Bioshock Infinite - 'The Ending' Discussion Thread (Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers!)

Antar Bolaeisk

Spear wrote: »

DeWitt only branded his hand after giving away Anna/Elizabeth, so Comstock couldn't have the brand.

Ah that makes sense. Guess I'll need to watch it again to get all the timelines straightened out.

Somnus

Have to say I really enjoyed the ending. Obviously anything that contains multiple universes etc can get a bit confusing, but I agree with what the article and a few other posters are saying about how all the Elizabeth's drowned the version of Booker that would become Comstock, and the deWitt version was left unaffected.

I'd say a second play through would reveal a whole lot of nods to what is really happening.

Also, the moment Robert Lutece says that Comstock washes away your sins when you give him Anna was a :eek: moment!!
I really didn't see that coming and I think that was the best moment of the game.

So, I assume that the Elizabeth we know from the game is completely gone then? Leaving only the version of her as Anna with deWitt, unaware of what has happened in the alternate dimensions?

Stev_o

I just want to know what the point of Slate was. He recognizes Booker from service but seems to know nothing about what happened to him after Wounded Knee etc

ShadowHearth

Okay, i just finshed it up. I loved the wraping up way. I though it was really damn good, but the more time passed from ending the game, the more I get of "wait a minute? wtf? why did this happen like that" etc...

Anyway, good game, but I think that Bioshock 1 was still a lot better game. I know a lot of people hate bioshock 2, but bioshock 2 had a better gunplay too.

*now hides in fear.

soap1978

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Okay, i just finshed it up. I loved the wraping up way. I though it was really damn good, but the more time passed from ending the game, the more I get of "wait a minute? wtf? why did this happen like that" etc...

Anyway, good game, but I think that Bioshock 1 was still a lot better game. I know a lot of people hate bioshock 2, but bioshock 2 had a better gunplay too.

*now hides in fear.

I agree bioshock 1 and 2 where alot better,didnt like the powers in this one at all.I would give it a 7 out of 10.

Kirby

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Okay, i just finshed it up. I loved the wraping up way. I though it was really damn good, but the more time passed from ending the game, the more I get of "wait a minute? wtf? why did this happen like that" etc...

Anyway, good game, but I think that Bioshock 1 was still a lot better game. I know a lot of people hate bioshock 2, but bioshock 2 had a better gunplay too.

*now hides in fear.

From a purely narrative point of view, I get what you are saying. There is a definite finality to the story in the first. The twist in the first comes a lot earlier so you have more time to appreciate it and also Rapture is a more dangerous environment.

However, while it is great to talk about the first game with other people.....there is not much to say beyond the twist. It is what it is. Beyond, "Wasn't it great?" and "Did you see it coming?" there isn't much to say.

There is a lot more to Infinite.....it's more complex and has more themes running through it. It gets you thinking a lot more than the first. In my opinion anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bioshock 1 was great and has a great story that anyone can enjoy. Infinite deals with plot points that it takes a sci-fi person to appreciate and that could weaken it's mass appeal. I'm still convinced that most of the people who played through it.....didn't get it. Didn't actually understand the ending.

Now that might be a storytelling failure on the part of the developers. Or it might just be the problem when you deal with time travel or multiple dimensions. Who knows? But while I enjoyed Bioshock 1 immensely, I didn't really care about the characters. Jack is a mute. The little sisters have little personality. I cared about what happened to Booker and Elizabeth and for me, that is a bigger success.

Lord TSC

Vokes wrote: »

that didn't hang doesn't hang well together is that Comstock's worldview of blacks/chinese/etc... is totally at odds (seemingly) with Booker's worlview. Was there an explanation for this?

I'd imagine that's down to the "religion" thing; Comstock was highly religious, and 191 America would have been very down on those races. I actually loved the "Anti-Irish" aspect of the world, cause I studied that aspect of American history during my MA, and its something that tends to get ignored. A religious zealot like Comstock, especially one trying to indoctrinate people into his way of thinking, would likely play on people's prejudices in order to make them his followers.

Some questions on the tears; they seem to imply that tears open gateways into alternate versions of history, but is there ever any exploration into the timetravel aspect of them? There's obviously some tears (red ones, if I remember right) which glimpse the future (with music playing through them), and someone has obviously taken some songs from them and integrated them into Colombian society. And the first time you see Elizabeth, she opens a tear to 1983 (as seen by the fact the cinema is showing Return of the Jedi). And obviously there's the whole "Going back to the point of Booker's baptism" thing. But is there ever much discussion about the fact the tears can be used for time travel in the game? I don't remember much...

Randall Floyd

Kirby wrote: »

From a purely narrative point of view, I get what you are saying. There is a definite finality to the story in the first. The twist in the first comes a lot earlier so you have more time to appreciate it and also Rapture is a more dangerous environment.

However, while it is great to talk about the first game with other people.....there is not much to say beyond the twist. It is what it is. Beyond, "Wasn't it great?" and "Did you see it coming?" there isn't much to say.

There is a lot more to Infinite.....it's more complex and has more themes running through it. It gets you thinking a lot more than the first. In my opinion anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bioshock 1 was great and has a great story that anyone can enjoy. Infinite deals with plot points that it takes a sci-fi person to appreciate and that could weaken it's mass appeal. I'm still convinced that most of the people who played through it.....didn't get it. Didn't actually understand the ending.

Now that might be a storytelling failure on the part of the developers. Or it might just be the problem when you deal with time travel or multiple dimensions. Who knows? But while I enjoyed Bioshock 1 immensely, I didn't really care about the characters. Jack is a mute. The little sisters have little personality. I cared about what happened to Booker and Elizabeth and for me, that is a bigger success.

Agreed, the character development feels better than in Bioshock 1, Elizabeth in particular.

ShadowHearth

Kirby wrote: »

From a purely narrative point of view, I get what you are saying. There is a definite finality to the story in the first. The twist in the first comes a lot earlier so you have more time to appreciate it and also Rapture is a more dangerous environment.

However, while it is great to talk about the first game with other people.....there is not much to say beyond the twist. It is what it is. Beyond, "Wasn't it great?" and "Did you see it coming?" there isn't much to say.

There is a lot more to Infinite.....it's more complex and has more themes running through it. It gets you thinking a lot more than the first. In my opinion anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bioshock 1 was great and has a great story that anyone can enjoy. Infinite deals with plot points that it takes a sci-fi person to appreciate and that could weaken it's mass appeal. I'm still convinced that most of the people who played through it.....didn't get it. Didn't actually understand the ending.

Now that might be a storytelling failure on the part of the developers. Or it might just be the problem when you deal with time travel or multiple dimensions. Who knows? But while I enjoyed Bioshock 1 immensely, I didn't really care about the characters. Jack is a mute. The little sisters have little personality. I cared about what happened to Booker and Elizabeth and for me, that is a bigger success.

I liked characters in First and second bioshock. What I really loved about those two, that you were building up all the knowladge about your enemy before even meeting him.
I f you remember the very first "boss" type fight in bioshock 1. It was that crazed plastic surgery fella. you were constantly finding more details about him and what has he done. So by the time I was fighting him, i knew he is one messed up bastard, that I dont want to let near me!

Now I would recomend any bioshock game. Each of those games have awesome stuff to experience. Though saying that, the only thing that keeps all stuff together in Infinite is quite interesting Story, which starts to wrap up only waaaaay deep in the second half of the game.
Funny enough this game had me on rollcoaster of "like/dislike" opinion. I loved it when started, then in the middle of the game it just became meh. Only when you start to look for Elizabeth mother it picks up the plot and goes more interesting direction. From that point it got to a "i need to do one more chapter and i will go do X thing" state for me.
Now I LOVE bioshock 1. I find it still better then Infinite. The ending of infinite was satisfying ( in a way ), but after that it just closes down the door on whole bioshock franchise. you can make some ICE city now, but you will still know that some girl named Elizabeth is ****ing around with time and universe like it is her own personal bitch/bitches on some floating city. I loved that they put in Rapture in the ending, but it made rapture to be such an insignificant place, because in Columbia they have power of controlling time and universe etc...

I loved infinity story and setting, but the gameplay was pants compared to two first ones. Callofdutysissed 2 weapon limit. Upgrade paths for weapons pants and boring. they dont even change how weapon looks ( they cant, because you swap weapons every 2 minutes ), plasmids Vigors, were very basic and boring. they did not even felt powerful. Let alone all of the enemies in the second part of the game become bullet spunges.

I might sound very "negative", i am sorry. I still loved this game and Money were well spent, but I dont really thing that comparing it to Bioshock 1 and saying that it is improvement on EVERYTHING is quite fair.

p.s. I loved the feeling in Bioshock 1, when i needed to take down Big Daddy. On every single fight would end up in your death or you barely alive. Taking down one of them was an achievement on its own. It felt satisfying.

Kirby

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I it just closes down the door on whole bioshock franchise. you can make some ICE city now, but you will still know that some girl named Elizabeth is ****ing around with time and universe like it is her own personal bitch/bitches on some floating city

That's not true at all and just proves my point about people not getting the ending. Elizabeth no longer exists. She drowned every version of Booker that became Comstock. So now Booker DeWitt no longer gives Anna away.

She just stays as a normal child.....the source of her power was losing her finger in one dimension while the rest of her was in another.....in two places at once. That's why she could open and even create the tears. So by never giving her away, none of that happens.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

surprised comstock never figured that out, lambs on demand

Somnus

Kirby wrote: »

That's not true at all and just proves my point about people not getting the ending. Elizabeth no longer exists. She drowned every version of Booker that became Comstock. So now Booker DeWitt no longer gives Anna away.

She just stays as a normal child.....the source of her power was losing her finger in one dimension while the rest of her was in another.....in two places at once. That's why she could open and even create the tears. So by never giving her away, none of that happens.

Agree with you there. All though I didn't really get that the finger was the source of her power, then again I hadn't really thought about how she had it.

I think the same about her now being just a normal kid. Gave the ending a kinda bittersweet taste, cause neither of them are ever going to be aware of everything that happened now. And to think that the Elizabeth we know so well by the end of the game doesn't exist now

Ah I loved it! The more I think about the ending the more I think I appreciate it.

ShadowHearth

Kirby wrote: »

That's not true at all and just proves my point about people not getting the ending. Elizabeth no longer exists. She drowned every version of Booker that became Comstock. So now Booker DeWitt no longer gives Anna away.

She just stays as a normal child.....the source of her power was losing her finger in one dimension while the rest of her was in another.....in two places at once. That's why she could open and even create the tears. So by never giving her away, none of that happens.

I am a bit confused on that one allright. The way I see it she killed him in that universe, but the rest if universes are still in paradox state. Killing him in one universe does not change the outcome of the rest of them.
I need to watch the ending again. I am still confused lol

Antar Bolaeisk

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am a bit confused on that one allright. The way I see it she killed him in that universe, but the rest if universes are still in paradox state. Killing him in one universe does not change the outcome of the rest of them.
I need to watch the ending again. I am still confused lol

I think we could extrapolate from the final scene that all the Elizabeths have killed all the Bookers who were going to go down the Comstock path.

Kirby

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am a bit confused on that one allright. The way I see it she killed him in that universe, but the rest if universes are still in paradox state. Killing him in one universe does not change the outcome of the rest of them.
I need to watch the ending again. I am still confused lol

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

I think we could extrapolate from the final scene that all the Elizabeths have killed all the Bookers who were going to go down the Comstock path.

Exactly. Several Elizabeth's drown the player.....who all look different. Implying that it's happening across all the universes. So Anna never becomes Elizabeth because Comstock will never exist. She just stays a normal girl.

Which of course, gives a whole new meaning to their song choice for the Barbershop Quartet. "God only knows what I'd be without you".

Quite clever.

Stev_o

But whats the deal with the Red tears you see with music playing?

degrassinoel

Games mods, can you delete my spoilers from the first post in this thread? I didnt know it was going to be merged/split and as a result when you hover over the topic the spoilers are revealed which may annoy some people.

Jet Black

Kirby wrote: »

She just stays as a normal child.....the source of her power was losing her finger in one dimension while the rest of her was in another.....

I don't think thats correct. Her power was because she was experimented on. The Lutese twins (who were not actually twins but the same person in two dimensions) can be seen opening a tear and pass the baby Anna through. They had the technology. The experimented on her and eventually she didn't need the machine to open tears, she could just do it. She was then locked up and there was a machine in the tower that stopped her from using her powers fully.

Antar Bolaeisk

Stev_o wrote: »

But whats the deal with the Red tears you see with music playing?

Some tears were occurring (un)naturally, probably a result of the Lutece experimentation causing tears in the space-time continuum or whatever. The different colour was probably just a design choice to mark them as different for the player.

Vokes

Jet Black wrote:

I don't think thats correct. Her power was because she was experimented on. The Lutese twins (who were not actually twins but the same person in two dimensions) can be seen opening a tear and pass the baby Anna through. They had the technology. The experimented on her and eventually she didn't need the machine to open tears, she could just do it. She was then locked up and there was a machine in the tower that stopped her from using her powers fully.

There's a recording in Monument Tower in which Rosalin Lutece implies that Elizabeth leaving her finger behind was the source of her powers.

Also, there's a timeline chart in the same lab showing that the machine, the Siphon, wasn't built until Elizabeth was well into her teens to control her escalating powers. Although, you might be referring to other machines prior to this?

Kirby

Jet Black wrote: »

I don't think thats correct. Her power was because she was experimented on. The Lutese twins (who were not actually twins but the same person in two dimensions) can be seen opening a tear and pass the baby Anna through. They had the technology. The experimented on her and eventually she didn't need the machine to open tears, she could just do it. She was then locked up and there was a machine in the tower that stopped her from using her powers fully.

Nope. you've got that backwards regarding the machine. The machine never gave her power.....it is designed to stop it.

Elizabeth tells us she could create tears at will as a child.....it was being hooked up to the machine that stunted that power....drained her somewhat and as she got older, she couldn't do it any more. She couldn't create them, merely open ones she saw. She only regains the ability to open them at will later on in the game.

As you said, they had the technology to open the tear. But they didn't try to take her because she was in any way special. They took her because Comstock had become sterile due to the machine and saw Anna as basically his own child anyway.

And it was losing the finger that gave her the ability in the first place. Parts of her are in two places at once. Lutece explains that is where Elizabeth's power stems from through audio recordings throughout the game.

Edit: Vokes beat me to it.

ShadowHearth

Kirby wrote: »

Nope. you've got that backwards regarding the machine. The machine never gave her power.....it is designed to stop it.

Elizabeth tells us she could create tears at will as a child.....it was being hooked up to the machine that stunted that power....drained her somewhat and as she got older, she couldn't do it any more. She couldn't create them, merely open ones she saw. She only regains the ability to open them at will later on in the game.

As you said, they had the technology to open the tear. But they didn't try to take her because she was in any way special. They took her because Comstock had become sterile due to the machine and saw Anna as basically his own child anyway.

And it was losing the finger that gave her the ability in the first place. Parts of her are in two places at once. Lutece explains that is where Elizabeth's power stems from through audio recordings throughout the game.

Edit: Vokes beat me to it.

Cheers for that. Story starts to make more sence now.

Jet Black

Ah right I see that mentioned. Just going through the recordings.

Vokes

There's an insane amount of background detail in this game - and only noticing some of it on a 2nd playthrough. Kudos to the developers.

Kirby

I agree. Little things you miss the first time round.

Like at the beginning when you walk through Columbia, there is a statue of Robert Lutece that kind of....morphs into Rosalind Lutece right in front of your eyes. I completely missed that the first time through and just thought it was a cool effect.

It makes so much sense now....knowing what you know.

ShadowHearth

Kirby wrote: »

I agree. Little things you miss the first time round.

Like at the beginning when you walk through Columbia, there is a statue of Robert Lutece that kind of....morphs into Rosalind Lutece right in front of your eyes. I completely missed that the first time through and just thought it was a cool effect.

It makes so much sense now....knowing what you know.

Looks like I will have to fire up 1999 mode so. Will see a lot more details now, when I know what to look for.
I have to say I did suspected that those two are the same person, just different genders.

Randall Floyd

Was the siphon designed purely to prevent Elizabeth from creating more powerful tears or was it used also to draw energy from her?

BlitzKrieg

As you said, they had the technology to open the tear. But they didn't try to take her because she was in any way special. They took her because Comstock had become sterile due to the machine and saw Anna as basically his own child anyway.

also more importantly to Comstock, he was shown a future where his family line would reign fire down on the wicked, which was only one probable future, but he sat out to make it the only definite future (hence he had to have someone of his blood take the throne from him).


going back to the bioshock/infinite comparsions and discussions. What I like from a larger picture perspective is that when you look at both games as a whole there does seem to be a very deliberate design choice from story to game design.

Bioshock you arrive *after* the main civil war has occured and the place has gone to hell so the level design and combat reflects this, every area is a constant foreboding place of fear and you fight it using traps and tricks as your main tools. This obviously further ties into the game's main plot with you being a unknowing weapon unleashed against andrew ryan.

Infinite though you are pretty much the instigator, you start the civil war, sure the vox populi is bubbling under the bright scenes at the initial, but as the game clearly shows, you are the martyr that sets it all in motion. As a result the design flows more in an up and down design then bioshock's constant fear also the combat is more bluntly in your face, because as the instigator you are hitting a lot of the events head on with a very aggressive, direct approach. Rather then Bioshock's more open ended approach.

I'd almost say infinite has more in common with Half Life 2 then it does with the original Bioshock in its pacing (initial prolonged city exploration, extended chase sequence from the law, constant companion, open revolt with which you are a figurehead in (though obviously different consequences in each game)

tok9

I just finished it there and loved it unsurprisingly but I do have a question in terms of the timeline of the game.

At what stage does DeWitt get baptised?


I'm assuming the loop is - he fights in these wars, give up Anna (this could be the other way around), get's baptised and becomes Comstock, goes onto Columbia and from a tear takes Anna.

Sound about right or am I way off?

A couple of things, first off

When you save Elizabeth by pulling the leaver and when you turn around that ****ing thing stares you right in the face, I screamed like a girl for about 30 seconds! Girlfriend was beside me watching TV and she laughed her ass off at me..that was epic.

OMG ending! It's been so long since a game literally made my jaw drop.

The trip back to rapture made me freak out, the direct similarity's between all of the characters in Bioshock 1 and this came to light. I wish I could erase my memory so I could play this all over again.

Also, shocked at all the negativity from everyone else. Opinions are opinions though.