[Zeliard]

I've been using a screenshot of all the Elizabeths/Annas staring at Booker as a wallpaper, but I think I need to change it. Luckily the end of this game is a wallpaper factory.

Lots of cool scenes in the later portions.



























Click for 1920x1200

 

[Voice of Reason]

If every Booker in the probability space rejects, Booker can never sell Anna so Elizabeth never is able to murder Booker before the choice. The first instance is a paradox but it also becomes a certainty.

As in:
If a single Booker accepts, there is a one hundred percent probability that a paradox is created in which every Booker is drowned. Nothing can be done to stop the paradox if Booker is able to accept.
If every Booker rejects there is a one hundred percent probability that the paradox never occurs.

To avoid the paradox, Booker rejecting turns into a constant.

EDIT: See:

This is where I lose you. How can he reject when the baptism event is deleted by him getting drowned before the choice?

 

[Neiteio]

No, there is. The paradox only occurs when Booker accepts. If Booker never ever accepts, ever, Booker can never be drowned before the baptism. Every Booker only drowns before the baptism when any Booker accepts. As a result, Booker can never reject. The rejection becomes a constant to prevent a paradox.



No. She creates a paradox by murdering all Bookers before the choice. Every Booker is murdered by Elizabeth before a choice. Elizabeth can only exist (Elizabeth, as in, omnipotent Elizabeth) if Comstock exists. If every single Booker doesn't accept the baptism, Booker never dies, because Elizabeth never exists to kill him. If any Booker accepts baptism, every Booker dies. Every Booker dying by his daughter before her conception is a paradox and to avoid this paradox Booker must reject. The rejection becomes a constant so the paradox never happens. Thus in the after credits scene an infinite set of Bookers are alive with Anna.

Thank you for this and your subsequent explanations. I think you're offering the most coherent explanation so far, and the one that allows for the most satisfying outcome.

 

[PaulloDEC]

I'm still 99% sure "before the the choice" is referring to the decision of refusing or going through with the baptism. She makes it very clear. Thus, "before the choice is made" is clear. He never gets to refuse the baptism because he's dead by then.

It also begs the question of why you'd kill Booker before he chooses rather than after.

Imagine you're told that in five minutes, a man is going to do one of two things: he's going to dunk his head underwater, or he's going to run away. You're told that if he runs away, don't worry about it. You're also told that if he dunks his head, he'll later become a monster. Your mission is to prevent him from becoming a monster.

What do you do? Do you run up and drown him before he does anything, thus risking killing an innocent man? Or do you wait until his head is under the water and never let him surface?

If we accept that the Elizabeth kills Booker before his choice, not only do we make nonsense of the post-credits scene, but we also assume that Elizabeth is erasing the "good" Booker totally needlessly.

 

[Korey]

This is true, but if Booker dies, and that does in fact stop all bookers from existing past Wounded Knee, there's no way for the post-credits scene to exist as we know it. The paradox discussion allows for both.



Right, but if Liz does kill you before the choice occurs, this only happens because Booker was given the choice. If he's not allowed to make the choice due to Liz killing him, it's impossible for Liz to exist to kill him in the first place.



Essentially correct. Elizabeth only exists if the baptism event occurs as a choice, since this will split off into Booker and Comstock. But if she kills Booker before the choice is ever made to become Comstock, it's impossible for her to have killed Booker in the first place, because negating the choice also negates her ever existing as Elizabeth because Comstock never took her, and she never then generated any tear abilities.

Once again, no. She drowns him before the choice, this is, absolutely, one hundred percent, true. Every Booker is drowned by Elizabeth before the baptism. HOWEVER, this is a paradox. This paradox can only occur if Booker was able to accept the baptism in the first place. Simply, ignoring the infinite sets that exist, Booker accepting the baptism means Comstock would exist which means that rejection Bookers sell Anna to Comstock which means that Elizabeth murders both Bookers. If every Booker in the probability space rejects, Booker can never sell Anna so Elizabeth never is able to murder Booker before the choice. The first instance is a paradox but it also becomes a certainty.

As in:
If a single Booker accepts, there is a one hundred percent probability that a paradox is created in which every Booker is drowned. Nothing can be done to stop the paradox if Booker is able to accept.
If every Booker rejects there is a one hundred percent probability that the paradox never occurs.

To avoid the paradox, Booker rejecting turns into a constant.

EDIT: See:

There is no paradox. Stop talking about it.

Elizabeth doesn't exist anymore, nor does Comstock, nor a 40 year old Booker. That was the point of her disappearing one by one at the end.

By drowning Booker, nothing happens in the future involving them. All three are now non-existent. That's the point of the ending.

It also begs the question of why you'd kill Booker before he chooses rather than after.

Imagine you're told that in five minutes, a man is going to do one of two things: he's going to dunk his head underwater, or he's going to run away. You're told that if he runs away, don't worry about it. You're also told that if he dunks his head, he'll later become a monster. Your mission is to prevent him from becoming a monster.

What do you do? Do you run up and drown him before he does anything, thus risking killing an innocent man? Or do you wait until his head is under the water and never let him surface?

If we accept that the Elizabeth kills Booker before his choice, not only do we make nonsense of the post-credits scene, but we also assume that Elizabeth is erasing the "good" Booker totally needlessly.

You're right, you should probably kill Comstock after he chooses to be Comstock, but it's possible they didn't want any variables to be possible. In any case, what we think she should've done doesn't matter, only what's said and shown.

 

[Yoshichan]

Oh shit!

Saw this as I was going through the thread! Laughed my ass off :lol

 

[zkylon]

got a question.

are the two people in the boat at the beginning the luteces? the male rower of them seems to be black but I can't really see.

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

Lots of cool scenes in the later portions.

Screenshots
Click for 1920x1200

I have done 1432 screenshots though all the game while playing, I was stoping in every corner to take a screen of a cool moment, some of the architecture or poster art, I also have a lot of screen of the story moments.

This games art is amazing. The use of lightning is just beautiful.

got a question.

are the two people in the boat at the beginning the luteces? the male rower of them seems to be black but I can't really see.

Yes

 

[bidguy]

There is no paradox. Stop talking about it.

Elizabeth doesn't exist anymore, nor does Comstock, nor a 40 year old Booker. That was the point of her disappearing one by one at the end.

By drowning Booker, nothing happens in the future involving them. All three are now non-existent. That's the point of the ending.

Explain the post credits scene please.

 

[Dead]

I really liked the idea of there always being, across all possible universes, some form of story of the Lighthouse, the City and a Man. Rapture and Columbia being just two of the possibly iterations of this story surely among thousands. It makes the setup for the Bio games into something very Mythic.

Also makes the parallel of the opening of Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite all the more awesome.

If you were to tie both games together...this was about as amazing a job as you could have done to do it.

 

[Berto]

Essentially correct. Elizabeth only exists if the baptism event occurs as a choice, since this will split off into Booker and Comstock. But if she kills Booker before the choice is ever made to become Comstock, it's impossible for her to have killed Booker in the first place, because negating the choice also negates her ever existing as Elizabeth because Comstock never took her, and she never then generated any tear abilities.

I don't know but I never saw those Elizabeths at the baptism as real people but more like a simbolism of the consequences Booker made at the baptism and a way to help the player understand the consequence of Booker decision to kill himself at the end (each one of them disapearing). Elizabeth in that scene doesn't have her necklace thingy on her neck so I assumed its not really her. For me Booker killed himself. I'm probably wrong though, as usual

 

[7he Talon]

got a question.

are the two people in the boat at the beginning the luteces? the male rower of them seems to be black but I can't really see.

Yes, it's the Luteces.

 

[EatChildren]

There is no paradox. Stop talking about it.

Elizabeth doesn't exist anymore, nor does Comstock, nor a 40 year old Booker. That was the point of her disappearing one by one at the end.

By drowning Booker, nothing happens in the future involving them. All three are now non-existent. That's the point of the ending.

The paradox is the universe existing in the first place. It's a circular chain of events. Future events are responsible for early events. That's the paradox, or what is perceived as a paradox, and why everybody is so interested in discussing this. Because time is only as linear as the person perceiving it. It's interesting to think in more abstract concepts of space/time. Even if Booker is drowned before the choice not a whole lot changes. The universe is still inherently paradoxal and circular.

 

[Metroidvania]

Alright, beat the game and didn't understand a bit of it after you open the first tear where you find chen lin. What page/link should I read to understand the game?

Page 88 has been thrown around as a good place to start.

This is where I lose you. How can he reject when the baptism event is deleted by him getting drowned before the choice?

The answer is reliant on how one views the universe's handling of paradoxes. Basically, as soon as Liz kills Booker before the choice has been made, it's literally impossible for her to exist. Therefore, it's impossible for her to kill him. This loop of non-logic creates a paradox.

However, this paradox happens because Booker has a 'choice' regarding the decision of being baptized. If he accepts, he then (apparently, according to the rules we are given) becomes Comstock, which is (apparently) a constant. Comstock is the one who takes Anna, thus creating a Liz with tear abilities.

Liz's capability to create a paradox is based on her having these tear abilities. If she never has them due to never being taken by Comstock, and stays Anna Dewitt, the paradox never occurs.

Thus, any Booker who does say yes in the 'choice' of the baptism is destined to create a similar feedback loop paradox by crossing through different universes to take different Annas to become Elizabeths, which will eventually cancel those universes out, creating another 'dead end' of those universal strands. Thus, the only Bookers that can be left outside of this feedback loop are the ones who rejected the baptism.

There is no paradox. Stop talking about it.

Elizabeth doesn't exist anymore, nor does Comstock, nor a 40 year old Booker. That was the point of her disappearing one by one at the end.

By drowning Booker, nothing happens in the future involving them. All three are now non-existent. That's the point of the ending.

This depends on your interpretation of Ken's intent as the author, obviously, but going by your logic, it's impossible for the post-credits scene to exist.

 

[zkylon]

Yes

Yes, it's the Luteces.

I'm just imagining the guy's black then, right? probably because of the lighting or something, because both times I've seen it, in the beginning and the end when it's made apparent they're the luteces, I've gotten that impression

edit: yeah just watched it again, it was the lighting that threw me off

 

[The One Who Knocks]

This is where I lose you. How can he reject when the baptism event is deleted by him getting drowned before the choice?

Ok, I'd hoped colour coding the paradoxical events would make it a bit easier but perhaps a different approach is needed. This is EatChildren's timeline.

That is the events we play through. Now, see the baptism at the end? That's the exact same as the beginning. The entire probability space is one gigantic loop, a paradox. Now, think of what needs to happen for Booker to be drowned by Elizabeth before making the choice.

For Elizabeth to murder every single Booker the probability must exist where: Booker must accept baptism and become Comstock -> Comstock must meet the Luteces -> Booker must become sterile -> Booker must buy Anna -> The Booker that sold Anna must meet Elizabeth -> Booker and Elizabeth must kill Comstock -> Elizabeth must be saved by Booker and the siphon destroyed -> Elizabeth must become a timelord to murder Booker -> Booker must accept baptism and become Comstock -> Comstock must meet the Luteces -> Booker must become sterile -> Booker must buy Anna -> The Booker that sold Anna must meet Elizabeth -> Booker and Elizabeth must kill Comstock -> Elizabeth must be saved by Booker and the siphon destroyed -> Elizabeth must become a timelord to murder Booker -> Booker must accept baptism and become Comstock -> Comstock must meet the Luteces -> Booker must become sterile -> Booker must buy Anna -> The Booker that sold Anna must meet Elizabeth -> Booker and Elizabeth must kill Comstock -> Elizabeth must be saved by Booker and the siphon destroyed -> Elizabeth must become a timelord to murder Booker -> Booker must accept baptism etc.

See? It all loops. It all becomes a paradox. If any Booker accepts, every Booker is already dead before the baptism but any Booker must accept so that every Booker is already dead. But a paradox, logically, can never occur, paradoxes are destroyed by feedback.

If not a single Booker accepts, nothing happens. Booker can never be drowned by Elizabeth because the paradox never occurs. To avoid the paradox, Booking rejecting must become a constant, because if he always rejects it, he can never have been drowned because timelord Elizabeth never exists.

EDIT:

I don't know but I never saw those Elizabeths at the baptism as real people but more like a simbolism of the consequences Booker made at the baptism and a way to help the player understand the consequence of Booker decision to kill himself at the end (each one of them disapearing). Elizabeth in that scene doesn't have her necklace thingy on her neck so I assumed its not really her. For me Booker killed himself. I'm probably wrong though, as usual

The problem with this is that if it wasn't symbolic of Booker being drowned by Elizabeth in every universe then no paradox ever occurs. Instead, every Booker always kills himself at the baptism. This would prevent the game's timeline to occuring, correct, but it would also prevent the post credit scene (unless it's another universe that was completely irrelevant up to this point and it means that Anna can exist without Booker rejecting the baptism which means that universe would occur regardless of what happened to the game; the game would have never had any effect on it no matter what happened).

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I have done 1432 screenshots though all the game while playing, I was stoping in every corner to take a screen of a cool moment, some of the architecture or poster art, I also have a lot of screen of the story moments.

This games art is amazing. The use of lightning is just beautiful.



Yes

One of the most gorgeous games ever easily.

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

So Ive got a shot of the post credits scene where the first thing you saw was a calendar with the date October 8th 1893
I dont know if its different to the date in some of the other offices cutscenes, but if it is, and its after it could be something important to note.
Maybe someone can look if they have a shot of the desk during other cutscenes to see if the date of the desk is different that the one in the last cutscene that is this:

 

[bidguy]

So Ive got a shot of the post credits scene where the first thing you saw was a calendar with the date October 8th 1893
I dont know if its different to the date in some of the other offices cutscenes, but if it is, and its after it could be something important to note.
Maybe someone can look if they have a shot of the desk during other cutscenes to see if the date of the desk is different that the one in the last cutscene that is this:

There is no calendar in the other scenes

 

[Neiteio]

People keep trying to ignore the post-credits sequence. You can't do that. You can't say it doesn't count because you think it was there to insert a happy ending. The fact is, it's there. Booker still exists, in some form, at the end of the game, after Elizabeth does what she did.

Also, Zeliard, those screens are awesome. POST MORE.

 

[antonz]

So the Letuces are the true Villians and Heroes here. Their tears got them into this mess. To amend, they realized that fixing the mistake that created the man thats having them do their crazy shit die would end it all.

Wow.

The Female Lutece seems to be the real villain with the male kind of caught up in it all. Female Lutece is obsessed with getting her "brother" after tinkering with tears and discovering he exists. This leads to her working with Comstock and being his vision supplier. She enables Comstock to become the bad guy out of the obsession to expand her research and to get her "brother."

The "brother" realizes the damage that has happened and the horrors that will happen but then both Luteces are atomized as they are a danger to Comstock. The Sister has the attitude that what has happened has happened and will happen again and again so that is that. A very much oh well life is what it is attitude.

Meanwhile Brother Lutece on the other hand has the view they can change the way things go. He has the theory that his sister finally acknowledges as working that booker brought into the world will make up memories to explain his situation etc. To top it off though he tells his sister they must fix what has been done or he will leave her alone forever.

So in the end the only reason Female Lutece even agrees to help fix everything is for selfish reasons.

 

[Korey]

Explain the post credits scene please.

Can't. It could be a mistake, a wink, a dream, or something else.

This depends on your interpretation of Ken's intent as the author, obviously, but going by your logic, it's impossible for the post-credits scene to exist.

I hope he clarifies someday, although he probably won't so that it remains "open to interpretation".

Also, I'm not making anything up, I'm going by what the game shows us. Of course it's fine to speculate and make up theories as to how things fit, but in my opinion the story is not as complicated as people want to make it. The timeline is complex of course, but the ending is a very simple idea. They all don't exist anymore and everything is fixed.

People keep trying to ignore the post-credits sequence. You can't do that. You can't say it doesn't count because you think it was there to insert a happy ending. The fact is, it's there. Booker still exists, in some form, at the end of the game, after Elizabeth does what she did.

Also, Zeliard, those screens are awesome. POST MORE.

Either the post credits scene is wrong, or what's said in the drowning scene is wrong. It's possible to fudge or liberally interpret the latter to make it fit, but yea.

 

[Metroidvania]

So Ive got a shot of the post credits scene where the first thing you saw was a calendar with the date October 8th 1893
I dont know if its different to the date in some of the other offices cutscenes, but if it is, and its after it could be something important to note.
Maybe someone can look if they have a shot of the desk during other cutscenes to see if the date of the desk is different that the one in the last cutscene that is this:

IIRC, it's the same date that Anna is taken by Male Lutece.

As Male Lutece is not present in the scene, it's suggested that either Anna may still be in her crib, implying that the universe has been 'reset' according to the paradox closing the loop argument....

OR that the loop is still continuing because Anna is not in the crib, implying the 'game' narrative is still occurring, and will happen all over again.

It's an Inception/Schrodinger's cat moment, because we are never given a yes or no answer on whether she is in the crib or not.

The Female Lutece seems to be the real villain with the male kind of caught up in it all. Female Lutece is obsessed with getting her "brother" after tinkering with tears and discovering he exists. This leads to her working with Comstock and being his vision supplier. She enables Comstock to become the bad guy out of the obsession to expand her research and to get her "brother."

They have very different world views on the nature of both the universe and men. Female Lutece simply doesn't care about the universe as a whole because she has a more nihilistic approach, while her male counterpart has a much more humane approach. She is interested in her brother because he's the only one who can really understand and converse with her on her level, and he just happened to be the counterpart she found through her tear research.

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

There is no calendar in the other scenes

Meh, I thought we could get something important out of it because the post credits scene starts with a zoom of the date.
Do we know maybe the exact date when Booker sells his baby to Comstock?

IIRC, it's the same date that Anna is taken by Male Lutece.

As Male Lutece is not present in the scene, it's suggested that either Anna may still be in her crib, implying that the universe has been 'reset' according to the paradox closing the loop argument....

OR that the loop is still continuing because Anna is not in the crib, implying the 'game' narrative is still occurring, and will happen all over again.

It's an Inception/Schrodinger's cat moment, because we are never given a yes or no answer on whether she is in the crib or not.

Well sounds interesting.
Just reading about the Schrodinger's cat right now, wow.

 

[DTKT]

Oh snap, Rosalind Lutece is voiced by Jennifer Hale. She did a pretty awesome job.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

People keep trying to ignore the post-credits sequence. You can't do that. You can't say it doesn't count because you think it was there to insert a happy ending. The fact is, it's there. Booker still exists, in some form, at the end of the game, after Elizabeth does what she did.

Also, Zeliard, those screens are awesome. POST MORE.

Well, we're sort of making the assumptions it is played chronologically after what just happened.

It could just be a slice of a reality. There's nothing explicitly saying when it happens.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

Nm

 

[XANDER CAGE]

People keep trying to ignore the post-credits sequence. You can't do that. You can't say it doesn't count because you think it was there to insert a happy ending. The fact is, it's there. Booker still exists, in some form, at the end of the game, after Elizabeth does what she did.

Dead, died, will die.

Assuming that the end-credits scene takes place linearly after the events of the game is sorta falling into the same trap Booker did.

 

[Neiteio]

Well, we're sort of making the assumptions it is played chronologically after what just happened.

It could just be a slice of a reality. There's nothing explicitly saying when it happens.

You can play that game with a lot of scenes in the narrative. I think it's implicit enough in its placement after the credits that it's authorial intent to show he's still around after the sequence of events in the game.

To Xander Cage above me: If you go with "dead, died, will die," this also shows Elizabeth achieved nothing, did she not? One big circle.

 

[Korey]

I'd like to open another possibility for the credits scene, and it's that Elizabeth/Booker weren't 100% correct or informed about how the universe would react to the drowning.

It's possible that the universe works different then they thought, and it reacted by creating a world resetting Booker at a point in time where he's at his apartment and Anna is in her crib.

This works a little better imo than ignoring what Elizabeth(s) said during the drowning scene.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

You can play that game with a lot of scenes in the narrative. I think it's implicit enough in its placement after the credits that it's authorial intent to show he's still around after the sequence of events in the game.

To Xander Cage above me: If you go with "dead, died, will die," this also shows Elizabeth achieved nothing, did she not? One big circle.

Then why is it still in that almost-black-and-white sepia tint?

 

[Metroidvania]

Well, we're sort of making the assumptions it is played chronologically after what just happened.

It could just be a slice of a reality. There's nothing explicitly saying when it happens.

Right, but there is something to note, that it's the same date on the calendar as when Male Lutece appeared to take Anna in exchange for the debt. In all of the other scenes we do see involving that date and the sale, he is present, at least through the door. His absence thus probably has significance.

While it could mean it's the time just before he appears to take Anna, Booker's 'worried' tone of Anna being present implies that it's more important. He may have had a deja vu moment of overlapping memories regarding the whole Infinite scenario, or he may have woken up just after the sale and realized what he'd done, implying that the 'narrative' is about to start over again.

We have no idea what exactly it means, but I rather doubt the post-game scene would be some random slice of life moment.

Dead, died, will die.

Assuming that the end-credits scene takes place linearly after the events of the game is sorta falling into the same trap Booker did.

Technically, it exists before the events of the game, due to its date. But again, dismissing a post-credits scene seems rather selective.

I'd like to open another possibility for the credits scene, and it's that Elizabeth/Booker weren't 100% correct or informed about how the universe would react to the drowning.

It's possible that the universe works different then they thought, and it reacted by creating a world resetting Booker at a point in time where he's at his apartment and Anna is in her crib.

This works a little better imo than ignoring what Elizabeth(s) said during the drowning scene.

But that's adding in additional information/intent regarding the way the universe operates that we have no knowledge in the same way the paradox argument operates.

It's all limited by what we experience through Booker's unreliable perception, and more importantly, how Ken chooses to limit what we can and cannot see.

edit: Plus, Liz says she can see 'every doorway', implying she can see the results of every decision. Granted, that might be limited by what her perception allows, but we have no knowledge on how expansive(or limiting) that is either.

 

[Hagi]

Beat the game, so fucking good. I'm slightly confused but i take that as a good thing can't say i've played many games that have left such a strong impression on me.

Think i shat myself when i opened the door to rapture.

 

[lastplayed]

Sorry if this has been asked, but if Comstock could see the future, wouldn't he see that bringing in Anna would lead to his downfall? His actions created her powers right, so why her? Why not a random baby from his own universe?

Seems like he was constantly paranoid about Booker coming in to get her (all those warnings about the false prophet). Stealing Anna seemed more trouble than it was worth.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Technically, it exists before the events of the game, due to its date. But again, dismissing a post-credits scene seems rather selective.

Huh? I've never dismissed it. I interpret it differently - or rather, at this point, I'm still mulling over how to interpret it.

 

[Korey]

But that's adding in additional information/intent regarding the way the universe operates that we have no knowledge in the same way the paradox argument operates.

It's all limited by what we experience through Booker's unreliable perception, and more importantly, how Ken chooses to limit what we can and cannot see.

Yea you're right

 

[The One Who Knocks]

I'd like to open another possibility for the credits scene, and it's that Elizabeth/Booker weren't 100% correct or informed about how the universe would react to the drowning.

It's possible that the universe works different then they thought, and it reacted by creating a world resetting Booker at a point in time where he's at his apartment and Anna is in her crib.

This works a little better imo than ignoring what Elizabeth(s) said during the drowning scene.

The paradox existence doesn't ignore what Elizabeth said, it concurrs with her. But, aside from that, resetting Booker to that point in time wouldn't do anything. The probability would still exist where Comstock would still exist, Anna would still be sold to Comstock to wipe away the debt, the Luteces would still help Booker save Anna, Elizabeth would still become omnipotent and murder all Bookers resetting him again.

Unless that's what you're suggesting, that the game's events just play out indefinitely as the universe 'respawns'? That isn't really implied anywhere else though, it doesn't reset the timeline as the Luteces wish and if it doesn't reset they're going to make another attempt to change things until they do reset correctly, since they exist in the probability space until the probability of them becoming trapped becomes non-existent.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Sorry if this has been asked, but if Comstock could see the future, wouldn't he see that bringing in Anna would lead to his downfall? His actions created her powers right, so why her? Why not a random baby from his own universe?

Seems like he was constantly paranoid about Booker coming in to get her (all those warnings about the false prophet). Stealing Anna seemed more trouble than it was worth.

He can't see the determined future, he can only see the possibilities of a future.

Also I guess he wants a child with his own blood, and make Elizabeth to his own image.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Sorry if this has been asked, but if Comstock could see the future, wouldn't he see that bringing in Anna would lead to his downfall? His actions created her powers right, so why her? Why not a random baby from his own universe?

Seems like he was constantly paranoid about Booker coming in to get her (all those warnings about the false prophet). Stealing Anna seemed more trouble than it was worth.

Because Elizabeth/Anna told him everything he needed to hear to make this time loop happen.

 

[PaulloDEC]

Ignore.

 

[Metroidvania]

Huh? I've never dismissed it. I interpret it differently - or rather, at this point, I'm still mulling over how to interpret it.

Sorry, misphrased.

What I meant was that dismissing the event as possibly being still 'inside' the loop of the main narrative seems slightly odd to me, given its nature of appearing after the credits, including what Liz had done to erase any chance of Anna existing by killing all Bookers (if you take changes to the timeline as being cyclical/instantaneous due to Liz going back to the baptism event), yet Booker is still calling for Anna in the post-credits scene.

Seems moreso to me that it's 'outside' after the loop, but it's certainly up for debate, given its tint and relatively non-descriptive information.

 

[Continuity]

Sup gaf, I'm looking for a good quality screenshot of the final scene right after Elizabeth drowns Booker. Basically right before all the Elizabeth incarnations start disappearing.

Many thanks

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I was under the impression that Comstock could not see any futures and it was the Archangel (older Elizabeth) that gave him his "prophecies."

 

[PaulloDEC]

I decided to try and compare the two baptism scenes (The first, where Booker flees against the second, where the Elizabeths drowns Booker) more carefully, specifically the Preacher's sermon and the point at which Booker takes action.

Here's the first:

Preacher: "Are you ready to be born again?"
Booker: "I am."
Preacher: "Do you hate your sins?"
Booker: "I do."
Preacher: "Do you hate your wickedness?"
Booker: "Yes."
Preacher: "Do you want to clean the slate, leave behind all you were before and be born again in the blood of the lamb?"
Booker: "Yes."
Preacher: "Jesus, wash this man clean!"
Booker: "Wait."
Preacher: "Father, make him born again-"
Booker: "Stop it!"
Preacher: "Lord- *to Booker* What are you doing?"
Booker: "S-Stop it! Get... Get off me! Get off!"

And here's the second:

Preacher: "Booker DeWitt, are you ready to be born again? Are you ready to be cleansed of your sins? Are you ready to leave behind all that has gone before, wipe the slate clean and start anew, washed in the blood of the lamb? Do you hate your sins? Do you hate your wickedness? Jesus, wash this man clean! Make him born again... *indistinct* And what name will you take, my son?"
Elizabeth (to Booker's right): "He's Zachary Comstock."
Elizabeth (to Booker's left): "He's Booker DeWitt."
Booker: "No. ...I'm both."
*The Elizabeths push Booker under the water. He drowns.*

The problem is that the two scenes are slightly different right from the get-go. The Preacher's sermon is completely jumbled the second time around, and we don't get any of Booker's interaction either.

If the speech was the same both times, I'd probably have said that the drowning happened *after* Booker's choice, simply because based on the way the speech plays out, he'd already have fled before it could happen (Booker's turning point occurs immediately after the line "Jesus, wash this man clean!", which passes Booker by with no reaction in the second scenario).

The changes to the speech just make things more confusing.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Sorry, misphrased.

What I meant was that dismissing the event as possibly being still 'inside' the loop of the main narrative seems slightly odd to me, given its nature of appearing after the credits, including what Liz had done to erase any chance of Anna existing by killing all Bookers (if you take changes to the timeline as being cyclical/instantaneous due to Liz going back to the baptism event), yet Booker is still calling for Anna in the post-credits scene.

Seems moreso to me that it's 'outside' after the loop, but it's certainly up for debate, given its tint and relatively non-descriptive information.

The way that I interpret is we saw the closure of a two timelines, one of Booker DeWitt and Comstock that resulted in the clusterfuck situation in BioShock Infinite. That story has come to an end.

But what's there to say that there aren't other DeWitts and Comstocks? One where DeWitt's wife survived the childbirth, one where Comstock doesn't meet Lucete. There are infinite possibilities.

So what we saw is a Booker DeWitt who didn't sell Anna, one that did not set the events of Infinite in motion.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I was under the impressions that Comstock could not see any futures and it was the Archangel (older Elizabeth) that gave him his "prophecies."

I believe that he saw New York on fire and his daughter leading Columbia through a tear, hence the prophecy. I was under the impression that "the archangel" is just a propagandist way of explaining it to his followers.

 

[ShaunBRS]

I noticed that in the scene after the credits the doors to Booker's office and Anna's room both open on the opposite side to that which they did during the rest of the game.

 

[lastplayed]

I was under the impressions that Comstock could not see any futures and it was the Archangel (older Elizabeth) that gave him his "prophecies."

Possibly. For some reason I was thinking it was Luteces' technology that allowed him to see the future (or possibilities of it).

 

[Tobor]

Sorry if this has been asked, but if Comstock could see the future, wouldn't he see that bringing in Anna would lead to his downfall? His actions created her powers right, so why her? Why not a random baby from his own universe?

Seems like he was constantly paranoid about Booker coming in to get her (all those warnings about the false prophet). Stealing Anna seemed more trouble than it was worth.

Comstock is impotent, but he want's an heir. He uses the tears to find the dimension where his alternate non-impotent self has had a daughter. The pinky is an accident leading to the girls powers, in turn leading to Comstock's paranoia about Booker coming back for her.

Why not a random baby? He wanted his own (inter dimensionally)flesh and blood daughter.