Spoiler-McSpoilerton:Ending of Bioshock Infinite.

#1 Edited by WalterKovacs (9 posts) -

I really don't understand how drowning Booker Dewitt would prevent Comstock from ever existing. I have thought about it and it just isn't logical. Here is my understanding of the timeline:

Booker Dewitt, who I will refer to as Booker 1.0, is in the battle of Wounded Knee. Booker 1.0 does some horrible things and has a hard time coping with them.

Booker 1.0 then goes to the place to get baptized. But since the baptism leads to a choice he can no longer remain Booker 1.0. This produces a Booker 1.1, the one who doesn't get baptized and a Booker 1.2, who is baptized and becomes Comstock.

So Booker 1.1 gets married and has a child. Booker 1.1's wife dies during the birth of Annabelle Dewitt. Booker 1.1's life sinks due to drinking and gambling. Booker 1.2 (Comstock) meets with Lutece and starts making his floating city. Booker 1.2 is unable to have children and plans to get Annabelle from Booker 1.1. Booker 1.1 eventually gives up Anabelle to Lutece to "wipe away the debt" and Annabelle ends up with Booker 1.2.

Twenty years later, according to Elizabeth/Annabelle, Lutece come for Booker 1.1 in the apartment that he has been living in. Lutece essentially give Booker 1.1 a chance to fix everything.

Booker defeats Comstock but Elizabeth tells him there are infinite version of Comstock, Booker 1.2X, out there. So they decide to "smother" Comstock. Ultimately many versions of Anabelle/Elizabeth drown Booker 1.1.

That is my understanding of the timeline. How does drowning Booker 1.1 prevent Booker 1.0 from going to the baptism?

A friend of mine told me that Booker 1.1 became Booker 1.0 when he entered that universe. I really don't think that is the case. If that were true, then Booker would have embodied Comstock when he entered his world. The entire game, till you kill Comstock, there are two Bookers present in every timeline that we experience. So why weren't there two Bookers at the baptism?

I enjoyed the story, but I feel this is a gaping plot hole that is keeping me from enjoying the ending. If I am missing something please fill me in. My understanding is the all the Lutece would have had to do to correct there mistake is killed Booker 1.0 before he went to the baptism and all branches from his story would have been cut off and non existant.

#2 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

There is no Booker 1.0 and 1.1 There is Booker and there is Comstock. The baptism is where that path splits. Booker goes on and has a child. Comstock goes and builds a city in the sky.

The split point is when Booker picks between having the baptism or not. Liz takes him back before that choice and drowns him making it so that pick NEVER happened. BOOKER picked for that choice HE picked to kill comstock when he was "born" Liz even stops him and says" are you sure" And Booker goes ahead with it.

Booker had a child and sold her off. Comstock never had a child and built the city. The reasons COMSTOCK can not have a child is because of his constant expose to the Tear machine.

#3 Edited by WalterKovacs (9 posts) -

But how does killing the Booker you finish the game with cause his past self to die? He has lived 20 years beyond the choice so killing him wouldn't affect that choice from ever happening, it already happened. I could accept it a little more if he went back and killed himself or witnessed the Elizabeths killing him, but it doesn't make sense he experience the death from the first person as his older self.

#4 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

But how does killing the Booker you finish the game with cause his past self to die? He has lived 20 years beyond the choice so killing him wouldn't affect that choice from ever happening, it already happened. I could accept it a little more if he went back and killed himself or witnessed the Elizabeths killing him, but it doesn't make sense he experience the death from the first person as his older self.

Liz takes you back before he is Baptized. So that split never happened.

#5 Posted by Ghostiet (5289 posts) -

But how does killing the Booker you finish the game with cause his past self to die? He has lived 20 years beyond the choice so killing him wouldn't affect that choice from ever happening, it already happened. I could accept it a little more if he went back and killed himself or witnessed the Elizabeths killing him, but it doesn't make sense he experience the death from the first person as his older self.

It's not time travel, it's modifying the multiverse itself. It's been already explained in StarvingGamer's FAQ.

#6 Posted by Winternet (8028 posts) -

@walterkovacs: The drowning sequence is not to be taken as a real, literal event and more as a symbolic event. One that makes Comstock cease to exist by making Booker never take the baptism.

#7 Posted by EXTomar (4864 posts) -

This was covered in the big Spoiler^3 thread but...

Basically when standing before the last door and Elizabeth asks if this is what he (Booker) wants to do, confirms and opens the door, they are back at the river with the priest asking him if he is ready to receive his baptism and asks his new name, and once Booker says he is Comstock Elizabeth severs that version of the branching of the multiverse. There is no time travel here where it isn't about how old Booker is but that Booker made the choice (to be Comstock) and Elizabeth acting to severe it.

#8 Edited by Anonymgeist (30 posts) -

@walterkovacs: The drowning sequence is not to be taken as a real, literal event and more as a symbolic event. One that makes Comstock cease to exist by making Booker never take the baptism.

I had interpreted it as being that all of the Bookers who went through with the baptism were drowned... am I way off with that?

#9 Edited by Winternet (8028 posts) -

@winternet said:

@walterkovacs: The drowning sequence is not to be taken as a real, literal event and more as a symbolic event. One that makes Comstock cease to exist by making Booker never take the baptism.

I had interpreted it as being that all of the Bookers who went through with the baptism were drowned... am I way off with that?

The choice of accepting or refusing baptism stops being a choice and is turned into a constant of refusing baptism. The way the game chose to show that was through the drowning sequence. You can interpret it as you like. It's just the projection of the concept.

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.