nonsensical ending - BioShock Infinite (2013) Discussion

[–] brahma-3 12 years ago

According to the story there was just one DeWitt storyline until the baptism scene which opened multiple choices hence dimensions, so only the one DeWitt has to die, anytime before different decisions and lives are made.

Of course if there's no DeWitt, there's no Elisabeth, and as the "loop closes" all the Elisabeths from different dimensions disappear. Makes sense.

reply

[–] getup2k 12 years ago

I understand that, it's the actual act of 'merging' with his past self which I find ridiculous. Trans-dimensional portals are one thing, but why in the hell would you merge with yourself? And why do Dewitt and Comstock not merge then?

And what was the end credit scene all about? The baptism happened before Booker had a child, so she shouldn't be born - let alone Booker have any memory of what happened, which he seems to in the scene. So much nonsense!

reply

[–] brahma-3 12 years ago

Times and dimensions coexist in a way that one is not entirely a separate being from his alter egos, see reborn soldiers in different dimensions remembering of dying somewhere else. So I guess "DeWitt" only exists one time in a single place therefore can step in for the baptism or erase the future by dying. How can DeWitt and Comstock co-exist at the same time is a good question though.

Of course two dimensions were created at the baptism scene initially: when 1) DeWitt became Comstock and when he 2) remained DeWitt and later had a child Comstock blackmailed out of him. Over time more dimensions opened based on different decision making, but with going back to square one and getting drown, all dimensions and future possibilities disappear including all Elisabeths standing around him, which is exactly how the game ends.

Bioshock Infinite is set in DeWitt's own multi-dimensional universe, so it ends when he dies.

reply

[–] Ahstaroth 12 years ago

Good explanation and commentary here, SPOILERS AHEAD:

http://ps3.mmgn.com/Articles/bioshock-infinite-ending-explained-what

My feeling is this. Do I have a problem with multiverse? No. Do I think they played fast and loose with the concept? Yes. Do I think it could have had a better ending? Yes. Once you have 'millions and millions of stars (lighthouses)' with docks spontaneously erupting underneath you (explain THAT), you know you're in for a weird, abstract trippy-ass ending. I mean, they might has well have had Booker floating around in a bubble as a baby star child at that point. It wouldn't have been LESS weird!

So, yeah I didn't really want a trippy-ass ending. I wanted a great twist ending that was difficult to see coming (a la sixth sense, fight club, etc.), but it really seemed like they were trying too hard. The fact that you would have to spend quite some time completely spoiling someone on the intricacies of the ending points to that.

Also, after setting this up as a 'Mario saving the princess' scenario, I was bit turned off that she ended up being your daughter, who, along with her creepy doppelgangers, drowns you in the end (yay!). Meh. To each his own I guess.

However, while I personally did not like their trippy ending, after playing 10+ hours on a floating city and and travelling by personal roller coaster, shoot magic out of my hands by drinking tonics, I really can't criticize them for it's weirdness alone.

reply

[–] getup2k 12 years ago

I'm with you Ahstaroth, this is still one of the best games I've ever played. This is the only gripe I have with it, but it annoys me because I love the game so much. I think the ending is the only thing not perfect about the experience for me, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. I actually wish it was me and not the game, that's why I'm trying to understand. I can forgive it for not being easy to understand so long as it makes sense. I'm just not sure it actually does completely!

reply

[–] Ahstaroth 12 years ago

Oh, I think it makes complete sense, if you accept THEIR rules about how a multiverse should work (and really, who could know?). What they're asserting is that there is only point in the entire multiverse where Booker can branch off into his alcoholic gambling self, or the megalomaniacal Comstock (his baptism). If you go to a point right before that and have Booker kill himself, it destroys subsequent branches. If you accept that, fine. I do, but that doesn't mean I like it.

reply

[–] weresmurf 12 years ago

Easy, it was his mind trying to process the whole thing, presenting it to him in a way that made sense to him. Either that or they have really really fast little builders who make the piers ;)

reply

[–] brahma-3 12 years ago

You think that's creepy? Wait until you play Bioshock I & II with them little children.

Infinite had plenty of twists but the ultimate point was of different choices resulting in vastly different lives, so my disappointment is the other way around - where are the different endings to suit the story's ambitions? To choose to become Comstock, DeWitt or death or my actions previously decide the outcome. Not that I played it the 2nd time, but I don't think there are alternative endings. And there should be.

reply

[–] Ahstaroth 12 years ago

I too thought it would have been the opportunity to have the ULTIMATE personalized ending. One that was maybe unique in a way to you and no once else. I have a feeling that would have been too hard for them though.

I've played twice through as completely good as possible, and as 'evil' as possible (stealing, murdering every innocent possible) and it doesn't make one whit of difference on the ending. Heck, even Elizabeth didn't seem to care! I kept expecting her to say "Booker, what are you doing??" lol.

I never minded little sisters, they were creepy from the start. Elizabeth was only creepy to me at the end.

reply

[–] bengoldenberg 12 years ago

Bioshock is a pretty game and that is it. It's repetitive and the story is like a Chinese student film. You can spend an hours trying to figure out who dewitt is and what story line yadi yadi yada. Who cares - it makes no sense, its not compelling. Has got to be the most overrated franchise ever. If this was a movie everyone would be screaming at the screen, but for some reason because its a game players expect so little that they take garbage like this and put it on a pedestal. Unbelievable!!!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] creaturefeeture 11 years ago

I LOVED that they start with the Mario cliche of rescuing the damsel in distress only to turn it on its head! It's like they're almost mocking the trope and how lazy it is and in the end give you a real story. And the player isn't the true hero? And at the same time is the villain? Pretty epic imo.

reply

[–] getup2k 12 years ago

Indeed. The points I raised are bugging me though, certain things just aren't explained. Normally I wouldn't mind, but when our disbelief is supposed to be suspended to this extent I'd expect a bit more effort plugging plot holes. Otherwise it just comes across as 'its magic!' and undermines the more carefully constructed parts of the story.

reply

[–] brahma-3 12 years ago

Is there a part you feel that was left hanging? I'm sure we can work it out.

reply

[–] getup2k 12 years ago

I'm not knocking the whole story, it does seem a lot of effort went into making it watertight, and it certainly makes the experience of a second playthrough more meaningful. I really enjoyed the couple of twists, the game constantly gave me shivers! But like I said, it's that concept of Booker merging with himself which really stinks compared to the rest. When he goes through the door at the end to his baptism for the second time (well, third for him!), he is killed. For this killing to have any affect on Comstock, Booker of course has to BE the very Booker that was there for the original baptism. So we're supposed to accept that this is possible? Why doesn't Booker just see his old self, why does he 'become' him? Although they are essentially the 'same' person, people change physically day to day, so physically they are not the same at all - brain chemistry, muscle make up etc. It just seems ridiculous to me that they could 'merge'. It really takes liberty with our acceptance of the games 'rules' because it doesn't explain it properly. Maybe I missed something? Also, Booker doesn't become Comstock when entering his 'Columbia' universe, which contradicts the merging. I just think important things like this really needed to be explained properly. I want to feel satisfied with the great story and reminisce on the amazing things that happened in the game, but these things remain instead niggling at me!

I also have a problem with the end of credits scene - if I accept what happened, and Booker died before his baptism... why does he 'wake up' as an earlier Booker with recent memories still in place (he goes to the crib saying 'anna?'. whether she is there or not, he clearly remembers what has just happened which is why he's concerned to see if she is there). Why the hell would he have memories if his future self has been wiped out?

reply

[–] weresmurf 12 years ago

Because alternate realities. The Luteces say (that was their name I think?) at one point, that his mind was formulating new memories based on past events in a different reality as they merged to make sense of everything.

There was also time travel in there a few times remember, so it's entirely possible old Dewitt timetravelled as well, given he was old in Young Dewitts timeperiod.

reply

[–] getup2k 12 years ago

OK so the merging thing is something I guess you're supposed to just accept without any explanation.. even though it's a ridiculous concept - but why then doesn't he merge with Comstock?

reply

[–] d112cons 12 years ago

Anna, that's why. The Lutece twins can open tears and enter other realities. Anna can, with her full powers back, alter different realities at will. That's why Booker was reliving events instead of simply viewing them in the end.

reply

[–] PhantomPhan222 12 years ago

So far I don't think you've mentioned anything that didn't seem to me to have been clearly explained in-game.

I think all your objections hinge on Elizabeth. In my view it was evident that, once the siphon was destroyed, the full extent of Elizabeth's powers were restored to her. She was no longer confined just to opening tears ino other realities; she now has control over the enitre space-time continuum. Hence how she is able to access the world outside the universes (the lighthouses) and how the key to the lighthouse door appeared in her hand at will.

With that mechanic in place it explains any of the seeming quibbles I can think of about the ending. It explains how there isn't an alternate universe where Elizabeth didn't drown Booker, how Booker doesn't run into himself at the comstock baptism etc. Elizabeth controlled the circumstances each time.

Yes I appreciate that's a bit of a deus ex machina and might still leave some people dissatisfied with the ending, but personally I thought it was a fitting and satisfying ending to the game, as well as a particularly moving one.

If you're looking for science fact in a science fiction game you are bound to be disappointed. Science fiction does tend to take its inspiration from science fact but it never strictly adheres to it. That's where the fiction bit comes in. Infinite may take its lead from the science fact of multiverse theory, but in practice its mechanics are more akin to The Trousers of Time which is a fairly common science fiction mechanic that explores the notion of multiverse theory while providing scope for drama. The game's internal logic is watertight, but it won't bear scrutiny if compared to the real science that inspired it.

Also, as a side note, I didn't miss alternate endings either. It just didn't fit with the game as a whole. BioShocks 1 & 2 were about characters who were unable to make choices for different reasons suddenly being presented with the freedom of choice; hence the alternative endings being great catharsis in themselves. Infinite instead explores the potential impact of many different choices (variables) and so the single (constant) ending creates more food for thought than simply a couple of endings where Booker does, doesn't or can't decide.

"Two by two we'll go from door to door cause God loves Mormons and he wants some more"

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Otkon 12 years ago

What do you mean "certain things just aren't explained"? The narrative unfolds as a mystery. That means Voxophones, actions and dialog that we encountered earlier in the game might not have made sense at the time. But once the game is done, we can look back and see what seemed like a minute throwaway detail now holds a lot of explanation.

Case in point. How did Elizabeth even get her powers? Well, a Voxophone from Rosalind Lutece tells us:

"What makes the girl different? I suspect it has less to do with what she is, and rather more with what she is not. A small part of her remains from where she came. It would seem the universe does not like its peas mixed with its porridge."

We don't learn what that "small part of her" is until the end. And because two physical pieces of her are divided between alternate worlds, she has this ability to open links between them.

The game is pretty tight with its internal logic. You have to accept the premise that there are an infinite number of parallel realities that result from every choice that is made. Why? Because the multiverse is a massive system of trial and error, and of cause and effect, that runs through all the possible permutations that could have ever occurred and those trials can repeat to see if the outcome changes. Certain things you did in Bioshock 1 and 2 (if you replayed the experience) affected the ending of the game. This is also why we meet the Luteces for the same coin flip 122 times. The explanation as to why becomes a very clever metaphysical treatise on game familiarity and replay.

But there is also change. And in some realities we encounter throughout the game, Booker is killed fighting for the Vox. Daisy even tells him, "I watched you die." So the Luteces bring him back to the lighthouse to try again and again. All it really takes is for Booker and Elizabeth to survive the destruction of the Siphon - the limiter on her ability. At that point, she can freely traverse the alternate realities. And she even tells him that she can see what is happening behind all the doors, and it is clear to her what gave rise to Comstock across every reality in which there was a Comstock. And she takes him to that one singular point. The one choice that Booker made that had horrific ramifications across multiple worlds. Stop that point and Comstock and Elizabeth cease to ever exist. But Booker and Anna can live because they still exist up to and after that point in other realities. Hence the very end with the crib.

If you find a plot hole, there is most likely some piece of evidence given during the game to fill it and honestly the ending does make perfect sense.

reply

[–] d112cons 12 years ago

In keeping with things, I just wanted to point out that Comstock was drowned... in a baptismal font. Will the circle be unbroken, indeed.

I like the ending. There's still holes I'd like to figure out:

Is "Comstock" aged, or is the Colombia that the game takes place in happening much later than 1912? After all, we were given that date during the boat ride, BEFORE entering the lighthouse... and who knows where - or when - we ended up after we opened that door

Who was dead inside the introductory lighthouse? There was a note written to Dewitt "bring us the girl - wipe away the debt"... who wrote it? Lutece? A bookie? Is the corpse "another" Booker who never gave up Anna, and was eventually killed?

Anyway, the explanation for the end: Remember Elisabeth speaking about how she always viewed her power as a sort of "wish fulfillment"? How she was "never sure if she was looking into new worlds, or creating them"? I think in the end, with Anna's full powers restored, it's both. She's able to not only return Booker to any place - or time - in any possible life, but also to reinhabit and relive those moments. That's why his sacrifice in the end was so effective. As the many Anna's told us, that of all the many Booker's that have existed, of all the many paths his life could take, only ONE chose the Baptism.

Only ONE would become Comstock. Anna took him back to a time, in THAT life, just after he made THAT choice. That's where Booker sacrificed himself, and ended the horrors of Comstock before they could ever begin. All the branches from that point on, all the paths that Comstock's life might take... "pulled up by the root" - as one misguided patriot might say.

Never would Colombia be built. Never would Anna be stolen from "another life", and in so many realities be locked away, experimented on, wounded, lied to, and turned into a monster. Never would Lutece create her great quantum discovery, or siphon, and so never would she or her twin brother be betrayed and stranded between the dimensions. Never would New York burn.

Never would Booker DeWitt be asked to give up his baby girl. Of all the lives he could lead, he - and his daughter - finally have a happy ending. Or is it a happy beginning? Then again, maybe he'd just end up killed in a lighthouse a short time later. Constants and variables.

reply

[–] Ahstaroth 12 years ago

Is "Comstock" aged, or is the Colombia that the game takes place in happening much later than 1912? After all, we were given that date during the boat ride, BEFORE entering the lighthouse... and who knows where - or when - we ended up after we opened that door

Comstock and (the playable) booker are the same age. Presumably around 40. The reason Comstock looks so old is his exposure to the tears have rendered him sterile, old, and probably cancerous (comstock mentions he has tumors). The voxophone recordings from Roselyn, Comstock, and (I think) Daisy explain this. He's "an old man and a young man" at the same time.

Who was dead inside the introductory lighthouse?

I believe this is a man hired by Comstock to kill Booker. If you go to the 2nd floor of the lighthouse, you can see a note pinned down to the map on the wall, which says;

"Be prepared. He's on his way. You must stop him. -C "

'C' here must likely refer to Comstock because... well, who else? And who killed this 'hired man' upstairs? That's anyone's guess, but my guess is the Lutece twins. This explains the "Don't dissapoint us" sign the guy is wearing.

reply

[–] kyizen 12 years ago

I don't think he merged in that scene, they were watching it because thats where the two main characters in our story split. The Booker you play as walked away from the baptism and that let him to down that path we know of. (The voice over of your Booker says it's not like a river can wash away my sins) The Booker that becomes Comstock did go through with the baptism and became a religious zealot, and thats the one you meet in the game.

reply

[–] RiseUpMegalon 12 years ago

"According to the story there was just one DeWitt storyline until the baptism scene which opened multiple choices hence dimensions"

So every decision in his life prior to that had no other possibilities? That's even more of a stretch, eh?

reply

[–] Yaboy125 12 years ago

You didn't take over your previous self, your daughter, Anna, who can jump through time and space, DROWNS YOUR ASS.

You can't change the past, but she can. And she goes through some painstaking efforts to help you understand WHY she has to kill your ass.

reply

[–] Gommodorf 12 years ago

No. "Elizabeth" drowns you. And she doesn't explain, booker is the one who says to smother "Comstock" as a baby. And then it ends with drowning but only Comstock. If she drowns everyone, Comstock and booker what does after the credits mean?

reply

[–] HockeyTeam 12 years ago

No. "Elizabeth" drowns you. And she doesn't explain, booker is the one who says to smother "Comstock" as a baby. And then it ends with drowning but only Comstock. If she drowns everyone, Comstock and booker what does after the credits mean?

What do the end credits mean? Elizabeth drowns Booker BEFORE he can have the experience which leads to Comstock and Columbia. Which means Elizabeth is never kidnapped/sold by Booker, never gains powers and never goes back to drown Booker in this new timeline (yes kinda a paradox). Because of this the entire thing resets to the way it was, that is Booker has gets, and Comstock does not. We just see the beginning of the story. How do we know this is true? Because Booker is alive! If he was actually drowned he could never have had a child or be living! I suppose alternatively the end credits could be Bookers dying memory.

The paradox of Bioshock:Infinite and what Elizabeth didn't think of, is that nothing can be changed. Why is that? Because to change things you need, Columbia, a kidnapped Elizabeth, Comstock etc... to create the tools for change. When Elizabeth alters the past to get rid of these things, she also alters the ability to alter the past! Which means things always play out as before. Hence Bioshock: INFINITE

reply

[–] dogbert_2001 12 years ago

None of you are addressing the OP.
The question is how the older Booker, that the player controls, has been drinking/gambling for 20 years, and caused the events in the game, merges with a young Booker fresh from war.

When you're drowning, do you have the brand and possible stab wound on your hand or not?
Obviously it would be pointless to kill an older Booker.

Every other instance of entering a tear shows multiple Bookers can exist. When you first enter Columbia, Booker and Comstock both exist. In the lighthouse limbo, multiple Bookers exist. The Lutece twins both exist.

Yet, when you relive past events, you takeover the younger self. Where is the precedent or clue that this is even possible?

reply

[–] harkness78 12 years ago

In regards to OP's one gripe, that it doesn't make sense that Booker is seeing past events as if he is once again undergoing the baptism/chasing Luttece with his daughter.

I think it is fair to say that Elizabeth is a Time Lord at this point, she is freely bending time and space, summoning all the lighthouses to her at once, creating bridges, taking Booker wherever she wants. It seems completely within her power to instantly replace any other booker with her Booker in order to illustrate a point.

"Nobody knows anybody, not that well..." - Miller's Crossing

reply

[–] electricshysta 12 years ago

Hm, yeah I get how "wooooowww epic" it was meant to be, but personally I thought the ending they spin together in the last 15 minutes of the game was a bit convoluted, and really, that almost nothing prior alluded to it, didn't really make it a good twist, it just felt sloppy and rushed to me.
"Ah, so yeah it's your daughter, and you're not you, you're him, but you"....like, I don't know, just didn't do much for me.

The alternative dimensions/towers was a cool touch though.

reply

[–] lostprophetsx 12 years ago

According to time travel theory the same mass can't occupy the same space at the same time thus, he they would merge and become the same person. This however paradoxes with the fact that Booker exists with Zachary at the same time; however, one could argue that there was enough of a difference between the two, such as the difference in age, that it is probable they were not same space occupying the same space! The brilliance of Bioshock INFINITE.

_______________________________
Penny for the guy? - V

www.myspace.com/guitarxsoulo

reply

[–] electricshysta 12 years ago

Yeah. Brilliant loophole to having a real ending.

reply

[–] Progeny51 12 years ago

All of the Bookers died. You only saw it from the point of view of one of them as you have the entire games events.

reply

[–] ThunderDonkey 12 years ago

This whole thing confused me as well. So Booker was Booker AND Comstock as well? I just didn't get it. The ending btw was too sad, all the Elizabeth's drowned him. Elizabeth as a character just didn't make sense to me. First she's the one who wanted to kill Comstock but then she didn't. She asked Booker at the end if he was "sure" but then she and all of the other Elizabeth's ganged up on him. Makes little to no sense at all.

reply

[–] Progeny51 11 years ago

The Booker that we play as wasn't also Comstock. Comstock was that worlds Booker.

reply

[–] dark_frances 11 years ago

Indeed it was a non-elisabetish thing to do, but it matched various parts from the endings of the other two Bioshock games...

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

reply

[–] sth128 12 years ago

Maybe they never crossed into a different bubble universe. The fracture only manifest themselves as memories in flux. Every time you make a choice, an universe of possibilities is created in your mind. The tear doesn't actually let you travel across alternate universes, but alternate memories in one's mind.

At the end Elizabeth was altering the past of Dewitt. The drowning closes that particular branch and everything is reset.

reply

[–] BJHunnicut 11 years ago

I've played through the game twice. The ending is NOT out of the blue. There are voxophones, dialogues (albeit cryptic) that hint at the ending throughout the game. Elizabeth is assumed, with the siphon destroyed, that she has full control over time and space. Now the one thing I have a bone to pick with is this. I accept Booker and Comstock are one and the same. If you accept the fact that, in your lifetime, any and all binary decisions you make DO occur but do so in alternative timelines, then the Baptism is one such point. The biggest thing is that does Elizabeth live? Or does only ONE live, the one who has become master of time and space, the one whom the 122nd Booker frees from the Siphon. All other Elizabeths would be dead if Booker dies, for he wouldn't have existed in ANY universe to produce the child, UNLESS Elizabeth was born before Wounded Knee. We know that Booker's wife dies in childbirth, giving birth to Elizabeth I assume. If she died before Booker goes to war than Booker's ultimate death at the end of the game leaves Elizabeth orphaned. But more evidence would suggest that Elizbeth was born after, because it would suggest that Comstock KNOWS his alternate self has a daughter whom he can use to his ends. If this is true, and it's more likely to be, than all Elizabeths die, save for the Elizabeth you save in the game, whose powers now allow her to break all sorts of laws of physics.

"Technically, it's a ferret." - Mad-Eye Moody (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)

reply

[–] MuggySphere 11 years ago

Also if DeWitt is also Comstock does he have the scar on his right hand?

And at the start of the game how did they know about the scar? It was even on one of the propaganda posters in the street?

reply

[–] peterfaj 11 years ago

After losing Anna Dewitt, Booker knifed his hand with her initials for some reason (this is even mentioned in the ending by Lutece), Comstock didn't.

Lutece gave Booker a chance to get Anna back (20 years later) and pulled him into Comstock's universe. As this happens, Booker's memory is jumbled and he forgets all about Anna and thinks he needs to get the girl to settle a debt (that's actually already been settled). Then the game begins.

Comstock knew of the scar, because of his Tear-making machine, which he uses to observe other probabilities (universes), and he also used it to kidnap Anna. That's why he's called a prophet.

reply

[–] dark_frances 11 years ago

I don't think he truly forgot about her, more like he pushed the memory into his subconscious mind, being too painful to deal with.

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

reply