legume Apr 23, 2013 @ 7:54pm
Post-Baptism (spoilers!)
So I'm still confused as to what happened with the whole baptism/drowning in the final scene. The multi-verse Elizabeths said they were removing Comstock from the world by smothering him in the crib, so does that also remove Booker from all worlds? If they killed the Booker from that universe at the baptism to prevent him from becoming Comstock, does that also eliminate the other Bookers in other universes?
Last edited by legume; Apr 24, 2013 @ 4:15pm
Showing 1-15 of 29 comments
< >
Heef Apr 23, 2013 @ 8:58pm 
Well, the Luteces said "How far back do you have to go? the crux of the change between booker DeWitt's Path and Comstock's Path was the moment where he chose or denied baptism... that was where the story fractured if you will... so... by ending his story there, you end the fracture, and Elizabeth... which really shows how deep the love and forgiveness goes, she ended her own existence to save his soul from the torment of the fractured future...

by the way... you should use the

(spoiler])spoiler goes here(/spoiler)
tags (replace () with [])
Last edited by Heef; Apr 23, 2013 @ 9:01pm
[AJSA] Lord Wayne Apr 23, 2013 @ 9:26pm 
/Spoliers
In short yes.


However because there is no Booker there is no Comstock. Thus a new universe is created from the old ones, a universe where Comstock, since he no longer exists, never crosses over and never takes Anna in 1893. A universe where Booker and Anna are never seperated. A universe where Anna exists but not Elizabeth.
Heef Apr 23, 2013 @ 9:45pm 
Originally posted by General Mills:
/Spoliers
In short yes.


However because there is no Booker there is no Comstock. Thus a new universe is created from the old ones, a universe where Comstock, since he no longer exists, never crosses over and never takes Anna in 1893. A universe where Booker and Anna are never seperated. A universe where Anna exists but not Elizabeth.

It is a Merry Paradox, but think of it this way, If you end the Booker/Comstock interaction, and end Elizabeth/Anna, you also end that which resolves the Dilemma, and causes the story to come to that end, thus completely recreating the conditions for the Booker/Comstock Elizabeth/Anna storyline to open up again. Destroying the timeline destroys that which destroys the timeline, thus ensuring that it is always in flux, existing, and not existing, all at once...

physics babble babble quantum blah blah blah there is no God?
Last edited by Heef; Apr 23, 2013 @ 9:46pm
Nerevar's Goat Butler Apr 23, 2013 @ 9:49pm 
Originally posted by Heef:
Originally posted by General Mills:
/Spoliers
In short yes.


However because there is no Booker there is no Comstock. Thus a new universe is created from the old ones, a universe where Comstock, since he no longer exists, never crosses over and never takes Anna in 1893. A universe where Booker and Anna are never seperated. A universe where Anna exists but not Elizabeth.

It is a Merry Paradox, but think of it this way, If you end the Booker/Comstock interaction, and end Elizabeth/Anna, you also end that which resolves the Dilemma, and causes the story to come to that end, thus completely recreating the conditions for the Booker/Comstock Elizabeth/Anna storyline to open up again. Destroying the timeline destroys that which destroys the timeline, thus ensuring that it is always in flux, existing, and not existing, all at once...

physics babble babble quantum blah blah blah there is no God?

Horray for religion?
[AJSA] Lord Wayne Apr 23, 2013 @ 9:57pm 
Originally posted by Heef:
Originally posted by General Mills:
/Spoliers
In short yes.


However because there is no Booker there is no Comstock. Thus a new universe is created from the old ones, a universe where Comstock, since he no longer exists, never crosses over and never takes Anna in 1893. A universe where Booker and Anna are never seperated. A universe where Anna exists but not Elizabeth.

It is a Merry Paradox, but think of it this way, If you end the Booker/Comstock interaction, and end Elizabeth/Anna, you also end that which resolves the Dilemma, and causes the story to come to that end, thus completely recreating the conditions for the Booker/Comstock Elizabeth/Anna storyline to open up again. Destroying the timeline destroys that which destroys the timeline, thus ensuring that it is always in flux, existing, and not existing, all at once...

physics babble babble quantum blah blah blah there is no God?


Something like that.

I view it as the "Tails" outcome, with the "Heads" outcome being Anna gettin sold. Booker's Baptism creates the Tails outcome of no Comstock/Leutuce crossing over.

[Fr]Nabu-San Apr 24, 2013 @ 7:05am 
(spoiler])These theories don't explain why Booker says "Anna, is that you ?". I think that the Booker we actually play is tranported in an alternate universe where he isn't Comstock and still has his daughter, but remembers everything that happened.(/spoiler)
starlizard70 Apr 24, 2013 @ 8:32am 
It reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Everything exists and doesn't exist at the same time. It just depends on when you look at it as to what you'll see.
jvnderwe Apr 24, 2013 @ 9:00am 
SPOILER OBVIOUSLY

No, Booker is not removed from all worlds. There are two main Bookers - the one that you play who refused the baptism initially and never came back and the Booker who initially refused baptism but came back later to get baptized. The second Booker, the one who came back, is the one who becomes Comstock and THAT is the one who gets drowned. The drowning scene takes place when Booker came back to get baptized so all the Bookers who didn't come back go on living, but all the Bookers who were about to become Comstock are killed.
tspendragn Apr 28, 2013 @ 3:32pm 
Here's the real problem: Is Elizabeth gone or not? There's one Elizabeth left at the very end. Hey, Irrational, if you want a place to start, make the last Elizabeth immune from the paradox. Bring her back in a new game, with her going through one of the World Wars. Elizabeth versus the Nazis? I'd LOVE that!!!
Last edited by tspendragn; Apr 28, 2013 @ 3:34pm
legume Apr 30, 2013 @ 9:28am 
Originally posted by tspendragn:
Here's the real problem: Is Elizabeth gone or not? There's one Elizabeth left at the very end. Hey, Irrational, if you want a place to start, make the last Elizabeth immune from the paradox. Bring her back in a new game, with her going through one of the World Wars. Elizabeth versus the Nazis? I'd LOVE that!!!

After rewatching the ending at least five times, I think Elizabeth disappeared with Zachary Comstock. After the multi-verse Elizabeths' drown Booker, they all disappear with the sound of a piano note. After the screen fades to black (with the original Elizabeth being the only one remaining in the river) there's a final piano note which leads me to believe that she, too, cannot exist anymore. The whole purpose of killing Booker was so that there would only be a Booker Dewitt and an Anna Dewitt with no Comstock, no Columbia, etc. if that makes sense?
Dalinar Kholin Apr 30, 2013 @ 1:05pm 
What Sloth said is what I took away from the ending.
Last edited by Dalinar Kholin; Apr 30, 2013 @ 1:15pm
tspendragn Apr 30, 2013 @ 2:05pm 
I got to the real ending last night, after seeing the credits (all 10 minutes of them!) We have Booker going into the cradle room, but we don't see if Anna is in the cradle. This ending reminds me of Dallas, where two years are explained away as a dream. Is it a dream, or is it an infinite loop, where Booker is living his penance for his sins by eternally rescuing Anna/Elizabeth? Sheesh, that makes Hell seem like Club Med in comparision!
legume Apr 30, 2013 @ 2:15pm 
Originally posted by ;828937546060771038:
I got to the real ending last night, after seeing the credits (all 10 minutes of them!) We have Booker going into the cradle room, but we don't see if Anna is in the cradle. This ending reminds me of Dallas, where two years are explained away as a dream. Is it a dream, or is it an infinite loop, where Booker is living his penance for his sins by eternally rescuing Anna/Elizabeth? Sheesh, that makes Hell seem like Club Med in comparision!

Well he wouldn't have to rescue Anna/Elizabeth from anything because there would be no Comstock which means Anna never would have been taken from him.
Aaron Rodgers Apr 30, 2013 @ 2:50pm 
It still makes no logical sense. Cause and effect. If you destroy the flying city by killing Booker. The city and Comstock never existed so you never had a reason to kill Booker to begin with. Also it's a grandfather paradox. They can't kill their own father before they're born. You can't change the past in the INFINITE muliverse that they describe in the game. The whole point of the theory is that everything happens. Including me being the king of earth. Or maybe I'm a rock star astronaut who moonlights as a pro wrestler. They even say "everything will happen has happened and is happening."

To make the changes that they are talking about in the game it would mean that there was no muliveres until the Leutuce's discovered them. It would have to be finite muliveres'. This is so that the compartmentalized changes that are made to the muliverse would actually matter. At the end of the game there would be only the one "fixed" timeline with no other universes in this case. Kinda like "Back to the Future 2".

It would still happen in some world some way some how. With the possibility of infinite out comes, you cannot edit out a fraction of infinity. It's not mathematically possible. You cant stop what happened. Unless you argue Lis is magic.
Last edited by Aaron Rodgers; Apr 30, 2013 @ 3:57pm
SirShotgun Apr 30, 2013 @ 3:58pm 
There's more questions that this... Firstly what does AD really mean "Anna Dead"? "anna Dear"? and what did Booker do to sin in the first place? and did he sin against himself "Comstock"? the whole thing is really confusing gaaah!
Showing 1-15 of 29 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Apr 23, 2013 @ 7:54pm
Posts: 29