bioshock infinite

[animationprincessofOoo]

Has anyone played this amazing game and also what did you guys think of the ending?

[Inkidu]

Enjoy it a lot.

Thought perhaps some of mechanics were in service to the Bioshock brand-name instead of Bioshock Infinite itself.

Like the ending, and thought it was really well done, but I kind of saw it coming in a broad sense.

Hate 1999 mode because it's just stupid.

[animationprincessofOoo]

Enjoy it a lot.

Thought perhaps some of mechanics were in service to the Bioshock brand-name instead of Bioshock Infinite itself.

Like the ending, and thought it was really well done, but I kind of saw it coming in a broad sense.

Hate 1999 mode because it's just stupid.

  I cried on the ending.. then again I cried at the ending of the walking dead game. I honestly didn't see the ending coming. Also aren't Handymen a bitch? What's your favorite Vigor to use?

[Inkidu]

In general I liked the bucking bronco vigor. Knock some guys up and pop them with a carbine.

For handymen I liked shock jocky for the stun and trap powers.

Honestly though, I didn't like the vigors as a concept. They're just a cut-and-paste of plasmids. It didn't really mesh. They're ubiquitous enough to be used in carnival games and given away as free samples, but no citizens are using them? There's some serious disconnect for me.

[Chris Brady]

Am I like the only person who saw the 'twist' coming?  Not to mention that the game felt very much like a Call of Duty style of shooter.  You have an arena, you clear it, move on to the next, lather rinse repeat.  The gratuitous violence didn't help mask that for me.

[Inkidu]

Am I like the only person who saw the 'twist' coming?  Not to mention that the game felt very much like a Call of Duty style of shooter.  You have an arena, you clear it, move on to the next, lather rinse repeat.  The gratuitous violence didn't help mask that for me.

I sort of saw it coming, but I think I was suppressing it so I could enjoy the game. Yeah, I agree. I think the gun-play portion was more in service to, "That's how we did it in the original Bioshock, and that's how you have to do this one." kind of thing.

In fact, some of the funnest gun play was when you were on the skylines.

Also, scavenging was another one of those issues

[Chris Brady]

Don't get me wrong, it was a good game.  But I personally don't think it's worth the 'game of the year' spooging people have been doing over it.

[Inkidu]

Don't get me wrong, it was a good game.  But I personally don't think it's worth the 'game of the year' spooging people have been doing over it.

Yeah, I just think so much of it was done because, "X means Bioshock".

I thought the characters were great. It's a pretty darn good game by my reckoning, and while it might be in the running for GotY... well... the year's still young and a lot of stuff could easily take it out of the running.

[animationprincessofOoo]

Well I'd give it Game Of The Year   :-[  then again I was so into the story and each character much less the world felt so real. I hated going to Shantytown. Reading all those signs like "Daughter sick we need a doctor please." Made it all the more clear how evil Jeremiah Fink was. The only thing I didn't get was why Booker who was tramatized at Wounded Knee became such a racist as Comstock. Also I think if Elizabeth/Anna would have gone back before he joined the Army instead of drowning him shot him in the foot or something could have stopped the whole thing and Booker would still be alive.

[Chris Brady]

The ending is...  Something I won't talk about.  Ever.  Suffice it to say, that it was a complete let down to me.

[Inkidu]

Well I'd give it Game Of The Year   :-[  then again I was so into the story and each character much less the world felt so real. I hated going to Shantytown. Reading all those signs like "Daughter sick we need a doctor please." Made it all the more clear how evil Jeremiah Fink was. The only thing I didn't get was why Booker who was tramatized at Wounded Knee became such a racist as Comstock. Also I think if Elizabeth/Anna would have gone back before he joined the Army instead of drowning him shot him in the foot or something could have stopped the whole thing and Booker would still be alive.

Spoilered Just in Case

Booker still is alive and has his daughter. Did you watch the ending scene after the credits? Schrodinger's Cat is in full effect (probably the best example I've ever seen used besides the original theory).

[Shjade]

Suffice it to say everything from here on in the thread is likely to be spoilers. It'll be silly having a whole thread in spoiler boxes, particularly when the first post in the thread directly asks people what they thought of the ending.

On the whole, I thought the game was okay. Gameplay was still that sorta iffy handling that comes from an FPS being developed for both console and PC and ends up feeling clunky by comparison to something specific to the one or the other and thereby has better handling (usually, at least). It felt like Bioshock 1, in other words, which isn't really a compliment. The environments were great, though. I liked Columbia's aesthetic a lot more than Rapture's, the various conversations and interactions between NPCs that you could observe really helped flesh out the place, even if the copy-paste faces had a distinct Uncanny Valley effect within the first two blocks of entering the city.

But the story?

Hhh.

Okay. Look. Elizabeth is fabulous (with some exceptions: I'm looking at you "obviously not updated for the current story's mood" lockpick messages) to the point where I found myself sometimes stopping at points of peace between gunfights just to watch her explore a room or mess with a fireplace or something. Great voice acting, too. That part's top notch. The plot, though? The plot's...I want to say "it's kind of a mess," but for the most part that's not true. For the most part, it serves. For the most part, it pulls me in. For the most part.

And then there's the ending.

Or, rather, there's the "there is no ending."

I finished the game about seven hours ago and have quite literally been physically ill since that time out of stressed preoccupation with the utter lack of resolution the game has. Okay, partly because of the future sequence with the ongoing off-screen torture/conditioning of Elizabeth throughout, that's sort of a trigger issue for me, so that wasn't a great lead-in to the end of the game's problems, but I've just spent the last few hours mostly thinking about how completely fucked the end of this game is.

Oddly enough, it's not the post-credits thing that irks me the most. That was just sort of annoying in a "I waited around for these long-ass credits to end just for a Schrodinger throwaway line?" way. It's not the Comstock-DeWitt connection which was just annoying in an "I saw this coming a half hour into the game before I even met Elizabeth way" (seriously, I'd said to folks in another RP hangout of mine when I first was getting into the game "If Booker turns out to be her father I'm going to be pissed."). Those are minor issues by comparison to the big one that bothers me: where do things go from there?

This kind of device, the big IT WAS YOU ALL ALONG reveal, that's part of the climax. That's the pre-ending. That's the last nail in the coffin, so to speak. You're supposed to bury the coffin after that. But they don't. They just go, "Welp, I think that's good enough, let's cut to black here," and then end it.

The fuck?

Honestly, I could care less about what the final baptism does to Booker/Comstock. I don't care. But what happens to the rest of the world? Hell, what happens to Elizabeth? They put all this effort into getting here, so...what did they actually accomplish? And I'm not talking about getting into the quantum mechanics of infinite possibilities blah blah whatever, I'm just interested in that specific instance of Elizabeth who, by that time, is pretty clearly separate from her actions when it comes to consequences, meaning she probably wouldn't be "unmade" if that were even a possibility of what they did unless she wanted to be. So where does she go from there? Back to all the lighthouses to explore the world she'd been kept away from for so long? Into the void? Rebooted? What does she want to do with her newfound freedom?

They wouldn't even need to include the details of where it goes from there, just the suggestion, the general direction, would be enough to have some kind of closure. Something akin to, "Ah...The net is vast," or, perhaps more fitting for the tone the whole final sequence was setting, something more like, "Behind him, across vast distances of space and time, from the place he had left, he thought he heard music too. But perhaps it was only an echo." Basically just the 10-30 seconds immediately after where the baptism scene currently ends, the "next step." Because that's the problem: it didn't end there. They cut it short in the middle of the ending. And, apparently, this frustrates me beyond even my own ability to measure, not in a "leave them wanting more way" as there's no way in hell I'd follow up on DLC for the game at this point to look for what resolution they might decide to add to it later. It's a broken ending, and while that type of thing may have been intended to go along with the whole quantum physics gag, as far as I'm concerned, they screwed the pooch in the effort.

I have never been so wholly unsatisfied.

[Koren]

The Necessity of Violence in Bioshock Infinite - Awesome out of Ten
^ above is an article that many of you who are into character and world building may find very interesting

On another note, I'm actually really surprised by the reactions I see here.
Maybe I'm a bit spoiled as the only discussions I've had with it have been with the other game designers at my university, but I really didn't except this sort of hostility to it.

I'll say right off, at no point am I trying or wanting to offend or demean anyone with this, its just my thoughts and opinions on it all, and maybe giving a different perspective to this.

As far as the mechanics, my two complaints can be easily explained away, even if that still means that they will stand out a little bit.
Ken Levine wanted the game to sell. Now of course you may think that's an incredibly broad statement as obviously every game studio wants that, but Ken wanted it more in a broad sense that he wanted the game to be accessible to more people so that they could experience the world of Columbia. Unfortunately due to marketing and the horrible stereotyped perceptions of gamers, shooters remain the best selling genre. He wanted the game to be a platform to lift games out of the CoD style of repetition and to show that innovation in story if nothing else can sell, and can be celebrated. So while it perhaps would have been nice to see it set in another genre or in slightly different controls or mechanics, I can understand the design goal and decision behind making that choice.
The other one is the Vigors. Vigors in the game made absolutely no sense at all. I will be the first to admit that. While the environment and situation was there for them, the lack of NPC's and characters using them greatly set them at odds. The fireman uses the Devils Kiss, but no other NPC does. If they did it would have made more sense, I also understand why they were included without that. It is a game in the Bioshock IP. It wouldn't be bioshock without Plasmids/Vigors. And really when you come down to the mechanical implementation, its just magic and a mana bar reskined. So while it doesnt fit, I do understand why it was included, and to be honest I loved the ones they did include and it made it more fun for me, despite the disconnect. Playing around with the Ocean one (forget what its called at this moment) was great.

Elizabeth was absolutely great, despite the one moment with no update for the lock picking after you save her, which when I played it pissed me off so much I had to walk away from the game for a moment, but that was the only time.
Did anyone else see in the area with all the shops, if you go into one room and just wait, Elizabeth will run over and grab some fairy floss (cotton candy) and start to eat it? That was amazing.
It was also nice to see the way they worked her into the mechanics. You can't hold health or salts so she would supply them to you, but only from what was around in the environment, and it was a limited thing. It was also nice to have an escort based game where you don't have to worry about them all the time.

My look at the plot is this: Its not about Booker and Elizabeth. Okay yeah thats the in your face focus of it, and while I saw some of the stuff coming there was a lot there that I NEVER could have guessed in a million years, but they aren't the core of the story
What its really about? Robert and Rosalind Lutece.

Those two made that story for me. When you think about it, leaving out the ending for the moment I'll get to that soon, none of this would have happened without them. Yes, I mean Booker still would have purged his skins at Wounded Knee and used that as an excuse for his racism and become Comstock at some stage, but without Rosalind and Robert, Columbia never would have been built, they would never have met, they wouldn't have found the tears, Comstock wouldn't have taken Anna and turned her into Elizabeth, and even if you get down to the small details, if Robert hadn't of hesitated at the tear, Anna never would have lost her finger and the story wouldn't have taken place anyway as she wouldn't have the power to jump between realities.

For me this isn't a story about Booker trying to get back his daughter. Its a story about the redemption of two people who knew they damaged lives by interfering.
Just looking at one of the first times you see them for example, when they get Booker to flip the coin. There is a total of 122 marks on the board by the time that the players game occurs. At any given time they could have just stopped bringing Booker back from his reality to do this. They set this up, ferried him across the ocean, helped him through 122 times to see if he would succeed. It wouldn't have happened without their persistence. They even are the ones who help Elizabeth control the tears etc.

(On a side note: Shooting either of the twins in The Blue Ribbon restaurant will result in Rosalind saying "You missed," several times before ultimately stating, "We can afford to do this all day, but the question is, can you?" That was absolutely brilliant and so very entertaining, not to mention a big hint that something was wrong with that)

Okay onto the ending:
I recommend as well that everyone who's only just finished it let it have time to sink in and for you to think about it too. The game plays such a mind game on you I know a few people that changed the way they thought of it just after letting it go for a while.

If you look at it from a solely narrative perspective in the format of a story, yes, they fucked up. But I personally don't see it like that. You play this whole game through Booker's eyes. So it makes sense to me that when he dies your perspective is removed. Your Booker doesn't get to see what happens after wards, and neither do you. The post ending scene kinda solidified that in my mind as you see your Booker returning to get his child back, you see what would have happened to your Booker (as you are the only one that succeeded) if Robert hadn't of taken Anna that day.
And you see that the twins succeeded.

Part of why I think that they did the ending like that as well is that its a game about thought. You have to think the whole way through on things and the ending is no different. With some thought and even I found playing through the game again (you'd be amazed all the things you didn't pick up on and all the references that suddenly make sense and bring up more revelations for you), you can think exactly what happened in the end.
Comstock never existed so neither did Columbia, and never will exist thanks to the powers that Elizabeth used to drown Comstock through Booker. Anna was never taken so Booker never became a drunk or a gambler, he remained a private detective able to care for his daughter. New York was never attacked and historical events around the Boxer rebellion and Wounded Knee were never distorted like they were in the Columbia world. And as Elizabeth said, there is always a man, a lighthouse, a city. So we know that sort of story is meant to repeat again.
But even in the details. The twins are still alive somewhere, floating around in space between realities however they want. But with the separated worlds alive twins are also out somewhere. The black woman and white man from the start of the game probably never found each other and fell in love, but were probably safe for that. Daisy probably was never driven insane by abuse of that sort of situation. Even the preacher from the start of the game, the one who baptizes you (and who is the same guy who did it at Wounded Knee as well, I loved that bit of symmetry) is probably still working in the Wounded Knee area, never having been taken by Comstock to serve Columbia.

But the bit I love is that you can't know for sure. Its not about knowing. The same as real life. We don't make a decision and see the joy or pain that unfolds after that, we just keep going, and that's what the game forces you to do.

I will say though, the start of the game was a stroke of genius. I was so pissed off when I started the game, I thought they'd just copy and pasted the start from bioshock 1 because it worked so damn well, just with reverse metrics, up instead of down etc. To the point where I even thought the game was going to be ruined because of it. But then the way that they tie it in at the end was great and really made me think 'well, I'm a fuck wit, and thats brillant.'

The idea that Songbird, made from Rapture technology by Fink after seeing through one of the tears, and then drowning in Rapture, in the area where you first see the splicers, where you encounter the Big Daddy and Little Sister (who are remade in Songbird and Elizabeth) was a great touch, especially with the dead Big Daddy and weeping Little Sister in the background of that scene.
Song birds death was heart breaking as well, that he knew he was dying but he didn't care as long as he had Elizabeth, even after she betrayed him.

And personally even above all of this, they achieved what they wanted to do story wise, they did it fairly, and they didn't back down and rewrite it for those who didn't agree, and that I love.

Just wondering? How much do people know about all the various Easter Eggs in the game?

Anyway I think I've rambled a bit much. Hopefully just given a bit of a difference perspective to it. And hopefully made sense.

[Chris Brady]

Ken Levine wanted the game to sell. Now of course you may think that's an incredibly broad statement as obviously every game studio wants that, but Ken wanted it more in a broad sense that he wanted the game to be accessible to more people so that they could experience the world of Columbia. Unfortunately due to marketing and the horrible stereotyped perceptions of gamers, shooters remain the best selling genre. He wanted the game to be a platform to lift games out of the CoD style of repetition and to show that innovation in story if nothing else can sell, and can be celebrated.

And this is why he should have NOT made this game.  Instead of making the game he wanted to play, or the story he wanted to tell, he 'dumbed it down' for us 'idiots'.  No.  Just no.

[animationprincessofOoo]

Okay now you guys are starting to make me look like I'm not obsessed the game and I usually delve in so deep into these things I know everything about them within days. I tend to get obsessed with things from time to time BioShock Infinite was definitely one of them during the month of May but from everyone discussing everything I also want to throw in, did anyone make the connection between Andrew Ryan and Booker DeWitt considering Booker could activate the bath Spears when they're all locked down?

[Koren]

And this is why he should have NOT made this game.  Instead of making the game he wanted to play, or the story he wanted to tell, he 'dumbed it down' for us 'idiots'.  No.  Just no.

Um that's not what it was at all. And thats certainly not what I was saying

Shooters sell. That's something we all know if you look at money that genres as a whole bring into the market

Ken Levine kept the game a shooter because he knew it would sell and it would get the story he wanted to tell out there. He didn't get the story dumbed down, and no where ever did he call anyone idiots, and neither did I. He put his story into a genre that more people would have access too.

Go read that article I posted and it may change the way you think about the shooter side of it, because even the game mechanics tell a story. If he wanted to make it dumbed down, the mechanics wouldn't be what they are.

Okay now you guys are starting to make me look like I'm not obsessed the game and I usually delve in so deep into these things I know everything about them within days. I tend to get obsessed with things from time to time BioShock Infinite was definitely one of them during the month of May but from everyone discussing everything I also want to throw in, did anyone make the connection between Andrew Ryan and Booker DeWitt considering Booker could activate the bath Spears when they're all locked down?

Yeah I made that connection, but I don't really think that there was anything to it.
I mean there's multiple versions of Columbia, so it would stand that there was multiple versions of Rapture and I'd say they were in one of them as opposed to the true setting from Bioshock 1

Reasons:
While the bathysphere that brought up Jack to Rapture was there, the broken tunnel he passes through after getting electrobolt isn't broken like it was
In Bioshock 1 there is no Big Daddy corpse in the location there is seen at the end of Bioshock Infinite
Electrobolt was taken but the door wasn't malfunctioning in the Infinite one

[Shjade]

Okay onto the ending:
I recommend as well that everyone who's only just finished it let it have time to sink in and for you to think about it too. The game plays such a mind game on you I know a few people that changed the way they thought of it just after letting it go for a while.

If you look at it from a solely narrative perspective in the format of a story, yes, they fucked up. But I personally don't see it like that. You play this whole game through Booker's eyes. So it makes sense to me that when he dies your perspective is removed. Your Booker doesn't get to see what happens after wards, and neither do you. The post ending scene kinda solidified that in my mind as you see your Booker returning to get his child back, you see what would have happened to your Booker (as you are the only one that succeeded) if Robert hadn't of taken Anna that day.
And you see that the twins succeeded.

Part of why I think that they did the ending like that as well is that its a game about thought. You have to think the whole way through on things and the ending is no different. With some thought and even I found playing through the game again (you'd be amazed all the things you didn't pick up on and all the references that suddenly make sense and bring up more revelations for you), you can think exactly what happened in the end.
Comstock never existed so neither did Columbia, and never will exist thanks to the powers that Elizabeth used to drown Comstock through Booker. Anna was never taken so Booker never became a drunk or a gambler, he remained a private detective able to care for his daughter. New York was never attacked and historical events around the Boxer rebellion and Wounded Knee were never distorted like they were in the Columbia world. And as Elizabeth said, there is always a man, a lighthouse, a city. So we know that sort of story is meant to repeat again.
But even in the details. The twins are still alive somewhere, floating around in space between realities however they want. But with the separated worlds alive twins are also out somewhere. The black woman and white man from the start of the game probably never found each other and fell in love, but were probably safe for that. Daisy probably was never driven insane by abuse of that sort of situation. Even the preacher from the start of the game, the one who baptizes you (and who is the same guy who did it at Wounded Knee as well, I loved that bit of symmetry) is probably still working in the Wounded Knee area, never having been taken by Comstock to serve Columbia.

You say you should take time to let it sink in and think about it...and then you note things that either are inaccurate or can't be confirmed, ie: fanfiction.

You don't see Booker returning to get his child back. You see Booker apparently waking up in his office and looking for his daughter on the same day he gives her away (the date on the calendar is the same), which means whether or not she's in the crib is actually sort of irrelevant without knowing whether or not she's going to stay in the crib if she's even there (since he might still give her away, though to whom if Comstock doesn't exist is another story - debts are debts).

Booker was a drunk and a gambler before Anna was taken away - that's why he had to give her away, to settle his gambling debts. So having her, if she's even there, doesn't change anything there.

You know the twins succeeded all along just by the fact that you're in Columbia. Nothing about their experiments is resolved by the end of the game. They are no doubt still messing around with stuff because, hey, it's not like they have anything better to do.

The rest of your last paragraph is conjecture. Is it possible? Sure. It's also possible that suddenly everyone turned into anthropomorphic pigs. That doesn't mean it happened and certainly doesn't mean the game's story presents it as having happened. All we know is that Elizabeths drowned Booker to prevent Comstock from happening, or at least that was the intent. That is the extent of what is known. Which is why it's broken as an ending: leaving the end of the story as a Mad Libs entry for the reader/player to fill in is not an ending.

[Koren]

Okay my mistake. I didnt mean for it to come across as this is definitely how it is, I'm sorry if it appeared that way

Also my bad on the gambling and drunk thing. Sorry. Been a while since I played it so when I was writing I didn't realize I had that backwards.

That's just my perspective and my thoughts. Personally I'm a little sick of games where everything goes through perfectly and things are predictable and it all works out. I'm sick of being told exactly how it all ends up, its one of the problems I'm having with The Last of Us. I like that they left it open because I can think about what might have happened. I like to imagine what the world would have been like after, and especially playing it through again as I said and seeing the little details they left in there for all of that.

But as I said, my perspective is that the story ends there because you are looking at it from Booker's perspective in showing the story of the twins, and that's over.
The twins actual goal was to reunite Booker and Elizabeth without ruining the worlds by interfering themselves, because Robert still felt guilty over what they did to separate them in the first place. They weren't trying to conduct more experiments, they were fixing what they broke. Its on a few audio logs around the game, Rosalind speaking about why her brother wants to reunite them. So in that respect they finally succeeded.



On a side note: Id actually love to get a hold of the music they slowed down and put in as ambiance just to hear what its actually like and what the lyrics are.

[Shjade]

But as I said, my perspective is that the story ends there because you are looking at it from Booker's perspective in showing the story of the twins, and that's over.

Possibly. Of course, in that case, why do we get to see the Elizabeths disappearing one by one after the baptism? He wouldn't have seen that - he's already gone. If they can show that much from "outside" his perspective, why not the next step?

Which music would you like to track down? As in, from what part of the game. I bet it's around somewhere.

[Inkidu]

I don't think I'm being hostile toward the game, personally, as the whole concept was my literary focus in school (Deconstruction Theory), I loved it to pieces. I'm looking at it critically, and no real work of art or media has ever suffered for being looked at critically. I don't know of this is Ken Levine's problem or if it's executive meddling, but again Extra Credits and I are on the same page:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/in-service-to-the-brand

I think the game is great, especially considering it got delayed twice, because I've never played a game that was all that great when it got delayed more than once, because game developers don't seem to realize, "Hey we've got time to finish our original vision." and instead seem to think, "Now we've got more time to add more crap!" Sadly I find it happens nine times out of ten. :\

Again this might be executive meddling, but look at the early release stuff and the finished game, almost worlds apart. A lot of stuff that originally seemed to be the focus got pushed back or removed, and I think that because someone decided to push Bioshock rather than Bioshock Infinite you end up with a lot of disconnect.

Personally I don't get Chris's CoD thing. Honestly, anyone who uses that is obviously reaching in my book these days seeing as CoD has become such a general scapegoat. I don't think it was any more shooty or violent than the original Bioshock. I just think that it doesn't fit Infinite as well as it does the original.

[Shjade]

Relevant to my position, and possibly a more fair (or at least less outraged) assessment of the ending's issues, completely separate from anything physics-related: http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/maguilera/blog/spoilers-why-i-m-disappointed-with-bioshock-infini/100414/

tl;dr - The article's point is that the story 90% of the game builds up is not the story that gets an ending. Some other story gets an ending that, while good for that story, does nothing for the "main" one.

[Inkidu]

Relevant to my position, and possibly a more fair (or at least less outraged) assessment of the ending's issues, completely separate from anything physics-related: http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/maguilera/blog/spoilers-why-i-m-disappointed-with-bioshock-infini/100414/

tl;dr - The article's point is that the story 90% of the game builds up is not the story that gets an ending. Some other story gets an ending that, while good for that story, does nothing for the "main" one.

I can't call that wrong, but I'm just going to go ahead and do so. I think he was expecting another Rapture (more in service to the brand stuff) and I think this is one place they got it right. Drop the city. Drop it like a china plate. It's actually not what's important this time. The city is literally and metaphorically a vehicle for the plot. It could be seen as a testament to Comstock's ambitions, but other than setting the scene this is Booker and Elizabeth's story. Across all eventualities and universes the city was a vehicle. It's hardly the focus, and they were right to drop it out of focus fairly quickly. It makes me wonder if he waited around for the post-credits scene too.

[Koren]

I think the game is great, especially considering it got delayed twice, because I've never played a game that was all that great when it got delayed more than once, because game developers don't seem to realize, "Hey we've got time to finish our original vision." and instead seem to think, "Now we've got more time to add more crap!" Sadly I find it happens nine times out of ten. :\

Again this might be executive meddling, but look at the early release stuff and the finished game, almost worlds apart. A lot of stuff that originally seemed to be the focus got pushed back or removed, and I think that because someone decided to push Bioshock rather than Bioshock Infinite you end up with a lot of disconnect.

Honestly that happens more times then you think. And as a game developer, its hard reading this sort of stuff and watching gamers think that we do it maliciously. Its not that at all. Sometimes yes it is executive meddling, and publishers often get in the way of a great game, some times for the good, sometimes for the bad. Sometimes its about putting out a game that will make enough money to keep the studio doors open so that people have a job to make the next game and hopefully make a better one, and sometimes its just the publishers being scared of where their money is going.

One of the assassins creed testers said he quit the industry because it broke his heart seeing amazing feature after amazing feature being taken out because of bug or problem or they just didn't have time. The God of War developers have openly said they hated working on the final boss because they had to reduce it down so much just to get it to work and deliver on time. One of my last games at uni had audio cut from it completely because it was either that or not deliver a game at all or fail. The developers of Journey went a year over schedule and went bankrupt finishing their game, but not all studios can be so sure of making back their money as they were.

Original ideas and concepts for a game are normally grand, broad and so ridiculously unachievable. The main thing we get taught in project management is scope balancing. We can say we have a year to do this so lets do all this, but usually around a third of that either gets cut or reduced because of various bugs, technical issues, money, staffing issues, any number of problems that arise. In programming we have a say to triple any estimate on work to make it more accurate. Something you think will take you an hour will most likely take three if its something new you're doing. And good games try and do something new.
Sometimes the adding of 'more crap' as you put it is a way to make sure its a game, and not just a recycled software product. Regardless of whether vigors fit into the world, they still added to the game play. Maybe that was a decision they made because they realized through testing players didn't have enough options.
Testing always changes your game. Id love to see the testing notes and iterative builds of a big AAA studio to see just how much they had to tear out because it didnt fit with the player, even though they love it. Being a game player and being a game designer as so very different you can almost never predict how a game will work until you test it and then you have to adapt for that testing.

So with this in mind, the fact that a AAA studio managed to deliver so many NEW things to a game, even with going overtime, which also means over budget (funding on games is limited as all fuck), is great. They proved that helpful escorts can work. They delivered a great story and for the most part, proved that you can make a 'fake' or controvertial ending without having to change it like some other studios get pressured into doing. They managed to create an amazing world full of life. And they managed to accurately portray and touch on some of the most disgusting aspects of the human psyche and social issues we still have today without brushing over it.

Im not saying its not a flawed game. Im saying its a game made by a studio under pressure and they did an amazing job regardless.

Sorry for the rant, and its not directed at you specifically, it just irks me in general when developers do the best they can (certain games aside) and get torn to shreds because of it

Possibly. Of course, in that case, why do we get to see the Elizabeths disappearing one by one after the baptism? He wouldn't have seen that - he's already gone. If they can show that much from "outside" his perspective, why not the next step?

Which music would you like to track down? As in, from what part of the game. I bet it's around somewhere.

I always kinda saw that as his ghost rising and looking down on them.

I doubt it would be. In the background of certain areas is a music track slowed down I think it was 1000 times to create ambiance for the area. Its an easter egg. Im not sure they expected anyone to find it so quick. We'll probably have to wait for someone to track it down or hack it out of the game or something before we can listen to the proper one.

[Chris Brady]

Personally I don't get Chris's CoD thing. Honestly, anyone who uses that is obviously reaching in my book these days seeing as CoD has become such a general scapegoat. I don't think it was any more shooty or violent than the original Bioshock. I just think that it doesn't fit Infinite as well as it does the original.

It's the mechanical aspect of how the game plays.  In Call of Duty, you get 'set piece battles' where big things happen, and then you get a lull, where people talk, you get to do other non-combat things, or just get lored to death, and then the next set piece arrives and you get a bunch of bodies to murder in shockingly gruesome ways. And then another lull in the 'action' where more stuff is told/explain/whatever and then the next combat arena happens.  This is not good, nor bad.  This is how CoD built it's name.  Bioshock Infinite copies it, instead of following it's own beat.

Relevant to my position, and possibly a more fair (or at least less outraged) assessment of the ending's issues, completely separate from anything physics-related: http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/maguilera/blog/spoilers-why-i-m-disappointed-with-bioshock-infini/100414/

tl;dr - The article's point is that the story 90% of the game builds up is not the story that gets an ending. Some other story gets an ending that, while good for that story, does nothing for the "main" one.

I can't call that wrong, but I'm just going to go ahead and do so. I think he was expecting another Rapture (more in service to the brand stuff) and I think this is one place they got it right. Drop the city. Drop it like a china plate. It's actually not what's important this time. The city is literally and metaphorically a vehicle for the plot. It could be seen as a testament to Comstock's ambitions, but other than setting the scene this is Booker and Elizabeth's story. Across all eventualities and universes the city was a vehicle. It's hardly the focus, and they were right to drop it out of focus fairly quickly. It makes me wonder if he waited around for the post-credits scene too.

I think you're right and wrong, on what he's meaning in that article.  Yes, he was looking for another 'Rapture', but he wasn't looking for the city set, he was looking for another story of 'Rapture'.

See what made the original Bioshock 'cool' was that the actual twist inside that game no one actually saw coming.  The clues were there, but you really had to be paying attention.  'Would you kindly...'  The other thing about Bioshock is that there was a choice laid out for you.  The entire story leads up to it.

But in Infinite, not only is it pretty obvious, it's predetermined.  It's all predetermined in BI, there is no choice, you're just along for the ride.  And people who experienced Mr. Levine's only other Bioshock game (he didn't work on Bioshock 2) were expecting to experience another well done story like the first, and most were happy with what they got, but for those of us who may be a little more bookwormy and know how most stories work, we got fed a rather lackluster narrative where we're treated like idiots have everything told to us.  Book ended with massive scenes of violence and mayhem, maybe to distract us from the fact that there's no choice here.

In fact, my use of the word 'predetermined' may actually be incorrect, because we didn't get an ending.  What we got was an infinite loop of cop outs.  As the Intercomm Girlfriend (Elizabeth) puts it, paraphrased, "There's always another city, with a lighthouse and a man."  There is not 'ending' because by the games own admission, there's no end.  And never will be.  So having Booker die at the end resolves and changes nothing.

[Shjade]

I can't call that wrong, but I'm just going to go ahead and do so. I think he was expecting another Rapture (more in service to the brand stuff) and I think this is one place they got it right. Drop the city. Drop it like a china plate. It's actually not what's important this time. The city is literally and metaphorically a vehicle for the plot. It could be seen as a testament to Comstock's ambitions, but other than setting the scene this is Booker and Elizabeth's story. Across all eventualities and universes the city was a vehicle. It's hardly the focus, and they were right to drop it out of focus fairly quickly. It makes me wonder if he waited around for the post-credits scene too.

...I think you might be misreading the article. He's fine with dropping the city. He's not fine with dropping Elizabeth, which is essentially what the ending does.

Infinite stopped being about Columbia as soon as you go through the first tear (I believe Brad pointed out this in the spoilercast) your understanding of what makes Columbia interesting fades. You struggle to understand how this Columbia is different from the last but then you jump again and at that point it is no longer about the city. That works just fine, because (unlike the original Bioshock) it is now about the girl. But then at the very end the story doesn't deliver on the new paradigm.

[Inkidu]

...I think you might be misreading the article. He's fine with dropping the city. He's not fine with dropping Elizabeth, which is essentially what the ending does.

Mmm... even so I don't think they really dropped Elizabeth, because it's really not all about her in the end it's about Booker and her and I was very satisfied with the ending. Now if you're talking about mechanically where she's just there throwing you guns and whanot, yeah... that's light... especially form the earlier footage.

[animationprincessofOoo]

Mmm... even so I don't think they really dropped Elizabeth, because it's really not all about her in the end it's about Booker and her and I was very satisfied with the ending. Now if you're talking about mechanically where she's just there throwing you guns and whanot, yeah... that's light... especially form the earlier footage.

Yeah the earlier footage looks like she's almost a sorceress.  I also noticed they reduced certain.. ahem aspects.

[Chris Brady]

Definitely not her chest.

[Inkidu]

Yeah the earlier footage looks like she's almost a sorceress.  I also noticed they reduced certain.. ahem aspects.

Well given your relationship to her, that might not be so bad.

Though, that was probably Ken Levine. When people saw the footage there were a lot of comments about her um... aspects. Well, apparently he wanted people to like her for other things even though there was no real other other things to like her for, so he got miffed and apparently lowered the aspect ratio.

[animationprincessofOoo]

Well given your relationship to her, that might not be so bad.

Though, that was probably Ken Levine. When people saw the footage there were a lot of comments about her um... aspects. Well, apparently he wanted people to like her for other things even though there was no real other other things to like her for, so he got miffed and apparently lowered the aspect ratio.

I know. I for one was making jokes about banging Liz and when on the rooftops level I was saying things like "Yes I am Booker DeWitt False Shepard give me all your virgins!" Hahaha.

[Inkidu]

I have to give them credit. They did a good job of un-romanticizing the relationship.

Though... that doesn't stop the internet. :P

[animationprincessofOoo]

Yeah especially fanfiction. I think there is a current fanfic I'm reading about what happens when Songbird takes Liz to Comstock house.

[Inkidu]

Yeah especially fanfiction. I think there is a current fanfic I'm reading about what happens when Songbird takes Liz to Comstock house.

People wonder why I don't read it. :P

[Chris Brady]

Well given your relationship to her, that might not be so bad.

Though, that was probably Ken Levine. When people saw the footage there were a lot of comments about her um... aspects. Well, apparently he wanted people to like her for other things even though there was no real other other things to like her for, so he got miffed and apparently lowered the aspect ratio.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the deal with Elizabeth was.  She's a nice piece of eyecandy, has some uses, but really, I've seen her type of plot device before, and she's not that revolutionary.

[Inkidu]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the deal with Elizabeth was.  She's a nice piece of eyecandy, has some uses, but really, I've seen her type of plot device before, and she's not that revolutionary.

Yeah, but she's incredibly well-done.

[Chris Brady]

Yeah, but she's incredibly well-done.

In my gaming experience there are several that were.  Elizabeth isn't anything special in that regard.  I'm not saying that she's NOT well done.  She's interesting, well written and acted, not to mention nice to look at to boot, but nothing out of the ordinary for me.

[Shjade]

"Several that were" != "standard"

Being counted among a standout few characters is pretty much the definition of "out of the ordinary."

[animationprincessofOoo]

Yeah, but she's incredibly well-done.

Amen, and I missed Elizabeth so much when she was taken.. I missed my auto ammo.

[Koren]

Thats the thing as well that I think some people are missing as well. She wasnt just there to be a supply thing. She could only take resources from the environment. They could have just done away with that and gotten away with far less code

And I have to say I have never seen the detail and life that was put into Elizabeth in any other game character.

If you are saying she is so common please provide examples, I would love to see how they fair up and how their AI was handled, especially in older examples.

And personally I think the mechanics of the game other then being a shooter are very unlike CoD, especially the pacing. I think you'd find its more the way that certain games are set and how the pacing and tone of games is laid out in games these days. It's not a CoD specific think and picking apart the pacing of most games would show that. The only game I can think of that really goes away from that formula is Tomb Raider which tricks you into thinking its the end and then it not being so at all, and still tricks people even when warned which is surprisingly well done.
If you go and talk to many people who are exclusively CoD players or who love those mechanics and that pacing, I know many of them that found Bioshock unplayable.
To be honest Chris you sound awfully like someone who is just ignoring any possibility of it being even a decent game. I don't mean to offend by this, I just find your flatly aggressive attitude towards it confounding

Also for the people saying it didn't match up to the original, I was able to predict a lot more of the plot of the original game, then I was of Bioshock Infinite. Stuff like that is definitely a matter of perspective.
Also part of the theme in Bioshock Infinite was the idea of variables and constants, which is part of what pushes me towards the idea its more the story of the Luteces then Booker and Elizabeth. It doesn't matter what necklace you pick, the only thing that could be related to that, the notes, are a constant anyway. The few choices you make don't seem to matter because of the idea that it will play out how it does regardless. Its the opposite of Bioshock where choice was the defining concept, in this one its fate.
The ending points to this whole theme of choice vs fate, variables vs constants because of the whole 'there's always a man, a lighthouse, a city' thing.

Oh and apparently the coin can land on tails in that first meeting with the Lutece's, and Booker can randomly pick tails (which has been videoed) which is an interesting play in that even that isnt a constant but it still doesn't matter.
I really find this whole theme in the game quite fascinating, especially the way it ties into production as code is effectively variables and constants :)

Id be interested to see what people think of this article -  www.awesomeoutof10.com/features/the-necessity-of-extreme-violence-in-bioshock-infinite/
I had it posted in my original post here but I notice it mostly got ignored.

[Shjade]

Also part of the theme in Bioshock Infinite was the idea of variables and constants, which is part of what pushes me towards the idea its more the story of the Luteces then Booker and Elizabeth. It doesn't matter what necklace you pick, the only thing that could be related to that, the notes, are a constant anyway. The few choices you make don't seem to matter because of the idea that it will play out how it does regardless. Its the opposite of Bioshock where choice was the defining concept, in this one its fate.

First, while the Luteces play a key role in the story, it's not a story about them. Why? No emotional connection. No real "presence" in the story. They're a plot device and, like most such devices, the plot couldn't happen without them; that doesn't make it their story.

Second, even if the story were about them, the ending would still be broken. We don't see what they're doing next any more than we do Elizabeth so the same problem exists.

Third, if the choices you make don't matter, why bother playing the game? It'll resolve itself anyway without you. It also makes the ending that does exist meaningless: there's no point trying to prevent Comstock's creation at the baptism since he already exists, which means he's going to exist since clearly that's what's fated to happen and choices can't change fate. If you instead think the baptism changes all that then it is, indeed, about choice rather than fate. The original baptism suggests that as well: things are dramatically different between the two "core" worlds simply because in one a man chose to believe he could be washed clean of who he used to be and in another he rejected that idea. One choice made a tremendous difference. Your premise doesn't appear to hold up any way I look at it.

As an aside, in my playthrough Booker called tails but the coin landed heads.

Also, from the link you repeated, Koren:

I wouldn’t have a problem with such a game, just as I wouldn’t have a problem with a game that explored the Lutece twins as they dabbled in quantum physics, but those would be different games with different stories.

[animationprincessofOoo]

 :-) I am so glad this Topic has caused so many postings and reactions. I personally thought of the Letuces as cousins to Thompson and Thompson from TinTin.  Also what did everyone think of the Comstock House level where you go like seventy years into the future.

[Sabby]

This is how I look at it. If I were to write a book, and that books release was followed by an influx of half hour long 'ending explained' videos on Youtube, then I fucking failed in my task.

Pro-tip game writers. It's cool to have a story that naturally invites viewers to discuss further amongst themselves and discover deeper insight. If you leave those questions there, those who are so inclined will pursue them. Ya know what's not cool? Making it FUCKING MANDATORY to pursue them just to have a bloody ending at all.

Interpretation should add to a story, not provide one in the first place.

[Shjade]

This is how I look at it. If I were to write a book, and that books release was followed by an influx of half hour long 'ending explained' videos on Youtube, then I fucking failed in my task.

Sometimes, yes, but not necessarily. It would depend on why the explanations are there: is it that the ending doesn't make sense, or is it just very complex or densely written? Having a complicated ending isn't always a bad thing, nor is it taboo to leave things unexplained, at least some things.

In a case like this, though, where there's almost no resolution to anything and a pile of information is just kinda thrown at you all at once before everything abruptly ends? ...yeah, that's not a great execution.

[Sabby]

Yeah, the ending reminded me a lot of Alan Wake's ending. Just something something nothing.

[Inkidu]

Yeah, the ending reminded me a lot of Alan Wake's ending. Just something something nothing.

Actually I agree with the fact that they're similar, but they're not something something nothing.

Alan Wake is take on Reconstruction of storytelling. They give it a horror spin, but it's talking about the rules of writing, how the writer becomes bound into the rules of a particular story.

Bioshock Infinite is about Deconstruction. All the paths and changes big and small a story can take, and you explore all of them trying to literally find your happy ending. All wrapped up in high end physics and metaphysics.

Now this is one element of two fairly deep stories, but it's an important meta element. There's also some more basic human ideas like sacrifice and perseverance, and redemption and whatnot, but I like the meta stuff. :3

[Sabby]

I actually meant the way it was handled, not the message xD all this rush to get somewhere, then it just mumbles and stops.

[Inkidu]

I actually meant the way it was handled, not the message xD all this rush to get somewhere, then it just mumbles and stops.

Sort of, I actually found it pretty good pacing overall. That was my problem with the Darksiders series. I found the pacing just really terrible.

[Chris Brady]

"Several that were" != "standard"

Being counted among a standout few characters is pretty much the definition of "out of the ordinary."

The few times I had a similar character, Elizabeth did not stand out for me.  This is a personal opinion and statement, not fact and I apologize if I the other impression.

[Shjade]

As someone asked you previously, we're curious: what characters do you feel were done better?

[Chris Brady]

Bear in mind I'm focusing on story/narrative wise.  And the first one that comes to mind was System Shock...  2?  I think.  That was a mind job, but very well done.

Angel from Borderlands 1 and 2.

The fact that Elizabeth does 'other things' like give out ammo and open locks (among other things) is pointless to me.  It's a secondary mechanic that could be done by the player, but they decided to make a secondary character do it for story reasons.

[Shjade]

*scratches head* You thought a character you never actually meet, learn anything about or have any reason to develop an emotional attachment to (aka: Angel in Borderlands 1) was a more well-developed and presented character than Elizabeth? In BL2 she gets some personality but in BL1 she's a voice that occasionally tells you what to do next; she's a glorified objective marker. I never played System Shock 2, but I'm reasonably sure there isn't a character in it named System Shock 2 so I'm not sure who you're comparing Liz to in that one.

Yeah, I'm afraid I can't put much stock in your assessment now.

[Inkidu]

I assume he's talking about the crazy computer from System Shock 2, but that's kind of strange seeing as they're basically the same company who did both games, and as such, characters (System Shock 2 and Infinite).

[Shjade]

The computer didn't have a name?

I loved Durandal, but I wouldn't call him "Marathon." Nor would I say he elicited the kind of emotional response Elizabeth did, but that's just me.

[animationprincessofOoo]

Random thought
In the first Bioshock I nearly fell over in laughter at how dumb hacked security bots are. Like one was following me and it ran right into the wall. :D

[Inkidu]

The computer didn't have a name?

I loved Durandal, but I wouldn't call him "Marathon." Nor would I say he elicited the kind of emotional response Elizabeth did, but that's just me.

It's um SHODAD or something like that. It's ranked the #2 video game villains list when I looked it up. Didn't care to catch which, but I'm going to say it'd be pretty good villain if it's two out of fifty.

[Koren]

First, while the Luteces play a key role in the story, it's not a story about them. Why? No emotional connection. No real "presence" in the story. They're a plot device and, like most such devices, the plot couldn't happen without them; that doesn't make it their story.

Second, even if the story were about them, the ending would still be broken. We don't see what they're doing next any more than we do Elizabeth so the same problem exists.

Third, if the choices you make don't matter, why bother playing the game? It'll resolve itself anyway without you. It also makes the ending that does exist meaningless: there's no point trying to prevent Comstock's creation at the baptism since he already exists, which means he's going to exist since clearly that's what's fated to happen and choices can't change fate. If you instead think the baptism changes all that then it is, indeed, about choice rather than fate. The original baptism suggests that as well: things are dramatically different between the two "core" worlds simply because in one a man chose to believe he could be washed clean of who he used to be and in another he rejected that idea. One choice made a tremendous difference. Your premise doesn't appear to hold up any way I look at it.

As an aside, in my playthrough Booker called tails but the coin landed heads.

Also, from the link you repeated, Koren:

No offense, but its a little annoying that you are saying my premise doesn't hold up when I've been stating that its my opinion and interpretation. We are all going to look at this completely separately. That's what happens with games like this, and I appreciate the fact that this is a game that intelligent discussion can come from it about a variety of different things. I get that I may be getting somethings wrong, but a lot of this is very subjective to each of us, so please don't tell me that my opinions don't stand up from your point of view. They may not, but that's okay, they don't need to.

I think part of the reason I connect more with the luteces then I do with the Booker/Elizabeth thing is that I have little to no sympathy for people. I really don't connect with people well, and especially not in a constructed sense like games.
Its part of the reason I can't get into The Last of Us. People said they felt a really strong connection and emotional thing after the opening sequence, I didn't at all, in fact the opening pissed me off because I saw it coming a mile away.
So while I didn't like the Booker/Elizabeth thing I did quite enjoy the intellectual thoughts and discussions that came from the things that the luteces were involved in, particularly around the idea of how many times have they done this, what happened the previous times.

Which brings up something.
Theres a theory that when you die, the door you see is actually a Booker from another thing coming through to try again, that you're no longer the same Booker. What do you guys think of that?

Also with the ending as I said. I like the fact it was left open. I enjoy that side of it. I hate being spoon fed endings. Its boring. I feel like I'm just being told 'this is how it is and you will deal with it'. I love endings that are open ended, in any way.
You are looking at it I feel more academically about how the structure of a story should flow and feel, and how things should be included, while I am taking more of a loose sort of approach to it in that, it is what it is, and it achieved what it set out to do.

Apologies if this came across badly before. What I mean is your choices as a PLAYER, don't affect the outcome. The choices of the characters in the game do, like the baptism, like Elizabeth drowning you, like the fact that Lutece's are trying to help you in the first place. So from that perspective choice is very important. But as a player, you're choices are not.
The heads or tails doesn't matter. The necklace doesn't matter. The man with the shock jockey, his life doesn't matter. No choice you actively make in the game alters the ending.
The variables are all done without you. The drowning, the original baptism, the Lutece's helping you etc. The only choices that you as a player are given power to make end up resulting in constants anyway.

Ah see I find that situation with the coin instantly as I have only ever had Booker pick heads in my three playthroughs so I thought that was the only option.

And I was more curious about what people thought of the subject of that link, rather then just that one line you picked out. About how the violence in Bioshock actually works towards the message.

This is how I look at it. If I were to write a book, and that books release was followed by an influx of half hour long 'ending explained' videos on Youtube, then I fucking failed in my task.

Pro-tip game writers. It's cool to have a story that naturally invites viewers to discuss further amongst themselves and discover deeper insight. If you leave those questions there, those who are so inclined will pursue them. Ya know what's not cool? Making it FUCKING MANDATORY to pursue them just to have a bloody ending at all.

Interpretation should add to a story, not provide one in the first place.

I disagree with this for the only reason that I didn't have to look up any of that at all. I understand that many people did, so I understand that could be a frustration for them, but it was certainly not mandatory. And playing it through again actually revealed so many more things to me anyway, more so then those videos as well. All the small details they occasionally miss out.


On the matter of characters I can't think of a single other character that matches up to Elizabeth's.... life. Theres probably a better way to put it but I can't think of it right now.


Also sorry for the late reply. I've been sick.

[Shjade]

Apologies if this came across badly before. What I mean is your choices as a PLAYER, don't affect the outcome.

I got that, which is why I asked, "If the choices you make don't matter, why bother playing the game?" If the constants will resolve without your input as a player, what's the point? They don't need you. Why not just make it a movie since you're essentially an audience anyway, given you have no meaningful input as a player?

I am indeed looking at the story rather academically, or analytically as I'd think of it. Writing is what I do. It's what I studied. I think about it this way by default.

Aside, I don't have the interest in playing through the game again just to look for it, so I'll just ask: is there anything reliable presented in the game to confirm Booker is Comstock? There are implications, there are possibilities, but as I've been thinking back on it I can't come up with anything in the game that I remember really cementing the notion. I can't think of why she would want to do so, but is it possible Elizabeth's flat out making shit up when she says you're Comstock? Is there anything she can use to prove it? You look different. You sound different. You act different. How do we know she isn't just drowning you before you can have Anna so that she'll never exist?

For that matter, how does drowning an older version of Booker kill him when he's younger anyway? We know it's the older Booker because he doesn't freak out about several young women he doesn't know trying to drown him, but how would that change past events? Just because it's happening in the same pond as the earlier baptism? That's not how time works.

The more I think about this ending, the worse it seems to me.

[Koren]

Well I think that goes a bit into game theory as well. Where is the line between participation and agency and simple observation.
Out of curiosity have you heard of the Xbox One game called Ryse?

I think the conveyed concept is that at the start of Columbia when he first arrives after the lighthouse Booker makes a comment that he was almost drowned during the baptism due to the priest
So at the end the idea is that Booker and Comstock are defined by the idea that one tries to purge his sins the other doesn't want to forget them. So Elizabeth draws on the idea of drowning and alters the realities, by using her power to draw realities together, which is why all the Elizabeth's appear from the realities that had Comstock in them, and not Booker, so that any Booker after wounded knee that accepts the baptism, simply drowns in the water instead of emerging to become Comstock.
As far as evidence, one of the Lutece's audio logs mention that Elizabeth/Anna has Comstock's DNA, which would be the same as Booker's. Pretty, but not 100% sure, that its the audio log you find after you view one of the three tears in the Lutece laboratory. Another one of the audio logs and I think a comment made by the Lutece's in the story line mention that Comstock wanted an heir of his blood, but was rendered impotent because of the tears in reality and the machine he used to look through them, so he took his daughter from another reality.

[Shjade]

Which means they're related, but doesn't guarantee paternity, at least not on as vague a descriptor as "they share DNA." Still, I can't think of a good reason for Elizabeth to lie to you so it's probably true.

[Koren]

I cant really see her lying about it, especially as she was so disgusted by the idea that Comstock was her father, and she seemed to have figured out at least part of it herself by the time they confronted Comstock so while its obviously not tangible and something to be relied upon I see that as a sort of indicator as well.
Also I conciser the idea that the priest from Wounded Knee and the one at Columbia being the same a kind of indicator to that as well, again not tangible and just my thoughts, but to me its kinda like Comstock forces those wanted to arrive in Columbia to receive a new life the same way he did going from Comstock to Booker.

And no it doesn't garentee paternity as well, I did wonder about that too. It's indicated and taken as fact but never truly confirmed. The only indicator is that Comstock took her as his child and made the story of Lady Comstock being her mother

I did often wonder if Lady Comstock was the same as Booker's wife who I'm assuming is dead.

[Shjade]

I don't think the priest in the city could be the same priest from the first baptism.

I mean, sure, physically it's possible, but if you baptised a guy, found out later that he was mayor (or whatever his title is) of a flying city to which he was inviting you as a chaplain of a new religion set up to worship him instead of God, don't you think you'd recognize that same guy showing up to be baptised again?

I dunno, I think he'd have reacted more dramatically to Booker's arrival if it was the same guy. Not to mention I have no idea how Comstock would have convinced a priest to leave the church and worship him instead.

[Koren]

It is the same guy.
The priest in his old age went blind.
You can see it in the game play, his eyes are all white, and the two priests have the same character model, one is just aged.

Remember as well, Comstock didn't set up a new religion as such, he merely named himself as a prophet and Elizabeth as the coming savior and got people to follow him that way. The rest of the values are based off christian values of the time.

[Inkidu]

It is the same guy.
The priest in his old age went blind.
You can see it in the game play, his eyes are all white, and the two priests have the same character model, one is just aged.

Remember as well, Comstock didn't set up a new religion as such, he merely named himself as a prophet and Elizabeth as the coming savior and got people to follow him that way. The rest of the values are based off christian values of the time.

Err... I'd call it a new religion that's Christian-like. He's more interested in worshiping the Founding Fathers of America and promoting American Exceptionalist ideology than anything remotely Christian. 

[Shjade]

Yeah, there's zero Christian iconography involved, nothing connecting their practice to Christianity, etc.

It has the trappings in using words like "prophet" and "the lamb," but using similar words doesn't make the belief system similar. At the very least it's idol worship, which is expressly antithetical to Christian worship.

Point about the blindness, though. I'd forgotten about his milky eyes. And I suppose in that sense that's a kind of foreshadowing, the priest's statement that "this one isn't coming clean" or whatever it is he says to that effect.

[Koren]

Thats right. My bad, sorry guys.
The whole founding fathers thing kinda dies off after about half way through the game so i was mostly focused on the prophet and the lamb etc.
I really should replay this again just to see how much I've missed and forgotten

Well first he says "Is it someone new?" And then when he is doing the baptism after he brings him to the surface after the first dunk he says something along the lines of "This one doesn't look clean to me yet." and that's when he almost drowns Booker.
Which thinking back on that does kinda tie into the ending from my perspective as Elizabeth could be seen to be cleaning up the world by drowning the instances of Booker becoming Comstock, the same way Comstock was 'cleaned' after what happened at wounded knee.

[Shjade]

That's one tie-in, yeah. There's also the fact that, even though Comstock thought he could be a new person and wash away his past, it just doesn't work that way. He doesn't come up "clean" no matter what he might think.

[Shjade]

Double posting, awww yeah.

So I said I'm not interested in DLC to "complete" Bioshock Infinite's ending because that should've been in the core game, and that's still true. This upcoming Burial at Sea thing, though, I can get behind that if it's what it seems like it could be: something that happens post-ending, whether as a "what if" of something that could have happened after breaking the Comstock cycle or simply an alternative telling of the same story (with, one would hope, a more complete conclusion than the previous), skipping past the whole "and then what?" question to provide a possibility that at least puts the total lack of resolution to rest with something to replace the nothing.

[Inkidu]

Double posting, awww yeah.

So I said I'm not interested in DLC to "complete" Bioshock Infinite's ending because that should've been in the core game, and that's still true. This upcoming Burial at Sea thing, though, I can get behind that if it's what it seems like it could be: something that happens post-ending, whether as a "what if" of something that could have happened after breaking the Comstock cycle or simply an alternative telling of the same story (with, one would hope, a more complete conclusion than the previous), skipping past the whole "and then what?" question to provide a possibility that at least puts the total lack of resolution to rest with something to replace the nothing.

I found Infinite to have a resounding and complete conclusion. I don't know what you're talking about. :\

[Shjade]

It's all on page 1 of this very thread.

[Chris Brady]

Yeah, there's zero Christian iconography involved, nothing connecting their practice to Christianity, etc.

It has the trappings in using words like "prophet" and "the lamb," but using similar words doesn't make the belief system similar. At the very least it's idol worship, which is expressly antithetical to Christian worship.

It is, but people do it anyway by wearing crosses or having depictions of Christ's crucifixion.  The reality of it is, there's more to HOW people worship the religion, rather than WHAT the religion says you should.  The Founding Fathers thing is very Christian in depicting how it's like modern Christianity as opposed as to what the Holy Books say.

[Inkidu]

It is, but people do it anyway by wearing crosses or having depictions of Christ's crucifixion.  The reality of it is, there's more to HOW people worship the religion, rather than WHAT the religion says you should.  The Founding Fathers thing is very Christian in depicting how it's like modern Christianity as opposed as to what the Holy Books say.

Except for the fact that worshiping Founding Fathers would be more akin to polytheism which is perhaps the most antithetical thing to Christianity without actually being tied up in anything subjectively religious. :\

I'm not inclined to believe that, but honestly, I have to wonder where you're going with the whole holy book thing. Literal interpretation? Edition dispute? Believe me there are plenty enough arguments about holy book. So you really can't say "Modern Christianity" versus "What the Holy Book say". Especially given the fundamentalism that was making its way through America at the time.

It's more of a case of the trapping that religion can provide charismatic figures. It's more a warning message against dangerous cults rather than Christian interpretation. It's more the logical extreme of American Exceptionalism and nationalism movements going through America and the world. Literally it's America: The Cult

[Shjade]

The Founding Fathers thing is very Christian in depicting how it's like modern Christianity as opposed as to what the Holy Books say.

You must hang out with very different Christians.

Literally it's America: Fuck Yeah

Fixed. :3

[Chris Brady]

You must hang out with very different Christians.

You may be right.

Every church I see has crosses on them, or inside a statuette of Christ on the cross usually behind the Priest's podium, which are all iconography, as well as cross earrings and necklaces and other jewelry.  These are very common around here.  Do churches or people in your area not do the same?  (Honest question)

The point is that the way BI portrayed it's religion is very similar to how it is where I live.  Which isn't a very big area, I admit, but it's pretty accurate in HOW it's done.  Not the WHY it's done.

[Inkidu]

You may be right.

Every church I see has crosses on them, or inside a statuette of Christ on the cross usually behind the Priest's podium, which are all iconography, as well as cross earrings and necklaces and other jewelry.  These are very common around here.  Do churches or people in your area not do the same?  (Honest question)

The point is that the way BI portrayed it's religion is very similar to how it is where I live.  Which isn't a very big area, I admit, but it's pretty accurate in HOW it's done.  Not the WHY it's done.

Iconography's always tricky, because the simple symbol of the cross is an icon, but around here no. Beyond crosses you don't see much. I live in the Bible Belt and those are mostly evangelically based Protestants.

However, remember that Comstock is also elevating flesh-and-blood people to the status of divine, which those self-same flesh-and-blood people would oppose.

[Chris Brady]

Again, it's purely on the surface depiction of the religion.

The deeper aspects are as different as night and day (to use a very common example), but the outward aspects are very familiar to me.  And maybe more, but I can't say.

[animationprincessofOoo]

On the topic of religion.. did anyone read that article about Glen Beck and how Bioshock Infinite was promoting anti conservative message to the youth? I nearly choked on water reading that. I don't need a video game to tell me they are evil their campaigns tell me enough. :P

[Koren]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/08/where-bioshock-infinites-been-and-where-its-going/

Thought you guys might find this interesting given the discussion

[animationprincessofOoo]

Ok, so who is beyond excited for the DLC? Return to Rapture?!

[Shjade]

Every church I see has crosses on them, or inside a statuette of Christ on the cross usually behind the Priest's podium, which are all iconography, as well as cross earrings and necklaces and other jewelry.  These are very common around here.  Do churches or people in your area not do the same?  (Honest question)

Yes, the churches around here do have crosses prominently on display.

They also are full of congregants who don't pray to those crosses. I've never heard even one of them open or end a prayer with, "Oh Father Cross, Bearer of the Lamb, hear me."

Iconography isn't even close to idol worship.

[Chris Brady]

Apparently, Mr. Levine DID model Comstock around Christianity according to this interview.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/1/4576374/ken-levine-discusses-the-meaning-in-bioshock-infinite

[Shjade]

Man, if only we'd already said it has the trappings of Christianity but not the content, as if that were used as some kind of inspiration or model.

Oh wait.