Bioshock Infinite Spoiler Thread

Ok, here's an even BIGGER one:

The end of that game, with the big fight on the barge, takes place in the "Vox Revolution universe", as they never leave it. In that universe there are voxophones that make it clear that Monument Island was abandoned when Booker got there to get Elizabeth. If that's so, why is it destroyed at the end of the game in the same way it was when Songbird was trying to stop you from rescuing Elizabeth? She wasn't THERE, she was at Comstock House, and he never gets her as indicated by Voxophone number 52 addressed to Fitzroy.

If, in this universe, Elizabeth is in Comstock house, then why is Songbird after you?

Messy, messy...

kuddles wrote:
gore wrote:
This is in general why I dislike multiverse / time travel stories, especially ones with gods. You just have to be content to not look behind the curtain and go along for the ride.

That goes for almost every single sci-fi or fantasy story out there, so I don't understand why that's such an issue.

There are degrees of hand-wavery; it's not binary. The specific problem with most time travel / multiverse / god fiction is that the rules of reality are often so ill defined or inconsistently applied that paradoxes and deus ex machinae crop up left and right, and the more your fiction relies on these elements the more glaring the problems can become.

Again, this is a general problem with this trope. B:I is certainly not alone in this respect.

I am capable of enjoying such elements (I mean, I like Looper and Doctor Who), but this requires either 1) a deft hand to make something interesting enough that I overlook the issues, or 2) a degree of self-awareness about how ridiculous the inherent conceit is that allows me to laugh at it. B:I doesn't work in either of those respects for me.

The part that especially bothers me with B:I is that the central sci-fi story only becomes fully apparent later in the game; it felt like a bait and switch, where it started with a world and story I was genuinely interested in and gave me something which I was less interested in later. With Looper and Doctor Who, I knew what I was getting up front.

Valmorian wrote:
Ok, here's an even BIGGER one:

Who cares? You are only going to nitpick this stuff if you already don't like the game.

Valmorian: I forgot where I read this, but the reason Elizabeth was moved to Comstock House in the Vox-revolution-verse was because she managed to bust out on her own (and Songbird destroyed the tower like he did when Booker busted her out).

EDIT: Also, I happen to like deconstructing Doctor Who in the same way. Even if it makes David Tennant sad in the rain

MojoBox wrote:
Who cares? You are only going to nitpick this stuff if you already don't like the game.

I quit.

Demyx wrote:
Valmorian: I forgot where I read this, but the reason Elizabeth was moved to Comstock House in the Vox-revolution-verse was because she managed to bust out on her own (and Songbird destroyed the tower like he did when Booker busted her out).

There is nothing indicating this in the game, to my knowledge. And how would she bust out on her own? She needed the key Booker had to do that.

MojoBox wrote:

Who cares? You are only going to nitpick this stuff if you already don't like the game.

I like the game a lot. I've played through it 3 times and have every Voxophone save for 1. I've got almost every achievement and delved deep to find every little tidbit I could find. I also acknowledge that the continuity is a MESS in that game.

She busted out on her own because Elizabeth is awesome :p

That particular continuity snarl doesn't worry me that much because it doesn't ultimately have much effect on the overall plot.

bombsfall wrote:
MojoBox wrote:
Who cares? You are only going to nitpick this stuff if you already don't like the game.

I quit.

Dunno what you set you off, but to elaborate, the fact that statue isn't in the "right" state is relevant neither plot-wise nor thematically. It's the equivalent of a continuity error, it's like pointing out that a pillow was blue in one scene and red in the next (if this were a David Lynch film that actually probably would be relevant). And the fact that there's apparently a voxophone needlessly justifying this pretty well counters the argument that irrational was "messy".

I found the multidimensional stuff to be very well handled indeed. It was vague enough that I didn't fuss over the details, but explained enough that I had a pretty good idea of what's going on. But then I hate the kind of Sci-Fi that spends all its time developing exactly how the spaceships work and none of it's time developing how it's characters work.

MojoBox wrote:

I found the multidimensional stuff to be very well handled indeed. It was vague enough that I didn't fuss over the details, but explained enough that I had a pretty good idea of what's going on. But then I hate the kind of Sci-Fi that spends all its time developing exactly how the spaceships work and none of it's time developing how it's characters work.

I admit, part of how I reconcile the apparent "plot holes" is the fact that a number of things I think are intended to be more metaphorical or in service of characters than something that makes logical sense. The whole game felt more like a dream, running on dream logic, than something that could have "happened" in any concrete way.

MojoBox wrote:
Dunno what you set you off

Ha ha. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

MojoBox wrote:
And the fact that there's apparently a voxophone needlessly justifying this pretty well counters the argument that irrational was "messy".

There isn't. If anything, it's the Voxophones that make this particular error more apparent.


I found the multidimensional stuff to be very well handled indeed. It was vague enough that I didn't fuss over the details, but explained enough that I had a pretty good idea of what's going on. But then I hate the kind of Sci-Fi that spends all its time developing exactly how the spaceships work and none of it's time developing how it's characters work.

I agree that Sci-Fi concentrating on characters is better Sci-Fi, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy picking apart continuity errors in the media I enjoy. I mean, in Star Wars droids are tortured with hot brands applied to their feet. That's hilariously bad, but I still enjoyed the movies.

Demyx wrote:

I admit, part of how I reconcile the apparent "plot holes" is the fact that a number of things I think are intended to be more metaphorical or in service of characters than something that makes logical sense. The whole game felt more like a dream, running on dream logic, than something that could have "happened" in any concrete way.

I TOTALLY get this, and agree. BUT, Just as I'm annoyed by the continuity problems I've outlined above, I LOVE the foreshadowing they lovingly place throughout the game that only becomes apparent on a second or third playthrough. In fact, that's the main reason the continuity problems bother me. They obviously went through a lot of effort to make sure a lot of details "fit", so when I find a glaring one that doesn't it's all the more irritating.

Valmorian wrote:

Then why does Chen have issues when he's nowhere near the tear when they encounter him?

Also, while you can rationalize it as being "made up memories", Booker does explicitly state he has two memories here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...


For the former, I meant close in relation to where the alternate universe is. For the latter, because it isn't two memories. He's the exact same Booker as the one who led the Vox Populi, hence the nosebleed when he recalls it.

kuddles wrote:

For the former, I meant close in relation to where the alternate universe is.

Then where are all the hundreds of other soldiers killed that aren't in that universe? Am I to believe that somehow those are the only two opponents that I've fought that are alive in this world but dead in the other?

Also, I can't see how you could possibly say that this:


It's the people close to another nearby tear still open who experience mixed memory issues, not the people who go through it.

..could refer to how close the alternate universe is when you specifically mention close to a "nearby tear".


For the latter, because it isn't two memories. He's the exact same Booker as the one who led the Vox Populi, hence the nosebleed when he recalls it.

How could he be the exact same Booker? He didn't lead the Vox Populi. By what metric are you using to determine "exact same"? It also doesn't explain why Elizabeth isn't having any nosebleeds or issues with the fact that there's a duplicate of HER in this dimension as well.

Valmorian wrote:
It also doesn't explain why Elizabeth isn't having any nosebleeds or issues with the fact that there's a duplicate of HER in this dimension as well.

I dunno about the rest of it, but you could easily make the case that Elizabeth is a special exception because of her tear opening powers. I mean if you're not willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt on that, I don't see how it doesn't bother you more that the Luteces are able to appear/disappear/teleport whenever dramatically convenient.

Valmorian wrote:
Then where are all the hundreds of other soldiers killed that aren't in that universe? Am I to believe that somehow those are the only two opponents that I've fought that are alive in this world but dead in the other?

I'm not following you.

Also, I can't see how you could possibly say that this:

..could refer to how close the alternate universe is when you specifically mention close to a "nearby tear".


Because Elizabeth just made that tear and brought it into this world, which makes it close to them. Otherwise, the two universes would never touch each other at all and there wouldn't be a problem.

How could he be the exact same Booker? He didn't lead the Vox Populi. By what metric are you using to determine "exact same"?

He's the exact same Booker. He was the same one that the Lutuce's brought in to try and correct things, he is just part of a different timeline where he failed.

Anything I've posted here that asks questions is because I want to examine the game. If I actually didn't like it, I wouldn't be interested in bothering to analyze it in any way. I imagine much the same is true of others here.

I feel there is a Patrick Stewart STNG meme here just waiting to happen...

"It's just a bloody video game stop over analyzing it!!"

I feel like the game doesn't give you enough information to understand how everything works to further its almost dream-like feel at times. Personally I saw this as a strength, not a detriment.

TheGameguru wrote:
I feel there is a Patrick Stewart STNG meme here just waiting to happen...

"It's just a bloody video game stop over analyzing it!!"


IMAGE(http://www.letswatchstartrek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Picture-262.png)

Yes, it's just a bloody game, Picard...

I can't help but feel this game is being overly scrutinized due to the very high expectations. Are there issues? Yes, of course. It's still a very, very good game. Did Bioshock have issues? You bet it does, but since it came out of nowhere people seem to forgive them more.

Yes, the violence is a bit incongruous to the setting. Violence in Bioshock made more sense, but they are about the same as far as level of violence. I do agree it's off-putting. But it's not a surprise. I don't think it's out of line with the series going back to system shock.

The vigors don't fit into the world quite as cleanly as Bioshock's plasmids, but at this point that is a core mechanic to these games. If they were missing people would freak the hell out.

Story and theme inconstancies? Well, yes. If all of that were bullet proof, that would be quite a feat indeed. Especially given how AAA game development works. Some things fall off the wagon during the process. It's unfortunate. I don't think these issues are surprising, nor are they bad enough to ruin the game.

Does it play exactly like the pre-alpha gameplay concept video? Of course not.

But, combat is fluid and unique with some fresh mechanics we've never seen. Some things (like Elizabeth) are implemented better than any game that has tried that sort of thing before. The sky ways and Elizabeth were real risks that I think could have ruined the game if they didn't work as brilliantly as they do.

The setting is cool and unique, the fiction is engaging, and it has a real ending that presents some nice payoffs. Triple word score for the win.

About the only real complaint I have is the autosave checkpoint system... even on PC. That frustrated me when I had to backtrack, or rush through content to get to a save point. Blarg!

kuddles wrote:

Because Elizabeth just made that tear and brought it into this world, which makes it close to them. Otherwise, the two universes would never touch each other at all and there wouldn't be a problem.

But this is about the guards, not about Booker and Elizabeth. The original problem I outlined was the guards "remembering their deaths" when they weren't brought from the old reality so should have no problems. The reason for this inconsistency offered was that they were close to the "rift" when it was opened. But if that's the reason for their nosebleed memory problem, then why is Chen ALSO afflicted with it, when he was nowhere near the tear.


He's the exact same Booker. He was the same one that the Lutuce's brought in to try and correct things, he is just part of a different timeline where he failed.

Uh, he CAN'T be the exact same Booker, unless you are using some very unusual definition of "exact same". The Voxophones in the "Vox revolution" universe detail events that our Booker has never encountered. He could be a Booker from a different universe that is the same as the one our Booker is from, but for something to be the "exact same", it must be identical to itself, which this one is not.

It's the old "Star Trek Rationalization Game". No matter how many inconsistencies are pointed out, one can always Post-Hoc Rationalize an explanation even though there's no indication that those rationalizations were ever intended by the source material (see: Monument Island being shattered in the Vox Reality, which makes no sense).

Valmorian wrote:

then why is Chen ALSO afflicted with it, when he was nowhere near the tear.

He WAS, in one world. They literally opened that tear directly over his dead body.

It's the old "Star Trek Rationalization Game". No matter how many inconsistencies are pointed out, one can always Post-Hoc Rationalize an explanation even though there's no indication that those rationalizations were ever intended by the source material (see: Monument Island being shattered in the Vox Reality, which makes no sense).

What's wrong with that?

Would you prefer the explanation "it's a dream" or "it's a metaphor", because those are valid explanations too

Demyx wrote:

He WAS, in one world. They literally opened that tear directly over his dead body.

So basically, we can rationalize this any old way we want? Alive, dead, perhaps we could even say if you open a tear near anyone who was with the person?

What's wrong with that?

Would you prefer the explanation "it's a dream" or "it's a metaphor", because those are valid explanations too :)

Well, nothing in one sense, it's just apologetics for poorly thought out continuity though.
It might not bother you, but it does annoy me when there's blatant violations of a fictional set of universe rules. It's a betrayal of the reader's suspension of disbelief.

One person's blatant is another person's minor. Not that I don't enjoy talking about these things, but everything you've pointed out seems really minor to me -- very little of it would've actually affected the story much.

Demyx wrote:
One person's blatant is another person's minor. Not that I don't enjoy talking about these things, but everything you've pointed out seems really minor to me -- very little of it would've actually affected the story much.

I actually agree with you, with the exception of the whole Comstock and Booker thing. Him gaining memories of his alternate self in one reality, but not in this one did seem to be quite a cheap trick in retrospect.

My understanding was that the "zombie" alternate enemies were that way because they were "near" in the sense that their universe was immediately "parallel" to the one in which their counterpart died. They were close enough to the universe in which their alternate died that it affected them when Elizabeth opened a tear and connected the two strings.

Booker didn't realize Comstock was another version of him because the Comstocks he encountered weren't ever from the strings in which they met. From what I gathered, all the Comstocks switched to alternate worlds (with the help of the Lutece twins) in which their Bookers hadn't gone through with the baptism. So why would those "original" Bookers take on the memories of the usurping alternates? That wasn't an established rule. The established rule was that the alternates take on the original's memories. Thus, Comstock knew everything about Booker, but Booker assumed Comstock was a different person. And accordingly, our Booker took on the memories of the Martyr Booker, as the Martyr Booker was originally from that timeline.

As far as Booker being transported to an alternate world in the first place, I had assumed that the memories he made up about "bring us the girl and wipe away the debt" was a psychological change due to trauma. The Luteces seemed to have planned out pulling him into a universe that was extremely close to his own, that his memories wouldn't alter too significantly. This, I think, is supported by the fact that they tried the coin flip dozens of times, always with the same result. Robert Lutece even pointed out that the mind will make up memories to convince itself of it's surroundings. Which is not uncommon, I've literally suffered similar effects after a major accident myself.

Honestly, I'm not seeing the problems you are, Val. It all (mostly) made sense to me. At least, it seemed logically consistent after my first playthrough. My second one is still in progress, maybe I'll catch what you see as inconsistent the next time around.

These are all interesting theories, but they all rely on assumptions that are never stated in the fiction. It's all very well and good to say that universes "close" to each other are different than ones which are far away, but nowhere is it ever stated that universes exist at different distances from each other.

Like I said, one can always come up with new reasons to explain away an inconsistency, but those that rely upon assumptions never referenced in the fiction are simply rationalizing apologetics.

The fact that the whole premise is based on String Theory, even loosely, leads me to believe that these are assumptions necessary to build the games narrative in the first place. So while my theories may very well be wrong, I don't see the general line of logic from which I've come to my conclusions as a means of explaining away inconsistencies after the fact. Parallel universes based on String Theory is simply how I've always viewed the mechanic for any parallel universe story, so within that frame of logic, Binfinite doesn't appear to me to have the logical inconsistencies that you see.