Why the ending doesn't work. *Spoilers*

[Synical]

I understand the ending of bioshock infinite in the way it was told and understand how the writers wanted it to end.

The problem is that it doesn't actually work.

The game centres on the event of the baptism, this baptism is what causes comstock to be born. They figure that to destroy comstock once and for all they drown booker at the baptism and comstock will be no more,

However the problem there is that they didn't go far back enough in the decision tree to undo that event.

Because they haven't undone the event where booker decides to go to that baptism event in the first place.

So he will still go to that baptism and still make one or the other decision's.

Infact, I would argue that any version of booker that takes part in the battle of wounded knee has a choice to feel guilt and a choice to attend a baptism at any time because of that guilt.

Meaning that comstock always has a chance of becoming a possible universe.

Taken back further, the only way comstock couldn't exist is if booker never existed at all.

Which would mean his parents would have to not exist.

I'm beginning to believe that you can't actually undo a probabilty at all, unless nothing existed at all.

[demax51]

I think that's actually kind of the point. This isn't a story about saving the world, it's a story about personal redemption.

When Booker, Liz, and the Luteces are in the boat discussing how to stop Comstock, Lutece says "but how does one know how far back one must go? Events get set in motion..." I don't think there's any actual way to stop Comstock all together...

But the point of the adventure isn't that they stopped Comstock once and for all in every universe - because, again, I don't even think that's possible - the point is that OUR Booker is redeemed for having sold Elizabeth. Just because some version of Comstock may still come to be in some other universe (the open-ended, post-credits scene, to me, implies that EVERY eventuality is still possible), it doesn't take away from the fact that OUR Booker made a sacrifice so that OUR Elizabeth wouldn't have to suffer.

[nickwithtea]

Or you could have both went to paris and lived happily, but no that's too much for game developers to make a happy ending

[Widower]

That's actually a really interesting point. I felt like i had understood that they had prevented Booker from ever becoming Comstock by drowning him at the baptism, however i couldn't understand how Booker would be around during the post credits scene. If they had wiped out his existence at the baptism then it should have ended there with no post credits scene. This makes a bit more sense that it was redemption for the sake of the child (Anna/Elizabeth). He's given himself a clean slate i guess.

My head is still spinning thinking about it, i'm sure someone else will come out with another theory altogether different. It's so rare for a game to spark so much debate.

[LlamaJockey]

Originally posted by Widower:

That's actually a really interesting point. I felt like i had understood that they had prevented Booker from ever becoming Comstock by drowning him at the baptism, however i couldn't understand how Booker would be around during the post credits scene. If they had wiped out his existence at the baptism then it should have ended there with no post credits scene. This makes a bit more sense that it was redemption for the sake of the child (Anna/Elizabeth). He's given himself a clean slate i guess.

My head is still spinning thinking about it, i'm sure someone else will come out with another theory altogether different. It's so rare for a game to spark so much debate.

It isn't the end of Booker, but it is the end of Comstock. You travel to the exact point in time where Comstock is created through the process of baptism. Essentially, with Booker's self sacrifice in that moment, there is no Comstock, no Columbia, and sadly, no Elizabeth, but Booker is still alive because he was a real human being while Comstock is fabricated from Booker in that moment in time.

[Synical]

I was under the impression that bookers redemption lay in the fact that they needed to end comstock completely so that in no possible universe would beth be sold, caged and eventually brain washed to destroy new york city.

Bookers sacrifice was to end all his daughters sufferering.

The end seems to indicate that they have achieved that goal.

What i was pointing out, that they haven't actually achieved comstocks end at all.

This game has many themes, redemption is obviously one of them.

What i enjoyed on the second play through was watching booker struggle with adult liz breaking down in tears to the notion that she was being given away to settle some debt.

Which is a reaction she was unable to give booker when she was a baby.

So he gets to see the emotional damage first hand. It was a nice touch.

[Exiled]

It doesn't matter because Dewitt suffered a quantum death. Elizabeth tied every universe to that focal point which retroactively destroys any universe in which he survived.

[demax51]

Originally posted by PerpetualSin:

What i enjoyed on the second play through was watching booker struggle with adult liz breaking down in tears to the notion that she was being given away to settle some debt.

Which is a reaction she was unable to give booker when she was a baby.

So he gets to see the emotional damage first hand. It was a nice touch.

Nice point - that hadn't occurred to me.

[R0GUY]

Yeah I also figured that the ending didn't really make sense either.
Even *IF* there's a possible explanation as to why there's a point in drowning booker because somehow it isn't too far down the timeline.... That after going through all the crap, and knowing the OMGWTF awful outcome (having to turn his daughter into a miserable freak with essentially no identity, having to kill your wife, friends, watch the city you create burn and getting murdered in a bird bath of all things), why the *♥♥♥♥* would booker want to get baptised after that?! Why the *♥♥♥♥* would he even want to risk such a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ life?!

I just can't and won't get over that massive plothole.

[A Very Wet Frog]

this how i see it. the killing of booker at this point destroys any reality of him deciding to go through with the baptism. all realities of him not going through with it remain the same. and in any reality for him to become comstock he must go through with the baptism at that exact point. so any reality that he does not go through with it at that exact point even if he gets baptised later will not turn him into comstock

[wzlr]

Anna is born after the Baptism. You see that in the game, when all her identities disappear with Booker's death. So she can't come back to prevent the Baptism from happening, she never existed. This means the Baptism will happen. The Baptism happening will lead to her coming back to prevent it. It's an infinite loop that can't be solved.
Basically: You can't travel back in time to kill yourself. If you did, the future you (killer) would never exist.

My theory atleast haha

[Kommissar K]

Perhaps of all the possible branches leading up to that point, that single baptism was the only (of many baptisms) that would lead to Booker taking on the Comstock identity.

Contrary to the beliefs of many people here, becoming a Christian does not inherently turn one into a nut job. I would imagine there would/should be countless timelines where Booker accepts the redemption offered and lives a normal life from that point onward.

It may simply be that in that moment, in this single chain of infinite other chains, does Booker take the Comstock identity. Which in an of itself leads to infinite more chains of suffering.

[Kick the Bukkit]

a universe is created by choices...
Booker chose to get the baptism in 1 and didn't in the other.
Elizabeth took Booker to the reality where comstock got to be and ended Bookers life before he became comstock and so every reality where comstock came to be just disapeared ;) (hope this is a good explenation haha)

only thing that confuses me is what the hell they where doing in rapture xD

[MMMMM]

Originally posted by PerpetualSin:

I understand the ending of bioshock infinite in the way it was told and understand how the writers wanted it to end.

The problem is that it doesn't actually work.

The game centres on the event of the baptism, this baptism is what causes comstock to be born. They figure that to destroy comstock once and for all they drown booker at the baptism and comstock will be no more,

However the problem there is that they didn't go far back enough in the decision tree to undo that event.

Because they haven't undone the event where booker decides to go to that baptism event in the first place.

So he will still go to that baptism and still make one or the other decision's.

This is probably why in the end (after the credits), there is a Booker, and there is a room, and there may also be an Anna. But she's probably gone, off again to Columbia.

However, to believe this you also have to believe that there were multiple realities of Booker acting out the same lives up to the point of divergence at the baptism.

If you don't believe that, the ending after the credits becomes hard to justify beyond fluff.

[H8 Machine]

Originally posted by Kick the Bukkit:

only thing that confuses me is what the hell they where doing in rapture xD

rapture is brought in because of choices the big thing for the first bioshock was "We all make choices, but in the end our choices make us"

Which I kind of liked that tie in a little bit because in the first game your given a choice to alter your path but in this second one they focus on how our choices may vary but it always leads to the same outcome.

[Fresh Beeps]

Only the Booker that makes it to the Baptism has any chance of becoming Comstock. The baptism scene is Comstock's "crib". Good day.