Still not gone on the ending the more I think about it. I know he went down two different paths but would the Comstock booker really be a completely different person after his Baptism?
Sure he might have different beliefs, but I mean he is drastically different. Hes racist for one, which is completely against what Booker was.
And one annoying thing, Comstock has a completely different voice to that of Bookers.....and the Comstock holding the baby before Elizabeth lost her finger looked nothing like Booker.
All of the above is explained in the audio logs dotted around Columbia. Firstly, the baptism did change Booker/Comstock quite drastically. Firstly, the DeWitt that went through the baptism used it as a way to wash away his sins, not only allowing his mind to get over the shame but actually celebrate his actions and use them to turn him into a hero.
As for the different look and sound, it is explained that using the tears quite frequently has caused Comstock to age rapidly so what you are seeing is a fairly damaged version of DeWitt. Finally, the tears also eventually made him sterile, so when he wanted an heir, he set into motion the events of the game.
I picked up all but 9 audio logs I think but it still doesn't explain why Booker looks nothing like the Comstock we see just before the baby loses its finger. NOTHING alike. And this Comstock was still young with brown hair.
Still not gone on the explanation for the different voice too. Its drastically different.
And if I missed an audio log on how De witt totally changed his views on EVERYTHING after the baptism then fair enough. But I mean, hes not even close to having any of the same characteristics but if it was explained in a log I missed fair enough.
I was actually watching my housemate playing it there last night. At some points near the start of the game where Comstock is talking to Brooker, Brooker talks along with him. Quiet, subtle, but it's there.
The voice can be explained off through the tears and getting older.
Is there a side by side comparison of Comstock and Booker? I wouldnt say they look completely different. Obviously, the major difference I can see is the beard.
Booker (I found this on the Bioshock forums, not sure if it's actually official)
Old Comstock (Best pic I could find that wasn't a poster in-game)
Booker and young Comstock are identical but for the beard, bit harder to see the old Comstock picture but the similarities are there.
Just finished it there, overall hugely disappointing the whole game was ruined knowing that there was some twist to come at the end and I felt everything I was doing was pointless and just to kill time before setting up some weird ending. It all got a bit Twin Peaks there near the end.
So many missions involve going from point A to point B then Back to A to get to C then back to B then through a tear into an alternative A,B and C shooting set number of enemies each time. I got fairly sick of back tracking. That whole lady Comstock thing was a pain.
Presentation was stunning I really liked the artwork and the feel of the city but boy did it lack any kind of exploration or anything to get invested in. So much work went into this it deserved better. The tears and bringing in things from other times/dimensions was a really good touch. But pretty forgettable game to be honest when you put it up against Bioshock 1 which I still think is a work of art.
I quite enjoyed the ending. I had to read some summaries just to make sure I fully understood all of it, or at least most of it. I'm not sure if I still need spoiler tags, but I'll assume I do. I thought.
Someone mentioned earlier hearing a sound similar to Songbird in the original bioshock, and that it might be . As cool as that would be, Levine mentioned that originally the Songbird was going to sound like a Big Daddy rather than high-pitched. So they couldn't have decided to put that Easter Egg in back when they were making Bioshock.
For me the most interesting part of the ending was . Making the games all parallel stories exploring different themes. Most articles I read though drew the obvious similarities (Ryan -> Comstock, Jack -> Booker, Little Sisters -> Elizabeth) but connected Fontaine/Atlas with Daisy Fitzroy. Which seems wrong to me. In the same way Elizabeth is multiple people in Bioshock, I think Fontaine is multiple people in Infinite. Atlas is Fitzroy, but I think Fontaine's parallel would definitely be Fink.
Both are charismatic con-men who set up manufacturing businesses that are essential to the primary antagonist. Fontaine Futuristics and Fisheries as well as his homes for the poor are very similar to Fink MFG and how his workers live in the factory. I am not sure if he invented them in Rapture but Fontaine was definitely a manufacturer of Plasmids and of course Fink brought Vigors to Columbia. I also felt that Fink's massive golden statue was a stick in the for Comstock, it was like a Golden Calf. I think if Booker hadn't shown up, Fink and Comstock were destined to clash. Which would parallel Ryan trying to destroy Fontaine.
The relationship between Fink and Daisy kind of buggers the theory a bit though.
I'm of the same opinion, enjoyable game, I had a great time playing it. But I wouldn't be going around praising it all day and giving it 10/10 .
When anyone asks if I played it I say yes...and then ask them if they've played Bioshock 1....to which most say no. I then just try convince them to play Bioshock 1 as it is a much better game.
There were never any "tense" moments, like the way you had to plan about attacking a "big daddy"
My favourite part of Bioshock Infinite was when I was back in rapture.
Biggest disappointment about the game, the plasmids ....no need for them whatsoever. I didn't need to use about 70% of them. Electricity here and there, and upgrade the "crow trap" to full....so they constantly make crow traps, and then just upgrade certain weapons and it's as easy.
My brain is on fire. Whut just happened? Well, I get bits and pieces, but I think I need to replay soon, with the ending fresh in my mind. Its so good. It was great to have a fully wrapped up game, with seemingly no chance of a sequel. Well, hopefully.
What did they mean at the beginning by, "he doesn't row"?
The Lutece's are checking to see what changes each time they bring a Booker to try and get Elizabeth. For example at the coin toss Booker's choice might change but it always lands on heads no matter what. That is why Robert has the chalkboard with all the strikes for heads. The amount of strikes is also the reasoning behind which number Booker the one we play is. When they say he doesn't row, they mean no Booker they have brought through to rescue Elizabeth has ever rowed, hence "He doesn't row". Constants and variables as Elizabeth later says.
Can anyone explain the whole asylum thing? I was a bit lost with that. What exactly was that guy?
Also just noticed.. the attack on New York happened in or around 1983/1984. If you look in the background of this clip, you can see a news ticker which says "Columbia Sky City threatens New York something/01/83 Evacuation".
You're fine. The thread is about the end, so there's little chance of not having spoilers here.
You have to remember that they hadn't planned out this game when the first one was made, so there's bound to be plot holes when tying the two stories together.
The "there is always a man and a lighthouse" line basically said to me that the ending was pointless, as there's no possible way to stop it from happening, since there's an infinite amount of possibilities.
Just found this.. very interesting.
Apparently throughout the game you could hear some ambient noises. Someone then took this noise and sped it up.. seemingly its an actual melody and song that are playing.
(you can switch between the different speeds to hear it)