Something went wrong. Try again later

hbkdx12

This user has not updated recently.

800 0 19 2
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

hbkdx12's forum posts

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#1  Edited By hbkdx12

@captain_max707: i some what tap upon this as well in my post a few up from yours http://www.giantbomb.com/bioshock-infinite/3030-32317/forums/let-s-discuss-bioshock-infinite-huge-spoilers-1429946/#375

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@thepickle: Timeline A is the timeline where Booker gets baptized and turned into Comstock.

Comstock experiments with tears and time travel and (along with Robert Lutece) goes to Timeline B with Booker and his baby Anna. So to answer you question, comstock is Comstock in timeline B because he opened up a tear and went there to get Anna

Booker goes to Columbia and kills Comstock because the Luteces bring him into Timeline A where Comstock and columbia exists. This allegedly happens 19 or so years after they take Anna from him originally.

Slate calls Comstock a liar because Slate and Booker fought in Wounded Knee together. After wounded knee, Booker becomes baptized and changes his name to Comstock but still credits himself with his accomplishments in Wounded Knee but rather than addressing himself as Booker, he uses Comstock. Obviously slate doesn't know Comstock and Booker are the same person so he think Comstock is full of shit when he references the statue and stuff about Comstock leading the fight in Wounded Knee.

Not sure about the Voxophones other than the fact that by the point you start getting Voxophones from Booker, you've already started jumping through different tears and different realities.

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

So i have a question (that may have been addressed already, if so forgive me)

The baptism is clearly the fork in the road in terms of the two different realities/dimensions.

By killing booker at the end it closes the Comstock loop in that he (comstock) is never created because he (booker) doesn't go through with the baptism.

But after the end credits, Booker walks into the room to check on Anna which many suggest that Booker and Anna have a chance at life because there's no comstock to interfere. However....

Booker has a kid comes AFTER he rejects the baptism. That means in the universe with the post credits Booker, he still attempted to get baptized but rejected it which suggest that there'd be a universe where he does accept the baptism which as we know would create Comstock. So essentially, the fact that they didn't actually alter the event of Booker having an experience with the Baptism at all, would suggest nothing would be different. Correct?

So that means the booker that wakes up post credits, is waking up to the notion that he already gave his daughter away. (notice you never actually hear baby noises come from the baby room)

It's kind of like the spinning top at the end of inception

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#4  Edited By hbkdx12

I don't remember much about Bioshock 2 other than that i didn't care much for it once i was done with it.

That being said, i didn't really care for Infinite's ending...

The whole time travel "you are who you're trying to stop" thing just disappointed me. I felt the story had more promise than to just lead to that. It felt a bit lazy.

The only thing i liked was the idea of the lighthouses and the "constants and variables" and how they reflect on bioshock 1.

Also, someone who's beaten the game, can you answer this for me?

When did Booker have a kid? I understand that the baptism is the fork in the road for the alternate realities so that means he had it some point after (booker) rejects the baptism. Is there any clues/indication that suggest how soon after the bapitism incident he had anna?

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#5  Edited By hbkdx12

@icemael: that's actually pretty shitty

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#6  Edited By hbkdx12

@demoskinos: hmm good to know. i'll keep that in mind for my 1999 playthrough

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#7  Edited By hbkdx12

Started on normal.

1999 mode is harder but supplies and resources are a lot more limited (hence the trophy/achievement for not buying any supplies at the vending machine while on that difficulty). Enemies are tougher and there's also a semi perma-death in that everytime you die the game deducts 100 coins from your total, If you die and have less than 100 it's resets your game state and you have to start over from the beginning

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#8  Edited By hbkdx12

I find myself not using/experimenting with Vigors as much as I'd like and I hate that :(

Mainly because of not being able to store and have reserves like you could in the old games (not saying this is a knock against that game, it's just different) I always feel like i never have enough

So when i switch to something like Possession and see that i'd only get three uses out of it with a full bar of salt (i know there's an upgrade that consumes less salt), i just feel like it's not worth it, hence i rarely, if ever, use it.

That being said, i find myself sticking to shock jock, bucking bronco and the crows mainly because they're just more efficient with their salt usage.

I'll switch to devil's kiss if i need to take out a turret, patriot or deal with a handyman

Speaking of handymen, has anyone found a good means of fighting these things without getting raped? I've had two encounters with it so far and i have yet to take it out without dying 2 or 3 times. They're super quick, agile and aggressive. I can never get distance between us for too long before he's all up in my grill literally beating me to a pulp. I completely underestimated them when i first fought them because i was like "oh this guy is gonna be slow but probably hits hard" I was half right :/

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Since the comparisons between the two games are constantly being made, we might as well compare them in the aspect in which they're most comparable...

That being said, i think the Cinematic events and setpieces come a lil too fast and furious in Tomb Raider. I'm up to the part where Lara goes to rescue the pilot and virtually everytime she moves into a new area it's usually at the cost of something blowing up, crashing, burning or her just getting her ass handed to her in one way or another. A lil more discretion and restraint would've gone a long way.

Avatar image for hbkdx12
hbkdx12

800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#10  Edited By hbkdx12

What i'm particularly confused about is all this outsourcing that Gearbox apparently uses as standard practice.

I don't consider myself "in the know" when it comes to devs and their business practices so outsourcing may not be a new or uncommon thing, but to me it seems to be the most egregiously recognizable with Gearbox.

They outsourced what appears to be vast parts of this game for years and with the development hell its gone through and it just being on the back burner in general i can understand why. But even their hallmark franchise (Borderlands) they outsource all their DLC.

I'm not trying to suggest that outsourcing part of your game is wrong but i just genuinely don't understand it and looking for clarification especially when you consider all the interviews pitchford does where he says him and the team care so much and are so passionate about the game like it's their baby