[Spoilers] 2 Reasons why the ending was bad

[Espectro]

Sorry if this adds to a pile of threads complaining about the ending. Let me preface this by saying I love the first Bioshock and I really enjoyed this game up until the ending which left me in a kind of dazed funk (but not in a good way). But I feel it will be good to get this off my chest. Warning: long post.

1. The ending dazzles you with talk about infinite branching realities, but then goes on to ignore the most basic paradox of time travel--that changing the past would alter the future in a way that would not lead to you going back to change the past. The way that time travel is generally seen as possible (at least in sci fi) is that travel back to alternate pasts is possible--thereby creating a new branching timeline. This fits with the general series of events in the game. However if that held true for the ending, the Elizabeths would have killed Booker/Comstock and created a new timeline where Comstock did not arise--but they would have remained. They would not/could not have eliminated him in a way that would have prevented their own existence.

I saw no mechanism in any of the discussions in the game for how Elizabeth(s) could have transcended this paradox. And it really flies in the face of there being infinite variations of this scenario.

2. Having played it all the way through, the game really boils down to a narrative of child abuse. When you first encounter Elizabeth, she has been held in near solitary confinement for years by Comstock. You rescue her and lead her through multiple violent encounters while you lie to her about your motives (which is essentially human trafficking). ♥♥♥♥ happens, you grow closer to her and try to help--but then she is taken away and subjected to a lifetime of torture and brainwashing until you encounter her as an old woman, razing 1980s New York city with....zeppelins. But she sends you back in time to right things.

After rescuing young Elizabeth, you are not allowed to take her to Paris. When she asks you if "you really want to go through with this" the player is given no choice in the matter. Then Booker/Comstock is drowned and all the Elizabeths cease to exist. So the character you play is killed and the emotional driver of the storyline ceases to ever have existed. Imagine a great novel where, at the end, an omniscient narrator appears and says "oh, actually none of the events you read actually happened. The hopes and aspirations of the characters don't go anywhere because it turns out that none of them actually lived."

At some point, the developers got so enamoured with the idea of variables and constraints that they discarded the significance of the characters as moral agents and the pleasure the player feels for making a difference within the confines of the game world. Imagine in Bioshock if you had spared all the little sisters and then at the end they all drowned anyways, regardless of any actions you may have taken to save them. If I play this game again, I'm going to feel like a real prick when I interrupt Elizabeth's dance on the beach since that's one of the few moments of genuine happiness the character experiences.

But wait--there's the Schrodinger's baby cutscene after the credits. Possibly a reality where Booker doesn't give away Anna (who still would never become Elizabeth). Given that the child is actually there--YAY! WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. There is an infant in the hands of a morally compromised, debt-ridden, alcoholic single father. The is no reason to believe that Booker would somehow remember the events of the game narrative, which never actually occured. So it's entirely possible that he'll sell her off to the first pedophile that comes knocking. Or he'll drink himself to death, or whatever.

Bioshock Infinite is like a Greek tragedy where good people fall into ruin do to a chain of events that they don't understand and can't control. Except the story has no good people, only victims.

[Espectro]

İlk olarak jakecav18 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Okihara Jones tarafından gönderildi:

Nihilism? Well, that's just, like... your opinion, man.

I love you for this.

HEADS UP this isn't a game about time travel and the game implies time does not branch, it is not a river, but an ocean, and the universes are not one ocean, but an infinite amount of oceans. Don't focus so much on the scientific technicalities because if you do, then you are trying to dislike the game. Instead, look at how cohesive the plot and themes are, then you will be amazed. Look at the similarities with the first two games and your mind will blow

That's what bothers me the most about the game. It's a break with the previous games in that your choices mean nothing. You don't really affect anything. You are just one variable that plays out a certain way. I REALLY want to like this game, but I'm not going to check my brain at the door.

[ZombieKiller]

Here, something to get you started.

http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-rockefeller-center/

[Kasteya]

they should have made the game like the last bioshock games alternative ending and this the bad ending die for what reason just to stop comstock you know whats going to happen already why just dont turn into comstock i mean bioshock 2 you die but to save elenor form rapture so just avoid becoming comstock

[euryleia]

It's a break with the previous games in that your choices mean nothing. You don't really affect anything. You are just one variable that plays out a certain way.

How do you not get this Illusion of Choice theme in the game when it presents so blatantly up front? The coin toss scene has ALL of the landing as head. Zero tail. Even the first puzzle you see, the bells at the light house, has the answer handed to you. Then the Medallion decision. THEN old Liz said she spent her life scheming a way to bring you here. And. And. And. "Are you sure?" question at the final baptism scene.

The biggest clue of all: The moment Booker opens his mouth and out comes not your voice but his should have been the moment you realized you are just there for the ride. You don't even own Booker. When the game goes into story mode, you can't move.

How did you miss out the biggest bone the creator toss at you, so early and often?

[Mountain Backsteak]

İlk olarak legendstrikez tarafından gönderildi:

they should have made the game like the last bioshock games alternative ending and this the bad ending die for what reason just to stop comstock you know whats going to happen already why just dont turn into comstock i mean bioshock 2 you die but to save elenor form rapture so just avoid becoming comstock

this would've defeated the purpose of Bioshock Infinite...which is that...there is no choice. choice...is illusion.

[Panic Fire]

Op did fail to grasp the finer parts of the story.

1. Elizabeth accended by destroying the tower and is now outside laws of the universe. She is the only Elizabeth in all of the multiverse that ends up that way. Due to 1 the requirements needed to make a verse that has all the actors in it, and 2 due to certain things always happening regardless of the verse. To make it easier to understand. Bioshock Infinite story line is the 1 singluar time that Elizabeth's Powers are fully realized and she assends to what ever she becomes at the end of the game. Now comes the hard part for people to understand. There are an infinite number of multiverses made up of the choices people and things can make these infinite number of verses are limited by constants (remember constants and variables) these constants always happen. For the purposes of the story. There are an infinite number of comstocks and an equally infinite number of Booker's. The constant is if booker gets batatised he becomes comstock, and if he doesn't he has a child. Now any verse where booker doesn't go to the baptism area don't matter. The baptism is a focal point. If for instance booker dies to indians for instance thats a verse but doesn't pertrain to our plot as he never makes it to the baptism.

What Elizabeth does at the end of the game is she destroyed the Baptism Event from the timelines. It doesnt or never existed so none of the events in any of verses exist anymore. This destorys the existance of all Elizabeth's (as they are never born) The exception is the singular Elizabeth that trancended space and time (our elizabeth) Due to the multiverses being a series of constants and variables you can claim that there exists only one verse where she transends (where every single variable falls into place perfectly) And thats our elizabeth.

As for the after credits you must remember that Elizabeth has tranceded space and time and create and destroy entire verses at will thus she can obviously create a verse where she gets to watch booker be a good father (go figure)



2. This one is simply a design goal. The Bioshock team felt that moral choices in games had hit an all time low as people only picked moral choices so that they could get event C later in the game or to unlock power X or to see ending B. People didn't feel connected to the choices they were making in the game and instead were just meta gaming. So they made the design choice to allow the player to make moral choices but to neither reward or punish the player for said choices than the obvious. So you don't need 80evil points to see the evil ending. The choices in the game have meaning by not having meaning. When you decide to throw the stone at either the interracial couple or the anouncer it doesn't somehow arbriatry effect the ending you get nor does reward you with some kind of weapon or power. It instead carries weight as an emotional scene because of the lack of. It's kind of a fresh take on the idea.

[DearActor]

Espectro...guy, I like you, rly, just for the catharsis puking thing (that reminded me of good days).
But you go on say stuff like "happier if that were the intended ending" when you say stuff like "I think its clear that a major theme of the game is determinism" or "Bioshock Infinite is like a Greek tragedy…only victims" and "Something about it reminds me of Oedipus." well ya.

The point in this game was been a part of a view that you can criticize ALON. no, you SHOULD do it. so many stuff just giving you a track (got it?) that you must go on and see, touch with you'r eye and not the hands. Live it, HATE IT, and make our world a better place. so many stuff said about religion there, the way it takes you as Lenin said "Religion is opium for the people" and adam, and vigor and eve is a real opium for the masses.

And what choice did you have when you where put very KINDLY to kill Ryan?

That IS the main theme of the game "am I playing this? or it plays me?"

Btw luttce is in Paris, and I heared that Paris was once called that. But thats dosnt mean its true. The point is- going to Paris wouldnt have saved you. Going to Paris = going to Lutece = bring us the girl and wipe away the debt = The mind of the subject will desperatly struggle to create memories where non exist. Its not on the same "wave" but it is his brain chooseing Paris. It was Paris that was chosen. It was the name luttce and not other.

Just to make what PanicFire said more...well here some facts:

You are not the 1st Booker to do that job, you are not the 1st booker to toss tails.
You aint the 1st one to pass, and mybe fail, who is that dead guy in the lighthouse?
You know you are dead (the booker you are NOW at that world) the moment you understand what nose bleed is, the ending was there all along. as you said determinism theme. But you cant be right? who will finish it? you or...you?

Lets finish with the gnostic part. Booker dosnt want to KNOW more he wants to end this. The ppl dosnt need to KNOW more they dont care about why the city fly thats not rly the point. They feel alivited both physically and metaphorically!

[Mogg]

You missed a point of contradiction within the game. The character you play, Booker, has already made the choice to be Booker by not accepting the Baptism after Wounded Knee before the events of the game. Another Booker in another of many world chose to take the bapstism and became Comstock. So Elizabeth drowns the Booker that never chose to become Comstock, the Booker you play. How does this undo anything?

[Mogg]

1) Elizabeth isn't outside the laws by any form. She just has the ability to see into quote "all possibilities, all timelines, all worlds" (which is false or blind statement as you can see within the events of the game) and open "tears" or "doors" to other timelines and worlds.

2) She is not the only Eliabeth to exist as she does in all aspects. She is unique true, but there are more of her strewn across every possible imaginable world that comes close to the timeline/world we follow her and end up in.

3) You are wrong about constants and variables. Constants is an ignorant word since clearly she would only choose to enter worlds that have specific elements to do what she wants. There will be others where these specific things never occur. That is how multiverses work. Thus it is to be beleived she is ignorant of the other worlds and timelines that exist, she doesn't know of them, or the writers made a seriously stupid error in this story.
Wait I see where you are going, You are meaning the story is focusing on every single infinite world where Booker makes it the baptism place to deicde. It's not one singular event by any means since it's happening infinite number of times in infinite worlds. This means stopping one instance has zero consequences.

4) Elizabeth drowns the Booker that chose to be Booker prior to the events of the game after Wounded Knee. Obvious you didn't pay attention to that detail. He never was going to be Comstock, ever. And she can't erase every single instance of this occuring since somewhere in the infinite she fails to do so thus the events continue to happen. Her murder of the Booker that chose to be Booker will do nothing but kill that one Booker. It wont effect any other timestreams or worlds, just that one she is in.

5) After credits is vague. Its just as easy as to say this whole ordeal has been some nightmare by a normal father who is looking after a daughter. Totally nothing to do with anything we just did in the game.
It could also be the very beginning of the game, where he is just coming to the conclusion that he has made a mistake on giving his child away and thus begins his chase to get her back (where she loses her finger when the tear closes).

[Mogg]

İlk olarak legendstrikez tarafından gönderildi:

they should have made the game like the last bioshock games alternative ending and this the bad ending die for what reason just to stop comstock you know whats going to happen already why just dont turn into comstock i mean bioshock 2 you die but to save elenor form rapture so just avoid becoming comstock

Just so you know, I don't understand how killing the Booker you play who chose not to go through with the baptism before the events of the game (in and infinite number of worlds) stops the creation of Comstock who is different Booker who chose to get baptised at that exact same point in time (in an infinite number of other worlds).

[Mogg]

İlk olarak jakecav18 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Okihara Jones tarafından gönderildi:

Nihilism? Well, that's just, like... your opinion, man.

I love you for this.

HEADS UP this isn't a game about time travel and the game implies time does not branch, it is not a river, but an ocean, and the universes are not one ocean, but an infinite amount of oceans. Don't focus so much on the scientific technicalities because if you do, then you are trying to dislike the game. Instead, look at how cohesive the plot and themes are, then you will be amazed. Look at the similarities with the first two games and your mind will blow

Actually you are quite wrong here. You missed a large chunk of the game if you say there is no time travel involved. The game also states that time does branch.
The Chinese man's existance differes in each world. Why? Something else happened in a different world with no indication of time.
Booker meets Old Elizabeth, as his same age as he was the moment you started playing him. Then you go back and "save" the younger Elizabeth.
The whole broken aspect of were the Elizabeth's dorwn Booker I am guessing was to stop him from ever making a choice to become Comstock but as I said, this is broken because he had already refused the baptism prior to the events of the game (hecne why you are Booker not Comstock).
This single instance of you play Booker in effect has no impact on anything happening in any world or timeline. There is the truth. To attempt to destroy somethign that already exists, is existing and has existed is imposible. Somewhere, in another world these events are different and will happen, are happening and have happened. Comstock always lives somewhere, always egt murdered by someone and always dies of old age, always dies of disease, always insert any circumstance you want, all happening all the time.
It's a pretty stupidly built story they way they did it because it gives you a bunch of nonesense to confuse people to what actually is.

[Espectro]

İlk olarak PanicFire tarafından gönderildi:

Op did fail to grasp the finer parts of the story.

1. Elizabeth accended by destroying the tower and is now outside laws of the universe. She is the only Elizabeth in all of the multiverse that ends up that way. Due to 1 the requirements needed to make a verse that has all the actors in it, and 2 due to certain things always happening regardless of the verse. To make it easier to understand. Bioshock Infinite story line is the 1 singluar time that Elizabeth's Powers are fully realized and she assends to what ever she becomes at the end of the game. Now comes the hard part for people to understand. There are an infinite number of multiverses made up of the choices people and things can make these infinite number of verses are limited by constants (remember constants and variables) these constants always happen. For the purposes of the story. There are an infinite number of comstocks and an equally infinite number of Booker's. The constant is if booker gets batatised he becomes comstock, and if he doesn't he has a child. Now any verse where booker doesn't go to the baptism area don't matter. The baptism is a focal point. If for instance booker dies to indians for instance thats a verse but doesn't pertrain to our plot as he never makes it to the baptism.

What Elizabeth does at the end of the game is she destroyed the Baptism Event from the timelines. It doesnt or never existed so none of the events in any of verses exist anymore. This destorys the existance of all Elizabeth's (as they are never born) The exception is the singular Elizabeth that trancended space and time (our elizabeth) Due to the multiverses being a series of constants and variables you can claim that there exists only one verse where she transends (where every single variable falls into place perfectly) And thats our elizabeth.

As for the after credits you must remember that Elizabeth has tranceded space and time and create and destroy entire verses at will thus she can obviously create a verse where she gets to watch booker be a good father (go figure)

I didn't miss these finer points of the story because they aren't part of the game. What you've given here is an INTERPRETATION, probably the best possible one to make sense of the narrative. But it contradicts the ending as it unfolds in the cutscene--the Elizabeths fade out one by one to the sad piano notes. Screen cuts to black then there is one final note. We don't see Elizabeth disappear, but there is a strong implication that she does based on how they structured the scene.

Note the same kind of structure occures in the after credits scene. We (Booker and the player) hear the baby music. He thinks it's Anna and goes to the crib. Screen cuts to black before we see if it's empty or not.

I don't know what they were trying to convey with these cuts to black. To me it comes across as a cheap way to keep the ending mysterious. Or to weasel out of the idea that Elizabeth is actually gone. But given the unreliable narrator theme of the game, it suggests 4 possibilities:

1. Elizabeth vanishes, Anna is in crib
2. Elizabeth continues to exist, Anna is in crib
3. Elizabeth vanishes, Anna is not in crib
4. Elizabeth continues to exist, Anna is not in crib

As for Elizabeth being a godlike being--there was no suggestion at any point in the game that she can create or destroy verses. Or that she would be able to somehow imbue a pre-baptism Booker with memories of what happened during the course of the gameplay. The fact that the (farfetched) solution to Comstock involves drowning Booker at the baptism indicates that she still has to work within the deterministic nature of the game universe. Likewise the Lutesce twins intervene throughout the storyline but appear to be limited in their influence.

2. This one is simply a design goal. The Bioshock team felt that moral choices in games had hit an all time low as people only picked moral choices so that they could get event C later in the game or to unlock power X or to see ending B. People didn't feel connected to the choices they were making in the game and instead were just meta gaming. So they made the design choice to allow the player to make moral choices but to neither reward or punish the player for said choices than the obvious. So you don't need 80evil points to see the evil ending. The choices in the game have meaning by not having meaning. When you decide to throw the stone at either the interracial couple or the anouncer it doesn't somehow arbriatry effect the ending you get nor does reward you with some kind of weapon or power. It instead carries weight as an emotional scene because of the lack of. It's kind of a fresh take on the idea.

Is this speculation or do you have some source for this analysis? If the design team felt the whole moral choice dynamic of the game had gone stale--i'm disappointed that offering meaningless choices and tying the entire experience to one linear ending is seen as a solution. Even within the context of a linear ending, you're left with the conclusion that your actions amounted to nothing. I can't pick the ending of Half-Life 2, but at least you know that Gordon kicked ass and made a hell of a difference.

Maybe they'll make a new Bioshock game that's a side-scroller as a fresh take on the genre?

[KhAS]

the only thing wrong with the ending is that he couldn't get it on with Liz.

but then again, with all the proposed multiple realities fluff, you can assume that as the protagonists have no prior knowledge of their relationship before the big reveal, in some of the realities an illicit encounter could have occured (as which damsel wouldn't become enamoured with her dashing rescuer?)

so yeah, take that Irrational games. because of your pretentious ending, there exists a reality in which they were f***ing

[Espectro]

If people really comprehended what infinite means---yes there would be some variation where the characters would be doing the nasty.

[BaconBankai]

Here's another theory people are saying that killing dewit at the end shouldn't have changed anything. what if it didnt? All it shows is them fading away maybe it might of been just a few timelines affected and at the end credits you get to walk dewit to the babys room which if it worked he shouldn't exist in any timeline Also if you listen closing at the begining of the game the lady in the boat with you said she didn't belive in doing experiments that already failed and the two people rowing the boat im pretty sure are just alternate versions of "the lady" and "the gentleman" you learn their names at somepoint in the game but i dont remember them