Bioshock Infinite Announced

[quote name='elessar123']The world wasn't that amazing. Music wasn't bad. Elizabeth was awesome. The story wasn't that well crafted, especially compared to Bioshock 1. It wasn't a bad game, but I'm seriously wondering why everyone is saying it's the guaranteed GOTY.[/QUOTE]

What other game gives you a vibrant background like that?

I assume you played on console also? If not you can really see the world come to life on PC. That and I just like that it wasn't another dark/dimly lit surroundings. Too many games take that route to hide some design flaws or save space.

It was a very good game in a year that has been kinda down. It probably wouldn't go in my top 10 all time. But it definitely deserved quite a bit of this praise. Music was at least good. AI was decent to good. Help AI was great. Voice acting was good to great. Gameplay was fluid. Frame rate dropped once in a while on consoles due to the world so a slight hit there.

I will say the story was just good. The middle wasn't explained for too long so I started to just be confused.

Overall I definitely think it deserves accolades and some GOTY talk. Especially in a down-ish year so far
 
Elizabeth was an interesting character, but I'm not sure how someone could say she had good AI? She cringed during every confrontation and the enemies just ran past her. At random times I pressed the X button. Helpful, sure. Good AI, not convinced.
 
[quote name='Jimmienoman']What other game gives you a vibrant background like that?

I assume you played on console also? If not you can really see the world come to life on PC. That and I just like that it wasn't another dark/dimly lit surroundings. Too many games take that route to hide some design flaws or save space.[/QUOTE]

You know this game takes the opposite route to save space, right? It turns on the lighting to full instead of darkening everything.

I played on PC on max, btw.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Elizabeth was an interesting character, but I'm not sure how someone could say she had good AI? She cringed during every confrontation and the enemies just ran past her. At random times I pressed the X button. Helpful, sure. Good AI, not convinced.[/QUOTE]

This is also true. Low on salts in combat? She finds salt. Low on ammo in combat? She finds the gun you're using. Low on health in combat? She finds you health. Combat ended after she offers you something? She tosses it!
 
I assume you played on console also? If not you can really see the world come to life on PC. That and I just like that it wasn't another dark/dimly lit surroundings. Too many games take that route to hide some design flaws or save space.
Click to expand...
True, but I think you could argue everything looks better on PC. Regardless of the actual graphical quality, the art style shows through on all systems, which is probably the most important thing in my opinion.

[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Elizabeth was an interesting character, but I'm not sure how someone could say she had good AI? She cringed during every confrontation and the enemies just ran past her. At random times I pressed the X button. Helpful, sure. Good AI, not convinced.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't quite understand all the compliments to the AI. As I said before, she does have some dynamic actions when you're walking around like automatically sitting down at a nearby bench or what have you, but that's not stuff that exactly sets the AI world on fire. It seemed like alot of times in firefights she would just crouch down while bullets just whizzed by her.

I didn't really much pay attention to verify it, but I had the impression that she never really "warped" while you were turned the other way, which IMO is worth it's share of kudos:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13YlEPwOfmk
 
Regarding the Lady Comstock encounter:

So if you just sit in front of the vault door, you can just pot shot the bad guy and never have to worry about dying. The ledge that I don't think you are supposed to be able to climb up, is totally climbable and let's you get extra ammo without dying.


Any similar ways to beat her in the graveyard? Almost finished with my second playthrough and start 1999 mode.
 
[quote name='slickkill77']No one really knows. They said they would tell other stories so hopefully some actual story DLC like Bioshock 2 got.
I'm guessing one piece of story dlc, challenge rooms/horde mode of some kind, clothing/guns/vigors. Hopefully they will expand upon the
infinite universes aspect as far as story or locations. They could probably tell Bookers story at Wounded knee. The Vox take over of Columbia

One thing this game did get absolutely right is the death's. This is one of the first game's where I wasn't absolutely pissed at some part of the game that I got stuck on. Far Cry 3 did this pretty well too. No matter how hard a part was or how many times I got my ass kicked I always felt like I would get by it. Well other than the Siren/ghost fight. Most other games have those absolutely frustrating moments that I get stuck on for hours and it makes me want to stop playing. Dead Space 3 did this to me very early on.[/QUOTE]

Which part of DS3 did you get stuck on? I don't remember the game being stupidly hard at any point other than the one hit kill rappling segments which were just stupid.

I would definitely buy into DLC branching out into other universes depending where they go with it.
 
Wouldn't the DLC have more impact if you played as other characters? It would be cool to see how everyone ended up where they were at the start of infinite.

Same could be said of Tomb Raider. Why there isn't a single player campaign focusing on Roth?
 
[quote name='slickkill77']
I don't feel like looking back in the thread, but from what I remember you and about two other people didn't like the game from the very beginning. And your opinion didn't change throughout your play time. Seems like you went in wanting to not like it for whatever reason, but everyone doesn't have the same tastes. I thought Fallout 3 was horribly boring and it was critically praised. We don't like the game just because it was complicated. The world that was crafted was amazing. The music was awesome. Elizabeth's AI was awesome. The story was very well crafted. Gun play was solid.[/QUOTE]
The game was easily GOTY till about halfway through, when the game play got repetitive and the story went to shit.
 
I played this on pc but since there isn't really a pc thread I will post my thoughts in here.

First of all, I really enjoyed the game a lot. The combat was probably the best in the series so far (although I don't think it was a huge step up from the combat in Bioshock 2, which was awesome). The vigors were fun to use with most if not all of them completely viable to use in almost any situation. The graphics on pc were amazing, the lighting is some of the best I've ever seen in a game. The music was also great, the few "oldies" tunes you get to hear was a really cool experience. I especially loved the banter between Booker and Elizabeth when they hear
"Fortunate Son", I think they ask each other who would've ever heard this song and they conclude no one has haha, a nice moment of humor in the game for me.
The one thing I didn't care for gameplay wise was the whole thing where everywhere you turn you basically have to sit there and just mash "E" (or "X" on a 360 controller I think) to loot everything. It's not a fun mechanic and it completely devalues all the "loot" in the game. I never even looked/cared about anything I found, when it's almost 100% always something you would want you just hit "collect all" and move on with the rest of you life. It's not fun and is in the end completely unnecessary. I know I'm not the only one who has had this complaint but I still wanted to mention it.

In the end as awesome as Columbia was as a setting for a game I still prefer Rapture. At the end when you
go back to Rapture just for a brief minute it made me realize how amazing that place is and how much of an impact it left on me, a greater impact than I feel Columbia will leave on me.

When it was all said and done I have to say I was a little disappointed in how "sci-fi" the story ended up being. You get so much thrown at you in the last 30 minutes of the game I'm just not sure it was executed the best that it could of been. I know it must be incredibly difficult to tell a story like this and not have it seem convoluted, and maybe it was done the best that it could have been (Ken Levine and the rest at Irrational are some of the best in the business after all) but I just can't help but feel like it could've been done a little more..... I don't know....cleanly?

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way but in the end (to me) Bioshock 1 is a better executed and overall better game than Bioshock Infinite. While the gameplay and graphics may be improved in Infinite the story twist was much more shocking in the original than in Infinite imo.
The use of "Would you Kindly" in the original game was so ingenious, it was something that was easily remembered and after the twist you could go back in your head and remember hearing that repeatedly. It made you feel like the game had played you, that Andrew Ryan had played you, that Ken Levine had played you. I never felt like that in Infinite, it felt more like a mystery wrapped in a riddle which is then unwrapped revealing a multiple universes science fiction story.....not as effective a narrative for me.

Ultimately 5 years from now I believe people will still remember Bioshock 1 before Bioshock Infinite. The original will stick with people longer than it's successor, which IMO means it was a more effective and overall better experience.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Well I finished it and cannot for the life of me understand all the praise it is getting. Complicated doesn't mean good.

I wonder if gamers need to get out more. (have you not seen Back to the Future 2?)

I think Bioshock 1 (save for the boss fight) was in every way better.[/QUOTE]


Couldn't disagree more.
 
I've been reading a lot of people saying meh to the ending or that it's just complicated sci-fi. Sit back and reflect on it and then you'll see how good it really is. That's all I'll say about that fact, I'm not here to change your minds. I told a friend I compared this to the Mass Effect 3 ending and said see even though they threw a wrench into it they didn't just throw in a damn STAR CHILD and retcon their IP! lol The thing was it went from start to finish in one masterly blended memorable experience imo.
 
[quote name='Ryuukishi']Was just watching the E3 demo from way back in 2011. It's funny how some elements from this demo made it into the final game, some did but in greatly altered form, and some didn't at all.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah apparently there were many iterations with this game, a lot of things changed and a lot of staff changes occurred. I'm glad some of the things we saw from the E3 footage actually didn't make it into the game as gameplay. There's one thing with presentation and another with execution. One example is we see more control of Elizabeth in relation to the player (as in the combat) compared to how we interact with her with the final product.
 
Just to be clear. I think Bioshock 1 is superior in almost every way to this game, but that doesn't mean this game is bad. It's going to be really damn hard to top Bioshock 1


For gear and vigors...I can't think of specifics but these are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

One piece made people catch on fire when you hit them with your skyhook
One piece gave me 40% more ammo or 40% chance that guys would drop ammo
One piece gave me life every mele kill
One piece gave me faster recharge time on the shield and something else involving the shield.

Devils Kiss, Murder of Crows and Possession were the three vigors I used 90% of the time
 
[quote name='Spybreak8']I've been reading a lot of people saying meh to the ending or that it's just complicated sci-fi. Sit back and reflect on it and then you'll see how good it really is. That's all I'll say about that fact, I'm not here to change your minds. I told a friend I compared this to the Mass Effect 3 ending and said see even though they threw a wrench into it they didn't just throw in a damn STAR CHILD and retcon their IP! lol The thing was it went from start to finish in one masterly blended memorable experience imo.[/QUOTE]
The more you sit back and think about it the worse it gets, it just makes you see even more inconsistencies and contrivances and
the Deus ex machina seems even worse
 
[quote name='Jimmienoman']Overall I definitely think it deserves accolades and some GOTY talk. Especially in a down-ish year so far[/QUOTE]

Downish? Tomb Raider was great. Far Cry 3 was really solid. Didn't play Dead Space 3 but people seem to like it. This game -- even though I wasn't crazy about the convoluted nature of the ending -- is absolutely worth playing. YMMV I guess :)
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']The more you sit back and think about it the worse it gets, it just makes you see even more inconsistencies and contrivances and
the Deus ex machina seems even worse
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. They certainly could've done a better job -- instead the "big reveal" felt like M. Night Shyamalan came up with a Scooby-Doo ending to explain it all.
 
Well I am glad I have not been reading the thread for awhile. Like most things on the internet eventually the negative nellies show up.

Anyway, first sales numbers are coming in. While not Halo or COD numbers it sold well (maybe not in comparison to budget). In comparison to another long gestating game, Tomb Raider, the game looks to at least sold twice the number of copies. Pretty sure PC sales numbers are physical copies only so digital sales are not included.

US
:360: 458,983
:ps3: 219,646
:pc: 104,334

UK
:360: 94,240
:ps3: 43,907
:pc: 9,111


Looking at Bioshock and Bioshock 2 #s and it is looking like about a 50-60% increase in week 1 sales in the US which has to be a good sign for Take-Two and Irrational.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Well I am glad I have not been reading the thread for awhile. Like most things on the internet eventually the negative nellies show up.

[/QUOTE]


oh just shut up....everything isn't kool-aid and rainbows

it's sad how all the folks with crushes on Ken Levine are so quick to dismiss anyone who dares to think it's not the greatest game evah
 
[quote name='usickenme']oh just shut up....everything isn't kool-aid and rainbows

it's sad how dismissive all the folks with a man-crushes on Ken Levine are so quick to dismiss anyone who dares to think it's not the greatest game evah[/QUOTE]

Hey look we got a big man here. Tell me to shut up to my face. Otherwise just keep it to yourself or better yet just ignore me.

I don't mind criticisms but when people pretend like they could do better it is dam funny to me. The internet is full of brilliant game designers.
 
[quote name='Jimmienoman']I loved this part! It was an actual epic battle in Bioshock. It was Great! Was I one of the select few that didn't have a ton of trouble with this on hard? I had to redo it 2 or 3 times, but didn't think it was impossible in the slightest.

I ended up using songbird on Zeps. Possessed the Patriots. Crows/Jockey trap near stairs in case any broke through. Stayed in the back near the med kits and spawned them when i needed them. Then just head shot with sniper the rest. Ducked for cover when reloading. The sniper is actually really good responsiveness. The sniper is ridiculously OPed in this game. I guess it probably would have been a ton more challenging if I didn't snipe. I am used to quickscoping from CoD so it was pretty natural.
[/QUOTE]

it is an epic battle but i seriously cant beat it lol
my possession only lasts about 5 seconds so its basically a waste of vigor. i only use songbird for the zeps/gun ships that just dump rockets on the generator. shock jockey has been helping but i havent been setting up[ traps so i'll try that.

ok finally beat it. shock jockey helped tremendously. i reallly reallly liked that ending to, awesome game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cancerman1120']Hey look we got a big man here. Tell me to shut up to my face. Otherwise just keep it to yourself or better yet just ignore me.

I don't mind criticisms but when people pretend like they could do better it is dam funny to me. The internet is full of brilliant game designers.[/QUOTE]

So the sum of your argument is that unless you have achieved the same level of success as a prominent developer, you can't put forth a valid criticism? That is some pretty flawed and terrible logic.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Hey look we got a big man here. Tell me to shut up to my face. Otherwise just keep it to yourself or better yet just ignore me.

I don't mind criticisms but when people pretend like they could do better it is dam funny to me. The internet is full of brilliant game designers.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='CaseyRyback']So the sum of your argument is that unless you have achieved the same level of success as a prominent developer, you can't put forth a valid criticism? That is some pretty flawed and terrible logic.[/QUOTE]

Sure that is exactly what I said. Except where I did not say that. Pretending like you would always make the "right" decisions after the fact without knowing why those decisions were made during development is what bugs me. Sometimes things are the way they are because there is no other way to do them.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I don't mind criticisms but when people pretend like they could do better it is dam funny to me. The internet is full of brilliant game designers.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='cancerman1120']Sure that is exactly what I said. Except where I did not say that.[/QUOTE]

Right.

[quote name='cancerman1120']Pretending like you would always make the "right" decisions after the fact without knowing why those decisions were made during development is what bugs me. Sometimes things are the way they are because there is no other way to do them.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of why the decision is made does not excuse the game as a whole. If the developers of SimCity didn't want always online, it doesn't make SimCity automatically great.

If the game designer could think of no other way to do them doesn't mean there isn't a better way to do them.
 
[quote name='phantomfriar2002']Downish? Tomb Raider was great. Far Cry 3 was really solid. Didn't play Dead Space 3 but people seem to like it. This game -- even though I wasn't crazy about the convoluted nature of the ending -- is absolutely worth playing. YMMV I guess :)[/QUOTE]

Far Cry 3 was last year.

Tomb Raider and Infinite are great starts to the year though. Didn't play DS3.
 
[quote name='elessar123']
Regardless of why the decision is made does not excuse the game as a whole. If the developers of SimCity didn't want always online, it doesn't make SimCity automatically great.

If the game designer could think of no other way to do them doesn't mean there isn't a better way to do them.[/QUOTE]

Yes lets take the most extreme side of a development decision and use that as the example of why people criticize games. Shipping a broken game is far different than the nit picky shit most people complain about.

Also, I still don't see where I said you have to be an an accomplished game designer to give criticism. Acting like you can always do better is NOT criticism. Maybe you don't work in a field where criticism is given on a daily basis because you would recognize the difference. It is like the person who always has to say "But actually" before giving their opinion on something.
 
Also, I still don't see where I said you have to be an an accomplished game designer to give criticism.
Click to expand...

Pretending like you would always make the "right" decisions after the fact without knowing why those decisions were made during development is what bugs me
Click to expand...

There really only seems to be one way to interpret this: "you don't know how the game business works, so unless you know what you are talking about (i.e. you are a competent developer yourself), then shutup."

The way I see it, basically anyone who levels a criticism at the game would fit your description of an "armchair game developer", since they don't like what is currently there and therefore would inherently believe it could have been done better.

Clearly everyone seems to be misunderstanding you, so how about just giving some examples from the thread instead?
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']Far Cry 3 was last year.

Tomb Raider and Infinite are great starts to the year though. Didn't play DS3.[/QUOTE]


Oh wow. I didn't even realize that Far Cry 3 released in November 2012. I guess because I played in in Feb I thought it released this year
 
[quote name='slickkill77']Oh wow. I didn't even realize that Far Cry 3 released in November 2012. I guess because I played in in Feb I thought it released this year[/QUOTE]

November EU, December US. Still it was released too late to be considered among last year's GOTY contenders.
 
Just finished it about 3 hours ago. What a ride. I'm sort of backwards in that the game initially didn't really pull me in as much as the original Bioshock but then once the Vox get going, I couldn't put it down.

I loved the ending. I didn't watch the credits all the way through though. Off to youtube I guess.
 
Really cool game..really weird but cool ending. It took me awhile to comprehend it..and I'm still not sure I have fully done so...still really cool though.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']The more you sit back and think about it the worse it gets, it just makes you see even more inconsistencies and contrivances and
the Deus ex machina seems even worse
[/QUOTE]

I'm not seeing it, care to back up that statement with some thoughts?

I too picked up Far Cry 3 this year so I've got 2013 slapped on that title as well, it's so good.

I basically started out with the Early Bird Pack which I kept for a while:
Electric Punch
Ammo Advantage
Ghost Soldier
Eagle Strike

then later on used:
Gear Head/Burning Halo
Bullet Boon
Head Master
Vampire Embrace

You can see all of them at this wiki.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spybreak8']I'm not seeing it, care to back up that statement with some thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
As far as the Dues ex machina, that's literally what the game does, it solves its convoluted plot by basically turning Elizabeth into a god, with a weak justification that was made up on the spot.
The whole there are infinite universe yet everyone has a man a light house and a city is contrived, the fact the only a baptism at the specific moment would cause every booker to become comstock, yet no later spiritual awakening of or baptism would do the same. (The list on contrivances that result from Infinite universes with "constants" could fill pages)
Then there is the fact the Elizabeth killing comstock, creates a time paradox or at best an alternate timeline(which does nothing about the comstocks in her timeline then).

Not to mention that the whole Zeppelin fetch quest is a plot hole.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']
As far as the Dues ex machina, that's literally what the game does, it solves its convoluted plot by basically turning Elizabeth into a god, with a weak justification that was made up on the spot.
The whole there are infinite universe yet everyone has a man a light house and a city is contrived, the fact the only a baptism at the specific moment would cause every booker to become comstock, yet no later spiritual awakening of or baptism would do the same. (The list on contrivances that result from Infinite universes with "constants" could fill pages)
Then there is the fact the Elizabeth killing comstock, creates a time paradox or at best an alternate timeline(which does nothing about the comstocks in her timeline then).

Not to mention that the whole Zeppelin fetch quest is a plot hole.
[/QUOTE]

Baptism isn't really a plot hole as his baptism to Comstock was a wanted change. The Baptism was just a way for his mind to actually compartmentalize his past and what he is/becomes. It's no different than you saying you are going to eat healthier, its a point in his life that in every universe he chooses to "become" Comstock. The baptism itself did nothing but relate an actual definitive timeframe.


Although I do agree that the plot wasn't/didn't seem planned throughout the whole game. I still liked the ending. I can see how some didn't like it though.

And yes giving her the ability to see "all possibilities" was a massive cop out. I can extrapolate how that would happen, but just having the ability instantly was just lazy. At least have her run through a few different doors and localize where it started instead of just going "I know all"....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='itachiitachi']
As far as the Dues ex machina, that's literally what the game does, it solves its convoluted plot by basically turning Elizabeth into a god, with a weak justification that was made up on the spot.
The whole there are infinite universe yet everyone has a man a light house and a city is contrived, the fact the only a baptism at the specific moment would cause every booker to become comstock, yet no later spiritual awakening of or baptism would do the same. (The list on contrivances that result from Infinite universes with "constants" could fill pages)
Then there is the fact the Elizabeth killing comstock, creates a time paradox or at best an alternate timeline(which does nothing about the comstocks in her timeline then).

Not to mention that the whole Zeppelin fetch quest is a plot hole.
[/QUOTE]

Ok my thoughts,
there are constants and variables. Some things will always be while others will not. That's the main thing and one important facet I think many over look. You could say this statement is the cop-out, or the fact that you get the memory quote in the beginning of the game.
Booker dying or not at the baptism is the key branching start of either being dead, and therefore the adult Elizabeth not existing as we know her, and the transformation to be Comstock with the whole floating city in the sky thing.
 
[quote name='Spybreak8']Ok my thoughts,
Booker dying or not at the baptism is the key branching start of either being dead, and therefore the adult Elizabeth not existing as we know her, and the transformation to be Comstock with the whole floating city in the sky thing.
[/QUOTE]

here's where I hope 1 DLC plays out.

Without him converting to Comstock, he then never steals Elizabeth near birth. Meaning that then Booker continues to be her father. Now you come to Elizabeth being "all-knowing" at an early age (she said she remembered when she was a kid she could create tears, only reason she couldn't was because Comstock built the Syphon). Given her adolescent mind and the ability to see all choices, she becomes the antagonist or the brother/sister combo become the antagonist as they search her out for her powers.

I say that he would be alive as the reason he went into self loathing was because his decision to trade his daughter. It was later revealed that the brother/sister combo helped older Comstock "deal" the baby. So if older Comstock is dead then younger Booker never had the daughter dealt, which now means he never goes into self loathing. Which means he never has the drive to leave his past behind him. Which never leads him to the baptism point. Which means he is now Booker the whole time.

There's just so many loose ends that I don't think can be tied up properly as infinite time loops theories and quantum theories just produce more questions than answers.
 
[quote name='Jimmienoman']
here's where I hope 1 DLC plays out.

Without him converting to Comstock, he then never steals Elizabeth near birth. Meaning that then Booker continues to be her father. Now you come to Elizabeth being "all-knowing" at an early age (she said she remembered when she was a kid she could create tears, only reason she couldn't was because Comstock built the Syphon). Given her adolescent mind and the ability to see all choices, she becomes the antagonist or the brother/sister combo become the antagonist as they search her out for her powers.

I say that he would be alive as the reason he went into self loathing was because his decision to trade his daughter. It was later revealed that the brother/sister combo helped older Comstock "deal" the baby. So if older Comstock is dead then younger Booker never had the daughter dealt, which now means he never goes into self loathing. Which means he never has the drive to leave his past behind him. Which never leads him to the baptism point. Which means he is now Booker the whole time.
[/QUOTE]

No. Anna won't have that power anymore, because the game basically said she got her powers from her pinky. If she never leaves it in another world, she'll end up being normal. She also won't have the same personality, because she read books Songbird gave her, and didn't grow up with anyone.

The female Lutece had her experiments funded by Comstock. Without it, I don't think she would have found her counterpart, who is also not evil, since he's the one that wants to restore everything.

In the new storyline, nothing interesting should happen. If anything, the DLC can expand on Daisy, the twins, Songbird, Comstock, or Slate. Fink too, but his story would seem boring to me.
 
[quote name='elessar123']
No. Anna won't have that power anymore, because the game basically said she got her powers from her pinky. If she never leaves it in another world, she'll end up being normal. She also won't have the same personality, because she read books Songbird gave her, and didn't grow up with anyone.

The female Lutece had her experiments funded by Comstock. Without it, I don't think she would have found her counterpart, who is also not evil, since he's the one that wants to restore everything.

In the new storyline, nothing interesting should happen. If anything, the DLC can expand on Daisy, the twins, Songbird, Comstock, or Slate. Fink too, but his story would seem boring to me.
[/QUOTE]

I thought that was speculation from one of the letuce. Because if you could control universes by just leaving a small part of a finger in another world, sign me up!

I know she wouldn't be the same. Which would lead me to believe that she could become too powerful and greed would set in.

Was just thinking it would be a cool DLC.
 
For those of you did you that picked up bioshock infinite premium edition does the dlc pass have an expatriation date?? And as far as the game is the premium edition worth the $80??
 
I noticed that Steam now has DLC Achievement placeholders now. They weren't there a couple of days ago, so hopefully that means that an announcement comes soon.
 
[quote name='Jimmienoman']
Baptism isn't really a plot hole as his baptism to Comstock was a wanted change. The Baptism was just a way for his mind to actually compartmentalize his past and what he is/becomes. It's no different than you saying you are going to eat healthier, its a point in his life that in every universe he chooses to "become" Comstock. The baptism itself did nothing but relate an actual definitive timeframe.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think that it is a plot hole as much as a total contrivance, Booker still clearly wanted to change even after refusing the baptism, its absurd that with infinite possibilities that at no latter date does booker get baptized or have some other spiritual awakening. It's like when someone chooses to eat healthier they will never eat unhealthy again
[quote name='Spybreak8']Ok my thoughts,
there are constants and variables. Some things will always be while others will not. That's the main thing and one important facet I think many over look. You could say this statement is the cop-out, or the fact that you get the memory quote in the beginning of the game.
Booker dying or not at the baptism is the key branching start of either being dead, and therefore the adult Elizabeth not existing as we know her, and the transformation to be Comstock with the whole floating city in the sky thing.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I remember the who "constants and variables" lines it doesn't mean it any less contrived to apply it to free will as a way to deal with the whole infinite universe's mess corner they backed them selves into.

The point is that Booker dying means there is no comstock, no comstock means no Elizabeth, no Elizabeth means booker doesn't die at the baptism.
It's basically the time traveler's paradox.
The only way out of it is to ignore causality or to have alternate timelines(but that doesn't take care of the comstocks from the original timeline).
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']
I don't think that it is a plot hole as much as a total contrivance, Booker still clearly wanted to change even after refusing the baptism, its absurd that with infinite possibilities that at no latter date does booker get baptized or have some other spiritual awakening. It's like when someone chooses to eat healthier they will never eat unhealthy again

Yeah I remember the who "constants and variables" lines it doesn't mean it any less contrived to apply it to free will as a way to deal with the whole infinite universe's mess corner they backed them selves into.

The point is that Booker dying means there is no comstock, no comstock means no Elizabeth, no Elizabeth means booker doesn't die at the baptism.
It's basically the time traveler's paradox.
The only way out of it is to ignore causality or to have alternate timelines(but that doesn't take care of the comstocks from the original timeline).
[/QUOTE]

how does booker dying AFTER the baby being born affect the baby (Elizabeth) being alive?
 
[quote name='elessar123']
The baptism was shortly after Wounded Knee (damn Skyrim references...), which is 2 years before Anna was born (1892).
[/QUOTE]

hmm did not see this on the timeline until you said something and I looked it up. I originally though Anna came before the baptism as then the baptism would be the convergence in all universes. But instead in "Comstock's Universe" Anna was never born. As in Booker's original universe he declined the baptism which led him to her being born. Which Elizabeth's words make more sense when she talks about "not in every universe" during his baptism. This degrades some of the story for me as now it doesn't fit together as neatly.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']
I don't think that it is a plot hole as much as a total contrivance, Booker still clearly wanted to change even after refusing the baptism, its absurd that with infinite possibilities that at no latter date does booker get baptized or have some other spiritual awakening. It's like when someone chooses to eat healthier they will never eat unhealthy again

Yeah I remember the who "constants and variables" lines it doesn't mean it any less contrived to apply it to free will as a way to deal with the whole infinite universe's mess corner they backed them selves into.

The point is that Booker dying means there is no comstock, no comstock means no Elizabeth, no Elizabeth means booker doesn't die at the baptism.
It's basically the time traveler's paradox.
The only way out of it is to ignore causality or to have alternate timelines(but that doesn't take care of the comstocks from the original timeline).
[/QUOTE]
It just hasn't happened yet in the other timeline, not the fact that there is no Booker because
What's different than the time traveler's paradox is that this game deals with the multiverse so there's an infinite amount of possibilities. There's no true black and white, only shades of grey. In all regards future DLC could be ANYTHING.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top