Questions Regarding The Ending To Bioshock Infinite.

[Daverson]

As I understand the "many worlds" interpretation, all versions of Comstock must begin with that Baptism (since the only way Booker wouldn't know who he is would be if Comstock choose his new name as a spur of the moment thing), therefore, if the Baptism is prevented, the entire "reality tree" of Comstocks is shut off. (Remember, according to the Quantum theory of the multiverse, alternate realities don't always exist, but are instead created when a decision happens)

I have four questions:What choice do you have to make in order to have a son-scientist instead of a daughter-scientist?

When we talk about "choice" in Quantum Mechanics it's kind of a misnomer, we aren't talking about a physical conscious action, but rather a difference in the results of uncertainty (so, in this case, a gamete "choosing" to form with a Y chromosome rather than an X one).

Of course, this doesn't help the big plot hole, which is that Max Planck didn't publish his work on Quantum Mechanics until 1918 =p

My Question Now! Fink makes it pretty clear that there's someone inside Songbird, now, I was hedging my bet that he was Elizabeth's Dad, so... who is he?

 

[Mikejames]

The entire idea of infinite variables branching off at every differing possibility is where it gets too convoluted for me.

Why is Comstock a cyclical problem? Isn't he just one of an endless amount of potential outcomes? If there's an altering reality for every possible divergence, shouldn't there be just as many realities where Comstock was a virtuous man? Or where Booker simply died tripping up the stairs to the light house? Or where there's a Columbia where Elizabeth was never locked up, and reached her full potential at a younger age?

How and why would Elizabeth try to fix multiple universes based on one decision? How is it possible to fix every potential possibility by forcing one version of Booker to kill himself?

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Is there a quantum physicist in the house? Because I've got some issues with the ending to Bioshock Infinite. Needless to say, the following box contains spoilers to the ending. Be warned: this box contains The Great Wall of Text, as any ending as mind-crushing as this one practically demands when trying to discuss the details of it.

snip

I don't know about the nose-bleed effect, but Booker doesn't have any double-memory issues because his memory was wiped after going through a tear from his own universe to Comstock's (i.e. the universe where the game is set). Hence the quote at the start: "The subject will desperately try to create memories where none exist."

And when Future!Elizabeth sends you through a tear to her time, she affects the past so that you were able to save her from Comstock.

How is it possible to fix every potential possibility by forcing one version of Booker to kill himself?

I think the implication is that Elizabeth takes you to some kind of superposition of all of the realities, judging by the infinite amount of lighthouses you can see. She actually kills every possible version of Booker that became Comstock.

I have four questions:

1) Who is the fellow in the lighthouse with a bullet through his head?
2) Who put the note on the door to the lighthouse?
3) Rapture is what exactly? Is there another Booker coming to save another Liz in Rapture?
4) What choice do you have to make in order to have a son-scientist instead of a daughter-scientist?

Most other things have been wrapped up or left with sufficient plot wiggle room so it can be handwaved.

1) Might be an alternate Booker that didn't fare so well. It's implied that the Luteces have been at this for a while now.
2) The Luteces. They're unstuck in space and time; they can go anywhere and do anything.
3) Rapture is just another example of the archetypal story- a man, a lighthouse and a city.
4) The only difference between them is a chromosome. Not a big difference between two universes- all it requires is a few molecules to be different.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

The entire idea of infinite variables branching off at every differing possibility is where it gets too convoluted for me.

Why is Comstock a cyclical problem? Isn't he just one of an endless amount of potential outcomes? If there's an altering reality for every possible divergence, shouldn't there be just as many realities where Comstock was a virtuous man? Or where Booker simply died tripping up the stairs to the light house? Or where there's a Columbia where Elizabeth was never locked up, and reached her full potential at a younger age?

How and why would Elizabeth try to fix multiple universes based on one decision? How is it possible to fix every potential possibility by forcing one version of Booker to kill himself?

Comstock is Booker without any sense of guilt, he believes that his actions at Wounded Knee is an action of a hero and that he was killing evil injuns and people who threaten the American values of Exceptionism. He does not felt his actions at Wounded Knee was an awful thing.

 

[Vykrel]

i dont really feel like reading all that, but assuming you have issue mainly with the notion of you-know-what happening which causes everything to be hunky-dory, keep in mind that many different Bookers and Elizabeths were doing the same thing ours were. remember that when walking around at the end of the game, you see other versions of Booker and Elizabeth doing the same thing you are doing.

so, they are all working together to prevent the Comstock reality.

 

[CoL0sS]

snip

I just finished the game and came up with mostly the same conclusions, except I didn't really consider that possible paradox. I just thought all Elizabeths and all those worlds were simply wiped out due to Comstock never really existing.

Now I'm thoroughly mindfucked again

EDIT: As I was writing this I saw that @DrunkenMonkey already explained this (somewhat) XD

 

[Abomination]

If all the elizabeth's vanished except the last one that would be a paradox.

Here's the question though, does her vanishing PREVENT a paradox or does she vanish because she would CAUSE a paradox? Going back in time to kill yourself does create a paradox no matter what because if you killed yourself you would never have been able to grow older to go back in time and kill yourself, thus preventing you from killing yourself - so you can't do it but you do. This is what happens to Elizabeth but since it would cause a paradox the particular universe just ceases.

 

[DrunkenMonkey]

If all the elizabeth's vanished except the last one that would be a paradox.

Here's the question though, does her vanishing PREVENT a paradox or does she vanish because she would CAUSE a paradox? Going back in time to kill yourself does create a paradox no matter what because if you killed yourself you would never have been able to grow older to go back in time and kill yourself, thus preventing you from killing yourself - so you can't do it but you do. This is what happens to Elizabeth but since it would cause a paradox the particular universe just ceases.

I'm sorry I should have phrased my argument a lot better, but what you have to keep in mind is that Bioshock Infinite does not use time travel as it's plot device, but parallel worlds. If you ever watched "Steins Gate" you would be able to make the connection that for every decision worlds are created, and thus keep branching out like a tree's limbs into infinity. In real world terms that would be something similar to chaos theory. But Infinite set up the constants and variables rule where not every possibility can exist. For instance the coin Booker flips will always be heads, Booker will always go to the baptism after Wounded Knee. There exists no timelines where the coin flips tails, or Booker somehow doesn't go to the baptism after wounded knee, they are the constants or the focal points if you will.

Time travel is not really in infinite because they do not go back in time to the actual baptism event, but to the focal point where Booker either decides to get the baptism and become Comstock, or refuse and remain as the Booker that we are playing as, and who eventually marries and has a kid. The baptism that we are shown is a metaphysical event where in order to avoid a grandfather paradox, Elizabeth drowns Booker right as he chooses the baptism, since that is a constant in its own way (Booker either chooses the baptism, or he does not) they have to rewrite the constant so that it becomes booker can take the baptism, but he sure as hell doesn't have to survive it. So in turn every Booker that takes the baptism is drowned.

The brings us to the end where the entity known as Comstock ceases to exist, because they drowned Booker's baptismal rebirth, and thus Elizabeth ceases to exist because her personality, and her path in the grand ocean of timelines is directly caused by Comstock. All the Bookers who refused the Baptism have their timeline branches preserved.

Picture this, When Booker now Comstock is drowned, what happens is all the tree branches that existed or will exist will vanish, because Comstock is their progenitor, thus many worlds simply become nonexistant. Which finally brings us to the love it or hate it part of the ending. The events of Bioshock Infinite by the time the post credits role never happened. The silver lining is that it is not " just a dream" ending because the goal of the game

SPOILERS



is Booker recovering anna, or simply Booker never having Anna stolen from him by Comstock in the first place, this happens in every possible universe, either Booker sells her, or Comstock takes her by force. This part is debatable because is Anna being abducted by Comstock a variable or a constant. It's most likely a variable if you interpret the post credits scene as a happy ending where Comstock does not exist to take Anna away. On the other hand if its a constant, then the scene can be interpreted as a downer ending where the heroes lose, and comstock still exist.

Thats the end of my long explanation, but I hope that clears up the time travel paradox confusion. Thanks for reading if you made it this far.

 

[DrunkenMonkey]

Double post sorry

 

[Smeggs]

I have four questions:

Spoiler

1) Who is the fellow in the lighthouse with a bullet through his head?
2) Who put the note on the door to the lighthouse?
3) Rapture is what exactly? Is there another Booker coming to save another Liz in Rapture?
4) What choice do you have to make in order to have a son-scientist instead of a daughter-scientist?

Most other things have been wrapped up or left with sufficient plot wiggle room so it can be handwaved.

1. Those weren't Booker's clothes, nor were they very unique, so probably just the lighthouse owner, killed by Lutesce or Comstock. There are notes in the Lighthouse signed as C. Warning of your coming to Columbia soon. I'm sure the Lutesce's (however you spell that damn name)did it, as they were trying to get revenge on Comstock for killing them.

2. One of the two Lutesce's, most likely. It was the male one who initially came for Anna and was the recurring one bringing up how Booker needs to give her to them to wipe away his debt.

3. Rapture is an alternate reality, created instead of Columbia. The other Booker would have been Jack, and the other Elizabeth the Little Sisters, as well as Comstock being Ryan. Jack was basically a clone of Ryan created by Ryan's self=-made enemy, Fontaine, to overthrow Ryan. Ryan is the father of Rapture, and is basically the one who requisitioned the professor to create the little sisters, which in some weird way could be considered as him being their father, meaning Jack being Ryan's clone is also their metaphorical father. He also adopts them in the good ending.

4. Umm...what?

 

[Abomination]

Time travel is not really in infinite because they do not go back in time to the actual baptism event, but to the focal point where Booker either decides to get the baptism and become Comstock, or refuse and remain as the Booker that we are playing as, and who eventually marries and has a kid.

Either way, as you said, if Elizabeth were to continue to exist it would create a paradox. Now does she disappear BECAUSE that's what a paradox causes or does she disappear to prevent one? It's a bit too metaphysical and requires an understanding as to the rules of something that is naturally breaking the rules of everything so there will never be a definate answer.

I think the end result we can all agree on is whatever they did prevents Comstock and thus Columbia and thus Elizabeth. Does it mean that a Booker somewhere gets to live a life with Anna without selling her? Sure. It also doesn't discredit the other scenarios where Booker could have just died at Wounded Knee.

I guess it's not so much a matter of building/saving a universe but destroying a branch that endagers others.

 

[DrunkenMonkey]

Time travel is not really in infinite because they do not go back in time to the actual baptism event, but to the focal point where Booker either decides to get the baptism and become Comstock, or refuse and remain as the Booker that we are playing as, and who eventually marries and has a kid.

Either way, as you said, if Elizabeth were to continue to exist it would create a paradox. Now does she disappear BECAUSE that's what a paradox causes or does she disappear to prevent one? It's a bit too metaphysical and requires an understanding as to the rules of something that is naturally breaking the rules of everything so there will never be a definate answer.

I think the end result we can all agree on is whatever they did prevents Comstock and thus Columbia and thus Elizabeth. Does it mean that a Booker somewhere gets to live a life with Anna without selling her? Sure. It also doesn't discredit the other scenarios where Booker could have just died at Wounded Knee.

I guess it's not so much a matter of building/saving a universe but destroying a branch that endagers others.

If I were to speak outside of the plot's rules, I'd have to say she has to disappear in order to prevent it, simply because something cannot exist without its birth. That's just logic, So for her to continue existing in any form is an contradiction which is the very form of a paradox, not a temporal one, but a literally physical one. The question then becomes did Levine write it this way in order to preserve logic, or whether it's just us overthinking it too much. I'd like to prefer that Levine wrote it that way.

edit: now that I think about it Levine did write it this way because like I mentioned for Elizabeth to exist, Comstock has to exist also.

No comstock, no elizabeth which makes it pretty logical, lol.

edit 2: Yes I agree this plot is basically destroying branches to protect others. I'm pretty sure if there are infinite worlds, somebody other than Comstock has discovered ways to play around and endanger the fabric of reality.

 

[Abomination]

Time travel is not really in infinite because they do not go back in time to the actual baptism event, but to the focal point where Booker either decides to get the baptism and become Comstock, or refuse and remain as the Booker that we are playing as, and who eventually marries and has a kid.

Either way, as you said, if Elizabeth were to continue to exist it would create a paradox. Now does she disappear BECAUSE that's what a paradox causes or does she disappear to prevent one? It's a bit too metaphysical and requires an understanding as to the rules of something that is naturally breaking the rules of everything so there will never be a definate answer.

I think the end result we can all agree on is whatever they did prevents Comstock and thus Columbia and thus Elizabeth. Does it mean that a Booker somewhere gets to live a life with Anna without selling her? Sure. It also doesn't discredit the other scenarios where Booker could have just died at Wounded Knee.

I guess it's not so much a matter of building/saving a universe but destroying a branch that endagers others.

If I were to speak outside of the plot's rules, I'd have to say she has to disappear in order to prevent it, simply because something cannot exist without its birth. That's just logic, So for her to continue existing in any form is an contradiction which is the very form of a paradox, not a temporal one, but a literally physical one. The question then becomes did Levine write it this way in order to preserve logic, or whether it's just us overthinking it too much. I'd like to prefer that Levine wrote it that way.

edit: now that I think about it Levine did write it this way because like I mentioned for Elizabeth to exist, Comstock has to exist also.

No comstock, no elizabeth which makes it pretty logical, lol.

edit 2: Yes I agree this plot is basically destroying branches to protect others. I'm pretty sure if there are infinite worlds, somebody other than Comstock has discovered ways to play around and endanger the fabric of reality.

... and that's why it's called Bioshock: Infinite.

I can't belive it took me that long to recognize that.

 

[meepop]

I have questions, but they're not about the ending. So I dunno if this is the right thread for these, but anyway . . .

- Songbird. Why did he turn hostile again after destroying the siphon? The pan-pipe thing seems to stop working on him.

- Also, (and this *does* kinda relate to the ending), why did we bother defending that ship at all in the final battle? WE NEVER EVEN ENDED UP USING IT.

- The initials on the back of your hand, "AD", apparently the mark of the "false shepard".
Why did the preacher that baptises you at the start not see that on your hand? I mean, you fell unconscious and they presumably had to drag you outside beside those statues. It's strange no one even noticed the 'AD' brand until much later.

- Finally; a bit of a physics gripe but, when you fall from a great height (like bailing from a zeppelin), and latch-on to a sky-line, the force of momentum, and the speed at which you're falling, would cause your arm to be ripped clean out of its socket. Why does this not happen to Booker?

He's Elizabeth's guardian. Programmed to feel betrayed if she leaves; this is why he hunts her down, and why he's considered similar to or indeed basically being a Big Daddy. He doesn't mature or change; he's programmed with "Protect girl, watch her, keep her safe, keep her well." To him, anyone else is an intruder, a bad person meant to harm his "Little Sister".

After the Siphon is gone, where Elizabeth was kept, the pan-pipe glows white and Booker drops it. So presumably, it's sort of a "command console". Hence the previous encounter. Once it's broken, so too is the control on him.

 

[Mikejames]

Comstock is Booker without any sense of guilt, he believes that his actions at Wounded Knee is an action of a hero and that he was killing evil injuns and people who threaten the American values of Exceptionism. He does not felt his actions at Wounded Knee was an awful thing.

But if different Bookers could have different mind-sets in choosing whether or not to get baptized, why don't we see different Comstocks having diverging moralities on whether or not to rule as a tyrant?

And if the idea was that Elizabeth was killing every version of Booker that becomes Comstock, how does that effect their own realities beyond not affecting the Booker that we know? Weren't Comstock's and Luteces' experiments the reason that Elizabeth got this power in the first place?

 

[Pinkamena]

I thought it was very simple. Also obvious spoilers.

After Booker's successful baptism he becomes Comstock and in turn DOES found Columbia but does NOT sire Anna due to the trans-dimensional technology making him infertile and aging him. This in turn allows the Luteces to have the funding and patronage needed to actually create a tear to unite each other, piggybacking on Comstock's abduction and adoption of Anna/Elizabeth.

In the reality where Booker refuses the baptism he does NOT found Columbia but he DOES sire Anna AFTER the baptism refusal, who in turn he hands over to the Lutece brother to wipe away some gambling debt - that was likely created by Comstock in the first place.

Booker is taken to the point in time where he was to be baptized, which is also where Comstock is 'born'. "Smothered in the crib" takes on a new meaning and now due to Elizabeth's unlocked power EVERY Booker who was to be baptized is drowned in the process. This prevents Comstock ever being 'born' but in turn would prevent Elizabeth ever being abducted, adopted and created.

I like to think there are realities where Booker never even considers the baptism and in turn probably still goes on to sire Anna. But without a Comstock there is no Lutece sister with the patronage and funding to ask a Lutece brother to demand Anna in payment for a debt... whatever happens there is no Columbia and therefore no trans-dimensional travel - at least caused by Booker/Comstock.

Not only does Elizabeth kill Booker and therefore any possibility for Comstock, she also creates a situation where she never existed as Elizabeth. This is the paradox. How could Elizabeth go to a time to prevent herself ever existing and still exist to perform the act? My theory is that is why the game just cuts to black on the final piano note - due to her causing the paradox the reality never existed at all. Hence the sudden blackness.

Well yeah, there exist a timeline where he never even consider becoming baptized, just as there exist a timeline where he might buy a horse, paint it pink and ride it around the countryside. Every choice or event that could have multiple outcomes spawn a new reality/timeline. But only the ones where Booker consider being baptized matter to the story.

 

[Abomination]

Comstock is Booker without any sense of guilt, he believes that his actions at Wounded Knee is an action of a hero and that he was killing evil injuns and people who threaten the American values of Exceptionism. He does not felt his actions at Wounded Knee was an awful thing.

But if different Bookers could have different mind-sets in choosing whether or not to get baptized, why don't we see different Comstocks having diverging moralities on whether or not to rule as a tyrant?

And if the idea was that Elizabeth was killing every version of Booker that becomes Comstock, how does that effect their own realities beyond not affecting the Booker that we know? Weren't Comstock's and Luteces' experiments the reason that Elizabeth got this power in the first place?

I think the Asian gunsmith is a good example of how there could be different Comstocks. Remember how at the start the idea of inter-racial marriage was completely outlawed but in some situations he is married to a white woman who has significant clout with the government? There are different Comstocks with different opinions which in turn led to different situations for Columbia.

There are infinite possibilities for Comstock so there could be one where Columbia is a complete utopia of equality, fairness and love of all creatures great and small... and one guarded by flying sharks with lasers on their heads.

 

[Therumancer]

Comstock is Booker without any sense of guilt, he believes that his actions at Wounded Knee is an action of a hero and that he was killing evil injuns and people who threaten the American values of Exceptionism. He does not felt his actions at Wounded Knee was an awful thing.

But if different Bookers could have different mind-sets in choosing whether or not to get baptized, why don't we see different Comstocks having diverging moralities on whether or not to rule as a tyrant?

And if the idea was that Elizabeth was killing every version of Booker that becomes Comstock, how does that effect their own realities beyond not affecting the Booker that we know? Weren't Comstock's and Luteces' experiments the reason that Elizabeth got this power in the first place?

Let me put it this way. What we're looking at is a terrible ending, not a Mass Effect 3 level of horrible, but a case where a bunch of writers who couldn't think of what to do decided to resort to the laziest possible way of trying to be profound: that is the creation of an infinite paradox. In the final equasion a lot of questions here can't be answered, which is kind of the point, it generates a lot of discussion for the point of discussion, and we see it every time someone does something generally good up until this kind of a lazy ending. As far as fandom goes we've more or less
been here with things like "Lost" before.

Indeed the nature of the ending seemed to have been leaked before the game came out, because I seem to remember hearing what the "infinite" subtitle meant before it even came out.

Your absolutly correct though, that by it's own intristic logic there would be a lot of cases where Booker was baptized but wasn't quite the same person he was when it broke down into the "sides" as we know them. Heck there would logically be dimensions where his baptism was a good thing, and "Comstock" was an outright benevolent figure. In the scope of this game it would be sort of like DC's parallel universe where Superman is a villain, and Lex Luthor is the world's greatest hero, etc...

That said, I'd imagine some of these questions are inherantly being held off for DLC. It's important to note that "Bioshock: Infinite", is not a complete game. Tons of DLC rounding it out was planned right from the beginning, this game getting attention due to being a high profile release that was also trying to get people to pre-order the DLC.

I sort of suspect that half the point of the lazy ending and all the "questions" and logical faults present within it, is specifically to get people to buy the DLC in hopes that they will clarify things and come up with a more solid ending.

That said as far as quality and pretty much everything up until the ending Bioshock is a pretty damn good game, my biggest concern (Elizabeth as a companion) was dispelled early, and it's probably going to set a standard as to what AI companion characters should be from here on if nothing else. Despite it's incredibly high reviews I am sort of wondering how well the game will fare reputation wise a few years after it's final DLC is released. Speaking for myself I think the original "Bioshock" was better because love it or hate it, it's storyline and reveals all wrapped up nicely, there wasn't the same kind of discussion along the lines "yeah well, I get what they are saying, but if that follows wouldn't this mean that this and that other thing are by definition true, which makes their entire ending and it's logic questionable" for weeks after it's release.

For my part I've been playing it a bit (but mostly screwing around with Defiance right now), my big "issue" here seems to be that Booker and Elizabeth suffer from a distinct lack of creativity. Given that Elizabeth is a big player due to her power to open and control tears more or less at will, even within it's limitations I'd think she could come up with some much better plans/gimmicks than what we see here. What's more Booker seems like a moron, which is odd given that he's supposed to be Comstock who is arguably a charismatic genius/master planner who was the driving force behind Columbia and all of that. Being the same guy you'd expect the same kind of inherant genius/planning to be present, it's not like baptism raised his IQ 100 points. While I suppose it would ruin the kind of game they wanted to make it kind of struck me that we should be expecting Booker to be acting at a much higher level and able to play Comstock's own games right back with him. For example when his best plan is "well I'll kill myself" it's almost head scratching. By definition Booker should be portrayed as a general genius given where Comstock went, and I'd kind of expect more of a Moriarty/Holmes relationship.... the quintessential genius playing chess against himself.

 

[meepop]

For my part I've been playing it a bit (but mostly screwing around with Defiance right now), my big "issue" here seems to be that Booker and Elizabeth suffer from a distinct lack of creativity. Given that Elizabeth is a big player due to her power to open and control tears more or less at will, even within it's limitations I'd think she could come up with some much better plans/gimmicks than what we see here. What's more Booker seems like a moron, which is odd given that he's supposed to be Comstock who is arguably a charismatic genius/master planner who was the driving force behind Columbia and all of that. Being the same guy you'd expect the same kind of inherant genius/planning to be present, it's not like baptism raised his IQ 100 points. While I suppose it would ruin the kind of game they wanted to make it kind of struck me that we should be expecting Booker to be acting at a much higher level and able to play Comstock's own games right back with him. For example when his best plan is "well I'll kill myself" it's almost head scratching. By definition Booker should be portrayed as a general genius given where Comstock went, and I'd kind of expect more of a Moriarty/Holmes relationship.... the quintessential genius playing chess against himself.

Did you beat the game? Did you get to the point where

Spoiler

It's revealed that Comstock has the powers of a prophet through the Luteces? No, really. That's why. How is Booker supposed to compete when he's going up against a guy who has seen/could see (if he wanted to) into the future? It doesn't give Comstock super intelligence or smarts, but it's been revealed that tears were used more than we think. Maybe Comstock used tears to get books from other periods; or even before Columbia, building a city is no small venture. He did research that Booker didn't do; Booker joined the Pinkertons. Comstock would have time to research and plan and head the construction of the great city.

Consequently, your only reasoning for calling Booker a moron is his decision. It's 1912. It's not 2013, okay? He has not studied quantum physics, and he isn't aware of the big reveal, or the result. In fact,

Spoiler

Beforehand, he even states he wants to smother Comstock in his crib! It's not so much "I'll kill myself" as "I'll kill Comstock because I DON'T KNOW I'M HIM YET." And if you saw a bunch of the same girl you'd been with, who you realized was your daughter that you gave up, wouldn't you be a little confused? Consequently, it's Booker's DAUGHTER. Why would he harm her or try to get away, if that's your proposal?