BioShock: Infinite

[Orogun01]

She didn't know who DeWitt was until she was free of the siphon. 

 

 

 

Even then, it's an interesting question to ponder: is it really murder? Columbia and its version of Elizabeth wasn't supposed to exist in the first place. These are alternate realities that were not supposed to exist. You are removing alternate futures by drowning Comstock, removing Columbia's root. This snaps back to 1893, which is where Booker's reality diverged and he's given another chance at living his life with his daughter. 

 

In the end, did Booker redeem himself? It's left open.

A bunch of versions of Elizabeth gather up to kill you, from points where she supposedly didn't know DeWitt identity. Ergo multiple versions of Elizabeth plot across realities to kill all Bookers (supported by the fact that you aren't the only Booker around the lighthouses). Also, she cannot possibly know the root Booker so her only chance is to kill all of them across realities until she gets the right one. So she an her alternate versions have been killing Bookers long before the events of Infinite.

Conclusion: She is evil. 

[Tagaziel]

You are right, there might be an infinite number of worlds in which Booker DeWitt is someone else. However, these worlds are irrelevant. What's relevant are realities where Booker DeWitt became Comstock and interfered with Booker DeWitt in another reality. This is the situation Liz refers to when she speaks about constants and variables. The particulars may vary (like DeWitt aiding the Vox Populi, which was just a means to an end), but there are constant that remain unchanged. Comstock. Wounded Knee. Columbia. Peking. DeWitt in this context is not leader material, which is what I'm referring to. 

 

As for false choices, you are aware that even if the game allowed you to make meaningful ones, there wouldn't be any change, as in the end the entire branch of realities caused by Comstock's birth disappear when he is smothered in his crib? The game offers a couple of small choices in situations where DeWitt can make them. His hand is forced everywhere else. The same way the player's hand is forced in Bioshock.

 

A bunch of versions of Elizabeth gather up to kill you, from points where she supposedly didn't know DeWitt identity. Ergo multiple versions of Elizabeth plot across realities to kill all Bookers (supported by the fact that you aren't the only Booker around the lighthouses). Also, she cannot possibly know the root Booker so her only chance is to kill all of them across realities until she gets the right one. So she an her alternate versions have been killing Bookers long before the events of Infinite.

Conclusion: She is evil. 

 

Uh, how is she evil? There are separate universes, but in only one does Booker go through with killing Comstock. Why do I know that? It's because the other Elizabeths exist. 

 

Also, how is preventing the suffering of millions by "killing" one person evil? The realities with Columbia in the sky weren't supposed to exist in the first place.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Tagaziel

[AwesomeOcelot]

Also, how is preventing the suffering of millions by "killing" one person evil? The realities with Columbia in the sky weren't supposed to exist in the first place.

Why not? Where is this "supposed to" coming from?

A bunch of versions of Elizabeth gather up to kill you, from points where she supposedly didn't know DeWitt identity. Ergo multiple versions of Elizabeth plot across realities to kill all Bookers (supported by the fact that you aren't the only Booker around the lighthouses). Also, she cannot possibly know the root Booker so her only chance is to kill all of them across realities until she gets the right one. So she an her alternate versions have been killing Bookers long before the events of Infinite.

Conclusion: She is evil.

No, she doesn't kill all of them, she kills one DeWitt before they branch off. One major plot hole is if she can do that, at that point, why not a few minutes later and only kill all the Comstocks, not the DeWitts.

[Bokishi]

 

Also, how is preventing the suffering of millions by "killing" one person evil? The realities with Columbia in the sky weren't supposed to exist in the first place.

Why not? Where is this "supposed to" coming from?

A bunch of versions of Elizabeth gather up to kill you, from points where she supposedly didn't know DeWitt identity. Ergo multiple versions of Elizabeth plot across realities to kill all Bookers (supported by the fact that you aren't the only Booker around the lighthouses). Also, she cannot possibly know the root Booker so her only chance is to kill all of them across realities until she gets the right one. So she an her alternate versions have been killing Bookers long before the events of Infinite.

Conclusion: She is evil.

No, she doesn't kill all of them, she kills one DeWitt before they branch off. One major plot hole is if she can do that, at that point, why not a few minutes later and only kill all the Comstocks, not the DeWitts.

 

 

Because once Comstock even exists, so branches all the multiple realities where she doesn't kill him, killing booker before hand prevents comstock from existing and branching out at all

[Fighter]

Only the Comstock-raised Elizabeth is dead, she is now only a baby again and will be raised by booker (hopefully)

 

That's what I mean. We are the sum of our experiences. Booker and Elizabeth that we know are gone. The versions that will now get to live a different life are not them. Well I suppose Booker is in part. But Elizabeth erased herself completely and is now Anna, who will grow to be a completely different person assuming the interpretation where Comstock will never exist again.

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, how is preventing the suffering of millions by "killing" one person evil? The realities with Columbia in the sky weren't supposed to exist in the first place.

Why not? Where is this "supposed to" coming from?

A bunch of versions of Elizabeth gather up to kill you, from points where she supposedly didn't know DeWitt identity. Ergo multiple versions of Elizabeth plot across realities to kill all Bookers (supported by the fact that you aren't the only Booker around the lighthouses). Also, she cannot possibly know the root Booker so her only chance is to kill all of them across realities until she gets the right one. So she an her alternate versions have been killing Bookers long before the events of Infinite.

Conclusion: She is evil.

No, she doesn't kill all of them, she kills one DeWitt before they branch off. One major plot hole is if she can do that, at that point, why not a few minutes later and only kill all the Comstocks, not the DeWitts.

 

 

 

 

Because once Comstock even exists, so branches all the multiple realities where she doesn't kill him, killing booker before hand prevents comstock from existing and branching out at all

 

 

Why wouldn't that also be true of DeWitt, that there are multiple realities where she doesn't kill him as well, therefore meaning that there can still be Comstock. Either she can kill a branch or she cannot, it doesn't matter whether that's a second before or after the baptism.

[Bokishi]

Well Booker's goal was to completely kill all the Comstocks from all the branches. The way bioshocks multiverses are connected like tree branches means you need to chop off the very moment before the tainted Comstock branch even sprouts. Waiting for comstock to be born before killing him means a piece of the tainted Comstock branch will still exist on the tree, something Booker did not want. Remember, all of the Elizabeths from all of the corrupted realities came together at this very point of the branch to do this. I don't think the choice of whether booker dies or not even exists; he does die here. The branch's diverting point then gets rolled back to whether or not he even went to the baptism's location in the first place. If he doesn't go, we get to the reality like the one after the credits; him and his baby daughter with no Comstock to take her away.

 

If in some way he is able to reason with the girls and convince them not to drown him, then perhaps he could still go through with the baptism, and the girls convince him to be reborn into actually a good and better person instead?

[Nonek]

To state that there is only one method of stopping Comstock when you have all the powers of time and space at your disposal seems a little feeble, I can think of a dozen ways of ensuring he doesn't get born, from before and after the baptism. From before DeWitt was even born in fact. The storyline limits itself for absolutely no good reason. The baptism is an artificial point of decision, and the urge for suicide to me at least distasteful, even with Booker's dying brain conjuring up that last pleasant delusion.

[AwesomeOcelot]

The way bioshocks multiverses are connected like tree branches means you need to chop off the very moment before the tainted Comstock branch even sprouts.

There's nothing in Bioshock: Infinite or logical deduction to suggest this is the case.

[Bokishi]

 

 

The way bioshocks multiverses are connected like tree branches means you need to chop off the very moment before the tainted Comstock branch even sprouts.

There's nothing in Bioshock: Infinite or logical deduction to suggest this is the case.

It's absolutist ending suggests this.

 

lol we can probably debate forever on this, I've seen threads on other forums about the ending go up to 300 pages. It's probably what the devs wanted, and one of the reasons they called it Infinitie

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

 

 

The way bioshocks multiverses are connected like tree branches means you need to chop off the very moment before the tainted Comstock branch even sprouts.

There's nothing in Bioshock: Infinite or logical deduction to suggest this is the case.

 

 

It's absolutist ending suggests this.

 

 

In what way is it absolutist?

[Bokishi]

The fact that it sees the death of booker at that point as the be all, end all solution to the comstock problem.

[AwesomeOcelot]

That's not absolutism. Killing DeWitt, all DeWitts, at that point would solve the Comstock problem, that doesn't solve my problem with it. It's not good enough to say "well, Elizabeth did it then so that must be how it works for some unknown reason".

[Orogun01]

Why not kill the Luteces then? They are the ones responsible for Columbia and the portals into realities.

[Bokishi]

That's not absolutism. Killing DeWitt, all DeWitts, at that point would solve the Comstock problem, that doesn't solve my problem with it. It's not good enough to say "well, Elizabeth did it then so that must be how it works for some unknown reason".

But Elizabeth "sees all the doors at all times" she'd be the only indicator if Comstock is truly dead or not

Edited April 11, 2013 by Bokishi

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

That's not absolutism. Killing DeWitt, all DeWitts, at that point would solve the Comstock problem, that doesn't solve my problem with it. It's not good enough to say "well, Elizabeth did it then so that must be how it works for some unknown reason".

But Elizabeth "sees all the doors at all times" she'd be the only indicator if Comstock is truly dead or not

 

 

That has no bearing on my problem with it.

[Bokishi]

So I'm guessing it's you don't like how the game story takes a huge multiverse theory and wraps its variables and outcomes strictly around a few characters and calls it a day, I guess I can see that

[Tagaziel]

To state that there is only one method of stopping Comstock when you have all the powers of time and space at your disposal seems a little feeble, I can think of a dozen ways of ensuring he doesn't get born, from before and after the baptism. From before DeWitt was even born in fact. The storyline limits itself for absolutely no good reason. The baptism is an artificial point of decision, and the urge for suicide to me at least distasteful, even with Booker's dying brain conjuring up that last pleasant delusion.

But the point of Elizabeth's actions was to prevent Comstock and only Comstock from existing in the first place, while leaving DeWitt alive. 

Also, it isn't suicide. It's sacrifice. DeWitt is dying for millions, to prevent their suffering.

[Tagaziel]

Double post because my editing right expired (can I request a mod to merge the two posts?)

 

 

I'll just point out something, rather than assume that it's self-evident. DeWitt's "death" in the end parallels Jesus' biblical sacrifice, redeeming his sins and preventing the suffering of millions in the versions of realities brought upon by Comstock's birth. The parallel goes further, as DeWitt defeats death and returns to life. Or he doesn't, and ends up in "heaven," depending on your personal interpretation.

 

In general, the Comstock/DeWitt opposition is a bit similar to the story of the conflict between the establishment and Jesus in the gospels. DeWitt is decried as the False Shepherd, goes against the officially endorsed teachings, triggers a revolution, and ultimately makes a sacrifice to save humanity... Or at least one person who is very close to him. 

 

Why is that important? I think it illustrates the difference between two different approaches to religion. One is Comstock's religion: a warped version of Christianity, a cult of personality using religion for personal gain and political goals, introducing religious terror and atrocities justified as God's Will (Crusades, anyone?). The other is DeWitt. Ostensibly an atheist who isn't afraid of God, DeWitt unwittingly adheres to the creed of Jesus: of personal responsibility, consistency, and practicing what you preach. 

 

Of course, I may be going too far with this interpretation, but given how much emphasis is put on religion, I had to throw my atheist two cents in (and point out that Infinite may also be deconstructing established organized religion, which kills actual spirituality).

[Bester]

Liza... When she doesn't have anything to do, she examines something, stands against a wall with a dreamy look, sighs, runs around looking for something useful to help you out. Then she looks you in the eyes, grabs your hands, saves you from death, she's beautiful, she's a damsel in distress.

 

You know those japanese videos where the cameraman enters a house and the japanese chick says "oh honeeeey you're home!", then hugs the camera, kisses it, leads it into the bed and talks about her day into the camera acting as if it was her husband? It's exactly the same here. This game is better than porn, for a day I got to feel like I had a love story going on with a hot petite brunette. You can't do this, game devs, you have manipulated my genitals!

 

Now about bad things. I took 2 days off work to play it. Finished it in one. ONE?? ONE??!!?! Next time make a game for 5 hours, why don't you.

 

The ending??? OH MY GOD. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE HER TO PARIS AND DIP MY BAGUETTE INTO HER CREME BRULE. Now what did I get instead? Kafka all over the place, unhappy ending, butthurt? Thanks, but I never asked for this.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Bester

[Bokishi]

Lol wtf

[AGX-17]

Why not kill the Luteces then? They are the ones responsible for Columbia and the portals into realities.

Because they were killed by Comstock, and instead transcended time and space to become transcendent quantum existences (kind of like the Tralfamadorians from Slaughterhouse Five, pay attention to what they say at the graveyard.) Again, it's not that there was one universe in the beginning, until Booker DeWitt got baptized, and then there were two, it's that there were always infinite parallel realities as is often suggested by cosmologists (hence the "infinite.") As has been stated (I think,) the game's story fundamentally stems from Robert Lutece's desire to fix the problem he and Rosalind created when they helped Comstock take Anna.

DeWitt unwittingly adheres to the creed of Jesus: of personal responsibility, consistency, and practicing what you preach.

...Only if you follow the post-mercantilist Protestant/Evangelical "interpretation" of the New Testament. Which is more of a corrupt justification for personal greed than a legitimate interpretation of the camel and the eye of the needle. I don't know of any Biblical passage where Jesus tells lepers to take "personal responsibility" for being poor lepers, but I do recall him curing them of their leprosy and asking nothing in return. Also there was that whole "dying for everyone's sins" thing, where he absolved everyone of their sins. Funny how an economic system (Capitalism,) was so easily able to corrupt a religion and its values like that. Says a lot about human nature.

Liza... When she doesn't have anything to do, she examines something, stands against a wall with a dreamy look, sighs, runs around looking for something useful to help you out. Then she looks you in the eyes, grabs your hands, saves you from death, she's beautiful, she's a damsel in distress.

...How does saving Booker make her a damsel in distress? She's the one who saves Booker almost all the time.

 

You know those japanese videos where the cameraman enters a house and the japanese chick says "oh honeeeey you're home!", then hugs the camera, kisses it, leads it into the bed and talks about her day into the camera acting as if it was her husband? It's exactly the same here. This game is better than porn, for a day I got to feel like I had a love story going on with a hot petite brunette. You can't do this, game devs, you have manipulated my genitals!

No. Something tells me I don't want to. And it has told me a lot about you.

Now about bad things. I took 2 days off work to play it. Finished it in one. ONE?? ONE??!!?! Next time make a game for 5 hours, why don't you.

 

The ending??? OH MY GOD. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE HER TO PARIS AND DIP MY BAGUETTE INTO HER CREME BRULE. Now what did I get instead? Kafka all over the place, unhappy ending, butthurt? Thanks, but I never asked for this.

What's wrong with existentialism? You'd prefer a story written more in the vein of Gertrude Stein? Edited April 12, 2013 by AGX-17

[HoonDing]

The ending??? OH MY GOD. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE HER TO PARIS AND DIP MY BAGUETTE INTO HER CREME BRULE. Now what did I get instead? Kafka all over the place, unhappy ending, butthurt? Thanks, but I never asked for this.

Wait - so Elizabeth isn't jailbait after all?

[Bester]

What's wrong with existentialism? 

 

Consistent or inconsistent (inconsistent in this case) parallel worlds don't have anything to do with the meaning of life, so no existentialism.

 

Why inconsistent?

Because if parallel worlds existed, the seed that would start the difference between our worlds would've changed the courses of the universes and all lives thousands of years ago. In a parallel world there would be no Booker, no Elizabeth, no same people would've married other people, resulting in a completely different population, etc. In a parallel world there wouldn't be a single person with the same face, same history, same name, there would be no same place, etc.

 

I can't say that this game explored any theme other than sexuality and MAYBE (a big big maybe) the role of men in the lives of women (fathers who want to cage them, make them into someone else... husbands who want to free them from their father only to force them to go somewhere they don't want to go... and finally husbands falling in love with them and letting them decide where to go, and just going with them).

Edited April 12, 2013 by Bester

[AwesomeOcelot]

Because if parallel worlds existed, the seed that would start the difference between our worlds would've changed the courses of the universes and all lives thousands of years ago. In a parallel world there would be no Booker, no Elizabeth, no same people would've married other people, resulting in a completely different population, etc. In a parallel world there wouldn't be a single person with the same face, same history, same name, there would be no same place, etc.

Not that type of parallel. It's branching, quantum universes in a multiverse. So any variable that's probabilistically determined starts has a number of branching universes. There's many closely related universes with Booker and Elizabeth, but that should also mean there's more universes without them.

 

Well, that would be the case but they balls it up with ghosts and people neither alive nor dead, so there's an implication that consciousness exists across the multiverse, and there are constants across universes that includes characters and lighthouses. Although this concept doesn't really make much sense, and leads of a number of plotholes.

 

I think it just comes down to laziness in the writing, but that was also a problem with the original Bioshock, it's bad sci-fi, but good fantasy with a "sciency" veneer.