Bioshock Infinite's story is OBJECTIVELY better than the original Bioshock [SPOILERS]

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You said it yourself: Fontaine knows Ryan can't be killed. So who better to take out an immortal than another immortal? Ryan never spliced up, he never became a lightning-bolt flinging god. And the player's character isn't going to stop until he kills Ryan. So here's the choices: go out on your own terms, or live in a personal hell in which a god-like immortal is constantly chasing you through your ruined dream of a city and murdering you. Personally, I don't blame Ryan for letting the player kill him. Death would be a release from an endless cycle of getting killed over and over again. As for simply having Ryan say "Would you kindly not kill me?" what's to stop Fontaine from just saying over the radio "Would you kindly kill him?"

Ryan's philosophy was everything to him, and his death was to serve a point. Where as he believes he lived and died as a true man, he proves that the player is nothing but a slave. It could easily be said that Fontaine was well aware of Ryan's pride and knew he wouldn't want to live the rest of his existence being hounded by his own immortal son. Or it could simply be that, like I said, he figured the best chance to kill an immortal is by having another immortal do it.

I'm not sure if Fontaine knows Ryan can't die for sure, but he should know it (as he knew about the bathyspheres for sure). His plan should've been to send Jack in there to poison him. On Ryan's end, he could've gave Jack a poisoned drink, which would kill him for good (or if he doesn't want to kill him, give him something that will knock him out) especially since he found out about the mind control. Or Ryan could let Jack "kill" him while getting revived without Jack knowing. I really thought there was going to be a twist at the end where it's revealed that Ryan isn't dead. If you say Jack will just keep chasing Ryan and killing him over and over again, Ryan can easily get around Rapture better than Jack. And if Ryan can think of something like DNA restricting the bathyspheres, I'm sure he has contingencies to get out of Rapture well before Rapture even went to shit (it's an underwater city and all, shit can go bad).

If Ryan's philosophy was everything, the last thing he'd want is to die along with Rapture. Rapture failing the way it did is a sign to the rest of the world that objectivism doesn't work whether it was actually objectivism that caused Rapture's failing or not, that's how it would be perceived.

As for Infinite: fair enough, but what about the choice to go into Limbo in the first place? That's the "problem" with the multiverse theory. Since there's infinite possibilities based on infinite choices, you can always point back to an earlier choice and say "The opposite of that derails the story." Beyond that there's the part where Booker says "I won't give you to that man!" and Elizabeth says "Booker...you already have..." Indeed, all the possibilities and realities have already been played out, so wouldn't that mean that the great convergence and drowning already took place as well?

The problem is that Elizabeth pulls a Super Man and just makes up a new power at the very end of the game. She can see all the doors and see what's behind them. Fair enough. So how does that allow her to act like a cosmic staple to bring every one of the infinite universes in which Booker and Comstock exist and wipe them all away with a deus ex machina drowning? They're in limbo, right? So why does the drowning do anything in the first place? It's not as though they actually went back to the true baptism and killed Booker. If drowning Booker in this limbo has an effect on every single timeline out there, why don't any of the choices they make while they're in limbo? Is the drowning itself not a choice? What makes it different than any other choice?

The Booker and Elizabeth that chose not go into Limbo exist in one of the many Comstock universes which are all gone due to your Booker and your Elizabeth. Whatever universes that sprung up from Booker and Elizabeth's decisions branched off from within all the Comstock universes that are all rooted in Booker's choice to take the baptism. Take out that root, and all those universes (including Booker and Elizabeth's new universes) no longer exist. That last question there is more of a time travel question. Say I go back in time to change something like the Cubs winning the world series in 2003 (I'm a die hard Cubs fan); then in 2003 the Cubs would have won the world series, right? So, what would my motivation to go back in time to change that if that already happened and how do the Cubs win the world series if I never go back (since I would have no reason to)? Nobody really knows how that stuff would work out. I guess in order for the drowning to happen those universes had to have existed because if they didn't, then there would be no drowning.

I'm more concerned with why Elizabeth doesn't pull a Superman during the last battle, she could pull anything through tears or bring stuff to other universes (like Songbird). That battle shouldn't have really happened. I wouldn't really say she gets a new power just out of the blue, the Lutece's have that power all game so Elizabeth getting it when she's no longer limited makes sense. The drowning didn't happen in Limbo, the CHOICES were made in Limbo (so no new universes sprung up). When Elizabeth opened the door, she took Booker to that exact universe and time he decided to get baptized and he lets her drown him, which kills off all those Comstock universes and any universes that sprung from within the Comstock universes (like all those universes Booker and Elizabeth made while on their journey).

And you perhaps think she got that degree in 8 minutes too?

Are you seriously too dense to understand what I mean?

And not only that, but she CONSTANTLY makes caveats such as "not completely unlike" and "The closest thing would probably be".

The video is an amusing distraction, but it hardly proves that Ken Levine spent more than 5 minutes glancing at a physics text book. They indeed took something real, but they drained it of anything of actual substance and added a load of garbage of their own.

I never claimed that Bioshock infinite wasn't in some manner based in Quantum Physics

My contention was that it takes so many liberties with the actual science and adds so many baseless things that it might as well not be.

I didn't watch the whole video, just the quantum levitation part. We currently can do that on a small scale, why couldn't that be done on a large scale?

When you are dealing with science FICTION, you get things like X is not completely unlike Y because said fiction is creating a universe where we don't know exactly how things work.

A lot of stuff in Infinite deals with infinite universes. We don't know if infinite universes actually exist and if they do, we don't know how they work. It was just discovered (probably more-so validated) that Jurassic Park doesn't work as you can't get usable dino DNA from misquotes in amber, but it wasn't beyond belief that you could (especially to people that don't have expert knowledge in DNA).

Most of the uses of quantum science are very believable and maybe even some can be even proven now like quantum levitation. I knew about quantum entanglement years ago and even before Mass Effect used that as basis for their communication method. Quantum entanglement for communication is being researched right now. Infinite uses quantum entanglement as for communication purposes between universes, it's believable that it would work.

Lastly, Ken Levine didn't have to research a thing. He could asked someone to research it for him or maybe even asked Michio Kaku for all we know.

 

[RJ 17]

You said it yourself: Fontaine knows Ryan can't be killed. So who better to take out an immortal than another immortal? Ryan never spliced up, he never became a lightning-bolt flinging god. And the player's character isn't going to stop until he kills Ryan. So here's the choices: go out on your own terms, or live in a personal hell in which a god-like immortal is constantly chasing you through your ruined dream of a city and murdering you. Personally, I don't blame Ryan for letting the player kill him. Death would be a release from an endless cycle of getting killed over and over again. As for simply having Ryan say "Would you kindly not kill me?" what's to stop Fontaine from just saying over the radio "Would you kindly kill him?"

Ryan's philosophy was everything to him, and his death was to serve a point. Where as he believes he lived and died as a true man, he proves that the player is nothing but a slave. It could easily be said that Fontaine was well aware of Ryan's pride and knew he wouldn't want to live the rest of his existence being hounded by his own immortal son. Or it could simply be that, like I said, he figured the best chance to kill an immortal is by having another immortal do it.

I'm not sure if Fontaine knows Ryan can't die for sure, but he should know it (as he knew about the bathyspheres for sure). His plan should've been to send Jack in there to poison him. On Ryan's end, he could've gave Jack a poisoned drink, which would kill him for good (or if he doesn't want to kill him, give him something that will knock him out) especially since he found out about the mind control. Or Ryan could let Jack "kill" him while getting revived without Jack knowing. I really thought there was going to be a twist at the end where it's revealed that Ryan isn't dead. If you say Jack will just keep chasing Ryan and killing him over and over again, Ryan can easily get around Rapture better than Jack. And if Ryan can think of something like DNA restricting the bathyspheres, I'm sure he has contingencies to get out of Rapture well before Rapture even went to shit (it's an underwater city and all, shit can go bad).

If Ryan's philosophy was everything, the last thing he'd want is to die along with Rapture. Rapture failing the way it did is a sign to the rest of the world that objectivism doesn't work whether it was actually objectivism that caused Rapture's failing or not, that's how it would be perceived.

As for Infinite: fair enough, but what about the choice to go into Limbo in the first place? That's the "problem" with the multiverse theory. Since there's infinite possibilities based on infinite choices, you can always point back to an earlier choice and say "The opposite of that derails the story." Beyond that there's the part where Booker says "I won't give you to that man!" and Elizabeth says "Booker...you already have..." Indeed, all the possibilities and realities have already been played out, so wouldn't that mean that the great convergence and drowning already took place as well?

The problem is that Elizabeth pulls a Super Man and just makes up a new power at the very end of the game. She can see all the doors and see what's behind them. Fair enough. So how does that allow her to act like a cosmic staple to bring every one of the infinite universes in which Booker and Comstock exist and wipe them all away with a deus ex machina drowning? They're in limbo, right? So why does the drowning do anything in the first place? It's not as though they actually went back to the true baptism and killed Booker. If drowning Booker in this limbo has an effect on every single timeline out there, why don't any of the choices they make while they're in limbo? Is the drowning itself not a choice? What makes it different than any other choice?

The Booker and Elizabeth that chose not go into Limbo exist in one of the many Comstock universes which are all gone due to your Booker and your Elizabeth. Whatever universes that sprung up from Booker and Elizabeth's decisions branched off from within all the Comstock universes that are all rooted in Booker's choice to take the baptism. Take out that root, and all those universes (including Booker and Elizabeth's new universes) no longer exist. That last question there is more of a time travel question. Say I go back in time to change something like the Cubs winning the world series in 2003 (I'm a die hard Cubs fan); then in 2003 the Cubs would have won the world series, right? So, what would my motivation to go back in time to change that if that already happened and how do the Cubs win the world series if I never go back (since I would have no reason to)? Nobody really knows how that stuff would work out. I guess in order for the drowning to happen those universes had to have existed because if they didn't, then there would be no drowning.

I'm more concerned with why Elizabeth doesn't pull a Superman during the last battle, she could pull anything through tears or bring stuff to other universes (like Songbird). That battle shouldn't have really happened. I wouldn't really say she gets a new power just out of the blue, the Lutece's have that power all game so Elizabeth getting it when she's no longer limited makes sense. The drowning didn't happen in Limbo, the CHOICES were made in Limbo (so no new universes sprung up). When Elizabeth opened the door, she took Booker to that exact universe and time he decided to get baptized and he lets her drown him, which kills off all those Comstock universes and any universes that sprung from within the Comstock universes (like all those universes Booker and Elizabeth made while on their journey).

I'd like to know why you're so certain that poisoning someone is how you prevent a Vitachamber from resurrecting them. I certainly don't recall that ever being mentioned in the game (though it has been a good few years since I last played through the original). But I can only imagine that if something as simple as poisoning Ryan would work, it would have been done a long time ago. The point here is that you're refusing to acknowledge the point that Ryan was making in by letting himself get killed. Again, it ties in with the philosophy that led his life. He doesn't just willy-nilly go suicidal, there's a very specific reason behind it, one that I've been trying to explain.

Back to Infinite:
Well now you're just crossing your wires here. Yes, I already know how the changing of the past stuff works with time travel, though I still say Elizabeth would need a new power: one capable of binding all possible timelines to the baptism so they can all be neatly snipped away. You say nothing they do during the ending matters, none of the choices create new universes because they're in Limbo. Then you turn around and say that the drowning itself didn't happen in Limbo....well....actually yeah, it kinda did. It happens in a surreal, floating island that represents the scene from the baptism. None of the people that were actually there are there, the priest isn't there, it's just Booker and a bunch of Elizabeths. Where did those Elizabeth's come from? They're a side effect of deus ex machina Elizabeth pulling all the timelines together for The Great Snipping. And the Luteces don't have that power, they exist in a state of quantum flux. They can appear anywhere in any universe at any time that they'd like, but they don't have the power to bind all the universes to a single point and sever them. Why? Because doing so would, once again, require a choice which would create a universe in which they didn't decide to wipe out all the other universes.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and by saying that once they get to the drowning they're no longer in limbo, by your logic that means new universes can officially be created...which means that Booker still has a chance to back out and say "Screw this, I don't want to drown!" That possibility creates a new universe and the cycle repeats.

Now, with regards to the original Bioshock, I believe that you're getting caught up in the same thing that you're accusing people of with Infinite:

It seems like people are just wanting to not like the ending, and then coming up with their own made up plot holes to "prove" the story has holes just to contrive a reason that the story is factually bad.

Aren't YOU just looking for specific reasons to not like BS's ending? I've explained it as best as I can but you seem stuck on the fact that Ryan was making a statement in letting himself get killed. He's not a coward, he's a man, and that's the entire point.

Now, to be perfectly fair, I have been doing pretty much the same thing with Infinite's ending. The key difference though is that Infinite revolves around the Multiverse Theory in which there are literally infinite possibilities. Anything that isn't specifically said or explained in the game is open to interpretation, and since literally any possibility is a viable possibility so long as there is some evidence in the story to base that possibility on while there is no evidence to directly and specifically contradict it, you cannot disprove what I'm saying any more than I can prove it. That's the problem when you're arguing about a theory rather than facts since theories, by definition, are things that cannot/haven't been proven, but are generally accepted as a good idea. Your theory for Infinite's ending works. Unfortunately, mine works as well. Neither of us can prove to the other that one of us is right or wrong. You can spin the scenario as much as you like and explain everything, and I can just keep pointing to different choices and how they spawn new universes to ensure that Comstock cannot be permanently erased.

 

[ronald1840]

I finished Bioshock Infinite in one-sitting. I beat the original Bioshock a little under a week.

The original's (Bioshock 1) music and sound design had a stronger effect on me. I explored a lot more and the the atmosphere drew me in more than Infinite. I don't know why, but my favorite part of the original is after the 'TWIST' and you're with Tennenbaum walking around Apollo Square and the Big Daddy factories. Everything was so quiet, those apartments had the creepiest sound design, Suchong and Atlus' girlfriend's body, Atlus' apartment, and the Little Sisters. It felt like I was a part of the city.

Bioshock Infinite to me was a better shooter mechanically, but I miss planning out those Big Daddy fights where I took my time. I thought the Handyman would give me that, but it was just shoot it in the red spot till it's dead. Infinite has much better pacing, character design, and endgame though.

I'd rather replay Infinite again, and overall I'd put it over the original, but it's not a complete sweep. Better story? Infinite, sure. I just wish the game didn't rush through everything like it was worried I'd get bored. Then again, after this current generation ends and around 2015-16 when we're doing our 'Best Games of the Console Generation' stuff, I'd put the original and it's Little Sisters over Infinite.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'd like to know why you're so certain that poisoning someone is how you prevent a Vitachamber from resurrecting them. I certainly don't recall that ever being mentioned in the game (though it has been a good few years since I last played through the original). But I can only imagine that if something as simple as poisoning Ryan would work, it would have been done a long time ago. The point here is that you're refusing to acknowledge the point that Ryan was making in by letting himself get killed. Again, it ties in with the philosophy that led his life. He doesn't just willy-nilly go suicidal, there's a very specific reason behind it, one that I've been trying to explain.

I would think poisoning (as slow wasting illness may apply) would be a way around the vita-chamber reviving due to the what the game states:
However, the Vita-Chambers can only bring a person back to life if he or she died of unnatural causes (e.g. a sudden violent death). Slow wasting sicknesses or genetic illness can not be cured by a Vita-Chamber, so an individual who died of such a condition would remain permanently dead. - from the Bioshock Wikia [http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Vita-Chamber]

The point is Fontaine's plan would have to take vita-chambers into account and it doesn't. He should've at least told you to start breaking vita-chambers as you got close to Ryan as he wouldn't know Ryan actually broke/disabled the nearest vita-chamber. My main issue is on Fontaine's end and his assassination plan. I still don't buy into Ryan's motives either, but that's besides the point.

Back to Infinite:
Well now you're just crossing your wires here. Yes, I already know how the changing of the past stuff works with time travel, though I still say Elizabeth would need a new power: one capable of binding all possible timelines to the baptism so they can all be neatly snipped away. You say nothing they do during the ending matters, none of the choices create new universes because they're in Limbo. Then you turn around and say that the drowning itself didn't happen in Limbo....well....actually yeah, it kinda did. It happens in a surreal, floating island that represents the scene from the baptism. None of the people that were actually there are there, the priest isn't there, it's just Booker and a bunch of Elizabeths. Where did those Elizabeth's come from? They're a side effect of deus ex machina Elizabeth pulling all the timelines together for The Great Snipping. And the Luteces don't have that power, they exist in a state of quantum flux. They can appear anywhere in any universe at any time that they'd like, but they don't have the power to bind all the universes to a single point and sever them. Why? Because doing so would, once again, require a choice which would create a universe in which they didn't decide to wipe out all the other universes.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and by saying that once they get to the drowning they're no longer in limbo, by your logic that means new universes can officially be created...which means that Booker still has a chance to back out and say "Screw this, I don't want to drown!" That possibility creates a new universe and the cycle repeats.

Elizabeth didn't need to bind all Comstock universes to the baptism, they were already bound to the baptism. The game makes it clear that the Booker that's baptized becomes Comstock and the Booker that's not baptized is your Booker. All of the infinite Comstock universes spring from after the baptism. As the game says, "smother the son of a ***** in his crib." All Elizabeth needs is the ability the Luteces have. You're not in Limbo on a floating island, you're literally at the place the baptism took place (if it was still Limbo, the Elizabeths wouldn't have disappeared as they would still be alive like the Luteces still are after they died). There is the priest there but not the other people because as Elizabeth says, "This isn't the same place Booker." She takes him to a point just slightly before the baptism choice even happened not only does Comstock-Booker die but so does your Booker (the one that walked away from the baptism). I actually thought just the Comstock-Booker died, but after re-watching the ending to reply to your post (so I have everything perfectly straight in my head), I noticed that both Bookers actually die and both sets of universes are now gone. That actually makes sense because in order to just kill off the Comstocks she would have needed Comstock, not your Booker. All the Elizabeths are there because Elizabeth has the same ability as the Luteces (appear anywhere in any universe at any time that they'd like) so the Elizabeths from the other universes show up because they can as they have the ability as well.

Now you're talking about the exact time when a choice is actually made. The point of not going through the door until Booker decided ("are you sure") was to stop that from happening. Also, showing Booker everything that led up to that point probably ends up making Booker's choice a constant instead of a variable. With the information he now has (about Anna and Comstock), how can he choose to not be drowned basically. Booker is even the one that has the idea of smothering Comstock in his crib, not Elizabeth (she is taking him on the journey for him to have that revelation). There's a lot of decisions you make in your life where the there's that obvious choice (with the information you have available to you at the time) and there's probably no version of you that would've chosen differently. So there's 2 explanations right there for why a universe doesn't pop up for when your Booker decides not to be drowned: that either happened in Limbo or his choice to be drowned is a constant.

If you do pay attention closely to the ending, you'll notice the little things like Elizabeth stopping Booker from going through the door until he was sure. Or the thing I just noticed about Booker being taken back just before he makes his baptism choice (killing off both Bookers). It's obvious the writers had these issues that you bring up in mind as they wrote the ending.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

And we're officially going in circles now as you seem to be missing the point that I'm making in both cases. I'm not going to deny that I don't entirely grasp the ones your making as well, but that's likely just because we simply disagree with each other on this matter. So to sum it all up:

With Bioshock:
I still say you're doing what you accuse people of doing with Infinite: just nit-picking at the ending and creating plot-holes for yourself to get stuck in and say the ending doesn't make sense when I've given you perfectly reasonable explanations for your questions. So if nothing else, I'll simply point out the fact that even if Fontaine had concocted the most convoluted yet completely foolish assassination plan that had little to no chance of working doesn't matter. What matters is what happens when the player confront's Ryan, and Ryan's entire speech and ordering the player to kill him fit in perfectly with his personality and character and pretty much sum up his philosophy. You're trying to put the emphasis on the plan which isn't where it should be.

Just like how in Infinite, I was trying to do what you're doing with the first game. When I first beat Infinite, I was completely blank after watching the ending. Thank god that you can just select the ending from the Chapter Select menu, this way I could watch it again to see what the hell just happened. Clearly they were going for a mind-fuck of an ending and, at least for me, it delivered. Watching it for the 2nd time made me start picking out all these little details that I've been throwing at you, and all these details can be summed up purely by the game dealing with the concept of a multiverse. The Infinite in Bioshock Infinite literally stands for the infinite possibilities that can come out from the infinite "worlds" in the multiverse. As such, any "realistically" possible scenario can happen, and that means that it's easy as hell to come up with scenarios that create plotholes.

To define what I mean by a "realistic" possibility, I mean quite literally anything that could actually happen. I.E. Booker says "to hell with this" at the last moment, just as he did at the REAL baptism, and runs away. An example of an "unrealistic" possibility would be to have Hitler jump out of Songbird and lead a Nazi invasion of Columbia only to be gobbled up by Mothra who is subsequently hunted down by The Predator.

But you wanna know what REALLY sinks the ship? The simple question of "how far back do we need to go?" Sure, the baptism is the birth of Comstock.......but what about the infinite number of Bookers in the past living through Booker's pre-baptism life until they finally get to the baptism itself? Aren't THEY left with the choice of whether or not to accept the baptism? This is what I mean by "Elizabeth can bind all the universes into that single point." The only way to prevent Comstock's birth is to kill Booker at the baptism. Fair enough. But that's just one Booker out of an infinite number of them standing in line behind him. That means that in order to wipe Comstock out, you've got to utterly wipe out Booker, past, present, and future. There can't be a Booker that shows up to the baptism at all. So how far back must you go? Do you go and smother Booker's mother before she can give birth to Booker? Well you can't have one of those mother's getting away so you've got to snuff them all out by killing Booker's grandmother before his mother can be born. But wait, there's another infinite number of people we have to wipe from existence...and you can hopefully see where this is going.

But I've completely lost track of the point that I was going to make. To sum it all up: the very concept the game's story is based around by definition makes it easy as hell to poke plotholes into the story. When I first beat the game, I really didn't like the ending that much. Then I believe it was MovieBob's video - interestingly enough - on the game that got me to realize that, just like the first two games: Infinite is less about the story and much more about the characters and themes. You're not supposed to focus on the specific details of the story, but rather the specific details of the characters and beliefs and motivations and everything OTHER than the story itself. At that point I was able to enjoy Infinite as thoroughly as I was before I got to the ending. So I really don't have any problem at all with the game, honestly. I think it's fantastic and I can't wait for the DLC to start coming out for it. All I'm saying is that to pretend that the ending on an objective level - getting back to YOUR original point - is vastly superior to the first game's because of how air-tight and flawless without any holes to be found is just naïve or so awe-struck by the grand spectacle that Infinite was that you couldn't see any imperfections with it.

 

[JamesStone]

Your arguing semantics now, 'removed' was a bit wrong to say but for all intents and purposes that's basically what happened. I haven't even seen any of these diagrams you speak of but it seems they just have to add a tiny little branch saying drowned (which stops all the branching that leads to the infinite Comstocks) instead of that branch being totally removed. The Booker says 'no' to the baptism, his life goes on with infinite universes from each and every decision; The Booker that says 'yes' to the baptism, gets drowned. It seems like you don't know what 'infinite' means. Infinite branches for every decision point are not a requirement for infinite universes.

If there's a 'drowned Booker', there's also a 'not-drowned Booker'; just like there was a 'yes' branch and a 'no' branch. The game makes this very clear, and it is the whole basis for everything that happens from the moment the tears are introduced. Otherwise why are there 'infinite Comstocks' in the first place? This is obvious, and can only be explained away by (a) changing the rules arbitrarily, as you try to do in your post above, or (b) saying 'magic Lizzie did it', as others basically do. Listen to Booker and Lizzie's conversation on the boardwalks again, and think about it a bit.

Let me try to explain it like I understand.

Comstock is present on an Infinite amount of universes, but his origin is always the same. He was created when Booker said yes to the priest and accepted being baptized. Think of it as a fixed point in time (If you see the new Doctor Who, you'll get the message). It always happens like that, and it's the only way it will happen. A Booker who says yes will always create a Comstock, and small differences aside, he will always create Columbia.

A Booker who says no will always be a drunk, suicidal, depressed man. One of them will sell his daughter to one of the Comstocks. That Comstock will destroy New York, and, as the Lutece Twins imply, the other dimensions.

By killing the original source, you stop Booker from saying Yes or No, therefore denying the existence of Comstock, and as such stop the construction of Columbia.
It's like a tree. There are a lot of individual roots, and there are hundreds of leafs. But there's only one stem. Same thing with Bioshock Infinite's take on Multiverse theory. There's many ways one can get to that point. There are various ways for the point to develop. But the point is always the same.

Booker will always survive long enough for the baptize. He will always be forced to choose. How things got there, and how things go from there on are infinite in possibilities, but it will always rely on that. Take that away, and there's nowhere else to go. New ways are created (The epilogue which depicts Booker calling for Anna shows that. With Comstock gone, there's no one to kidnapp Anna, and no one to kill Booker. As such, Booker survives long enough to have a kid. What happens after that is theories and speculation - SEE MASS EFFECT 3, THAT'S HOW YOU DO IT - Ahem, sorry, lost myself there).

OT: There's no such thing as an objectively better story. It's all to personal taste. A story can be objectively more grounded/consistent, but never better.

In my opinion you are creating a problem which does not exist. Every point you talk about is explained in the game. Ryan commits suicide via Jack after he discovers he is his long-lost son, and upon realizing his dream city is doomed, he decides to die while giving a final lesson to his son. "A man chooses, a slave... obeys". The rest, explore the wiki or replay the game. If you find the explanations satisfying or not is up to your taste. But the story is not objectively worse than BIO:INF, because there's no such thing.

 

[theaudioprophet]

Say what you will about infinites story, its the only one I've played in recent memory where I had to sit for 10 minutes afterward trying to wrap my head around it, I like that

 

[Festus Moonbear]

snip

Wow, it's still going on? It's amazing how much discussion this game has generated, and definitely a good thing. Anyway, thanks for the comment; I won't reply directly to your point as I would only be repeating what RJ 17 says above (which I agree with 100%), so check that out if you haven't already. All I'll add is that I'm not saying Infinite's story is bad, only that it is not without holes - and this has nothing to do with how good or bad a story is. Citizen Kane has an enormous plot hole. It's also one of the greatest movies ever made. Here's a story with no plot holes:

"Sam was hungry. He made a sandwich. He ate the sandwich. His hunger was satiated."

That is a story with a main character, a motivation, a problem, a solution, a resolution, a setup, a payoff. It has no plot holes. It's not better than Citizen Kane. Or Bioshock. Or Bioshock Infinite.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

With Bioshock:
I still say you're doing what you accuse people of doing with Infinite: just nit-picking at the ending and creating plot-holes for yourself to get stuck in and say the ending doesn't make sense when I've given you perfectly reasonable explanations for your questions. So if nothing else, I'll simply point out the fact that even if Fontaine had concocted the most convoluted yet completely foolish assassination plan that had little to no chance of working doesn't matter. What matters is what happens when the player confront's Ryan, and Ryan's entire speech and ordering the player to kill him fit in perfectly with his personality and character and pretty much sum up his philosophy. You're trying to put the emphasis on the plan which isn't where it should be.

Fontaine's plan is what gets you to that moment with Ryan; without it, that moment doesn't happen. If the way I got there doesn't make sense, that ruins that moment (no matter how well done it was). You may have not read my initial post or you probably did and forgot that for the first 10 seconds or so I thought the twist and scene with Ryan was just fantastic. Then, I immediately thought of the vita-chambers (since those audio logs are just before meeting Ryan) and realized how bad Fontaine's plan was and that just ruins the greatness of the twist. It really seems like the writers totally forgot about those vita-chambers whereas the writers took into consideration all the points you've made against Infinite, that's the difference between the 2 stories.

Just like how in Infinite, I was trying to do what you're doing with the first game. When I first beat Infinite, I was completely blank after watching the ending. Thank god that you can just select the ending from the Chapter Select menu, this way I could watch it again to see what the hell just happened. Clearly they were going for a mind-fuck of an ending and, at least for me, it delivered. Watching it for the 2nd time made me start picking out all these little details that I've been throwing at you, and all these details can be summed up purely by the game dealing with the concept of a multiverse. The Infinite in Bioshock Infinite literally stands for the infinite possibilities that can come out from the infinite "worlds" in the multiverse. As such, any "realistically" possible scenario can happen, and that means that it's easy as hell to come up with scenarios that create plotholes.

But you wanna know what REALLY sinks the ship? The simple question of "how far back do we need to go?" Sure, the baptism is the birth of Comstock.......but what about the infinite number of Bookers in the past living through Booker's pre-baptism life until they finally get to the baptism itself? Aren't THEY left with the choice of whether or not to accept the baptism? This is what I mean by "Elizabeth can bind all the universes into that single point." The only way to prevent Comstock's birth is to kill Booker at the baptism. Fair enough. But that's just one Booker out of an infinite number of them standing in line behind him. That means that in order to wipe Comstock out, you've got to utterly wipe out Booker, past, present, and future. There can't be a Booker that shows up to the baptism at all. So how far back must you go? Do you go and smother Booker's mother before she can give birth to Booker? Well you can't have one of those mother's getting away so you've got to snuff them all out by killing Booker's grandmother before his mother can be born. But wait, there's another infinite number of people we have to wipe from existence...and you can hopefully see where this is going.

I pretty much got the gist of Infinite when I beat it. It took a bit of time to work out the exact details of what happened kinda like Inception (work out all of the dreams). But what I figured happened basically did happen. I actually only watched the ending 2 more times.

Bioshock Infinite's multiverse doesn't refer to infinite possibilities, just infinite universes existing. The game never mentions infinite possibilities as that would indeed break a lot of the plot. You just have to focus on infinite universes existing, which doesn't require infinite possibilities (that's what many people don't understand). The whole point of the constants existing in the game completely runs in contrast to infinite possibilities so I don't get why people keep bringing that up.

The story setup is that only one Booker decided to go to the baptism, all the other Bookers in all the other universes didn't go to the baptism (Elizabeth and the Luteces can see that so they know how it all started). Therefore, Comstock exists due to that one Booker, that's why Elizabeth doesn't need to bind all universes together. You kill that Booker, you kill all of Comstocks and your Booker. There can be infinite universes where there's only one Booker that goes to the baptism, it isn't a requirement for more than one Booker to go to the baptism for infinite universes to exist.

 

[RJ 17]

Bioshock Infinite's multiverse doesn't refer to infinite possibilities, just infinite universes existing. The game never mentions infinite possibilities as that would indeed break a lot of the plot.

You're still missing the point with the first game so I'll simply drop the matter, and as for the above statement: those infinite universes represent infinite possibilities. Anything that Booker could have done - that is, possible outcomes of decisions - has been done. All the possible outcomes of all the possible decisions he's made exist, that is the essence of the multiverse theory, as emphasized by the birth of Comstock stemming from a decision to get baptized.

In the phrase "Constants and Variables", the constants are objective things: like a coin landing on heads or tails. It doesn't matter in which universe that coin is flipped, it'll always land on heads (as in the beginning of the game). The number on the lottery ball will always be 77 is an example of another constant. The variables are specifically the decisions people make. Hell, in one possible universe, Booker was apparently leading the charge for the rebellion and died a martyred hero. A series of different decisions than the ones you as the player make led that universe's Booker to that position, while the Booker you play as merely has a deal with the rebels and has absolutely no intention of joining up with them.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You're still missing the point with the first game so I'll simply drop the matter, and as for the above statement: those infinite universes represent infinite possibilities. Anything that Booker could have done - that is, possible outcomes of decisions - has been done. All the possible outcomes of all the possible decisions he's made exist, that is the essence of the multiverse theory, as emphasized by the birth of Comstock stemming from a decision to get baptized.

In the phrase "Constants and Variables", the constants are objective things: like a coin landing on heads or tails. It doesn't matter in which universe that coin is flipped, it'll always land on heads (as in the beginning of the game). The number on the lottery ball will always be 77 is an example of another constant. The variables are specifically the decisions people make. Hell, in one possible universe, Booker was apparently leading the charge for the rebellion and died a martyred hero. A series of different decisions than the ones you as the player make led that universe's Booker to that position, while the Booker you play as merely has a deal with the rebels and has absolutely no intention of joining up with them.

I think you're missing my point. If the method at which I get from Point A to Point B to Point C doesn't make sense, then those moments like "would you kindly?" and meeting Ryan (no matter how great) lose whatever impact they would have had.

Yes, FOR THE MOST PART, every choice for every decision springs a new universe. There's some decisions that you make where you would always choose the same choice, that's just who you are. That results in no universe springing from the other choice(s). You have to be contemplating between choices (even if it's 99.9% for X and 0.01% for Y) for another universe to spring up. For example, Comstock is always bad (that is a constant) because that's the person he is/has become, there isn't a nice Comstock in all the infinite universes of Comstock. Comstock always chooses to buy Anna/Elizabeth instead of say adopting. If you follow the rules the game sets forth, the main plot line makes sense. I explained to you every question you had by citing specific things that happen in the ending (like not opening the door until Booker decided, Elizabeth telling Booker at the drowning exactly when and where he is so no power needed to bind the universes together, etc.); I didn't make any stretches and I didn't fill in anything that wasn't there. Yes, there's some side stuff (I mention an example in my initial post) that doesn't fit in well like the last battle where Elizabeth could've totally handled herself, but that wouldn't change how things played out at all as you still win the battle regardless and the ending would happen in exactly the same manner as it did.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

Well I had a nice big post all typed up and ready to post when I decided that it wasn't necessary. Quite simply you keep changing the rules to how the multiverse works. First the ending takes place in Limbo so decisions don't create new universes...doesn't entirely make sense, but whatever. Then you say that everything but the drowning happens in Limbo so the drowning can have an effect. Well that doesn't explain how drowning one Booker at the baptism suddenly makes the infinite number of "past Bookers" drown themselves once their existence reaches that point. Now you're saying "well only certain choices create new universes."

All three of those "explanations" are attempts to put limits on infinity, which contradicts the very name of the game itself. Soooo yeah, you've failed to prove that Infinite's ending is objectively better than the first game, and like most people on the internet have simply taken your strongly-held opinion and insisted that it's fact.

On that note, I believe we're done here. Have a pleasant day.

 

[Bashfluff]

A story with a grander scale does not have any more objective value than one of a lesser scale. The beauty lies in the telling. Bioshock made great use of its atmosphere, characters, and gameplay, at all times making its tone clear and making you feel what it wants you to. Stories are, at the heart, emotional tales or journeys, and with the original Bioshock, you got a damn good one.

What did Bioshock Infinite offer? It was supposed to be intense, sprawling, creative, and open, with the creativity stemming from this dimension hopping business, which sucked, the sprawling, open levels stemming from the design, which was linear as fuck, and the intensity coming from the combat, which became a slog somewhere around an hour and a half into the game.

It wouldn't matter if Infinite did have a better story--which it didn't--because nothing about the gameplay added to that story, but took away from it. All of its possible impact on a player was ruined by its awful design choices and linearity. But it isn't even better, as I said. The dialogue can be delivered horribly multiple times, the story is nonsensical and laughable towards the end, it was boring, it was dreary, and I was glad to be done with it.

The emotions it invoked for me? Eagerness. Eagerness to be done with the game.

 

[JamesStone]

snip

Wow, it's still going on? It's amazing how much discussion this game has generated, and definitely a good thing. Anyway, thanks for the comment; I won't reply directly to your point as I would only be repeating what RJ 17 says above (which I agree with 100%), so check that out if you haven't already. All I'll add is that I'm not saying Infinite's story is bad, only that it is not without holes - and this has nothing to do with how good or bad a story is. Citizen Kane has an enormous plot hole. It's also one of the greatest movies ever made. Here's a story with no plot holes:

"Sam was hungry. He made a sandwich. He ate the sandwich. His hunger was satiated."

That is a story with a main character, a motivation, a problem, a solution, a resolution, a setup, a payoff. It has no plot holes. It's not better than Citizen Kane. Or Bioshock. Or Bioshock Infinite.

Plot-holes are only deadly when they are glaring. In my opinion, if they can be handwaved without breaking willing suspension of disbelief, or without being too much of a stretch. Citizen Kane had the excuse that the waitress could have heard it, Bioshock Infinite had many, many excuses. As it is to say, it had some holes, but never enough to make the story confusing. In fact, their existance alone created this thread, half a year later after BIO:INF's release. So IMO "hand-wave plotholes" make any work of art better by allowing people to discuss them and creating different interpretations of their explanation.

Completely offtopic, but your avatar reminds me of TVTropes for some reason.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well I had a nice big post all typed up and ready to post when I decided that it wasn't necessary. Quite simply you keep changing the rules to how the multiverse works. First the ending takes place in Limbo so decisions don't create new universes...doesn't entirely make sense, but whatever. Then you say that everything but the drowning happens in Limbo so the drowning can have an effect. Well that doesn't explain how drowning one Booker at the baptism suddenly makes the infinite number of "past Bookers" drown themselves once their existence reaches that point. Now you're saying "well only certain choices create new universes."

All three of those "explanations" are attempts to put limits on infinity, which contradicts the very name of the game itself. Soooo yeah, you've failed to prove that Infinite's ending is objectively better than the first game, and like most people on the internet have simply taken your strongly-held opinion and insisted that it's fact.

On that note, I believe we're done here. Have a pleasant day.

I haven't change a single rule. You're the one that said the baptism takes place in Limbo (you said it was a floating island), I just corrected you saying it wasn't a floating island and it wasn't Limbo. All I ever said was that Limbo is the lighthouse area (it exists between universes), they go in and out of the lighthouse area a few times during the ending. I never directly said Limbo was the lighthouse area because I figured you understood what I was saying, I never meant to imply everything but the drowning was Limbo. Everything else is not limbo; Rapture, the baptism area, Booker's place when Anna is given away, etc. are all real places. Booker makes the decision to be drowned in the lighthouse area (Limbo), that's why Elizabeth stops you from opening the door (asking "are you sure?") because when you go through the door you're in a universe. If he made the decision in a universe, it would've likely sprung a new universe thus creating a whole new set of infinite Comstock universes, which is one of your complaints about the plot.

I didn't say all of the "past Bookers" drowned themselves, just the one Booker that went to the baptism. That Booker ends up creating 2 sets of infinites universes based on the choice to get baptized (the Comstocks) or not get baptized (the Bookers that sell Anna). You killed that one Booker and it kills off both those branches that lead to 2 different sets of infinite universes. Only one Booker ended up going to the baptism. There's still an infinite amount of Bookers that exist that never even went to the baptism, which is what the post-credit scene is referring to (as your Booker died and so did all the Comstocks).

The game says certain things and choices always happen, the Contants, not me. That's why there isn't any universe where Comstock is a benevolent person. If every choice was a variable, then there would be Comstock where he doesn't create Columbia and ends up being a normal preacher trying to help people.

You don't get infinity, you can put lots of limits and still have an infinity. For example, I can remove all numbers before 2 and after 3, and you still have an infinite amount of numbers because between just 2 and 3 there exists an infinite amount of numbers. So many people are thinking Bioshock Infinite is saying everything that could happen does happen, that is never said in the game. The game's Constants are saying the exact opposite. The "infinite" in Bioshock Infinite just refers to infinite universes, that's it, nothing more; infinite universes can exist with lots of limits.

I hope this helps you understand the story. Everything I've posted is directly referenced by the game.

A story with a grander scale does not have any more objective value than one of a lesser scale.

I'm not saying Infinite's story is better because it's scale is grander, I'm saying it's better because it makes sense while the original Bioshock doesn't.

 

[Lilani]

I get that LotR is about the journey but if the journey doesn't make sense, then I can't get invested in it. They are on the journey to basically save the world, and if there's a simple way to do it and they don't take it, then I'm just focused on how stupid the characters are. I'm not going to into the themes, ethos, pathos, logos, and all that stuff if the base story doesn't connect or make sense.

Ken Levine's been making like the same game for over a decade now, I get they are mirroring lots of things from their games. Part of Bioshock Infinite's plot was to tie everything together, "There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city." I realize there's theories tying everything from Infinite to Bioshock (Elizabeth is a little sister, DeWitt is Jack/Ryan, etc.), but I'd rather not interpret it that way because I'm not very fond of Bioshock, I'd rather have Infinite be its own thing with a "shout-out" to Bioshock and Rapture. If I was a huge Bioshock fan, I'd be looking deeper and wanting to connect everything.

So LotR doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. However that doesn't mean its storytelling methods are objectively ineffective. Never mix your personal feelings about a certain method of storytelling and how stories work in a mechanical sense.

And your refusal to accept other people's interpretations is also a sign you mix too many personal feelings into your "objective" analyses. With as many possibilities as the mechanics of Infinite offer, the idea that everything from infinite has some sort of match in the original is just as viable as the way you choose to approach it. If you're going to be truly objective, you can't just discount an interpretation because you don't like it. At least if you want to call it "objective."

I think Ryan disabled it. You can actually go up to it and you get a prompt to fix it or re-enable it or something, but that doesn't do anything (I actually did that because I search every corner when playing Bioshock). I actually expected their to be a twist revealing that Ryan was still alive. Ryan should be able to easily get away from Fontaine; he can go wherever he wants and he can't die. Ryan should have ways out of Rapture; if he came up with whole 'DNA bathysphere' thing, then he definitely should've had several contingencies to get out of Rapture (even before Rapture went to shit, it was an underwater city, shit [like a whale] can happen at really any time). The main issue isn't on Ryan's end, I'll give you that your interpretation of Ryan's motives and everything are spot-on. It's the assassination plan (which is what sets everything in motion) on Fontaine's end that doesn't make any sense. Unless Fontaine is the best psychologist ever, his plan has an almost 0 chance of actually working.

Well no, it doesn't do anything, because that isn't where the story was supposed to go. Ryan wasn't all hopped up on plasmids like Fontaine, and I don't think all the security bots in the world could save him from the army of splicers that would block his path.

And again, it's a battle of wits. Fontaine didn't just want to beat Ryan, he wanted to humiliate him and turn everything he had built against him. And remember, he did have probably the best psychologist ever on his side. That guy who programmed the protagonist and the little sisters.

I don't get the racism complaints. You either are going to have Columbia be some racism free society and ahead of its time with race issues or racism will exist like it did back then, and the latter is what they went with. Why does it have to tie into the plot so significantly? The story is about Booker and Elizabeth, and racism is just part of their world (It makes sense that Elizabeth isn't racist, but they definitely should've had a bit of dialogue concerning Booker and racism). If anything, the first Bioshock just ignored racism (were there even any blacks in Rapture?), which is worse than what Infinite did.

You can totally take out the ghost and tell the same story. They go to the cemetery, get Lady Comstock's finger, and continue on. The ghost thing doesn't screw up the main plot line. The ghost was probably mainly thrown in for the video game purposes; a new enemy, a different kind of fight, more opportunity to tell us some backstory, etc. I forget the exact explanation for the ghost.

Just to get my two cents in, I rather like what Moviebob said about this angle. Bioshock is a story that was small and slowly got bigger--a weird city that you at first think simply fell from social unrest, but you slowly find out there was a lot more going on behind the scenes. Infinite is a story that was big and slowly got smaller--a city on the verge of a revolution whose evils are revealed immediately and with nothing held back, but slowly shrinks into the story of one guy coping with the grief of what he did to his only daughter. They are parallel, yet opposite. Both had red herrings, they just took the form of different story elements. Bioshock's red herrings were in all the individual stories of corruption and pain. At the beginning you're led to believe that Rapture fell because of Ryan's whacked out values, just as every other "utopia" falls, but really it's something much more sinister. In Infinite, you're led to believe that the story is about cults and racism and the human condition, when it's really about a guy who is having a major mental breakdown being amplified and enabled by dabbling in pseudo-quantum physics. So that is why those things are there.

Both games have lots of side stories and characters that have no effect on the main narrative, but it's those details that make the worlds so rich and fun to explore. I'll never forget when you come across that guitar in Infinite and when you play it Elizabeth sings and gives an orange to the kid sitting nearby who was initially afraid of you two, and from Bioshock I'll never forget "The Ice Man fucking cometh..."

As for the racism angle, I'm pretty sure Rapture didn't have black people because like with Columbia, it was a utopia built during a racist time so nobody who wasn't white would have been invited to live there, anyway. The only difference is Columbia began shipping in the black people and the Irish for entertainment and labor purposes, but Rapture had no need to do such a thing. Rapture had people of various European descents, and maybe a few Spaniards or Mexicans IIRC. And then there's Doctor Suchong. But again, as far as the people invited to just live there and not be scientists or thugs, they would have had no interest in non-whites. Blacks may have been accepted into jazz music in the 50s and 60s, but that doesn't mean they were seen as equals in other realms of society.

 

[Bashfluff]

A story with a grander scale does not have any more objective value than one of a lesser scale.

I'm not saying Infinite's story is better because it's scale is grander, I'm saying it's better because it makes sense while the original Bioshock doesn't.[/quote]


...good luck with that.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

Well, sad as it is I honestly have nothing better to do. So here we go. Once again, I actually had a much larger post than this one that I was considering posting here, but decided to chop out a few paragraphs because it's clear that it wouldn't lead to anything but more of this cyclical discussion and I really am trying to wrap things up as I'm getting tired of repeating myself. So rather than further explaining plotholes I've already brought up, I'll just bypass all the multiverse crap and attack your thesis of "Infinite's ending is objectively better than the first game's ending" while ignoring the fact that you're stating an opinion as though it's a given fact that can quite easily be proven...which by itself negates your credibility. It's like you're trying to say that pizza tastes better than pasta. Some might agree with you, other's won't. And no matter how many toppings you talk about, you'll never be able to establish Pizza > Pasta as a given fact that anyone can easily point to the facts and prove.

You brought up the final scene in which Booker wakes up to find his dear sweet Anna still in her crib...well I'd say that ending is actually evidence that Infinite's ending is worse than the first game. So let me get this straight...we're suddenly seeing life through the eyes of a DIFFERENT Booker? One that never sold Anna in the first place (since she's still there in her room) and evidently avoided the baptism all together because you said there can be only one!----Booker that made it to the baptism and he drowned. Also, if this new Booker ever went to the Baptism he should either be dead via drowning (well he's still alive, obviously, so that's not the case) or the decision that gave birth to Comstock still exists, negating the entire ending up to this point because THIS Booker refused the baptism therefor creating another Booker that accepted it and that would utterly negate the entire point of everything that happened in the ending prior to this.

Sooooooooo by taking us to the life of a Booker that never sold Anna and never went to the baptism in the first place...isn't that basically just a big "Fuck you! It was all a dream!" ending? To this new Booker, none of the characters, events, plot, consequences, actions...NOTHING that happened in the game ever actually happened for him. It's literally the same as having your main character wake up from a wild dream at the end of a movie, and I'd say that officially makes the ending objectively WORSE than the first game's, if anything, as it becomes one of the biggest most facepalm inducing clichés in story-telling history.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So LotR doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. However that doesn't mean its storytelling methods are objectively ineffective. Never mix your personal feelings about a certain method of storytelling and how stories work in a mechanical sense.

And your refusal to accept other people's interpretations is also a sign you mix too many personal feelings into your "objective" analyses. With as many possibilities as the mechanics of Infinite offer, the idea that everything from infinite has some sort of match in the original is just as viable as the way you choose to approach it. If you're going to be truly objective, you can't just discount an interpretation because you don't like it. At least if you want to call it "objective."

No, I really like LotR. In the first reply to you, I said they can't just ride an eagle in there because Sauron has those flying things (basically their air defense). I was saying that in a situation where characters are trying to save the world (everything on the line) where there's an easy way to save the world and they don't take it, then all I can focus on is how stupid the characters are. I meant IF LotR's journey didn't make sense, then I wouldn't like LotR.

I'm not refusing to accept other people's interpretations of Infinite (or other things). I was saying that I prefer to interpret Infinite as it's own story and have as few ties to Bioshock as possible. I've skimmed through some the theories where people say Elizabeth is a little sister and such, and that's interesting. I'm not saying they're wrong and I'm right. However, I would enjoy Infinite less the more it's tied to Bioshock so I just want to keep Infinite as it's own thing (kinda like how I don't consider the Matrix sequels to exist lol). I'm guessing Infinite works out if you tie everything to Bioshock, but it also works as its own thing as well.

And again, it's a battle of wits. Fontaine didn't just want to beat Ryan, he wanted to humiliate him and turn everything he had built against him. And remember, he did have probably the best psychologist ever on his side. That guy who programmed the protagonist and the little sisters.

That's a valid point. Even with that, you can't be certain some will react in a certain way. I'm sure Fontaine or his psychologist didn't predict Ryan would figure out the mind control bit, that's a variable right there. Fontaine could've easily used Jack to in a much more effective manner to ensure of Ryan's guaranteed and complete demise.

...Moviebob...

Both games have lots of side stories and characters that have no effect on the main narrative, but it's those details that make the worlds so rich and fun to explore. I'll never forget when you come across that guitar in Infinite and when you play it Elizabeth sings and gives an orange to the kid sitting nearby who was initially afraid of you two, and from Bioshock I'll never forget "The Ice Man fucking cometh..."

As for the racism angle, I'm pretty sure Rapture didn't have black people because like with Columbia, it was a utopia built during a racist time so nobody who wasn't white would have been invited to live there, anyway. The only difference is Columbia began shipping in the black people and the Irish for entertainment and labor purposes, but Rapture had no need to do such a thing. Rapture had people of various European descents, and maybe a few Spaniards or Mexicans IIRC. And then there's Doctor Suchong. But again, as far as the people invited to just live there and not be scientists or thugs, they would have had no interest in non-whites. Blacks may have been accepted into jazz music in the 50s and 60s, but that doesn't mean they were seen as equals in other realms of society.

I like Moviebob's take on Infinite as well. I usually like Moviebob's take on most things.

Yeah, the guitar scene was great and the song ties into the plot as well.

I just get why people are like "racism wasn't tied into the plot enough" and things like that. The game or story didn't need to focus on racism any more than it did.

...It's like you're trying to say that pizza tastes better than pasta...

You brought up the final scene in which Booker wakes up to find his dear sweet Anna still in her crib...well I'd say that ending is actually evidence that Infinite's ending is worse than the first game. So let me get this straight...we're suddenly seeing life through the eyes of a DIFFERENT Booker? One that never sold Anna in the first place (since she's still there in her room) and evidently avoided the baptism all together because you said there can be only one!----Booker that made it to the baptism and he drowned. Also, if this new Booker ever went to the Baptism he should either be dead via drowning (well he's still alive, obviously, so that's not the case) or the decision that gave birth to Comstock still exists, negating the entire ending up to this point because THIS Booker refused the baptism therefor creating another Booker that accepted it and that would utterly negate the entire point of everything that happened in the ending prior to this.

Sooooooooo by taking us to the life of a Booker that never sold Anna and never went to the baptism in the first place...isn't that basically just a big "Fuck you! It was all a dream!" ending? To this new Booker, none of the characters, events, plot, consequences, actions...NOTHING that happened in the game ever actually happened for him. It's literally the same as having your main character wake up from a wild dream at the end of a movie, and I'd say that officially makes the ending objectively WORSE than the first game's, if anything, as it becomes one of the biggest most facepalm inducing clichés in story-telling history.

I don't know how many times I've said this but Infinite is better because the main plotline makes sense whereas Bioshock didn't. I'm saying a pizza made properly is a better pizza than one not made properly even if it lacks the favor.

You just don't get the plot of Infinite on a conceptual level (I can tell just by the questions you're asking me). The Booker post-credits may have sold Anna, he may have not (the game doesn't tell you every little detail, some of it is up to your interpretation). Comstock was going to universes buying any version of Anna (he just needed real son or daughter, he wasn't looking for a specific Anna) so that post-credits Booker may have sold Anna (it's up to you). I'm not inserting the "there can only be one" rule, that's the game. Elizabeth and the Luteces can see everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. They are saying that the one Booker went to the baptism and led to Comstock, that's all the game, not my doing. The other Bookers may have went to the baptism that very day but they were just slighty different enough people (through making different choices in thier life) that they didn't result in Comstock even if they got baptized nor do they die from drowning at the baptism because they aren't on the same branch of universes that's getting destroyed. Some of the Bookers may have got baptized at a later time when they evolved enough as a character to not end up becoming a Comstock. All of that is up to your interpretation, the only thing the game is saying is that there's only one Booker that accepts the baptism and becomes Comstock, that's it. You can make up whatever you want for the other Bookers except that they can't become Comstock, that's pretty much it.

To me, the point of the post-credits ending was just there showing you that other Bookers and Annas can live a normal life in their universes without Comstock coming in and fucking everything up. All the stuff in the game happened, it's not a "it was all a dream" ending.

 

[RJ 17]

To me, the point of the post-credits ending was just there showing you that other Bookers and Annas can live a normal life in their universes without Comstock coming in and fucking everything up. All the stuff in the game happened, it's not a "it was all a dream" ending.

Actually, it most specifically is. You wake up back in your office as though nothing had happened and you run to Anna's room to make sure she's ok. Just as if you had woken up from some terrible nightmare where you, oh I don't know, sold your daughter because you're a drunken loser and went to a floating city to stop a madman bent on using your super-powered daughter to wage war on civilization?

Judging by your discussions with other people, it's quite clear that you've failed to prove your point. The vast majority of your argument stems on taking things from the games which are open to interpretation and insisting that your interpretation is the correct one.