Should Burial at Sea be considerred canon? (Spoilers)

#1 Edited by x_29 (11 posts) -

It has been a month since Burial at Sea episode 2 has been released. Since then I have been thinking about the overall narrative of the dlc, and how it's nearly impossible to find any way in which most of the elements introduced in BaS ( The last Comstock, the tear to Columbia, Elizabeth being killed by the Big Daddy despite being able to see the future and her ability to create tears to defend herself like she did with songbird, Elizabeth being able to merge herslef with the other Elizabeths to form only one Elizabeth, even though it was stated that she was the last Elizabeth) make sense, given the rules of the mythos established in Bioshock: Infinite and especially in its ending. I know that half of the fan base has tried to give logical explanations, but those are also contradictory to what was presented in Infinite and its ending. Also some of the stuff they introduced ( drinkable plasmids, fink and suchong collaborating together, Suchongs discovery of tears, Sally, the air grabber, the fact that there was a Booker Dewitt and Elizabeth) are never mentioned in Bioshock 1 nor have an impact on the main story of Bioshock Infinite. What are your thoughts?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.