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

ShadowHearth

FutureGuy wrote: »

I think my personal biggest disappointment was the fact that the Songbird story wasn't fleshed out more, but I can understand why they did not do it. Honestly, it's a story doesn't need explaining. It's monsterous and has a specific raison d'etre. But it would have been nice all the same, especially given the Ultimate Efition of the game is the Songbird edition AND contains a giant fecking statue of the character!

You know what would be cool? A dlc all about songbird. Like some sort of prequel . it was so under delivered for sure. In all those trailers it looked like it will be a big part of the game, but in reality it was just a cut scene material. I was never threatened by it in all game

FutureGuy

ShadowHearth wrote: »

You know what would be cool? A dlc all about songbird. Like some sort of prequel . it was so under delivered for sure. In all those trailers it looked like it will be a big part of the game, but in reality it was just a cut scene material. I was never threatened by it in all game

Actually, you just blew my mind...I bought the season pass yesterday so hopefully we will get that as a DLC.

Agreed, he was essentially a cut-scene device and a big-assed vigor at the end!

Mr. K

ShadowHearth wrote: »

The second enemy I was really looking forward to was the fella with metal mask? Blind and huge "ears"? He was in that "hospital" place. That was my favourite part in all game.

The Boy of Silence. Biggest fright a game has given me in years...

FutureGuy wrote: »

Honestly, it's a story doesn't need explaining. It's monsterous and has a specific raison d'etre.

I seem to remember listening to a voxophone that explains Songbird's origin; Fink was inspired by technology he saw through a tear, which is why it's much more sophisticated than the rest of the stuff on Columbia.

I thought his death was amazing. His eye turning from red to green seemed like a subtle mirror of the Big Daddies, which he essentially was. And the setting for that moment topped it off beautifully!

Spear

Mr. K wrote: »

The Boy of Silence. Biggest fright a game has given me in years...



I seem to remember listening to a voxophone that explains Songbird's origin; Fink was inspired by technology he saw through a tear, which is why it's much more sophisticated than the rest of the stuff on Columbia.

I thought his death was amazing. His eye turning from red to green seemed like a subtle mirror of the Big Daddies, which he essentially was. And the setting for that moment topped it off beautifully!

Fink was observing Rapture, it was Big Daddy technology that was applied to create him. Which in turn would suggest that there was a human as the basis for it, and since it wasn't explored in the game, it seems a likely choice for DLC.

LuckyFinigan

That was one mental ending. Don't know if I even understood it so much was going on. Booker was different version of Comstock from a different world? Definitely going to be thinking about it for a while, nearly puts Inception to shame.

johnny_ultimate

I really liked the ending. It perfectly captured two things inherent to the Bioshock franchise.

The first are themes of choice and authorship. The first game, despite its exhilarating reveals, played its cards early and was rightly criticized for a final third that more or less fell victim to the same linear, restrictive and manipulated design the game had spent so much time critiquing. Infinite - despite offering fewer binary choices (kill or save etc...) - has its themes more deeply ingrained in the narrative. Indeed, it goes so far as integrating this whole mad quantum sci-fi world in order to explore it. And it does so magnificently. The characters in the game have made decisions that actually have meaningful - and in one case genocidal - repercussions.

The Comstock House level worked really well for me because of those recordings of Elizabeth denied her free will, emphasised by her distant, heartbreaking, tortured roars. Booker, meanwhile, is unable to escape the memories of his misguided decisions and violent deeds. These can not merely be baptised away - they have defined him. Yet he's also guided by external forces (those merry quantum leaping siblings) who seem keen to steer him down certain paths. In a way the ending reminded me of Hitchock's Vertigo - that devastating spectre of 'mad memory' and an obsessive compulsion to change the perhaps irreversible - although with more insane sci-fi than Alfred ever managed. The supposed greatest film of all time is not the worst comparison for a game story to earn - the narrative in Infinite is probably a touch on the muddled side at times to make it anything more than a perhaps fleeting comparison, but it's in good thematic company.

The return visit to Rapture and the infinite sea of lighthouses (what a stunning image that was), on the other hand, explored another of Bioshock's prevalent themes. Both Rapture and Columbia are theoretical utopias ripped apart by human corruption. They both have their deluded leader. There'll always be an Andrew Ryan or a Comstock in the way. Maybe in one world somewhere there's a successful world, but much more likely there's an infinite range of failed experiments, imperfect societies and broken dreams. Worlds of inequality, corruption and violence. Maybe Ken Levine and co. will be kind enough to let us see a couple of them sometime

Burning Eclipse

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I really liked the ending. It perfectly captured two things inherent to the Bioshock franchise.

The first are themes of choice and authorship.

I'm really glad you brought that up, not enough people are talking about this aspect of the game imo.

During the 'ending' when you're walking among the lighthouses, Elizabeth is talking about constants and variables, and you're walking along pre-defined paths. This is a reflection of Bookers life and choices on the face of it. But without a doubt, it (and large elements of the game) are also commentaries on games as a whole. We're given nominal 'choices' in games, and indeed in Bioshock Infinite (Who do you throw the ball at, spare Slate or not, pull your gun at the counter, what what lasting change do any of these cause?).

The Bird or the Cage pendant is a great example imo. People have been speculating about what it means and what effect it has. For me it's simply a representation that so many of the choices we make in games have superficial impact, and nothing more. We're being given the illusion of choice, but it is meaningless, as things that are going to happen will do so regardless. It would be nice to think the choices we make have deep repercussions, but in reality, we're playing within the confines of a closed system, and all our variables will eventually lead us to 1, or in some games a few, constants - ME springs to mind here, so many variables across 3 games, but in the end, for what?

Back to the lighthouses at the end. Booker says "nobody tells me where to go" as a fixed path opens in front of him! That path then splits (the illusion of choice) but both paths still lead to the baptism.

Indeed, it's because this is a game, and because of player agency that we can break from Booker's vicious cycle. The post credit scene takes place on the day where Booker gives up Anna, and too me, it's a statement that what follows the blank screen is up to you now.

It's allegory like this that sets Irrational apart for me, and separates them from 99% of other developers out there. Ken Levine is a master craftsman, and I am in awe of him. To create a game like this, which can be enjoyed on so many levels is remarkable.

To paraphrase a friend of mine, it's great to see a game made for adults, when so much of what we see might carry an 18-cert, but is clearly made for adolescents.

FutureGuy

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

I'm really glad you brought that up, not enough people are talking about this aspect of the game imo.

During the 'ending' when you're walking among the lighthouses, Elizabeth is talking about constants and variables, and you're walking along pre-defined paths. This is a reflection of Bookers life and choices on the face of it. But without a doubt, it (and large elements of the game) are also commentaries on games as a whole. We're given nominal 'choices' in games, and indeed in Bioshock Infinite (Who do you throw the ball at, spare Slate or not, pull your gun at the counter, what what lasting change do any of these cause?).

The Bird or the Cage pendant is a great example imo. People have been speculating about what it means and what effect it has. For me it's simply a representation that so many of the choices we make in games have superficial impact, and nothing more. We're being given the illusion of choice, but it is meaningless, as things that are going to happen will do so regardless. It would be nice to think the choices we make have deep repercussions, but in reality, we're playing within the confines of a closed system, and all our variables will eventually lead us to 1, or in some games a few, constants - ME springs to mind here, so many variables across 3 games, but in the end, for what?

Back to the lighthouses at the end. Booker says "nobody tells me where to go" as a fixed path opens in front of him! That path then splits (the illusion of choice) but both paths still lead to the baptism.

Indeed, it's because this is a game, and because of player agency that we can break from Booker's vicious cycle. The post credit scene takes place on the day where Booker gives up Anna, and too me, it's a statement that what follows the blank screen is up to you now.

It's allegory like this that sets Irrational apart for me, and separates them from 99% of other developers out there. Ken Levine is a master craftsman, and I am in awe of him. To create a game like this, which can be enjoyed on so many levels is remarkable.

To paraphrase a friend of mine, it's great to see a game made for adults, when so much of what we see might carry an 18-cert, but is clearly made for adolescents.

I actually though the exact same thing on the way to work. Yes, days after finishing the game, I am still analyzing what I have experienced

Another thought I had...

While playing the game, each of us has had a different experience which led us all to having different versions of Booker. Each and every one of our playthroughs as a gaming community is it's own separate universe. We all arrived at different lighthouses based on our decisions.

The group of Elizabeths, who can now travel to all possible universes (all our games), had to drown all versions of Booker who could become Comstock.

I read a fictional book recently that gives an incredible idea on infinite timelines, and it echoes what Burning Eclipse's thoughts on the lack of choice.

Basically, each and every tiny decision we make (eat an apple or an orange, go to Centra or Spar etc etc) results in billions of alternate states per second on the level of subatomic particles. These engage in a sort of Darwinism competition until a stable few win out and spread into the Universe which live on as timelines. This competition lasts nanoseconds so in most realities, you'll still make the same choice. Any decisions with a minor enough impact will create a branch in the timeline which will be outcompeteted, overwhelmed by the other streams that share a redundant outcome. Its a brielfy forgotten fluctuations which merge back into the dominant timestream.

In Infinite, we all made choices that made our game different. I upgraded my Carbine and Bucking Broncos and used them very often. Eclipse might have favoured the Crows, Kirby could have bought a ton of ammunition from stores instead of raiding bodies and Mr.K might have used just vigors and melees.

However, these choices are all inconsequential as we all arrived at the same point. The different versions of Elizabeth drowing all our Bookers to prevent Comstock from existing in all realities.

ShadowHearth

By the way, the Rapture scene makes more sense to me now too. ~This morning I was thinking about it again at work ( i know sad ).

We all know now that songbird was made on a Big Daddy idea, which Fink "stole" from rapture in one of the universes. So Songbird had a direct connection to the Rapture.
So Elizabeth did opened a Raptures universe and killed Songbird in there. It was like... "killing it, where it was born" way. It might be obvious for all of you, but it took me some time to make this interpretation. I know, i am slow!


As much as I have problems with Bioshock infinity, it is a great example of Single player game, which keeps you thinking about it days after you finished it. Games world answered so many question and then again, it just makes you ask more question and wanting you to ask more of the questions!

FutureGuy

ShadowHearth wrote: »

By the way, the Rapture scene makes more sense to me now too. ~This morning I was thinking about it again at work ( i know sad ).

We all know now that songbird was made on a Big Daddy idea, which Fink "stole" from rapture in one of the universes. So Songbird had a direct connection to the Rapture.
So Elizabeth did opened a Raptures universe and killed Songbird in there. It was like... "killing it, where it was born" way. It might be obvious for all of you, but it took me some time to make this interpretation. I know, i am slow!


As much as I have problems with Bioshock infinity, it is a great example of Single player game, which keeps you thinking about it days after you finished it. Games world answered so many question and then again, it just makes you ask more question and wanting you to ask more of the questions!

Nice one!

I restarted the game on easy and got back to the point where the incredible barbershop quartet sing "God only knows what I'd be without you". The lyrics, taken in the context of what has happened in the ending, is incredibly poignant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4coaEB4tabU

"I may not always love you
But long as there are stars above you
You never need to doubt it
Ill make you so sure about it

God only knows what I'd be without you

If you should ever leave me
Though life would still go on believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me

God only knows what I'd be without you

God only knows what I'd be without you

If you should ever leave me
Well life would still go on believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me

God only knows what I'd be without you"

Wossack

are dewitt and comstock the same age when they meet?
how do lutece and comstock initially meet?

thinking perhaps I shouldnt scrutinise this too much..

tok9

Wossack wrote: »

are dewitt and comstock the same age when they meet?
how do lutece and comstock initially meet?

thinking perhaps I shouldnt scrutinise this too much..

Yes I think they are the same age, at least they must be pretty close it's just one has aged faster due to the tears.

Wossack

yea, I seem to recall a recording saying as much - accelerated aging or the like due to use of the machine

is it said how comstock manages to get dewitt into so much debt, and so desperate that he hands over Anna in the first place?

Kirby

Wossack wrote: »

yea, I seem to recall a recording saying as much - accelerated aging or the like due to use of the machine

is it said how comstock manages to get dewitt into so much debt, and so desperate that he hands over Anna in the first place?

The debt was dewitts own doing. Sadness brought on by the death of his wife and beng alone to raise a child I would presume. If you look closely at the desk in bookers room, there are gambling stubs everywhere. Comstock just took advantage. ....he didnt cause it.

johnny_ultimate

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

I'm really glad you brought that up, not enough people are talking about this aspect of the game imo.

I don't many gamers or publications will be willing to delve into the thematic core of what the game represents, TBH - I certainly think it's the rare game that renders traditional reviewing techniques largely redundant. Sure, the 'as is' sci-fi plot is servicable and distracting on its own terms, but it's there to explore very big ideas - the type games very, very rarely explore. This is a game of great subtlety alongside its more literal readings. The 'bird and cage' pendant can be read on many levels IMO - as symbols of freedom (bird) and oppression (cage) they're incredibly apt representations of the philosophical questions successfully explored in later chapters. It's a subtle choice but one that resonates throughout the story as we witness characters fighting battles of free will in opposition with restrictive forces both external and personal. It may seem like an arbitrary flourish at the time, but that simple a or b choice really is a much richer thematic one than any of Bioshock's 'Save or Harvest' the Little Sister decisions. The weight of those decisions ultimately amounted to little more than an unsatisfactory selection of endings. It's possible that Levine at the time was attempting to articulate many of the ideas much more fruitfully explored in the sequel but didn't quite get there (or at least got there inconsistently, with successful thematic experiments like the Atlas character proving awkward bedfellows with the lazy endings).

That scene where Booker is forced to hand over baby Elizabeth is incredibly poignant as the choice is already determined and inevitable - and we feel that because it's entirely out of our control. The ending wonders if granded the opportunity to change decisions, would it even be possible? It's a game that uses the lack of player control as a strong narrative asset rather than a cheap attempt at aping cinema. The closest gaming equivalent I can think of is the ending of Half Life 2 Episode 2 when for the first time in the series you're held in place and unable to do anything. As you say, Mass Effect 3 for all the wrong reasons illuminates the restrictions of supposed player authorship - Bioshock Infinite does so in a much more active and positive way.

There's been quite a few complaints about the combat too. Whatever about the mechanics themselves - which I mostly found engrossing with a few exceptions (frustrating respawn loops, bullet sponge enemies etc...) - this is one game that absolutely justifies its heavy emphasis on player-controlled violence. As I mentioned above, every action Booker takes is defined by his violent past - something he finds impossible to escape, and instead gets drawn into this cycle of destruction again and again (an emotion we as gamers may find far too easy to empathise with). Elizabeth is constantly questioning his actions, but the responses are always ones of weary resignation. In a way, even as he tries to protect this morally righteous soul, he's leading her down a dangerous path in which she's more or less forced to become an active agent in the violence. Is 'hero' Booker really any better than 'evil' Comstock (?) Booker? Again, I think Levine's admirable aim here is to raise a lot of fascinating questions rather than bluntly answer them.

There's a lot of fascinating discussions the game provokes, may even need to play through sections again to really articulate some of my other thoughts on it!

Rezident

Brilliant game and I loved the ending. When going all quantum and multidimensional I'm sure there are potential plot holes but it was so good I would rather just enjoy it than overanalyse it. The writing job done on the game alone was astonishing and I loved the gameplay with the skylines.

Now to replay it on Medium and enjoy it all at a more leisurely pace and see what I missed.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

screw that, do 1999 mode

Liam O

I'm having trouble seeing where all the video logs that I missed were. I missed a fair few and I was playing on medium and exploring quite a lot, I must have just rushed a few parts...

Rezident

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

screw that, do 1999 mode

Not a chance, Hard was mostly fine but there were moments of intense frustration, I used to play all games on Hard but after shooting the same person 24 times and them still being 100% fine, I stopped. Because it's ****. And lazy. So SO lazy, I mean if you want to use advanced AI and intelligent algorithms to make the AI harder, fair enough, but we're not there yet. Harder mode nowadays means double the hit points of enemies until you get bored of shooting them. Yawn.

I can't wait for my Medium playthrough, I went over some areas five or six times and still found new things on my first playthrough and I still missed three vox tapes and goodness knows what else.

Rezident

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

screw that, do 1999 mode

First review of 1999 mode confirms what I already knew:

1999 Mode, which is meant to be like games in 1999. It’s not – in 1999, you could quicksave. In this, you can’t afford to respawn as much, but you can still load the latest checkpoint. Unfortunately it also makes enemies tediously tough – three pistol headshots to kill a regular guard – so it’s just not very fun.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/25/notes-on-the-pc-version-of-bioshock-infinite-graphics-settings-loot-glint-and-1999-mode/

I can imagine what the bullet-sponge guys near the end are like. Tedious.

Rezident

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

I'm really glad you brought that up, not enough people are talking about this aspect of the game imo.

During the 'ending' when you're walking among the lighthouses, Elizabeth is talking about constants and variables, and you're walking along pre-defined paths. This is a reflection of Bookers life and choices on the face of it. But without a doubt, it (and large elements of the game) are also commentaries on games as a whole. We're given nominal 'choices' in games, and indeed in Bioshock Infinite (Who do you throw the ball at, spare Slate or not, pull your gun at the counter, what what lasting change do any of these cause?).

The Bird or the Cage pendant is a great example imo. People have been speculating about what it means and what effect it has. For me it's simply a representation that so many of the choices we make in games have superficial impact, and nothing more. We're being given the illusion of choice, but it is meaningless, as things that are going to happen will do so regardless. It would be nice to think the choices we make have deep repercussions, but in reality, we're playing within the confines of a closed system, and all our variables will eventually lead us to 1, or in some games a few, constants - ME springs to mind here, so many variables across 3 games, but in the end, for what?

Back to the lighthouses at the end. Booker says "nobody tells me where to go" as a fixed path opens in front of him! That path then splits (the illusion of choice) but both paths still lead to the baptism.

Indeed, it's because this is a game, and because of player agency that we can break from Booker's vicious cycle. The post credit scene takes place on the day where Booker gives up Anna, and too me, it's a statement that what follows the blank screen is up to you now.

It's allegory like this that sets Irrational apart for me, and separates them from 99% of other developers out there. Ken Levine is a master craftsman, and I am in awe of him. To create a game like this, which can be enjoyed on so many levels is remarkable.

To paraphrase a friend of mine, it's great to see a game made for adults, when so much of what we see might carry an 18-cert, but is clearly made for adolescents.

Great point, that must be it. Quite clever really. Haven't been this excited about a second playthrough since half-life 2.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

im playing in 1999 mode and it's actually a challenge having a fight some of the times.
some of the "hard" fights in hard mode were laughably easy, even in 1999 mode a lot of the game is kind of a doddle.. there's just more points than hard where you're forced to improvise or end up dying a few times. cant be bothered reading the article but he sounds like a whiny little git.

handymen are a pain in the ass in either difficulty though

FutureGuy

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

im playing in 1999 mode and it's actually a challenge having a fight some of the times.
some of the "hard" fights in hard mode were laughably easy, even in 1999 mode a lot of the game is kind of a doddle.. there's just more points than hard where you're forced to improvise or end up dying a few times. cant be bothered reading the article but he sounds like a whiny little git.

handymen are a pain in the ass in either difficulty though

That's what I love. The 1999 move puts you into situations that make you think on your feet. I lost count of the number of times I had no shield and a sliver of health where I had a split second to do something to stay alive. Do I do for that cover 4 metres away or do I turn and hope the crows nullify the threat.

Finally unboxed my songbird edition, I have to say it's one of the best I have ever bought. The statue is superb once it's put together.

DeSmasher

Amazing game, Love it. Dare I say a bit short but looking forward to doing 1999 mode, not too many games deserve a second play through but I have a feeling that the second playthrough in this, once completed will still feel like an individual playthrough. Does that make sense?

Gunmonkey

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-awesome-flaws-in-new-bioshock-game/

Good article at Cracked, second page lists a load of ideas and discussions from the game, lots of interesting theories floating round.

hightower1

Just finished tonight, meh. Its a good game just not a great game and most definitively not deserving of the hype.

The art design and sound design were great and I have to say this is the first game that saddles you with a buddy AI that you actually like, is helpful and doesn't get in the way.

The graphics, controls and story were only so so.
The story felt like it was trying to build to a very cool and immensely clever twist but failed miserably. Worse still by the drawn out end sequence punctuated by an abrupt black out which almost felt like the writers actually thought the ending actually WAS clever or interesting?!

Good game but I've honestly had more fun with "shallow" tactical shooters and popcorn games than this. Lesson learned though..... if everyone is gushing a bit too much don't take that as an indicator of anything!




Edit: and now I think of it the whole story was almost a cabron copy of the final 2 part episode of Star Trek the next generation - all good things.

johnny_ultimate

hightower1 wrote: »

The graphics, controls and story were only so so.
The story felt like it was trying to build to a very cool and immensely clever twist but failed miserably. Worse still by the drawn out end sequence punctuated by an abrupt black out which almost felt like the writers actually thought the ending actually WAS clever or interesting?!

Not going to argue with your mixed response to the game, but I can't agree the cut to black was abrupt. Thought it was a beautifully timed moment to cut to credits on. It not only coincided perfectly with the events on screen - the various Elizabeths disappearing, almost rhythmically - but also provided a definitive, appropriate end that also left just the right amount of cheeky mystery. I accidentally skipped the credits, but to be honest I'm glad I missed the post credit epilogue - the main ending was as good a note to end on as any.

Indeed, it left me thinking how so few games have managed to utilise good old fade or cuts to black effectively. Couldn't count the amount of games that drag on in the concluding sections, or alternative preemptively finish up with a lousy whimper. The Infinite ending left me with that strong sense of finality (ironic given the subject matter of that final stretch) that a great film ending leaves you with - one that lingers in the mind and yet still feels immensely satisfying.

Monotype

Anyone notice that none of the Elizabeths were wearing her necklace that was picked on the beach?
I was actually half expecting some of them to have the opposite to the one you picked.

Also, I did remember that the Elizabeth in the early trailers looked a bit different. I was thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool if they used her model for one of the Elizabeths at the end?" - then I look at a video at the end just to check the necklaces again and behold, they used the original Elizabeth model over on the left! Really nice touch!

TBH, I have to go with what some of the others are saying. It's a good game, but not fantastic as a whole. I like all the small details that were added in. There's a few things that really bugged me along the way - not the combat actually as many were pointing out, which I actually enjoyed, but I was turned off by characters, movement zones, atmosphere and damn autosaves.

Kirby

hightower1 wrote: »

and now I think of it the whole story was almost a cabron copy of the final 2 part episode of Star Trek the next generation - all good things.

Yes, you are right. Bioshock Infinite is a carbon copy of TNG's ending. It's exactly like "All good things".

I mean, Elizabeth killing the Comstock version of booker so that neither of them exists and she can live a normal life is exactly like when Data killed Picard so that the enterprise never went on it's mission.

Oh wait, the TNG ending was nothing like that.

tok9

Monotype wrote: »

Anyone notice that none of the Elizabeths were wearing her necklace that was picked on the beach?
I was actually half expecting some of them to have the opposite to the one you picked.

Yup, it just showed that none of the Elizabeths in there was the one who you were with throughout the game. I think Booker even says something like "Wait.. you're not.."