In these days of incredibly arbitrary game titles for sequels, this is rather unique.I just now realized what the title of the game Bioshock Infinite meant. Holy shit.
In these days of incredibly arbitrary game titles for sequels, this is rather unique.I just now realized what the title of the game Bioshock Infinite meant. Holy shit.
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.
Well if I have to rationalize the scene for exactly what it was. I would have to go with the paradox-correction theory. To end Comstock, Elizabeth has to have her powers but to have her powers, Comstock has to exist. This is a loop paradox that is not stable. This paradox messes up time-space and the universe feels the need to correct itself (the universe obviously likes to correct itself in odd ways since it gives Elizabeth tear powers so she can reunite with the rest of her body). The way it corrects here is to "reset" to the last moment where the universe doesn't have any paradoxical info happening. This point is right before Booker has given away his child. To me, you can have two interpretations at this point. The first interpretation is that this is some type of circular hell where he has to keep reliving the worst moments of his life over and over again. The second interpretation, which has more evidence for it, is that the universe dumped Booker here with all of his memories intact (cited because he seems surprised that Anna is crying in the other room). If his memories are intact, I doubt he will give Anna away when the twins come knocking so this may have actually fixed the whole Columbia problem as well (it still exists in another timeline but Comstock won't have his "seed" now).
Are people thinking Booker is the Songbird?
The only way that could work is if that version of Booker knew Liz was actually Anna and that he somehow made a deal with Comstock to be with her in the form of the bird. However, Booker only learns this because of the events in the game, which conclude with Liz undoing Comstock.
Massive paradox.
Are people thinking Booker is the Songbird?
The only way that could work is if that version of Booker knew Liz was actually Anna and that he somehow made a deal with Comstock to be with her in the form of the bird. However, Booker only learns this because of the events in the game, which conclude with Liz undoing Comstock.
Massive paradox.
Nobody thinks that.
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.
Read some posts earlier that validate the train of thought that the player is playing multiple versions of Booker. That is, when you're drowned during the baptism upon entering Colombia and then later drowned by the Songbird. Just that when you wake up, you're a new Booker who wasn't killed at that part.
Is there any more detail or thoughts on this theory?
I... I -think- I'm cool with your second theory. It allows for a potential happy ending, especially if he retained his memories, allowing him to find some redemption now that he's gone through his own personal hell, and it also reconciles somewhat with the issue I outlined earlier.Don't know if you saw this post from me earlier but it might be worth a read. This is the only way I can rationalize the post-credits scene in a way that does justice to the story.
I... I -think- I'm cool with your second theory. It allows for a potential happy ending, especially if he retained his memories, allowing him to find some redemption now that he's gone through his own personal hell, and it also reconciles somewhat with the issue I outlined earlier.
Not sure if this has been covered yet (there's been something like 20 new pages added to this thread since I went to bed eight hours ago) but I've been thinking about the Baptism scene and the suggestion that Elizabeth is killing all of the possible Bookers.
It made me realise that we'd been thinking about the Baptism as if it were a single event, when actually it consists of several stages, one after the other.
This might have been decided pages back, so stop me if you've heard it.
That's a super-quick chart of how I imagine the Baptism scene plays out. If that reading of it is correct, then it's only ever the already-doomed-to-be-Comstock Bookers who get drowned, as only those ones ever reach the stage of being dunked in the water.
In short, it's less that Elizabeth drowns all the Bookers, and more that she prevents the ones being dunked from ever resurfacing. The final cinematic seems to support this, I think.
Would love to hear thoughts. Or just be slapped down for stating the obvious. Either is fine.
I used to think this, but I think it was pointed out that when Elizabeth drowns Booker, he's not actually at the moment of baptism -- he's at some moment before, hence the crowds aren't there, and so Elizabeth kills him off before he can even get to the ACTUAL baptism and make the choice whether to be baptised or not.Not sure if this has been covered yet (there's been something like 20 new pages added to this thread since I went to bed eight hours ago) but I've been thinking about the Baptism scene and the suggestion that Elizabeth is killing all of the possible Bookers.
It made me realise that we'd been thinking about the Baptism as if it were a single event, when actually it consists of several stages, one after the other.
This might have been decided pages back, so stop me if you've heard it.
That's a super-quick chart of how I imagine the Baptism scene plays out. If that reading of it is correct, then it's only ever the already-doomed-to-be-Comstock Bookers who get drowned, as only those ones ever reach the stage of being dunked in the water.
In short, it's less that Elizabeth drowns all the Bookers, and more that she prevents the ones being dunked from ever resurfacing. The final cinematic seems to support this, I think.
Would love to hear thoughts. Or just be slapped down for stating the obvious. Either is fine.
I wouldn't call a happy ending a dumb one, in this case. It's still very bittersweet, on many levels. But it means Booker wasn't denied redemption. And I think that's a more encouraging tale to tell.I still wish that the final scene didn't toss a wrench in just for the sake of discussion but if we ever find that eitehr of my theories was right or on the right track then I won't feel like the level of story-telling was dumbed down just for the sake of a happy ending/ending where the main character didn't die.
I wouldn't call a happy ending a dumb one, in this case. It's still very bittersweet, on many levels. But it means Booker wasn't denied redemption. And I think that's a more encouraging tale to tell.
I wouldn't call a happy ending a dumb one, in this case. It's still very bittersweet, on many levels. But it means Booker wasn't denied redemption. And I think that's a more encouraging tale to tell.
why?Well, that's pretty dumb :lol
why?
In your chart, I still believe she drowned you in between "listen to preacher" and "make decision" As supported by Liz saying "before the choice is made"
I used to think this, but I think it was pointed out that when Elizabeth drowns Booker, he's not actually at the moment of baptism -- he's at some moment before, hence the crowds aren't there, and so Elizabeth kills him off before he can even get to the ACTUAL baptism and make the choice whether to be baptised or not.
Still, as I said earlier, I think the fact Elizabeth is choosing to kill him, means there must also be a timeline where she chooses not to kill him.
Sure thing. But... BUT! Even if the universe worked out so that he still lives on, and has a chance at happiness... That wouldn't take away the dramatic impact of him accepting death. In that moment, as you said, he did not struggle -- he was willing to do the ultimate penance to try and right all wrongs caused by himself, the monster. In that moment, he doesn't know the universe will give him a second chance. But the fact he gets one doesn't take away from the weight of the moment where he thought he was going to truly die once and for all.By no means do I think that a happy ending is automatically dumb. I just feel here that the poetic ending was the one where Booker had to cease to exist entirely to truly prevent himself from becoming a total monster. The redemption is still there because he allows the drowning to occur. When the realization is made, there is no struggle. That is really my other reason for thinking he is drowned before making a choice, he goes under with the final words "I am both...."
Sure thing. But... BUT! Even if the universe worked out so that he still lives on, and has a chance at happiness... That wouldn't take away the dramatic impact of him accepting death. In that moment, as you said, he did not struggle -- he was willing to do the ultimate penance to try and right all wrongs caused by himself, the monster. In that moment, he doesn't know the universe will give him a second chance. But the fact he gets one doesn't take away from the weight of the moment where he thought he was going to truly die once and for all.
I'll tell you what bothers me. Elizabeth supposedly has her powers because of her finger as though the flesh and bone of a human being or perhaps any living creature is somehow special, that the universe would know or care that her finger is in another reality is really dumb. It might as well have been a rock that stayed on one side.
If it was simply that she was from somewhere else that might make more sense but then you'd have to give all sorts of powers to all sorts of travellers and it just wouldn't work.
Oh, you hear the priest in that scene? If so, that does change things a bit. To resolve the tangle you just addressed, Liz could kill him before he is "born again" -- born again as Comstock.I'd thought that too, but we actually hear the preacher saying "...and what name will you take, my son?" immediately after Liz says "...before you are reborn", which to me implies that they've already reached the final part of the ceremony, where the other Booker would've already fled.
Liz's line about "Before the choice is made" throws a bit of a spanner in the works, though.
I'll tell you what bothers me. Elizabeth supposedly has her powers because of her finger as though the flesh and bone of a human being or perhaps any living creature is somehow special, that the universe would know or care that her finger is in another reality is really dumb. It might as well have been a rock that stayed on one side.
Oh, you hear the priest in that scene? If so, that does change things a bit. To resolve the tangle you just addressed, Liz could kill him before he is "born again" -- born again as Comstock.
In other words, the priest asks him his name. He has already accepted the baptist. Normally, he'd say "Zachary Hale Comstock." But this time Elizabeth kills him before he can do so.
Meanwhile, the cold feet Booker has already left the scene... Perhaps with some transplanting of memories from the universes that will no longer be, and so perhaps a chance to this time do things right by Anna?
so where does the theory of booker being songbird comes frmo?
I'd thought that too, but we actually hear the preacher saying "...and what name will you take, my son?" immediately after Liz says "...before you are reborn", which to me implies that they've already reached the final part of the ceremony, where the other Booker would've already fled.
Liz's line about "Before the choice is made" throws a bit of a spanner in the works, though.
Has anyone gotten an ending other than the one where multiple Elizabeth's kill Booker?
Nope. There's always a constant ending.
I found that to be pretty strange too. I mean, humans are shedding skin and hair pretty much non-stop, right? So anyone who puts any of themselves through a tear is leaving part of their body on the other side, unless they're in a hazmat suit or something.
Yup, that's pretty much my reading of it. The exact nature of the post-credits scene with (or without!) Anna isn't super clear to me, so I'm open to ideas on it.
Oh, and I didn't mention earlier, but I figured the changes to the Baptism scenario, i.e. the lack of a crowd was simple chalked up to Liz's influence. Just as she was able to manifest as multiple versions of herself, I've no doubt she was able to move/hide/obscure the crowds for her own purposes.
I loved this...
Speaking of that song, is it original to this game or did it exist before?Will the Circle be Unbroken.
It makes sense.
Constants and variables....
Speaking of that song, is it original to this game or did it exist before?
Speaking of that song, is it original to this game or did it exist before?
This has probably been answered a million times already but, when exitting the arcade, a woman calls out to elizabeth as anna....and it's all put down to a case of mistaken identity. Who was this woman? She didn't seem like a person pulled in through a tear.
It's hardly a major importance to the story other than to clue the player in further than Elizabeth == Anna but regardless, it jumps out as notable when the full story is revealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_the_Circle_Be_Unbroken?
Edit: Hah and someone already edited the wiki to show that it was featured in Bioshock.
Ah, thank you. I suspected as much. And I love the movie "O' Brother Where Art Thou!"It's a classic gospel hymn that has been remade about 1,000 times. It was even in the movie O' Brother Where Art Thou in its most famous incarnation, sung by The Carter Family. Johnny Cash pays tribute to it as well in his song Daddy Sang Bass, which you can find on Youtube.
LOL, so true. And hey, did you change your username?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.
that they all die from drowning is another parallelWishful thinking.
Sorry, that's a in-game thing. I meant to say it doesn't come from nowhere. It's just that he is so protective from Elizabeth and only Booker protects her this much, too.
This has probably been answered a million times already but, when exitting the arcade, a woman calls out to elizabeth as anna....and it's all put down to a case of mistaken identity. Who was this woman? She didn't seem like a person pulled in through a tear.
It's hardly a major importance to the story other than to clue the player in further than Elizabeth == Anna but regardless, it jumps out as notable when the full story is revealed.
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.
A security officer I believe.
If I start a new game on ar harder difficulty, will I keep all my weapons and upgrades?
I would love a wallpaper of the area with all the towers and multiple bookers/elizabeths walking around. That's my favorite image in the whole game.