Did they ever give any explanation for why this DLC even exists?
Infinite ending clearly states.
All Comstocks come from Booker accepting a baptism. To kill all of the Comstocks, you have to kill him the moment he's born, which would be during the baptism, which those Elizabeths did. They drown Booker DeWitt at his baptism, preventing any and all Comstocks from being born, and as such preventing all Anna DeWitts from being turned into Elizabeths by having her split between dimensions because of her pinky getting cut off.
So this "Comstock" that is hiding in Rapture would never have come to be.
I guess I was thinking the DLC had to take place after the ending of Infinite, but I don't suppose there's any reason it has to.
My personal take on this is that
Elizabeth failed to kill all the Comstocks.
The thing about the many worlds hypothesis is that timelines don't just split over important decisions, they split for EVERYTHING. The Lautrecs try to drive home this idea. They flip a coin, and it lands heads or tails. They offer a broach, and you pick bird or cage. The outcomes of these scenarios are completely inconsequential. They in no way impact whether or not Booker and Elizabeth make it to the lighthouse. But there are still different universes for every outcome, and every combination of outcomes.
When Elizabeth is on the boat and says she's going to go back in time and erase Comstock, one of the Lautrecs asks, "But how do you know if you've gone back far enough?"
What if, on the morning of the baptism day, Booker chose between a breakfast of sausage or eggs? What if, while he was walking down to the river, a man in China cast a pair of dice? There should have been an infinite array of baptisms, each one equally capable of spawning an infinite array of Comstocks. Elizabeth could have gone further back and killed Booker when he was born, but she took pity on him and wanted to preserve as much of him as possible, so she only killed him at the last possible moment before he made the decision that could have potentially turned him into Comstock, in order to preserve as many benign timelines as possible. But in so doing, she only excised her own local bundle of timelines, not all the other almost-but-not-quite identical ones. Even if she HAD gone further back, wouldn't the same thing keep happening, with barely-distinct alternate universes always evading her grasp, all the way back to the beginning of time?
The lady Lautrec believed from the beginning that this whole endeavor was doomed to failure. That, once an outcome had proven itself to be possible, that it would occur infinitely across spacetime with relentless inevitability. That trying to save one timeline out of the hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of trillions of equally significant timelines was purposeless.
Note that, in the post-credits snippet, Booker is in his same old office with Anna. That set of conditions only ever existed in the timelines where Booker had a formative experience at the baptism. If a world like that can still exist, why couldn't worlds with Comstock also still exist?
Yeah basically
If Elizabeth really wanted to kill every version possible of Comstock, she would have to kill Booker at or before birth
Unless the timing of Booker becoming Comstock is a constant
It is constant.
She states that this is it, this is when Comstock happens. During that baptism. The game states that all Comstocks come from this moment, and that's why it was such a big deal, because in order to get rid of them all they'd have to drown that Booker that had been with her thus far, at that moment. And they did. So no more Comstocks.
And Booker only has Anna when he forgoes getting baptised. Because after he becomes Comstock he starts getting all Columbia and Lutece particals and becomes impotent, also he still has Anna because without Comstock there's no Lutece to sell his daughter to.
I had thought that Burial at Sea couldn't happen because the ending of Infinite gets rid of the Comstocks, but as it turns out they sort of happen at the same time because Elizabeth sees Booker and herself at Fink Industries.
I just think its a poorly constructed story to begin with, because even you try to say it happens at the same time eventually those Elizabeths are going to drown Booker, and then Comstock will have never existed, and so none of the events of Burial at Sea would have ever happened so neither would Bioshock 1 or 2.
Did they ever give any explanation for why this DLC even exists?
Infinite ending clearly states.
All Comstocks come from Booker accepting a baptism. To kill all of the Comstocks, you have to kill him the moment he's born, which would be during the baptism, which those Elizabeths did. They drown Booker DeWitt at his baptism, preventing any and all Comstocks from being born, and as such preventing all Anna DeWitts from being turned into Elizabeths by having her split between dimensions because of her pinky getting cut off.
So this "Comstock" that is hiding in Rapture would never have come to be.
I guess I was thinking the DLC had to take place after the ending of Infinite, but I don't suppose there's any reason it has to.
My personal take on this is that
Elizabeth failed to kill all the Comstocks.
The thing about the many worlds hypothesis is that timelines don't just split over important decisions, they split for EVERYTHING. The Lautrecs try to drive home this idea. They flip a coin, and it lands heads or tails. They offer a broach, and you pick bird or cage. The outcomes of these scenarios are completely inconsequential. They in no way impact whether or not Booker and Elizabeth make it to the lighthouse. But there are still different universes for every outcome, and every combination of outcomes.
When Elizabeth is on the boat and says she's going to go back in time and erase Comstock, one of the Lautrecs asks, "But how do you know if you've gone back far enough?"
What if, on the morning of the baptism day, Booker chose between a breakfast of sausage or eggs? What if, while he was walking down to the river, a man in China cast a pair of dice? There should have been an infinite array of baptisms, each one equally capable of spawning an infinite array of Comstocks. Elizabeth could have gone further back and killed Booker when he was born, but she took pity on him and wanted to preserve as much of him as possible, so she only killed him at the last possible moment before he made the decision that could have potentially turned him into Comstock, in order to preserve as many benign timelines as possible. But in so doing, she only excised her own local bundle of timelines, not all the other almost-but-not-quite identical ones. Even if she HAD gone further back, wouldn't the same thing keep happening, with barely-distinct alternate universes always evading her grasp, all the way back to the beginning of time?
The lady Lautrec believed from the beginning that this whole endeavor was doomed to failure. That, once an outcome had proven itself to be possible, that it would occur infinitely across spacetime with relentless inevitability. That trying to save one timeline out of the hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of trillions of equally significant timelines was purposeless.
Note that, in the post-credits snippet, Booker is in his same old office with Anna. That set of conditions only ever existed in the timelines where Booker had a formative experience at the baptism. If a world like that can still exist, why couldn't worlds with Comstock also still exist?
Yeah basically
If Elizabeth really wanted to kill every version possible of Comstock, she would have to kill Booker at or before birth
Unless the timing of Booker becoming Comstock is a constant
It is constant.
She states that this is it, this is when Comstock happens. During that baptism. The game states that all Comstocks come from this moment, and that's why it was such a big deal, because in order to get rid of them all they'd have to drown that Booker that had been with her thus far, at that moment. And they did. So no more Comstocks.
And Booker only has Anna when he forgoes getting baptised. Because after he becomes Comstock he starts getting all Columbia and Lutece particals and becomes impotent, also he still has Anna because without Comstock there's no Lutece to sell his daughter to.
I had thought that Burial at Sea couldn't happen because the ending of Infinite gets rid of the Comstocks, but as it turns out they sort of happen at the same time because Elizabeth sees Booker and herself at Fink Industries.
I just think its a poorly constructed story to begin with, because even you try to say it happens at the same time eventually those Elizabeths are going to drown Booker, and then Comstock will have never existed, and so none of the events of Burial at Sea would have ever happened so neither would Bioshock 1 or 2.
Comstock's psychology is a very direct result of his particular experience during the baptism at a particular point in his life, so no baptism means no Comstock (at least in the particular form we're concerned about). My point is just that, if you go further back in Game-Booker's timeline, you'll find other branches that lead to functionally-identical baptisms at the same time and place, and none of those would have been touched by Elizabeth's actions because she didn't go back far enough.
Bear in mind that Elizabeth doesn't only kill the Bookers who chose to be baptized. The act of Booker making a choice not to be baptized guarantees that there will also be an infinite number of Bookers who made the other choice, because it's possible and there's a universe for every possibility. Killing them all one by one is impossible. The only permanent solution is to kill Booker before he makes the choice AT ALL, erasing both the Bookers who took the baptism and the ones that rejected it (since, at that point, they're all still the same person in the same timeline, because it hasn't split yet). The only surviving Bookers are the ones who never went down to the river at all (or at least that was the plan). And since the baptism, regardless of outcome, was obviously a powerful formative experience, it's not very plausible that a Booker who was never faced with that choice would marry the same woman and have the same daughter at the same time and work the same job in the same office.
Did they ever give any explanation for why this DLC even exists?
Infinite ending clearly states.
All Comstocks come from Booker accepting a baptism. To kill all of the Comstocks, you have to kill him the moment he's born, which would be during the baptism, which those Elizabeths did. They drown Booker DeWitt at his baptism, preventing any and all Comstocks from being born, and as such preventing all Anna DeWitts from being turned into Elizabeths by having her split between dimensions because of her pinky getting cut off.
So this "Comstock" that is hiding in Rapture would never have come to be.
I guess I was thinking the DLC had to take place after the ending of Infinite, but I don't suppose there's any reason it has to.
My personal take on this is that
Elizabeth failed to kill all the Comstocks.
The thing about the many worlds hypothesis is that timelines don't just split over important decisions, they split for EVERYTHING. The Lautrecs try to drive home this idea. They flip a coin, and it lands heads or tails. They offer a broach, and you pick bird or cage. The outcomes of these scenarios are completely inconsequential. They in no way impact whether or not Booker and Elizabeth make it to the lighthouse. But there are still different universes for every outcome, and every combination of outcomes.
When Elizabeth is on the boat and says she's going to go back in time and erase Comstock, one of the Lautrecs asks, "But how do you know if you've gone back far enough?"
What if, on the morning of the baptism day, Booker chose between a breakfast of sausage or eggs? What if, while he was walking down to the river, a man in China cast a pair of dice? There should have been an infinite array of baptisms, each one equally capable of spawning an infinite array of Comstocks. Elizabeth could have gone further back and killed Booker when he was born, but she took pity on him and wanted to preserve as much of him as possible, so she only killed him at the last possible moment before he made the decision that could have potentially turned him into Comstock, in order to preserve as many benign timelines as possible. But in so doing, she only excised her own local bundle of timelines, not all the other almost-but-not-quite identical ones. Even if she HAD gone further back, wouldn't the same thing keep happening, with barely-distinct alternate universes always evading her grasp, all the way back to the beginning of time?
The lady Lautrec believed from the beginning that this whole endeavor was doomed to failure. That, once an outcome had proven itself to be possible, that it would occur infinitely across spacetime with relentless inevitability. That trying to save one timeline out of the hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of trillions of equally significant timelines was purposeless.
Note that, in the post-credits snippet, Booker is in his same old office with Anna. That set of conditions only ever existed in the timelines where Booker had a formative experience at the baptism. If a world like that can still exist, why couldn't worlds with Comstock also still exist?
Yeah basically
If Elizabeth really wanted to kill every version possible of Comstock, she would have to kill Booker at or before birth
Unless the timing of Booker becoming Comstock is a constant
It is constant.
She states that this is it, this is when Comstock happens. During that baptism. The game states that all Comstocks come from this moment, and that's why it was such a big deal, because in order to get rid of them all they'd have to drown that Booker that had been with her thus far, at that moment. And they did. So no more Comstocks.
And Booker only has Anna when he forgoes getting baptised. Because after he becomes Comstock he starts getting all Columbia and Lutece particals and becomes impotent, also he still has Anna because without Comstock there's no Lutece to sell his daughter to.
I had thought that Burial at Sea couldn't happen because the ending of Infinite gets rid of the Comstocks, but as it turns out they sort of happen at the same time because Elizabeth sees Booker and herself at Fink Industries.
I just think its a poorly constructed story to begin with, because even you try to say it happens at the same time eventually those Elizabeths are going to drown Booker, and then Comstock will have never existed, and so none of the events of Burial at Sea would have ever happened so neither would Bioshock 1 or 2.
Comstock's psychology is a very direct result of his particular experience during the baptism at a particular point in his life, so no baptism means no Comstock (at least in the particular form we're concerned about). My point is just that, if you go further back in Game-Booker's timeline, you'll find other branches that lead to functionally-identical baptisms at the same time and place, and none of those would have been touched by Elizabeth's actions because she didn't go back far enough.
Bear in mind that Elizabeth doesn't only kill the Bookers who chose to be baptized. The act of Booker making a choice not to be baptized guarantees that there will also be an infinite number of Bookers who made the other choice, because it's possible and there's a universe for every possibility. Killing them all one by one is impossible. The only permanent solution is to kill Booker before he makes the choice AT ALL, erasing both the Bookers who took the baptism and the ones that rejected it (since, at that point, they're all still the same person in the same timeline, because it hasn't split yet). The only surviving Bookers are the ones who never went down to the river at all (or at least that was the plan). And since the baptism, regardless of outcome, was obviously a powerful formative experience, it's not very plausible that a Booker who was never faced with that choice would marry the same woman and have the same daughter at the same time and work the same job in the same office.
Unless Booker choosing to be baptized is a constant.
Really, the whole constant and variables thing kinda ignores me cause its like Dr Who: What is a fixed point in time, and can they be alerted? Well, that just depends on how the writers felt writing that episode.
Mind you, I love Dr. Who and Bioshock Infinite. They just get all wishy washy with their own rules when the story demands it.
Also, why is there no New Game+ mode? First Bioshock 2, now Infinite? I really wanted to replay the game for a 4th time, but no NG+ just took all the wind out of me sails.
Okay, a question occurred to me last night about Bioshock Infinite's story:
In Infinite, you see 4 versions of Columbia:
World 1: The orginal
World 2: After bring Chen Lin (?) back to life
World 3: Hero of the Revolution Booker world
World 4: New York burning.
Now, World 4 might not be a seprate world, just a future of World 3. We barely spend anytime in World 2, so we're going to ignore that reality since we don't have enough info.
In World 1 Booker helps Elizabeth escape.
However, in World 3 Booker dies at the Hall of Heroes before he can get to Elizabeth.
So, where is World's 3 Elizabeth?
Is that ever explained? Did I miss something there?
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Okay, a question occurred to me last night about Bioshock Infinite's story:
In Infinite, you see 4 versions of Columbia:
World 1: The orginal
World 2: After bring Chen Lin (?) back to life
World 3: Hero of the Revolution Booker world
World 4: New York burning.
Now, World 4 might not be a seprate world, just a future of World 3. We barely spend anytime in World 2, so we're going to ignore that reality since we don't have enough info.
In World 1 Booker helps Elizabeth escape.
However, in World 3 Booker dies at the Hall of Heroes before he can get to Elizabeth.
So, where is World's 3 Elizabeth?
Is that ever explained? Did I miss something there?
All we know is that she was taken to Comstock House before Booker gets to Monument Island, but we don't know anything from there.
I was actually thinking that Songbird was going to turn out to be:
A version of booker kidnapped by comstock from a different timeline who refused to give up his daughter...the bond already was there
They did have some image somewhere of songbirds head grafted onto a human torso so i figured it was going to be a lot deeper.
I was almost certain that this is where they were going with it. It wouldn't be farfetched and it would have been a cool way to show why it was so devoted to Elizabeth. It seems weird not to acknowledge who was in the suit. I also thought it was weird when you come across a mechanical head section of Songbird, almost made you think the whole thing was a machine.
I'm saddened by the ending. But I do find it compelling, as well, and for a reason I'm not seeing a lot of people discuss here.
Elizabeth chose this fate. She could see behind all the doors, see the choices that would be made. And in an infinite number of universes, an infinite number of Elizabeths chose to sacrifice themselves for the salvation of the Little Sisters.
I can even understand why any of an infinite number of versions of Elizabeth would make that choice; little girls, held prisoner in a sunken city, exploited and killed. How could she have possibly stayed in Paris, knowing she could change what lay behind those doors?
I was actually thinking that Songbird was going to turn out to be:
A version of booker kidnapped by comstock from a different timeline who refused to give up his daughter...the bond already was there
They did have some image somewhere of songbirds head grafted onto a human torso so i figured it was going to be a lot deeper.
I was almost certain that this is where they were going with it. It wouldn't be farfetched and it would have been a cool way to show why it was so devoted to Elizabeth. It seems weird not to acknowledge who was in the suit. I also thought it was weird when you come across a mechanical head section of Songbird, almost made you think the whole thing was a machine.
Are you talking about the
Songbird Workshop? Because that wasn't just the head. It was breathing.
I was actually thinking that Songbird was going to turn out to be:
A version of booker kidnapped by comstock from a different timeline who refused to give up his daughter...the bond already was there
They did have some image somewhere of songbirds head grafted onto a human torso so i figured it was going to be a lot deeper.
I was almost certain that this is where they were going with it. It wouldn't be farfetched and it would have been a cool way to show why it was so devoted to Elizabeth. It seems weird not to acknowledge who was in the suit. I also thought it was weird when you come across a mechanical head section of Songbird, almost made you think the whole thing was a machine.
Are you talking about the
Songbird Workshop? Because that wasn't just the head. It was breathing.
I don't think so.
There was an active mechanism pumping air into the mask. I think they were just testing a way of supplying whoever would be in the suit with oxygen.
I was actually thinking that Songbird was going to turn out to be:
A version of booker kidnapped by comstock from a different timeline who refused to give up his daughter...the bond already was there
They did have some image somewhere of songbirds head grafted onto a human torso so i figured it was going to be a lot deeper.
I was almost certain that this is where they were going with it. It wouldn't be farfetched and it would have been a cool way to show why it was so devoted to Elizabeth. It seems weird not to acknowledge who was in the suit. I also thought it was weird when you come across a mechanical head section of Songbird, almost made you think the whole thing was a machine.
Are you talking about the
Songbird Workshop? Because that wasn't just the head. It was breathing.
I don't think so.
There was an active mechanism pumping air into the mask. I think they were just testing a way of supplying whoever would be in the suit with oxygen.
Huh, I thought it was because the entire mechanism hadn't been completed yet, and it was an Iron Lung kinda thing. And then they just left him there. Apparently I'm a bit more morbid than you
Super late, but I finally finish BaS Episode 2. The story was complete nonsene structured around
hey, wouldn't it be cool if we somehow tied this into the beginning of Bioshock 1?
and really nothing else. It's like the writers just threw a bunch of stuff at a board with "Rapture!" on the background, and were then told by Levine to put it together. The gameplay was pretty fun, stealth was cool and the powers were nicely chosen between the four. Unfortunately it was all totally on-rails from objective to objective, even after this last DLC the gameplay overall in Infinite was by far the worst in the series.
The atmosphere and production values were stunning as usual, which makes it even more of a shame that the plot was so truly awful.
So after buying a season pass when I got this game and waiting so fucking long for both parts to come out, I just stopped caring and youtubed the cutscenes from this second part.
The story is dumb, and that ending is horrible.
Of all the things they could have done with Elizabeth and Booker, they turn her into an unnecessary catalyst for the events of Bioshock 1, that was not needed and did nothing to improve the story of the first game. She is arbitrarily pushed into it just for the sake of doing it and it's just pathetic.
It was effectively a prequel with characters from Infinite arbitrarily placed into it instead of new ones, using ridiculous time travel machinations to hand wave plot points that the writers were too lazy to develop naturally. It felt like Irrational just giving up and saying "Well, we don't have any better ideas left than just rehashing what we did 7 years ago". Levine needs to lose his massive ego if he wants to do something as brilliant as the first game again, because Infinite was one big incredibly expensive exercise in stupidity.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, if you're going to be that meta about it, Levine did it so that the next Bioshock would not have to do with Rapture or Columbia. At least not his Rapture or Columbia.
Now that said, I really liked Burial at Sea, but I understand the criticisms.
I mean, if you're going to be that meta about it, Levine did it so that the next Bioshock would not have to do with Rapture or Columbia. At least not his Rapture or Columbia.
It didn't have to anyway. If the new game wants to be about Rapture again, it will, no matter what happened in Infinite.
I too understand the criticisms. And just to ensure I don't make an ass of myself, I'll just say this. For all it's flaws, BaS Part 2 was, to me, a very sweet and very emotional send off to my favorite series. That's all I got.
So I picked up Bioshock Infinite last week since it was on sale for $12.89. I cashed in a $5 gift card from Bing Rewards and I had a few bucks already in my account, so it ended up like $7 and some change.
Just finished it last night. It was pretty good, but the internet has built it up as some milestone achievement in videogames when in reality I just thought it was a very lovingly produced game that didn't really do anything new but took existing concepts and polished them to a mirror shine.
Also, it was so massively refreshing to start the game up and not see a giant MULTIPLAYER button. As someone that doesn't play multiplayer games online, it's nice to know that the development team put all their manhours into the campaign instead of looking at is as an afterthought.
Currently trying to decide if I want to pick up Bioshock or Bioshock 2 now, since they're both $4.99 each, and today's the last day of the sale.
Bioshock is a very different experience from Infinite, but still excellent. 2 is a bit rougher, and a bit less interesting, but has better gameplay then the first one.
2's problem is that it doesn't bring anything new to the table. BioShock had Rapture, it's deconstruction of mission control as a mechanic, and it's deconstruction of objectivism/extremism. Infinite had Columbia, it's exploration of quantum mechanics for gameplay, and it's deconstruction of American exceptionalism, steampunk, and choice in narrative.
2 just feels like a reaction to BioShock 1 instead of it's own game.
So I picked up Bioshock Infinite last week since it was on sale for $12.89. I cashed in a $5 gift card from Bing Rewards and I had a few bucks already in my account, so it ended up like $7 and some change.
Just finished it last night. It was pretty good, but the internet has built it up as some milestone achievement in videogames when in reality I just thought it was a very lovingly produced game that didn't really do anything new but took existing concepts and polished them to a mirror shine.
Also, it was so massively refreshing to start the game up and not see a giant MULTIPLAYER button. As someone that doesn't play multiplayer games online, it's nice to know that the development team put all their manhours into the campaign instead of looking at is as an afterthought.
Currently trying to decide if I want to pick up Bioshock or Bioshock 2 now, since they're both $4.99 each, and today's the last day of the sale.
PC or console? I think I have an extra Steam code for Bioshock 1 that I can send you if you're on PC.
So I picked up Bioshock Infinite last week since it was on sale for $12.89. I cashed in a $5 gift card from Bing Rewards and I had a few bucks already in my account, so it ended up like $7 and some change.
Just finished it last night. It was pretty good, but the internet has built it up as some milestone achievement in videogames when in reality I just thought it was a very lovingly produced game that didn't really do anything new but took existing concepts and polished them to a mirror shine.
Also, it was so massively refreshing to start the game up and not see a giant MULTIPLAYER button. As someone that doesn't play multiplayer games online, it's nice to know that the development team put all their manhours into the campaign instead of looking at is as an afterthought.
Currently trying to decide if I want to pick up Bioshock or Bioshock 2 now, since they're both $4.99 each, and today's the last day of the sale.
PC or console? I think I have an extra Steam code for Bioshock 1 that I can send you if you're on PC.
Bought Infinite for my Xbox 360. I don't own a PC.
2's problem is that it doesn't bring anything new to the table. BioShock had Rapture, it's deconstruction of mission control as a mechanic, and it's deconstruction of objectivism/extremism. Infinite had Columbia, it's exploration of quantum mechanics for gameplay, and it's deconstruction of American exceptionalism, steampunk, and choice in narrative.
2 just feels like a reaction to BioShock 1 instead of it's own game.
B2 has Minerva's Den though, which balances it out.
2's problem is that it doesn't bring anything new to the table. BioShock had Rapture, it's deconstruction of mission control as a mechanic, and it's deconstruction of objectivism/extremism. Infinite had Columbia, it's exploration of quantum mechanics for gameplay, and it's deconstruction of American exceptionalism, steampunk, and choice in narrative.
2 just feels like a reaction to BioShock 1 instead of it's own game.
Well, it was a sequel. There's certain expectations. I think 2 was done in the basis that people thought that 1 was saying that extreme objectivism was bad, and decided to show that extreme collectivism wouldn't be any better (Lamb isn't lying when she says she cares for you as much as she cares for anyone (and tries to have you killed in the same sentence). It just demonstrates how much regard she has for any single being). So it still had a concept deconstruction in there.
I also liked it for subverting some of the things that people were expecting.
Be honest, was anyone expecting Sinclair not to turn on us for his own good? I know he got turned into an enemy, but even then he's still kinda on our side.
I like 2 a little bit more than 1, but I'll still tell people to play 1 first, as it's really a game you need context to get the most out of.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
He wanted to do a Final Fantasy Tactics type thing, presumably at odds with the guys in marketing who wanted a scaled down port ala Borderlands 2. What a shame, could've been good.
2's problem is that it doesn't bring anything new to the table. BioShock had Rapture, it's deconstruction of mission control as a mechanic, and it's deconstruction of objectivism/extremism. Infinite had Columbia, it's exploration of quantum mechanics for gameplay, and it's deconstruction of American exceptionalism, steampunk, and choice in narrative.
2 just feels like a reaction to BioShock 1 instead of it's own game.
i actually think bioshock 2 did a better job of hitting the right emotional notes though
the whole little sister thing in bioshock 1 is pretty much vestigial from a story perspective
I like a lot of the stuff in 2, don't get me wrong. And Minerva's Den is ridiculously good. But it's just not as creative as 1 or Infinite. Lamb is less an original character and more a reaction to Ryan. Sinclair is pretty cool, though.
Posts
It is constant.
And Booker only has Anna when he forgoes getting baptised. Because after he becomes Comstock he starts getting all Columbia and Lutece particals and becomes impotent, also he still has Anna because without Comstock there's no Lutece to sell his daughter to.
I had thought that Burial at Sea couldn't happen because the ending of Infinite gets rid of the Comstocks, but as it turns out they sort of happen at the same time because Elizabeth sees Booker and herself at Fink Industries.
I just think its a poorly constructed story to begin with, because even you try to say it happens at the same time eventually those Elizabeths are going to drown Booker, and then Comstock will have never existed, and so none of the events of Burial at Sea would have ever happened so neither would Bioshock 1 or 2.
Bear in mind that Elizabeth doesn't only kill the Bookers who chose to be baptized. The act of Booker making a choice not to be baptized guarantees that there will also be an infinite number of Bookers who made the other choice, because it's possible and there's a universe for every possibility. Killing them all one by one is impossible. The only permanent solution is to kill Booker before he makes the choice AT ALL, erasing both the Bookers who took the baptism and the ones that rejected it (since, at that point, they're all still the same person in the same timeline, because it hasn't split yet). The only surviving Bookers are the ones who never went down to the river at all (or at least that was the plan). And since the baptism, regardless of outcome, was obviously a powerful formative experience, it's not very plausible that a Booker who was never faced with that choice would marry the same woman and have the same daughter at the same time and work the same job in the same office.
Really, the whole constant and variables thing kinda ignores me cause its like Dr Who: What is a fixed point in time, and can they be alerted? Well, that just depends on how the writers felt writing that episode.
Mind you, I love Dr. Who and Bioshock Infinite. They just get all wishy washy with their own rules when the story demands it.
Also, why is there no New Game+ mode? First Bioshock 2, now Infinite? I really wanted to replay the game for a 4th time, but no NG+ just took all the wind out of me sails.
World 1: The orginal
World 2: After bring Chen Lin (?) back to life
World 3: Hero of the Revolution Booker world
World 4: New York burning.
Now, World 4 might not be a seprate world, just a future of World 3. We barely spend anytime in World 2, so we're going to ignore that reality since we don't have enough info.
In World 1 Booker helps Elizabeth escape.
However, in World 3 Booker dies at the Hall of Heroes before he can get to Elizabeth.
So, where is World's 3 Elizabeth?
Is that ever explained? Did I miss something there?
I'm very satisfied with it. I liked it a lot.
"You Belong to Me" is a song I will probably pay money for
Say what you will about anything else in the game, but the music of Bioshock Infinite is fucking amazing 100%
I recently replayed Bioshock 1 and 2. I'd just sit on the load screens to listen to those sweet, sweet sounds.
They did have some image somewhere of songbirds head grafted onto a human torso so i figured it was going to be a lot deeper.
Elizabeth chose this fate. She could see behind all the doors, see the choices that would be made. And in an infinite number of universes, an infinite number of Elizabeths chose to sacrifice themselves for the salvation of the Little Sisters.
I can even understand why any of an infinite number of versions of Elizabeth would make that choice; little girls, held prisoner in a sunken city, exploited and killed. How could she have possibly stayed in Paris, knowing she could change what lay behind those doors?
Are you talking about the
I don't think so.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
The atmosphere and production values were stunning as usual, which makes it even more of a shame that the plot was so truly awful.
It was effectively a prequel with characters from Infinite arbitrarily placed into it instead of new ones, using ridiculous time travel machinations to hand wave plot points that the writers were too lazy to develop naturally. It felt like Irrational just giving up and saying "Well, we don't have any better ideas left than just rehashing what we did 7 years ago". Levine needs to lose his massive ego if he wants to do something as brilliant as the first game again, because Infinite was one big incredibly expensive exercise in stupidity.
Now that said, I really liked Burial at Sea, but I understand the criticisms.
It didn't have to anyway. If the new game wants to be about Rapture again, it will, no matter what happened in Infinite.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
What a great dlc.
Just finished it last night. It was pretty good, but the internet has built it up as some milestone achievement in videogames when in reality I just thought it was a very lovingly produced game that didn't really do anything new but took existing concepts and polished them to a mirror shine.
Also, it was so massively refreshing to start the game up and not see a giant MULTIPLAYER button. As someone that doesn't play multiplayer games online, it's nice to know that the development team put all their manhours into the campaign instead of looking at is as an afterthought.
Currently trying to decide if I want to pick up Bioshock or Bioshock 2 now, since they're both $4.99 each, and today's the last day of the sale.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I would advise the answer being yes.
2 just feels like a reaction to BioShock 1 instead of it's own game.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
PC or console? I think I have an extra Steam code for Bioshock 1 that I can send you if you're on PC.
Bought Infinite for my Xbox 360. I don't own a PC.
Thanks for the offer though.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
And Burial at Sea Part 2, natch.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Well, it was a sequel. There's certain expectations. I think 2 was done in the basis that people thought that 1 was saying that extreme objectivism was bad, and decided to show that extreme collectivism wouldn't be any better (Lamb isn't lying when she says she cares for you as much as she cares for anyone (and tries to have you killed in the same sentence). It just demonstrates how much regard she has for any single being). So it still had a concept deconstruction in there.
I also liked it for subverting some of the things that people were expecting.
He wanted to do a Final Fantasy Tactics type thing, presumably at odds with the guys in marketing who wanted a scaled down port ala Borderlands 2. What a shame, could've been good.
the whole little sister thing in bioshock 1 is pretty much vestigial from a story perspective
2 actually mines it a little
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com