Bioshock Infinite - Plot Discussion
It is called - I decided to "run" through the infinite, byrenka, to the shock end - to understand what kind of animal this is, which is now fashionable to discuss so fiercely.
As a result, no matter how hard I tried, I deleted 10 hours from my life for the sake of bioshock (pride, her mother, did not allow to put the gameplay on easy). Do I regret the time spent - a separate question, the topic is not about that, I can say one thing for sure - for me personally it is now very clear: fanboy (or journalistic - one hell of a thing) about the gameplay (dull, monotonous, protracted, bright, dynamic, wretched- shooter - whatever) - this is such crap, in comparison with what the Author wanted to share through his infinite - and, of course, we are not talking about the amazing Columbia (Colombia), not about Elizabeth and not about the ability of irrational games to design worlds inside the monitor ... And what, exactly? - tell me. After all, it is sincerely (!) Interesting.
In the meantime, a brief chronology of events through my eyes (through the eyes of a wild man, who does not really perceive foreign languages ​​by ear, since the subtitles helped out in moments). Therefore, I could not fully digest all that Anglo-gurgling mess of audio diaries - there was no accompanying subtitles at all. So, in hot pursuit:
The main character Booker (Devitt) had a child whom, roughly speaking, he screwed up the cards. And, apparently, in a state of severe hangover, he dutifully entrusted it to his creditors. The main one is a difficult man and, judging by the final scenes, this is DeWitt himself - only a little older. We all, together with Levin, know very well (now) that space-time is organized much more crookedly-obliquely than we think, and an innumerable set of alternatives corresponds to the reality familiar to man.
Booker's child - a girl who was not offended by nature, not deprived of talents, out of malice put all this Levin's alternative in the position she needed and reshaped reality in her own way. Apparently, this was what interested the guest from the alternative future, Booker "Elder" aka Comstock, who was deprived of his children, but obsessed with the idea of ​​a fix to transfer the reins of government to his own utopian state to the same religiously moved schizophrenic, like himself - flesh of flesh, as they say.
Meanwhile, Booker DeWitt, who had committed the most heinous act in his life, still got bored with the squirrel, began to hear voices, forget one thing and glue together fragments of other memories in a strange way - as a result, with the assistance of a couple of space-time stalkers, he goes to the heavenly city of Columbia (Colombia) - to rescue, allegedly in payment of that very debt, the maiden Elizabeth, who was captured in the tower by Comstock itself. Catch up on who this Elizabeth is, why she does not have a finger and why he actually went to Columbia, he cannot, or rather, refuses, almost until the very end credits.
Chronology can be called with a certain degree of conventionality, because - which is repeatedly and unequivocally hinted at by a couple of stalkers-humorists constantly flashing in the frame - there is no future, past and present, what will be - it already was and it is. Therefore, it is not possible to know for certain where the beginning is here and - even - what and how actually happened. And, remarkably, it doesn't matter at all. According to my first - fresh - sensation, Levin's multidimensional message is broadly as follows: each person, at various levels (be it metaphysical, cosmogonic, or everyday-applied), constructs his own realities, and ultimately only what he sees happens ( or feels). Created in a well-known image and likeness, a man got his hands on a full set of development tools. Does not matter,
It doesn't matter if DeWitt's journey to Columbia itself or (oh Lord, forgive the wildest script cliché) was just in his head. The important thing is that he gave up the child for debts, and then sought redemption for a sin, which (atonement) - according to the internal Booker redeemer Comstock - in principle cannot exist. And DeWitt is doomed to stalk the darkest corners of his own consciousness, to construct more and more new realities in search of deliverance. In this context, Comstock really suits the role of a shepherd, or rather, a kind of voice of conscience.
The thing is that Levin's work is so multidimensional - that many interpretations and points of view risk merging into white noise, in which everyone who can perceive the brightest author's presentation will find and convincingly justify their own cockroaches. By the way, this is also great, to build a huge mirror of the correct curvature is a very difficult and interesting task.
Therefore, I repeat, it is curious to read other people's impressions - after all, the infinite has something to talk about))
Modified April 6, 2013 by DiOh no. In the end, they first visit Booker's memories, we are shown how he abandoned Baptism. But then, after Booker realizes that they need to kill Comstock in the bud, they get there too. But Elizabeth says bluntly: "This is not the same place." This is the place, the universe, in which Booker embraced Baptism. And they kill him.
[b] [member = 'AeZaKmI'] [/ b], well, there are many forks, it turns out in his life not a single fork has led to, for example, another religion.
[member = 'burger_shot'], i.e. Are the bookers who haven't taken Baptis alive? Then why are the Annas disappearing?
[member = 'Scarface'], Annas disappear from the universes with Comstock as far as I understand.
[member = 'Niakron'], No, since they are drowning Booker Anna, not Elizabeth (none of them have a pendant - constants in the Elizabeth universe).
[b] [member = 'Scarface'] [/ b], I would read this thread a little, Only Elizabeth disappears, because Comstock was not there and, therefore, no one stole Anna and did not make her Elizabeth either. It seems like after the credits we are shown that everything rolled back to little Anna and drunken Booker. Although it is also possible that they all died and none of this happened at all. But I'm leaning more towards the first option.
How is this possible if the adult Anna does not exist at all? Anna turned into Elizabeth. I don’t know about the pendant, it’s strange
[member = 'burger_shot'], I read the whole thread before posting questions (my trick) - opinions were divided.
The baptism event is constant, the baptism itself is variable.
The ferret says you cannot destroy a variable, only a constant, which is logical otherwise the death of Comstock during the events of infinite would be enough and there would be no point in returning to baptism.
Modified on April 15, 2013 by ScarfaceLet's find out the main moment - when Anna Elizabeth was born. This is what haunts me and that already what day breaks any scheme. If Anna was born to Booker, then in the end it turns out that we did not interrupt the cycle, but simply destroyed the world of Comstock. If she was born to Booker, when? After baptism, then yes, it turns out that only one world was destroyed. Before baptism? Then it turns out that there was no original Booker, but there were two parallel worlds at once. in one there is a child, and in the other not.
[member = 'Lex Mercer'], Anna was born to Booker (Comstock could not have children) after refusing to be baptized.
[member = 'Xopek'], that is, apart from that scene of accepting / rejecting Baptism, there are no other choices in life? Why is the fork right there, and the choice in the form of heads or tails has already been scripted?
It is probably symbolic here that "are you ready to renounce your past life, be reborn and wash away your sins" is such a culminating choice after which Comstock and a parallel scenario were born.
Modified on April 15, 2013 by XopekBy the way, I want to draw your attention to the fact that it is not the Booker who was baptized (Comstock) who is drowned, but the Bookers who refused to be baptized, but brought to the events of baptism.
[member = 'Xopek'], But if all DeWits in all realities are dead, then Anna / Elizabeth was not born in any reality.
I cannot understand how not to exist at all better than what Elizabeth went through (at least alive
it's not just about saving Elizabeth. remember at least burning new york
Yes, it's not at all clear who is being drowned. The dubious assumption that this is the moment of drowning is just the memory of the comstock, mixed with the memory of the booker we are playing as.
By the way, I want to draw your attention to the fact that it is not the Booker who was baptized (Comstock) who is drowned, but the Bookers who refused to be baptized, but brought to the events of baptism.
By the way, yes, such a serious failure ... they drowned the poor drunk uncle for nothing (((
Well, here apparently the point is that before the baptism there was only one Booker DeWitt. But it was necessary to show the viewer so that he looked into the water and saw the reflection of himself young ...
Modified on April 15, 2013 by Xopek[b] [member = 'UnreaL'] [/ b], the booker did it only for Elizabeth's sake (I think). Lutesy MB and wanted to prevent a new flood.
[member = 'UnreaL'], the booker did it only for Elizabeth's sake (I think). Lutesy MB and wanted to prevent a new flood.
I'm not talking about the booker
[member = 'UnreaL'], These events were completely erased because the villainess-old lady-elizabeth eliminated the constant - the impossibility of saving Elizabeth because of the nightingale. Those. they dealt with this problem without drowning Booker.
[member = 'UnreaL'], These events were completely erased because the villainess-old lady-elizabeth eliminated the constant - the impossibility of saving Elizabeth because of the nightingale. Those. they dealt with this problem without drowning Booker.
in the same universe
[member = 'UnreaL'], In all, in theory, otherwise they could not have killed Comstock in all universes.
Damn, how was Booker able to get to Elizabeth and give her a note to stop the nightingale, if old Elizabeth said that the Nightingale always prevented Booker from getting to her ?????
Modified on April 15, 2013 by Scarface[member = 'Scarface'], no, in one. In all the others, the booker was dying before Elizabeth was captured, and before old Elizabeth helped Booker with the songbird.
FFFFUUU ONLY MORE QUESTIONS Modified on April 15, 2013 by burger_shot