Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neyvn]

One thing I can't put together though...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

With the case of Time/Tears pulling Booker into the world where he became Comstock, at least 17-18yrs had passed since Anna/Elizabeth was taken from Booker. Considering her age and all that. OR. Was it a case of a younger Comstock coming into a future timeline of Bookers to get Anna from him. Because in the Reliving of the handing over Comstock had his beard and it appeared white with age. I am just slightly confused on trying to figure out the time that the Game is set in fits with Booker's actual age compared to Comstocks...

This the the main Case I have atm...
1: As stated before, Comstock used a Portal thing to go to a Past Timeline where Anna was born to collect her leaving Booker to be at the same age he is when he enters the Timeline where Columbia is above in the skys with an aging Comstock where 17-18 years had passed where Anna had grown to Elizabeth but is still in line with the time that Booker left his Timeline and enters her's..... Gah brain mush again...

[shadenight123]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Going through tears ages you and sterilizes you.
So Comstock was 'same age' as Booker, but appeared older.

[Marchosias]

One thing I can't put together though...

Spoiler: The thing about that is... (click to show/hide)

it doesnt say that comstock is such and such age, he could be the same age as booker or much older, lets assume he is older, then we have problems since the Lutece 'twins' are seamingly of similar ages and are the 'same person', so it sort of gets hard to determine what is going on here, I assume it has something to do with the tears as well; and comstock only looks different from booker because its ment to be hard to tell that he is him... story stuff.

[nenjin]

I'm pretty sure....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The last scene of Booker checking on Anna is just a feel-good throwaway. Reasons being:
1. In order to end the cycle, Booker Dewitt has to die during his baptism. That creates timeline C, where neither Booker Dewitt nor Comstock live.
2. Because Booker dies, he can never get his wife pregnant.
3. Therefore Elizabeth ceases to exist when he dies.
4. Ergo, there cannot be a 4th timeline where Booker Dewitt does not give up Anna and they both live.

Of course, you never SEE Elizabeth fade out. The screen simply goes black on the final piano key stroke. But if they stick to their own internal logic (which they don't always) she's dead as well. The Lutece Twins however kind of muddy that possibility.

I suppose there's the possibility that Elizabeth herself lies. She says Booker will always and eventually give up Anna no matter how long Booker waits. She says this because she can "see all the doors and the things behind them." Maybe she was lying though, and there's a reality where Booker never gave up Anna. To admit that though would completely fuck up their ending because it would be an out for the player. Which is why they only show you that possibility AFTER the credits, when it doesn't matter anymore.

And I guess we have to remember that the whole game is seen from the perspective of ONE Booker who has moved through 5? different timelines. Maybe the message is that Elizabeth frees HIM from his torment, while not actually destroying all Booker Dewitts and Comstocks everywhere and forever.

[Marchosias]

Spoiler: Yeah but... (click to show/hide)

why would there only be one booker dewitt being drowned in the ending; its posible that the ending was simply all the comstocks being drowned instead of simply baptised, having the one booker take the place of all the comstocks, because that kind of would make sense out of that last scene, otherwise you run into a paradox and thats not good science.

Very likely the presence of a timeline where booker dewitt is able to check on anna is a result of booker not going through with the baptism, where as if he does he is drowned and doesnt exist to steal ana from booker, leaving a feel good ending of booker and anna living happily ever after; or at least existing in realities where comstock doesnt steal anna.

[Digital Hellhound]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

See, they could've solved this by just having Elizabeth and Booker drown Comstock!Booker right after his baptism, leaving the refusing Bookers intact. Though maybe killing someone who doesn't know you and hasn't done anything bad yet isn't all that nice.

[nenjin]

Spoiler: Except... (click to show/hide)

The Lutece Twins' original purpose in pulling Booker Dewitt from timeline B into timeline A is so he can eventually break the cycle. The Twins say at one point that giving Elizabeth the powers she has was a mistake they need to correct. They need to unmake her. As long as Elizabeth exists, the cycle of Booker Dewitt/Comstock continues. Putting Booker in contact with Elizabeth, who eventually can see all the probabilities that eventually call for Booker's death as the only solution, is the way to end it.

Now, it's possible Elizabeth now exists outside of time like the Lutece Twins....but the ending leaves that unclear. By making it so Booker's timeline never forks, and just ends instead, the whole question of Elizabeth is made moot because she can never be born. Elizabeth (i.e. the author) even tells you point blank, there is no possibility of Booker not giving up Anna. If the person who can see all timelines and probabilities says that, I think that makes it fact.

That's why I think the after credits ending is simply to not have it all end on a down note. Because it pretty much contradicts what they just told you.

[Digital Hellhound]

Spoiler: I know, I know... (click to show/hide)

But I just want it to end on a more or less happy note and thus subscribe to Elizabeth Time Magic Shenanigans making everything right. I've seen enough bleak game endings recently to last a lifetime.

[Omegastick]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

May I give my view on the ending with the after-credits sequence? Well, I'm going to anyway.

As I understand it it goes as follows:

• Booker says he wants to "Smother the bastard (Comstock) in his crib" and Liz asks him if he's sure. He says yes.
• She takes him to the baptism (although it's not the same, I don't quite understand that) and he realises that Comstock is himself and this is the splitting point. In some timelines he refuses the baptism and walks away, in the others he takes in and becomes Comstock.
• He accepts the baptism and is drowned, therefore he cannot make any choice that would stop him being drowned and making all the bookers that accept the baptism (thereby becoming Comstock) dead.
• The after credits scene shows a Booker that didn't accept the baptism and didn't give his daughter away (because there is no Comstock at all, Comstock is impossible at this point because he was drowned during the baptism).

[Enzo]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

• Booker says he wants to "Smother the bastard (Comstock) in his crib" and Liz asks him if he's sure. He says yes.
• She takes him to the baptism (although it's not the same, I don't quite understand that). . .

My 2 cents.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Baptism is a metaphorical rebirth. Booker's baptism is where Comstock is born. Drowning Comstock as he is baptized is not literally but metaphorically smothering him in his crib.
It's kind of left up in the air in the pre-credits scene whether this means all the Bookers died in the baptism, or only the Comstock-bound Bookers who accepted the bastism did. The post credits scene implies the latter. It's not made clear whether Booker-Prime (or whatever you want to call the protagonist) sacrifices himself to achieve this, but it kind of looks like he did.
Assuming the Comstock timeline was destroyed by drowning all the Comstocks in the baptism: the timeline research never gets funded, Lutece never contacts Lutece, Anna Dewitt is never sold, and crazy universe-bending Elizabeth ceases to exist.

Yeah, it's not completely without holes. How Booker-Prime can cause the death of all or even half the Bookers basically boils down to "because Elizabeth is a wizard" either way.

[tryrar]

Well, MY 2 cents is to once again quote the Doctor:

Timey Wimey Ball

Edit: To expand:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

When Elizabeth browns booker and closes the causality loop, the timeline does a complete sideways shift and some sort of cause and effect leads to the Stinger. It could be something as simple as Booker is in a different army unit and doesn't participate at wounded knee!

[Omegastick]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

• Booker says he wants to "Smother the bastard (Comstock) in his crib" and Liz asks him if he's sure. He says yes.
• She takes him to the baptism (although it's not the same, I don't quite understand that). . .

My 2 cents.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Baptism is a metaphorical rebirth. Booker's baptism is where Comstock is born. Drowning Comstock as he is baptized is not literally but metaphorically smothering him in his crib.
It's kind of left up in the air in the pre-credits scene whether this means all the Bookers died in the baptism, or only the Comstock-bound Bookers who accepted the bastism did. The post credits scene implies the latter. It's not made clear whether Booker-Prime (or whatever you want to call the protagonist) sacrifices himself to achieve this, but it kind of looks like he did.
Assuming the Comstock timeline was destroyed by drowning all the Comstocks in the baptism: the timeline research never gets funded, Lutece never contacts Lutece, Anna Dewitt is never sold, and crazy universe-bending Elizabeth ceases to exist.

Yeah, it's not completely without holes. How Booker-Prime can cause the death of all or even half the Bookers basically boils down to "because Elizabeth is a wizard" either way.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Indeed.

One thing I've been thinking about is the Lutece's relation to all this. I'm probably going to ramble, so this is a bit of a warning. As I see it there are two possibilities with what's going on concerning them and their actions. Either they are going to be 'erased' and only the non-universe travelling versions of them will be left. In which case they either think that Comstock needs to be killed anyway (and makes you wonder why they didn't just do it themselves) and they are allowing themselves to be erased or they value their 'lives' and would try to stop you (which obviously isn't the case). Or they will still exist, going about doing their 'experiments' until the end of time and this would also imply that Elizabeth (of the near omnipotent/omniscient variety) survives too. Now, the first option doesn't really stand up because either they would try to stop you or kill Comstock themselves so that only leaves the seconds option, implying Elizabeth is still alive and kicking (and timeline juping). Of course, it's entirely possible that either Elizabeth is of a different variety of timeline-jumping, all-knowing people and she is erased too or the Lutece's are just crazy because of the timeline dead/alive thing. Come to think of it, they could have just lived their lives until they are bored and are 'committing suicide' in some form by trying to stop their existence but doing in an entertaining way.

Well, MY 2 cents is to once again quote the Doctor:

Timey Wimey Ball

Edit: To expand:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

When Elizabeth browns booker and closes the causality loop, the timeline does a complete sideways shift and some sort of cause and effect leads to the Stinger. It could be something as simple as Booker is in a different army unit and doesn't participate at wounded knee!

I'm not following. Browns? Stinger? What?

[Marchosias]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As I see it any bookers or comstocks that didnt seek out that baptism dont need to be considered, and only leads down to the road of perpetual event circumstance and thats just saying there will always be comstocks to steal annas from bookers, and is just outright bad news all around.

I love that the conversation is about such theoretical ideals as time travel, multidimentiality, causality, and constancy.

[Empty]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Wait. This means Comstock WAS at those battles. Slade was wrong

[Mrhappyface]

Please don't buy this game. It's a 6/10 at best.
The game is horribly dumbed down compared to the other games.
Columbia isn't even half the environment of Rapture
The levels are much smaller
Linear hallway shooter
The levels are essentially corridors, and no longer large DOOM like arenas with secret areas
2 weapons
You can only carry 2 weapons with at all times
No special ammos
Every weapon has 1 ammo type
Weapons don't change appearance when they are upgraded
They still look boring and unispired
>Vigors are unexplained and only 1-3 are actually useful (Jockey, Devil, Bronco)
Though the visual effects on your arms are really cool
Little enemy variety
Compared to the many types of splicers, this is worrying
Feel like you're grinding through the same waves of the same enemy types for the duration of the game
Gets quite monotonous, as peekaboo shooting is much less worrying and boring
Only a few Handymen appearances and they are piss poor successors to the Big Daddies
They can be destroyed quite easily by RPG or vigor spam
Enemy and Elizabeth AI is retarded
Elizabeth is invulnerable, and sometimes despineses ammo/health/mana but this could've been remided if the game let you carry health packs/syringes like the previous Bioshock game
2deep4u ending pulled out of Elizabeth's ass in the last ten minutes
It's stupid
Choices do not matter
They really don't
Founders and Vox might as well be non-existent for all the interaction you have with them
None of them felt very sympathetic or interesting
Doesn't capitalize enough on the father/daughter angle (BioShock 2 did it better and Delta doesn't even speak a fucking word)
Booker's VA is subpar and he's too much of a dick