MovieChat Forums > BioShock Infinite (2013) Discussion > Horrible ending presentation

Horrible ending presentation

posted 12 years ago by scofthe7seas
44 replies | jump to latest

Edited 1/28/2014

--Attention all new readers that instantly get offended by the very title of this thread: This topic has already been explored to the fullest extent possible.
You will not be reading all of what was written in this thread.
It's too long.
Another problem will be that half of the conversations that were had were deleted by the person who wrote them, so what IS there, is out of context.

If you're already in an uproar before even starting to read what has been written (and not finishing it, because it's too long) there is nothing you will be able to add to this. Every avenue on the subject has been explored. You'll have to trust me on this, because you *won't* be reading the rest of this thread.

Sure, you might start. But you'll just become increasingly agitated until you can't take it any longer, and you'll skip to the very end just so you can call me stupid.

Any amount of anger you might feel about anything that may or may not be written below, I promise you, I am much more angry than you are regarding the subject. I've tried to present my opinion as plainly and simply as I can, and have been met with nothing but hostility. But more than that, is that most of the hostility has been from people that have obviously not read the whole thread. Which like I said above, will not be done.
So, I ask, if you can be a reasonable human being, read everything I say below before replying. If you do that, and have some new angle to present on the subject, then by all means, reply.
But if you can't be bothered to read it all, well I can promise you that whatever you feel you need to write, no matter what you think you're bringing to the table- it has been addressed already.

To sum up this entire thread below:

I did like the game.
The ending was really cool.
The ending and plot (which I do understand, and get) are EXTREMELY complicated. If you don't think it's extremely complicated, I promise you, you're missing pieces of the puzzle.
The complicated and fascinating plot, which culminates in the ending, is too complicated to -fully- be understood by the conclusion of the game. There is a lot that you absolutely can not understand by the time the credits roll.
To understand the entirety of the plot and implications of the ending REQUIRES either a photographic/perfect memory (and genius level IQ), discussion and exploration on the internet, or a second/third play-through. Requires.
I do not agree that any of those things should be required to fully understand a story.
A lot of people are ok with not understanding something completely.
I'm not.

I am COMPLETELY open to private discussions on the matter. If you would like to talk about this, agree, disagree, I more than welcome a message.

The original thread/comments start below.
----------

Now don't get me wrong, I think the ending of the game is actually pretty cool, but the way it is overall presented is terrible. Now, I like to think that I'm not a dummy per-say. I really get most of the "mind-bending" movies straight away, and for the most part love them for it. After some heavy thinking (and reading to help the laziness in my brain have other people do the thinking for me,) I think the ending is actually a pretty cool one but there are many many problems with how it is presented. Now, as I said, I like to think I'm not a dummy, and when the game ended, I declared "That's stupid."

I also skipped the credits, assuming if there was something after them it would go to it. Thank you IG for punishing my impatience, and thank you Youtube for letting there be no actual repercussions.

I felt like the ending was basically, "DUN DUN DUNnnnnn You're (also) Comstock! Drown. Credits." And by I felt, I mean that's what happened. I did not stroke my non-chin-beard and think to myself, "ohhhh, he was Comstock all along.." Because there was absolutely no reason for me to have thought that through the whole game. No allusions at all. Looks completely different (which I get having read about it), completely (COMPLETELY!) different ideology, different voice actor! I feel like this is just poor storytelling.

I feel pretty confident that if you literally understood all of the implications of the ending at that time the ending was presented, you are a serious genius, and you should be out curing cancer instead of trolling imdb forums. Be gone.

One of the big clinchers for the annoyance I feel was also addressed in another post. The whole thing with seeing "Comstock" in the first person being drown by Elizabeth makes no sense. If you're playing through the whole game as the Booker that didn't get baptized, didn't become "Comstock" and all of that, why in the ending are you taking control/seeing from the point of view of the Comstock that chose to be baptized and turn all evil? That does not at all help the ending click into place.

Let's not get into the concept of "infinite" universes playing a factor into this. There could be any number of Bookers that arrive at that same baptism with the same choices, that could meddle with "key" Booker for the same/similar reasons.

I really just had to get that out of me before moving on to the next game. Here I come Resident Evil 6. (Which I've heard a lot of people don't like, but pre-thanks for your to-be ignored recommendations.)

[–] RubleNoon 12 years ago

I felt like the ending was basically, "DUN DUN DUNnnnnn You're (also) Comstock! Drown. Credits." And by I felt, I mean that's what happened. I did not stroke my non-chin-beard and think to myself, "ohhhh, he was Comstock all along.." Because there was absolutely no reason for me to have thought that through the whole game. No allusions at all. Looks completely different (which I get having read about it), completely (COMPLETELY!) different ideology, different voice actor! I feel like this is just poor storytelling.

There were quite a few tidbits throughout the game that hinted at Booker and Comstock being the same person. Booker's voice would occasionally bleed through while comstock was speaking. The Hall of Heroes stuff about wounded knee was a pretty big one. There's more, but I can't recall them all off the top of my head.

One of the big clinchers for the annoyance I feel was also addressed in another post. The whole thing with seeing "Comstock" in the first person being drown by Elizabeth makes no sense. If you're playing through the whole game as the Booker that didn't get baptized, didn't become "Comstock" and all of that, why in the ending are you taking control/seeing from the point of view of the Comstock that chose to be baptized and turn all evil? That does not at all help the ending click into place.

You didn't just suddenly become Comstock at that point because that was before Comstock existed. You went back to the fulcrum point at which Booker either:
A) Accepts baptism, becomes Comstock, founds Columbia, takes Anna.
B) Denies baptism, sells Anna, is brought to Columbia to kidnap Elizabeth.
The person being drowned is Booker Dewitt before the choice is made. Him not making that decision is what breaks the loop and prevents Comstock from existing at all.

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

There are not enough tidbits to make you think that, or suspect it. On your second playthrough, after you know, sure.
His voice goes all creepy, but not in a way that you would think, "Hey, suddenly he sounds like me! I bet I'm him."
And Wounded knee just makes it sound like he's making crap up to sound like a hero. There's no way you're thinking at that time "Oh, I bet he really WAS there, but as Booker!" No.

And being drown before he makes either choice doesn't coincide with the general belief of only Comstock Booker dying. The after credits implies that at least one Booker lives, specifically non-baptized Booker.

A well-presented story should end at the time of the credits with some feeling of satisfaction and understanding. Not something you should have to puzzle and unfold long after the credits go by to make it make actual sense. Sure, you might have accepted it at the end, but I don't believe you had your "Sixth Sense" moment where your brain flashed back to each of the clues.

[–] RubleNoon 12 years ago

And being drown before he makes either choice doesn't coincide with the general belief of only Comstock Booker dying. The after credits implies that at least one Booker lives, specifically non-baptized Booker.

It isn't just Comstock that is erased. It's the whole timeline beginning with the baptism that makes him a possibility. It's also not "non-baptized Booker" that survives. It's the Booker that never made a choice. The existence of a choice is what creates the differing timelines. Not the fact that one Booker does it and one does not. Stop Booker from making a choice either way and you erase both timelines.

There's no way you're thinking at that time "Oh, I bet he really WAS there, but as Booker!" No.

Sure, you might have accepted it at the end, but I don't believe you had your "Sixth Sense" moment where your brain flashed back to each of the clues.

The clues were there throughout the game. No "sixth sense" is necessary to pick up on them. Me noticing them doesn't make me psychic, just observant. I have no doubt that there are quite a few people who did.

A well-presented story should end at the time of the credits with some feeling of satisfaction and understanding. Not something you should have to puzzle and unfold long after the credits go by to make it make actual sense.

A well presented story is one that leaves you thinking and wanting to re-read/watch/play. I don't want to have every little detail broken down and explained to me like you would a child. I prefer to figure some things out for myself.

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

When I wrote "Sixth Sense" it was capitalized because it's a movie, and not referring to a psychic power. I find it weird that you wouldn't get that.

It isn't just Comstock that is erased. It's the whole timeline beginning with the baptism that makes him a possibility. It's also not "non-baptized Booker" that survives. It's the Booker that never made a choice. The existence of a choice is what creates the differing timelines. Not the fact that one Booker does it and one does not. Stop Booker from making a choice either way and you erase both timelines.

And being drown before he makes either choice doesn't coincide with the general belief of only Comstock Booker dying. The after credits implies that at least one Booker lives, specifically non-baptized Booker. Yeah, I just responded with what I said before because it still stands. If all Bookers are dead, why is there a Booker at the end? Just ignore it because your "interpretation" is the correct one? Seriously, look around a bit, a lot of people have talked and thought about this already.

The clues were there throughout the game.

As fine a redundant statement as can be. Yes, the "clues" are there, but you're still dancing around my main point. If you're actually going to tell me that at the end, when he was drown, you instantly remembered all of the clues so that all the pieces suddenly fit together, I'm going to call you a liar.
You specifically, not saying this can't be done. It's clear that you've either played through it twice, or investigated the details very throughout through some other means and you're not in a position to judge how the clues fit in at the time they are most relevant (the end of the game, not after.)
A well presented story shouldn't have to be viewed/experienced twice. There is not one other movie or game I can think of where this is the case. Many other forms of entertainment merit re-watching/playing but never require it.

Oh, and

I don't want to have every little detail broken down and explained to me like you would a child.

Makes you seem like a condescending dickweed. Probably not a coincidence.

[–] RubleNoon 12 years ago

When I wrote "Sixth Sense" it was capitalized because it's a movie, and not referring to a psychic power. I find it weird that you wouldn't get that.

I realized that after the fact but didn't feel it was important to correct as I was actually at work at the time.

And being drown before he makes either choice doesn't coincide with the general belief of only Comstock Booker dying. The after credits implies that at least one Booker lives, specifically non-baptized Booker.

No. It is not non-baptized Booker that survives. You aren't even trying to understand this are you?

As fine a redundant statement as can be. Yes, the "clues" are there, but you're still dancing around my main point. If you're actually going to tell me that at the end, when he was drown, you instantly remembered all of the clues so that all the pieces suddenly fit together, I'm going to call you a liar.
You specifically, not saying this can't be done. It's clear that you've either played through it twice, or investigated the details very throughout through some other means and you're not in a position to judge how the clues fit in at the time they are most relevant (the end of the game, not after.)
A well presented story shouldn't have to be viewed/experienced twice. There is not one other movie or game I can think of where this is the case. Many other forms of entertainment merit re-watching/playing but never require it.

I've answered your main point. You can't seem to understand my answer. I guess it's easier to criticize others than it is to think for yourself.

Makes you seem like a condescending dickweed. Probably not a coincidence.

Guess I'm a condescending dick-weed then. Better than being an irrational and needlessly confrontational ass-hat.

I was trying to be nice and help you understand the game's ending. You obviously aren't capable of remembering more than five minutes into the past. If you had paid any attention you would have been able to figure it out. I guess you are content to flail your arms against the floor screaming about how other people are stupid because you don't get it.
Say whatever you want after this. I'm not coming back to this board. Have a nice day. Child.

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

Well, then I guess I'll win because running away from an internet debate is an automatic forfeit. I enjoy how angry you've gotten. I would love to see your beet red face steaming away. HI-larious.
I'm pretty sure that being condescending completely warrants confrontation.
And as I've said like 5 times. I don't need help understanding the ending. What you need help with is explaining your point. You said two times that drowning Booker before he makes either choice deletes both. Now in this post you've changed your stance in saying that non baptized Booker lives. Derp. Nobody was debating this. Nobody was debating the entire concept of the ending. I wasn't asking for explanation. I wasn't saying I didn't understand it. Ever.
It's sad to see that there are no literacy tests in place before a person is allowed to communicate on the internet. First, silly person, you have to read what people write. Then, you roll it around in your head until you get it. Then you respond. Come on man, a GED would get you through these concepts.
Child. Hahaha soooo angry. What's funny is that I know you're going to read this. Flailing -my- arms in anger. Hahaha

Now, if you'll excuse me, I am having a conversation with an actual civilized person (vagrantharpoon) that understands at least some semblance of communication and manners.
My apologies to anybody reading this thread that might get distracted by this set of posts.

[–] m-pearson13 12 years ago

In comparison to Sixth Sense where you didn't have to rewatch it for it all to come together, I believe that they replayed the scenes to show *SPOILER* how he was dead the whole time.

Infinite didn't. Instead, they let you play through again and discover a whole bunch of interesting things that you had missed in the first playthrough which makes sense now.

I agree its a matter of preference, but I didnt mind playing through a second time and seeing it through a whole new set of eyes. I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel as I do. But just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

"Let" you isn't the right word though. "Made" you is. As I said above, to understand the truth of the story, you are forced to either read from others who have gone through it, or play through it a second time yourself. That's not fair to people who are unable or unwilling to play through a set of 15 hours all over again. Especially because I wasn't blown to pieces by the gameplay itself.

I suppose some people enjoy not understanding their entertainment. That doesn't make sense to me. I just can't see it as a sign of a well-planned ending. I said it in my first post, I had to get it out of me before moving on. It's fine to disagree with me, but (I know it's pretty much endless, I'm not going to take the blame for that.) read what I've said. I've made my case. I wish I didn't have to keep repeating what I've said over and over again.

[–] joseph-abboud 11 years ago

damn you got *beep* on bad in this thread.

[–] scofthe7seas 11 years ago

Right?
Not to mention at all that MOST of this entire thread was between me and some other dude, who deleted all of his half of the conversation. Then, I get a smattering of new A-holes talking gang-loads of crap while OBVIOUSLY having not read all that was written. You know, I get it. It's too much to read. I completely agree. But don't reply if you don't want to know all of the available information. Sorry for ranting in my reply to you, but digging this up, I just found out a ton of people replied to other people in this thread, talking sheeze about me, but because of how they replied, I was never notified of the posts.

[–] RiseUpMegalon 11 years ago

Except you can't erase timelines? You simply fracture another alternate timeline/universe. You can't undo anything unless it's on a computer.

[–] Adept34501 12 years ago

Did I like the ending yes, do I think they played fast and loose with the infinite dimension, quantum portal theory, yes. The ending in a way undercuts the narrative of the game, infinite dimensions, infinite possibilities. The game doesn't fully address the real rise of Comstock and the many other ways other then drowning that Comstock may have never existed, Booker's actions at Wounded Knee. The baptism did nothing to mitigate that in fact in made it worse. Comstock's Columbia is based on a perverted religion where the Founders were Gods and all her transgressions were justified in that service. This was still just a way to whitewash Booker's sins at Wounded Knee, the baptism didn't change anything. A Booker who gets baptized and truly repents his sins could also stop Comstock. A Booker still racked with guilt over it can still become Comstock. Even in the epilogue at the end of the game there are still liquor bottles and betting slipson his desk, he can still become Comstock because the guilt over Wounded Knee is still there.

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

Well, the thing is that baptized Booker feels absolved of the horrible things he's done, which basically gives him license to get away with whatever evil thing he can think of. Pretty much a "If I can be forgiven for thaaaat.." kind of thing.
Like I said, the ending is actually quite tight, once the puzzle is pieced together. It's not -particularly- open for interpretation, which adds to the poor presentation because there is a conclusion to be drawn, that the ending does not help you to reach.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

Dude, what grade are you hoping to get on the thesis you just wrote? In all honesty, I don't think I have the energy to reply to all of that and it was tough enough to read through.

Wrong. There are clues throughout the game. I even briefly considered it while playing but dismissed it because it was so well hidden.

You can't call me wrong and instantly agree with me! My point was that yes, when reading about it, and going over all the stuff people have said and the "clues": yes it makes sense. I'm not at all saying the ending doesn't make sense or is impossible to puzzle out because obviously it has been. I've even explicitly stated that I thought the ending was pretty cool. But as you just said, you dismissed it because it was "so well hidden." It was TOO well hidden, and that's the problem with it. No reasonable/rational person could have guessed that ending. I understand the concept of a twist ending. I have read enough, watched enough, played enough entertainment to know what a twist ending looks like. Yes, you could classify this as a twist ending, but to the twisting degree that it breaks a person's neck. It's like revealing at the end of Inception that it WAS REALLY A CAT'S DREAM ALLLL ALONG! WOooooooooOoo A good twist ending should make things click instantly when the twist is revealed. You should be able to think back to the clues that were there all along to get it, but as you said it's too long a medium for you to be able to do that. Also, even more of a problem is that there are more than just clues throughout the game that lead to this "twist" ending. There is an extremely difficult amount of mental jumping that you would in no way be able to do by the closing of the game.

My point is that there just wasn't enough in the presentation to put together a satisfying ending the first playthrough. I could classify that as "for me" but I stand by my view point as being not just opinion based because every post in this thread has basically agreed with my issues with the ending.

Like 90% of your manifesto basically "explains" the "clues." I'm not, and have not said that the "clues" aren't there. I'm going to keep putting quotes around "clues" because my point is that they aren't presented in a way, in ANY way!, that you would think of them consistently in a different light than how they are originally presented as you experience them. They are there, but on 99% of people's first playthrough, they will not register as being what they are. That's a problem with presentation. You can't lay down clues so obscure that they require reading about and sub sequential playthroughs. Another problem with the "clues" is that the game is too long for such clues to remain fresh in your mind by the end of the game. Thinking back, yes, it all does make sense, but by the end of the game, when the credits roll, that's too far to think back to. Nobody thinks back like that. Most people at least, and I refuse to believe that most, if any, fully understood the ending without either reading/discussing or playing through a second time. I've said it before, this shouldn't be a requirement in a piece of entertainment.

As I've said, people who like the ending are willing to accept such a "twist" and then later go on to unfold it and accept it. Most people want their entertainment to at least mostly make sense by the end of it. When you get to the end of this game, it blatantly doesn't.

You talk mess with how Saw ended, but seriously, that would be equally (well, not equally is it was mostly fluff, while the entire rest of this game was wonderful) disappointing if (spoilers for Saw here!!) dude just got up, said "Game over" and left the room. Roll credits.

Nonsense. Bad storytelling.

If anything, such a lengthy entertainment experience would benefit MUCH more with some exposition at the ending!

As I've said, I liked the game quite a bit. But I just wasn't happy at the end of the game. Reading through what people point out (which I obviously didn't directly remember as relevant, and neither did most people.) it absolutely does make sense. And as I said before, the plot is mostly water-tight. But the problem is that it isn't up for interpretation, and the "truth" of the ending is literally impossible to fully understand as the credits are rolling. You just can't argue with that.

I think a lot of people are giving it a pass on this because it was such a good game throughout. But nobody (Nobody. Not even Marilyn vos Savant. Look her up) could immediately put together something as freaking complex as -Booker that is baptized and has his sins forgiven, later goes on to continue his wicked ways with his additional distain for the government based on his prior experiences, who then becomes sterile through quantum portal proximity, so he opens a dimensional rift, with the help of an alternate version of a scientist in his employ, to steal a baby FROM HIMSELF so that he can give it superpowers that it will one day destroy America. Nobody can put that together. And I don't see any way that it can be argued that good story telling would make you figure all of this out on your own in a reasonable amount of time. Which you won't unless you read other people's interpretations, or play through yourself a second time. Which is absolutely required to understand the ending fully. You will not puzzle this out in its entirety after one playthrough.

(Pot calls kettle black, with my own lengthy reply :) )

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

I completely disagree about any of the other (two :p) Bioshock games being anywhere near as complicated or difficult to understand. Comparing apples to shoes. I absolutely loved Bioshock (the first, the second was mediocre) and I definitely "got" the main story. I don't mind if a game doesn't hold your hand through it, but this one pretty much purposely confused you of details that would later turn out to be very important. It's almost like it DID hold your hand, but took you the wrong way.

You are right about every example you sited benefiting from multiple viewings, no question. However, in literally every example you cited, that while you may have missed some details, the fundamental truth and the "why" and even the "how" are revealed in a (relatively) understandable way. You can't compare NCfOM to this game. You get the full package in one watching. You might miss some slight details that merit discussion (those shoes at the end..), but they won't hamper your understanding of the story. The end of this game is literally impossible to fully understand by the end of the game. Like you said, sure, there are little things that might pop up in your head when it happens, but the picture cannot be painted by the end. You maybe get a rough sketch. All of the comparisons you made benefit from multiple viewings, they don't require them. I would absolutely criticize any creator of any entertainment that requires you to re-experience whatever it is in order to actually understand the story on a fundamental level. Not just to "fully" understand but to understand at all. There are a lot of movies I completely enjoy that inspire discussion: Life of Pi, Donnie Darko, Solaris, Inception, but they don't require the discussion. As I've said, at the end of this game, you just plain and simply can't understand the story. Donnie Darko is actually a perfect example in comparison to this game. You can't fully understand the story on one viewing without heavy discussion. And it doesn't at all help that there are very important details only shown in the director's cut. But, at the end of that movie, there are definitely questions, but the overall message is understood. The message at the end of this game can't be understood at the time it's presented.

It's not a complete picture; you probably would have to replay the game for that.

I don't think the presentation of the ending isn't an "incomplete" picture. It's no picture. It's a revelation that the picture was purposely designed to be skipped over. If you end the game without reading about it, or playing through it again, it plainly won't make sense. If you make it make sense, on your own, you'll be wrong. The ending of this game is very very complicated, and they cram the complication into a single sentence. I mean, if you want to say that "You're also Comstock." is the incomplete picture that is revealed at the end of the game, yeah, I agree with that. But that by itself is dumb.

Well at the end of every Saw movie, when the twist is revealed there is a series of flashbacks to all the clues from throughout the movie. I'd rather go back and find all the clues for myself than be told what they were.

I wasn't talking about endings of other Saw movies, I was talking about the original (which is actually pretty good.) The other Saw movies are much more heavy handed, and you've got a pretty decent grasp of what's going to happen already making those flashbacks kind of annoying and ridiculous. In the example I gave about the ending clipped off of Saw 1, you would have to watch it a second time to maaaybe make it make sense. But you shouldn't be forced to do that. Literally forcing a person to do this is almost a kind of punishment for not having a photographic memory. This was a long game. I work full time, and there are other games I want to play. There's no way I would go through this game a second time especially as disappointed as I was with the ending (when I first finished it). I knew with certainty that it just didn't make sense with how it was presented, and reading all about it completely confirmed my initial reaction. I feel strongly that my situation represents at least 90% of gamers out there. If half, or even a bit more would disagree with you, I would say it could be an issue with the player/viewer. But with a much much larger percentage of people who won't be playing through it a second time to see why/what they missed, the failure falls back on the developer.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

The game doesn't force you to assume it, though, it just counts on the fact that you will.

Knowing and designing a game that players will do this in is purposely misleading. Unless you’re specifically searching for evidence of something you have no reason to expect, you will be misled because you’re too busy enjoying the story that’s being presented.

If you just button-mash your way through the game spamming vigors and not paying attention to any of the dialogue or reading any of the text, you won't appreciate the way the story comes together, because you weren't treating it as a story, you were treating it as another braindead masturbatory violence fantasy.

Come on dude. This isn’t the conversation we’re having.

I contend that you don't have to remember all those details for the ending to still make sense.

No. As I said before, even if you do remember that stuff, you’re not going to puzzle out the reasons behind the events that take place so quickly at the ending. Obviously I got they were saying you’re Comstock. But at that revelation I was just annoyed, because as I said it just wasn’t foreshadowed enough to click. I get it, but the why and the how are too obfuscated to actually fall into place at the end. I need more than just a vague “is” to enjoy a story. You can say you get a “basic” picture of the ending but as I said before, it’s not the right picture. It’s just something you invent to fill in the holes that aren’t revealed correctly, and I can’t enjoy something that does that. I just don’t believe most people, even people paying careful attention to the story, are just going to accept this as instantly making sense. As I’ve said, I do like the ending, but when it’s presented my immediate reaction was negative. I don’t believe I’m far from alone on this, and I’m not just talking about “average” gamers. I specifically played this for the story, and I meticulously searched and lock-picked every gate I could to learn more. It’s just that the details in those discoveries are, again as said before, misleading.
I think if anything, my annoyance came from that fact that I WAS paying very close attention, and felt cheated at the end to discover that the things I was paying attention to were placed in a way to trick me. At the end you say, “I am Comstock” or something to that affect, and I say.. ok..? And start thinking about it, but there just isn’t time or evidence to piece it together in a way that makes it make actual sense. I don’t know if I’m explaining this correctly.
The difference between both Bioshock 1 and NCfOM is that regardless of missing little details, you do get the story to an extent that the actual picture is clear enough. Bioshock 1 was a fantastic story, and I did pay attention enough to realize you were his son. I thought it was great, but it also wasn’t paramount to understanding the end of the game.
I mean, obviously our viewpoints are our own, and it’s difficult to see where the other is coming from. Sure, I don’t mind thinking something through, but how long should it take to actually put enough pieces together for it to make sence in a satisfactory manner? How can the ending being presented this way change the way my initial feeling was? Again, I can't stress enough the importance of a at least mostly logical picture being painted for me to be satisfied. The twist comes too close to the end frames.

NCfOM is a horrible example as a comparison, and not just for its subject material. The comparison as that, yes, there are tiny details all through the story, but you can still completely understand the story when the movie closes. There are details, and minor philosophical elements woven throughout, but you will still come away from the ending “getting it” almost in its entirety.
In this game, even the majority of the ending sequence is still along the same route that the rest of the game is going. Oh, that’s how she lost her pinky, because I sold her off to Comstock. Even in this section it’s not implied that you’re Comstock.
At the end of the game when it’s revealed that you are Comstock, the answers aren’t there on a first playthrough. People can keep saying “All the answers are there.” Yes. They are. But anybody who says that damn well knows that those answers weren’t filed away in a way that they coincided with the ending that comes out of nearly nowhere at the end. I’m not talking about the simple revelation. I’m talking about the understanding of the revelation. I don’t want to just know a fact without knowing why the fact is, and that’s simply impossible to do when the game ends. And I truly mean impossible. Like I said above,

-Booker that is baptized and has his sins forgiven, later goes on to continue his wicked ways with his additional distain for the government based on his prior experiences, who then becomes sterile through quantum portal proximity, so he opens a dimensional rift, with the help of an alternate version of a scientist in his employ, to steal a baby FROM HIMSELF so that he can (edited for concession) have a genetic heir to his empire-

These aren’t little missed details. You literally need most of this information to actually make the story make true sense. Most of this paragraph is integral to understanding the ending. Some details can be left out, sure, but not many because it’s such a detailed explanation. Please at least concede that you didn’t know this when the credits began to roll. Tell me at what point did you learn/figure this out? Because this is an important issue to me. Perhaps the most important issue in the entirety of my opinion on this.
There are many many movies or books that I didn’t quite understand exactly what happened at the ending. I mean, this happens to all of us, but I’ve never (NEVER!) gotten to the end of something and felt like the twist of the story was so hidden that I was never intended to figure it out on my own through my initial experience. I’ve never heard of a twist in a story that literally nobody could see truly coming, and if you did see it coming, you really didn’t have sufficient evidence to think that way. It would be a vague hunch at best that coincides with the lack of full (story critical) understanding by the ending of the game.

You also have to account for the kind of gamer you're talking about. How many of that 90% (assuming your figure is true, which I have seen no evidence for) actually cared about the story and wanted to understand it, and how many were just playing so they could fire crows out of their hands and shoot enemies while zip-lining around a creative location?

Yeah, I totally made that number up, but I stand by it. Obviously much of that percentage is people who don’t give a damn about any ending, but I stand by most people being unwilling to actually play through a second required 15 or so hours simply to understand the story. I’m still not talking about tiny unnecessary details. I’m talking about the actual truth of the ending. The very basic concept of Booker accepting the baptism to then become Comstock is a very large pill to even begin to swallow and it’s not even directly addressed, but to follow that rabbit all the way down the hole to an actual logical, not made up by my wrong assumptions, comclusion is too much to ask. Too much. At what point does making a person figure something out on their own constitute a bad story? Can you really say that no amount of explanation for any event in any media is necessary for them to always be considered quality?
If nothing else, I can say that never before in any entertainment have I walked away feeling like this. With a complete and utter lack of understanding of the ending, and to discover that I wasn’t actually intended to completely understand the ending. To me, that constitutes a poorly crafted ending.

[–] Ahstaroth 12 years ago

I agree with you scofthe7seas.

I really don't think you should have to scour discussion boards or do 2nd play through to have a very good understanding a game's ending. In the sixth-sense, I actually pieced together the twist about 10 minutes before the reveal. Maybe I don't have poor taste, but I still consider that one of the best twist endings in cinematic history, and one of the main reasons M. Night Shyamalan could never measure up to his previous work.

Now, obviously, in a 10 hour game you don't want people to figure it out like that, so it has to be a bit more complex. But after watching FIFTEEN minutes of ending sequence (not counting waiting through credits for the end scene), if you still have any confusion, I agree that's not the best storytelling.

If any 'twist' requires multiple paragraphs or a huge run-on sentence to fully 'spoil', it's not really a twist, is it? More like a huge ass epilogue.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

I don't know if you'll get many people on your side of the Comstock revelation not being the big twist. It's pretty much the beginning of the explanation for every other event in the game.
I think a lot of the communication issue's were having is with the definition of the twist. I get that you're Comstock, at the end. I got it instantly, and there were definitely clues that pointed to that. And that's fine. But there were "Why?(s)" and "How?(s)" that simply could not be gotten, and also could not be understood at the end.
As I've said, the main problem I have is that the story is actually GREAT. The ending, all of the details are really cool, but no amount of thinking, or understanding, or paying attention can make any person understand these things at the end of the game. There are important factors in the ending that can not, and will not be understood without discussion or a replay. A slow replay. A slow replay paying careful attention to every detail in a new light, perhaps with a pen and paper in hand.
I personally love being surprised by a twist ending. I suspend my disbelief and enjoy the story; I put no effort into trying to guess what's happening. But, when said twist is revealed, I can always reflect on various moments or details that make the twist make sense. Then I may wander onto the internet and see what other people have to say, to see little details I might have missed. As has been said, in a game like this, the length of the game is a factor that cannot be reflected on because a brain can only file away so much. That's not the problem though.
The problem with this ending is not the twist itself, but the implications of the twist. There are simply too many. I've gone back on my stance in my first post, and I feel stronger now that no person can make the game make total sense at the end of it. I've said it before, the details of this complicated ending are very very important and needed to actually understand it. To "get" it.
You can accept that you're also Comstock. You can accept that the girl is your daughter. But something like the fact that Booker became Comstock because of his acceptance of the baptism is literally impossible to understand at the time of the ending. Your brain my start to float in that general direction, but it's really a very very very (x3 verys) complex study of a man's psychology involving how he really felt about the things that happened at wounded knee, and how a faux forgiveness could twist his mind into believing that he could then basically do anything no matter how horrible, is impossible to puzzle out at the end. Never mind unfolding all of the events and elements that come after that to arrive at the main plot of the game. I feel very strongly that without understanding this, Booker's sacrifice is nearly meaningless. Ok, he's Comstock, and he allows himself to be drowned to stop from becoming Comstock, thus negating all of the bad things Comstock had done. But these are "is" revelations. Why would he be Comstock is the main question.
A good twist ending should let you "get" it. This plain doesn't.
I can't stress enough how I think the ending is cool, and the actual twist is great. It's important to know my position on that. My problem has always been with its presentation. If your twist unfolds such a complex web of details so thick that the smartest of brains won't be able to unravel enough of it to make the story actually make sense, than there is a failure.
As I said, when the revelation pops up (seconds before the closing of the credits) I thought that it was dumb. It isn't, but I thought that way, because for such a twist (as in any entertainment) it's should be an "ohhhhh..." kind of thing (or aha! as you said). Something that should make sense as you reflect on it.
I instantly understood the various clues to you being Comstock, but my brain crashed into the wall of "Why" and "How". Because the Why and How just aren't there. There's no purchase for a brain to grab hold of. And if your audience can't make sense of the overall implications of the twist, it doesn't work.

To use a different example, we talked about Saw before. The twist ending explains itself fairly well, I think, but I can remember virtually no hints or clues that would have led anyone to figure it out in advance.

This is an excellent example, and perhaps is key to you understanding my position. You could remember virtually no hints that would lead anyone to figure it out without the help at the end. But, without the explanation, if you watched the movie a second time with the knowledge of the twist at the end, then you would get it. The point is you shouldn't -have- to do that.

Let's compare a lengthy video game to money spent at a movie in a theatre. They're both investments. Investments into a hopefully satisfying piece of art or entertainment. If, at the end of Saw, the dead guy gets up and walks out, no flash back, fade to credits, you'll be upset. You'll be disappointed because you'll understand the twist (oh, that guy was Jigsaw all along.), but as you said there was nothing throughout the experience to actually make you think that way and you won't understand. But there were. The clues are there. To really understand it, to "get" it, you would -have- to pay the theatre a second time to make the movie make sense. You're not going to want to do that. That's not a privilege, that's a punishment. That's poor design. Again, I'm not talking about a cool set of details that might make you -want- to go back and see and catch. These kinds of movies encourage multiple viewings, and most people would gladly pay for that. I'm talking about details that are paramount and completely necessary to actual (not just full) understanding.
Like the twist at the end of Saw, the one at the end of this game is a very cool one. But without any explanation, any exposition on the why and the how, the customer is left feeling cheated. This customer at least.

I would consider this a bigger deal-breaker than the clarity of the last 15 seconds of the game. If a video game isn't fun to play, who cares what the story is?

Are you kidding? If the gameplay isn't amazing the story had BETTER make up for it.

Oh, and yeah, Prometheus was horrible. The main problem with that movie is that there were sooo many questions and mysteries piling up, jumbling on top of each other, that aren't explained until the end (and some not at all even then) I just didn't give a sh!t when the mysteries finally were revealed.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

The difference is that I don't think you need to understand it immediately.

I do. Because Booker doesn't understand, I don't understand? Poop on that. Just because he's like "Oh, I could have been/am(!?) Comstock... cool, drown me. Let's get it over with. Wait, why-gbbbglbblb"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07So_lJQyqw

I wouldn't blame the game for their schedule.

I can't understand why not. Especially with the ending being as abrupt and confusing as it was, it's even less of an incentive to go back through. I wouldn't say I'd rather be annoyed and just read about it. But that's what happened. That shouldn't have happened. I just can't grasp the concept of something -making- you go through it twice to actually understand fundamental concepts of the story. Especially such a lengthy experience.

Your opinion is that the most important part of the story is that Booker sacrifices himself to stop Comstock, and... delete the nice girl that hung out with you the whole game. That is very important. But without knowing why or how, it's just... impotent. Hollow.
We both seem to agree that it's not possible to fully understand the game by the end of a first play-through. The feelings you got through the end don't seem to require the why's and how's. That baffles me to death.
When I finished the game, I was irritated because I knew the answers weren't there. You can say they are, and they technically are, but they aren't for a person who doesn't know what's coming. It's too purposely misleading. I would still like to know at what point did everything come together for you? You said you played through twice, but was it only the playing, or did you also do some online reading as well?
I can see your point as it being purposely designed this way. Whether this is good or bad is something you could say is completely opinion based as are all things in life. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Just keep this in mind. How many people do you really think will actually put the time into playing through this a second time? Do you really think the number is very high? There's a tipping point where something's target audience is so small that it... maybe it can't be called bad, but it can be called obscure. The ending to this game is excellent and I think it should be presented in a more accessible manner. It's robbing casual gamers (and I wouldn't actually call myself that) of something they deserve after putting in that amount of time. It's doing itself a disservice to hide something so good, so well. Something that good shouldn't be aimed at such a small percentage.
Let's agree to disagree this way, if you find this acceptable.
Your point of view is that it was designed for multiple playthrough's on purpose to let the consumer figure it all out on their own, but you concede that it can't be fully understood on a single playthrough. So, following that- individuals who are expecting a fully contained experience with only one playthrough will probably be dissatisfied (if they care about understanding.) For this group of players, it would probably be even worse for those that tried especially hard to pay attention because all of the puzzle pieces they meticulously gathered through the game, no matter how hard they searched, at the end they could be upset to discover that they don't have nearly enough puzzle pieces to see the full picture.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gommodorf 12 years ago

LOL!! God, did you help make this game? Is Ken Levine your dad?? I agree with Scott. You can't uinderstand the end at the end. It can't make sense. You say a person can understand "If they reload and listen tovoxiphones" This is the same as replaying. Maybe less work but still a bad requirement to understand.
And saying people who buy it for the box art are going to be excited about such an ending is naïve. A person shouldn't have to think so much to "get" a story when its done. I was mad to at the end. Reading about it makes sense but like scott said if it makes you feel that way you can't just erase it. I don't want to feel "Oh, that didn't make any sense. I'll go through again to make it make sense." Maybe you'll just assume it wasn't made right and it won't make sense even after 9 hours (15 is too long Scott)
And what about being "Comstock" at the end that gets drown? Why in your eyes suddenly are you being drown when you weren't the one that made that choice. Why you don't see Booker trying to steal the baby you stole? And then your booker at the end with maybe a baby. It just switches and isn't good. And if you don't replay or read, if you "try to figurt it out" you will just be making assumptions because all the correct info doesn't exist even with the voxiphones if you memorized them, also there are scenes that have to be seen again to help with the new context. I understand it's your favoristest game ever, so you can't see anything wrong. Like all moms think their kid is the smartest, but if so where do dumb people come from?
Maybe if they revealed the baptism was a bad choice and made him a bad person earlier in the ending it would be better, but 10 seconds from the end is just wtf. And wtf isn't good.

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

Maybe you'll just assume it wasn't made right and it won't make sense even after 9 (more) hours

Yes, this is what I felt. I just didn't quite know how to put it into words. At the end, I paid very close attention through the whole game, and when the end hit I knew right away that something’s didn't make sense. Reading all of the explanations and finding out that it pretty much can't make sense at the end was part annoying and part gratifying.
And 9 hours?? Really? How many Voxophones did you collect?

And then your booker at the end with maybe a baby.

What do you mean? Like after the credits?

Maybe if they revealed the baptism was a bad choice and made him a bad person earlier in the ending it would be better

Or actually revealed it at all? That's a big part of the ending! If you're not understanding right away that accepting the baptism is what makes you evil Comstock, then the immediate drowning has no impact other than confusion. You just don't have enough time to draw all of those conclusions between the reveal to the drowning.

[–] m-pearson13 12 years ago

Or actually revealed it at all? That's a big part of the ending! If you're not understanding right away that accepting the baptism is what makes you evil Comstock, then the immediate drowning has no impact other than confusion. You just don't have enough time to draw all of those conclusions between the reveal to the drowning.

I think you should just come to grips with the fact that you didn't like it and others did. I understood the ending as it played out (not before it though). I didn't mind playing through and finding tidbits that were hints pointing to the reveal.

To say the ending doesn't work is wrong, because it worked for a lot of people (including myself).

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

What you just quoted is a single pebble of the problem with the ending. I'm not saying that people aren't being satisfied with it. I'm saying it could have been handled better.
Playing through a second time to find hints that point to a reveal is fine. Like I've said, I don't mind watching a movie (or even playing some games) that have clues to show you certain things that were hints about it. That can even be fun in some cases to some people. I get that concept.
It's all of the implications that the ending presents in such a short amount of time. If you're going to tell me that you understood everything about what makes the ending make total sense then you were already addressed in my initial post. You are an absolute genius. As an absolute genius, you should recognize that most people won't be able to put together the whole (all important details) puzzle by or during the credits. But, if you went online and read about it to help you with it, then my point stands. My point has always been that for an ending to make sense, it shouldn't require outside explanation or a second play-through. Require is the word.

I think people love this game so much they can't recognize a single flaw in it.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nighttrumpet 12 years ago

If people rushed through this game they did themselves a disservice. Not sure if thats what the OP did but the ending wasn't completely out of the blue.

[–] afdrucifer 11 years ago

Hand holding is just as bad being over ambiguous. You sound like a lazy thinker(not saying you're stupid, some people don't like the work). It is very possible to piece this puzzle through one playthrough. I did, sure others did too. The game wasn't the most incredibly dense thing ever. Nor was it overly complicated. It relies solely on a rather large piece of Deus Ex Machina.

It was a clever piece of meta commentary on the art of franchising a commercial entity. The name Bioshock Infinite isn't just for the multiverse Booker and Elizabeth experience. this game is about how the name Bioshock can live on as a series without Andrew Ryan, Jack, Big Daddies, and Rapture. Levine and his beard are clever cookies.

[–] scofthe7seas 11 years ago

Edit- I've deleted all that I wrote because I re-read what's already been posted in this thread, and everything you said in your reply was already addressed. You obviously didn't read it all, and I don't blame you for that because it's really long. But seriously, you can't call someone lazy in any way if you choose to be too lazy to read all available information before writing some kind of reply. Rude.
I also found that the dude I had this entire conversation with pussed out his entire side of the argument. Not cool.

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

Just as an aside, I forgot to address this:

Let's not get into the concept of "infinite" universes playing a factor into this. There could be any number of Bookers that arrive at that same baptism with the same choices, that could meddle with "key" Booker for the same/similar reasons.

Like I said above, all Comstocks come from this one Booker. That's the Booker who has to die. But since the Booker we've been playing as also came from that Booker, he has to die as well. If there's a universe where Booker never fought at Wounded Knee and so never had to choose to be baptized or not, his reality can continue on unaffected by the events of the game.

That's not how the concept on infinite works. The problem with infinity is.. that it's infinity. That means everything happens. Always. If one person discovers a way to tear into other worlds, than infinite people discover ways to tear into other worlds, and infinite things will happen to the infinite other worlds and so on. Which means, in theory, there would be a Booker that gets kicked in the nuts at wounded knee, becomes sterile, becomes Comstock, and then decides he wants a baby and steals original Bookers baby also.

I really meant that comment to be more flippant than it may have come off. As more of a joke, but it's still true.

[–] Gommodorf 12 years ago

Lol, yes. I mean, it's a game so they make their own rules a bit, but like in The Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy everything is possible with inifinite. Like maybe an evil Comstock comes from a tree that grew dirty socks, and he evolved to steal the baby. Maybe to get revenge for booker unmaking his dimention brother.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harkness78 12 years ago

Op is just wrong, or unperceptive. It was telegraphed super strong in the last stretch of the game that Booker was Comstock. I'm not gonna list the voxboxes or the dialog, but there are 4 or 5 times during/after the asylum scene where the developers are foreshadowing the Comstock reveal.

You at the very least knew somthing was deeply wrong with Booker, the nose bleeds throughout etc, and that it would eventually be revealed.

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

[–] harkness78 12 years ago

Man I just read some more, Scoff is an idiot. You didn't realize,the very second the ending started, and Booker is in this Baptism scene and shes talking about how this is like the big deciding moment, that he was Comstock?

You didn't "get it" until the very last scene where she says it flat out to you? Man you are dense.

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

[–] scofthe7seas 12 years ago

At not any point did I ever say I didn't "get" that Booker was Comstock. Or that was a thing that couldn't be gotten. Douche.

[–] mrajam90 12 years ago

Scof I think the problem is you seem to think the creators of BI should have made it differently just so people that might not understand the ending right away will be able to do so. The thing is they don't have to and they don't need to. You say some (including you) have busy schedules or just want to play other games and be done thinking about this story ( at least that's how I took it, you may like to keep thinking about the story and themes), but others don't. Other people might have all the time in the world (me) and/or simply want to play through the story again because they liked it. So the question is, why should BI's creators change the whole experience in the end of the game just so a certain demographic get it all instantly at the moment it happens just how they want it? It's seems to me (although this is complicated in your case since you said you liked the story overall) those people should either not play the game, rent it, or sell it back after they finish it.

By the way I didn't get it all at the end either, but I liked searching for things I didn't understand either on the Internet or by going through the game again.

So I guess in the end what I'm trying to say is don't act like the ending didn't work just because you didn't like it. It just didn't work for you which is an opinion, not a fact. By the way if you've got so little time to be playing this game through again, why are you spending so much time arguing about it on the internet.

[–] mrajam90 12 years ago

It not it's.

[–] MaxPaynefan187 12 years ago

Scoff is not only an idiot,but just annoying troll at this point. Dude, if you didnt like the story or the game,fine then let it be but be it so it doenst change the fact that the game's ending was brilliant and made sense. So what if its convoluted,didnt get it at the end,up for intepretation,or needs multiple runthroughs to finally understand it? The best games and movies are those that are up for interpretation and warrant mulitple viewings and runthoughs. It seems like all you did was played through the game without paying attention to any part of the story. It is an fps game but it definetly isnt Call of Duty,which I think is your style of game due to your incompetenance to understand a story and even rationlize or be at ease to play through it again in order to understand it.

The ending and the game itself was perfect for me,sure I didnt pick up on things that were said earlier in the game that made sense in the end, but thats just the fun and goodness of the story. I went back through i on 1999 mode and it all made sense now. I am not going into specifics cause many people on this thread already tried explaining it to you but it seems like your childish brain still cant comprehend,understand nor accept it as it is. I really dont know if you're trolling or not but you're becoming pathetic when people offer you explanations of the storyline ending that you could have done by yourself,and not only understand the signifiance to the medium in which it is, but also to the point of giving you other examples from movies, and you still wont accept it.

The only thing left that I am going to say is stick with the call of dutys man because your childish mind isnt mature enough to accept or understand a game like this. You can say all you want how you have played other games that are like this or even the fact that you love the original Bioshock,but trolling everyone on this thread who just wanted to help you understand the beautiful ending to a brilliant game is childish and pathetic IMO.