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.