Talk:BioShock Infinite/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Universe

This video: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/story-bioshock-infinite/702804 suggests that the game is set in a different Universe than the first two games. The Wikipedia article states that game is set before the first two games. Which is true since the game takes place in 1912. However, shouldn't it mention that game's Universe is different as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.6.11 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No other source mentions this being a different universe; all suggest it is the same timeline. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interview, he obviously means "universe" in the sense that Columbia and Rapture are cities, each city being its own "universe". Nothing in there specifically severs Bioshock Infinite from the universe of Bioshock, and we have no reason to think otherwise. MoDoa (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They specifically mention in other press that they were inspired by the guy from the first game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.69.24 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(MAJOR SPOILERS) The major theme--honestly bar no other theme--of the game is the idea of multiverses, or multi quantum realities. Rapture is a world "behind another door" (in the terms of the game). Rapture is in effect Columbia (The main city of this game), just in an alternate reality. The main characters, Booker and Elisabeth, travel to the quantum multiverse of Rapture in the last half hour or so of the game during the game's conclusion. I'm... not sure what source to provide besides "throughout the game, and specifically the last half hour." Hope this helps! --173.25.106.89 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Columbia subarticle

I saw that someone had created a Columbia subarticle, copying directly what we have here already about the floating city there. While I can envision once BI is out and has a reception section, that we can start talking about Colubmia in the same manner as Rapture, it is way too early for that now. For one, we are simply duplication information and that's an unnecessary spinout, and secondly, there are no size issues presently with this current article to necessitate a separate article.

Again, there may be reason to have a Columbia article far afield but not now. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the same was done for DeWitt and Elizabeth, and I've redirected those for the same reasons; far too early in the process. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Most other games do not have articles for individual characters, unless they are very iconic like Master Chief for example, and certainly not 18 months before release! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eball (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to have this as of yet. If ever. Also noticed the image used: File:Columbia(BioShock).jpg. CC licensed? Surely not.. F11'd is, although I'm not sure that's the best tag. Rehevkor ✉ 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They were in the press release so I think they are probably allowed for wikipedia.Eliot Ball (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the point Rehevkor means is that it is tagged as a free (that is , with no copyright restriction) image. We could use that image as a non-free image under fair use, but the uploader marked it completely wrong and thus it needs to be deleted. --MASEM (t) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

New Engine = Its not Unreal engine

If you watch the Interview with the Creative Directer, he notes that they had to build a entire new engine to accommodate the flying city and the new fighting mechanics 68.4.81.148 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We've already noted its an expansion beyond the Unreal 3.0 version. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Steampunk?

I'm not sure this is properly classed as "Steampunk". The term is generally used to refer to exceptionally developed 19th century / Victoria-era technology, and this game is set in 1912. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.23.219 (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalists are calling it "steampunk", even if they are wrong, so we're ok to use it here. But it should be noted that 19th Century Britian is the most common form of steampunk but by far not the only applicable time and place for the genre. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On the note of GENRE, this game sure isnt a "Survival Horror", whoever wrote that never played one, for instance, one would be Resident Evil 1-3, Silent Hill, the Penumbra series, Cryostasis and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.238.34.65 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

While the game is set in 1912, the latest release trailer shows Columbia as a prototype flying Worlds Fair city, unveiled at the 1893 Worlds Fair, therefore I think it is more than appropriate and fair to classify Columbia as a steampunk city, and that description/definition should not be changed in the article under any circumstances.216.157.195.66 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

When and where a flying city was unveiled is irrelevant. Nothing in this game is consistent with "Steampunk" as everything in the game is based on electrical technology. Any reference to "steampunk" should include the caveat "inappropriately applied" even by journalists. Calling internet game reviewers "journalists" is kind of a stretch.Sunupoernomo (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Steampunk" does not require the world to be mainly operated on steam-powered devices, but only to evoke technology that visually and thematically comparable to such. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

People seem to think that anything not running off a Nuclear reactor is steampunk. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a reasonable definition of steampunk on the wiki page, in that is an envisioning of an alternate universe/timeline that extends the current tech levels of the late 19th century (eg the era of the steam engine). But importantly, we go by what reliable sources say, and they call it a steampunk genre. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 1

There is some kind of error in the link so it won't open. Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing OSX Reference

There is no citation, and I cannot find concrete proof Bioshock Infinitie is being released on OSX hence I feel it should be removed. Please do not assume a title is coming out to Mac considering most are not released on that platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodycelt (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

time-space continuum

> Booker finds Elizabeth to be central to this conflict, and that she > also holds strange powers to manipulate rifts in the time-space continuum

The space-time continuum was invented by Einstein in 1905. When this city was supposedly launched in 1893, space and time were separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.11 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"invented"? It's a property of the universe. Einstein discovered it, but by no means invented it. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

“Plot” § of the article

Seeing as how BI is still close to 2 months away from release, at the very least shouldn’t the “Plot” portion of the article have the standard wiki “the following portion of this article may contain spoilers” warning? After all, I’m sure I’m not the only one who wants to play through the game without spoilers beforehand.216.157.195.66 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP does not hide spoilers. We haven't for a long time. Note that we are only reporting what has been revealed via trailers or interviews. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Era of American Exceptionalism"?

I take some note with that reference in the opening description of the game. It is somewhat misleading, "american exceptionalism" does not refer to a specific era at all but a general theme and sentiment dating from the early 19th to century to today. The actual term "america exceptionalism" was not even coined until the late 1920's. So to refer to 1912 as being in some specific era of american exceptionalism or "the era of american exceptionalism" is quite misleading.

Unless the game designers specifically refer to the era as such with relation to the game (which would still warrant quotations used), i believe that passage should be re-worded or removed for being misleading. Duhon (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree the word "era" is a problem since the range of years that encompasses is too large. I've replaced that with "growth" since this is following on the historical fact of the 1893 Worlds Fair being considered the point of where American Exceptionalism began to rise significantly. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's more appropriate, i've likewise changed the wording to some of the passages that were a bit misleading when it made it seem that american exceptionalism actually emerged at the 1893 world's fair. When it actually caused that already existing sentiment to simply flourish more. Duhon (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Info

In the section talking about the music of Bioshock Infinite, it describes that it was easy to find music for the original Bioshocks which were set in the 50s and 60s, and while this is true, it misleads people into thinking that the music in the game is also from the 50s and 60s, but the music is actually from before the founding of Rapture in the mid 1940s. I understand this article isn't meant to be about those games, but it still is information that may confuse readers. Maybe just a little detail should be added or the time period left unspecified Dkyguy1995 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to be "mid-20th century" as to avoid trying to have to detail the exact timeframe the music of BS1&2 were pulled from. (Also when adding to talk pages, just add to the bottom of the page, thanks!) --MASEM (t) 00:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Future of this article

I have not read much of the reviews, but as I expected, from the bits I read, both Elizabeth and Columbia itself have warranted enough reception (in addition to all the development details) to have separate articles. I'm not yet sure on Booker or any other character (and need to play through before reading more). --MASEM (t) 13:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The ending

The account of Booker's drowning needs to be revised, in my opinion. It is clear that the Elizabeth with whom the player traveled throughout the game does not accompany him or her into the final lighthouse. Notice the disappearance of the bird/cage pendant, the lack of bruises/scratches, and the fact that Booker turns to Elizabeth and says, "Wait, you're not, who are you?" This isn't conjecture, it is fact. The whereabouts of "our" Elizabeth are unaccounted for at the end of the game, and the player is left to decide her fate for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verus h (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there wasn't an account of the actual events of the game (though I think some of the content under "Plot" could be moved elsewhere in the article; perhaps into the development section), I wrote one up while the game was still fresh in my memory. However, the ending is a mind-bender, and to be totally honest, I'm still digesting parts of it. I think I've got all of the important points covered, but someone should probably review it, because it's quite complex and it's easy to neglect or misinterpret key issues, which would affect the meaning of the plot entirely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I was spoiled by ip trolls last week, I've moved what you had, cutting out what we had already covered in the plot, and kept the rest. What you added does need to be trimmed down (it's rather long), though I'm only at Fitzroy right now so I can't help too much yet and particularly on the ending. Also note to use US spellings (realize) for things. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Although WP:PLOT does specify that summaries should be limited to 700 words where possible, there are exceptions to this rule. Pulp Fiction is used as an example of this, given its non-linear narrative. Given the complexity of the plot of the game, I think going over 700 words is acceptable here.

To be perfectly honest, major sections of this article could be rearranged. The plot synopsis, for instance, should be limited to an account of the plot. Details of things like the creation and function of Songbird should be moved elsewhere. Likewise, the "story and setting" subsection under "development" could probably be broken up into several subsections.

That's for later, though. Right now, the focus should be on getting the plot synopsis into a manageable form, one that gets the ending right. To be perfectly honest, I think the ending as it has been written in the game suffers from Kojima-itis a bit; it's a little bloated and self-indulgent as it tries to handle complex philosophical issues. It does it well, but I think it could have been trimmed down a little. Perhaps there is room for an "interpretations" section, if the game is picked up and discussed by academics.

For the record, I believe that the events of the game represent reality trying to re-set itself. Everything within Columbia itself, from Elizabeth and her powers through to the deep-seeded inequality and racism, has been constructed to represent the way reality is fundamentally wrong at the start of the game, but things have been put in place to help Booker restore order. But that's just one interpretation; I could very well be wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This needs some serious editing, the article has the explanation if the twist all wrong. SPOILERS: For starters Anna isn't his wife, it'd Elizabeth's original name. He sold her to an alternate reality/future version if himself that accepted baptism during his post army years. This causes a massive amount if paradoxes that Lutece tries to correct by bringing you to the alternate world where Columbia exists. Eventually Booker is brought back to the moment he is either "reborn" as the prophet, or becomes Booker, the gambler and alcoholic. Neither can live without creating an inter dimensional rift, so he allows Elizabeth to drown him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.43.73 (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that you can make the case that everything that happens, happens inside Booker's head. After all, when he is drowned by the Elizabeths, it happens in a place that is a recreation of his original baptism, not the actual place.

In fact, I'd say that's the more likely version of events, since the idea that Booker sold his child to an alternative version of himself doesn't explain how he was able to do it; manipulating the tears in reality is something that only Elizabeth can do, so there is no way he could have sold her to an alternative version of himself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true, the tears were originally created by Letuce through a machine. The plan was organized because Comstock (AKA alternate Booker) had become infertile. Elizabeth (aka Anna) naturally possesses the tear controlling abilities because her finger was left in the previous dimension. You can tell all of Columbia takes place in the universe where Booker became Comstock because of multiple clues - booker not hearing of Columbia, bleeding from the nose PRIOR to any other jumps through tears, comstocks mysterious history pre baptism/talking about being a "new man". etc. it's a little confusing but pretty clear (and brilliant!) when you get your head around it. This is the actual twist that took place at the end if the game and multiple play throughs give a lot of clues! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.43.73 (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a massive contradiction there: the "alternate Booker" cannot exist without there first being a way to create tears in reality. But the tears in reality were originally created by Lutrece after the two Bookers supposedly split, and there is no evidence to show that they did split. When Booker was originally planning to be baptised, there was no event to suggest that he created a paradox. When he says that he is Comstock, it is because Comstock can only exist if Booker does. Everything about Columbia was created to sustain Booker's delusion that he wasn't responsible for giving away his daughter. As for the Lutreces, they simply fulfil the same but opposite function of the story as Elizabeth: where Elizabeth bends reality to fit Booker's needs (ie, creating a world where Chen Lin never died), the Lutreces bend Booker to fit reality's needs (ie, making sure things dont spiral out of control). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just not what seems to be happening in the game on a plot level. Tears aren't needed for alternate universes to exists, they already do. A machine was simply built by Lutece to manipulate space/time and 'bridge' these realities. Two branching realities (well, key ones anyway) were created at the moment Booker attended the baptism. He either rejected it, falling into alcoholism and gambling or was "born again". The broke, non religious Booker ultimately resorted to selling his daughter, Anna, to 'pay the debt'. The buyer? Comstock! Who has now become sterile and organises the deal based on experiments run by Lutece. Religious Booker leaves his previous life "by the riverside" and takes on the name Comstock. (Listen to the audio diaries about his biography, and how he has a secret past set aside after the baptism, also note lots of clues like his tales of war that neither Booker or Slate remember him being involved in.) Booker does not exist in the reality in which Comstock runs Columbia. Lutece (and her twin (or alternate?) brought him there (as they can do, seeing as they are 'scattered' in space time. I think it's really important to view everything that happens in the game, not as delusion, but as 'reality'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.43.73 (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just have to note that the ending as written in the plot summary currently is completely wrong. The article is semi-protected right now and I don't have a confirmed account so I can't fix it, but that is not what happened at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:2207:DD8B:7507:CFCD:2D40 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Argue about 'interpretations' all you want, the plot summary currently there is totally wrong. Seeing as it is semi protected, It'd be nice if someone out there could clean it up so it at least 'somewhat' accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.43.73 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the above about spoilers (though short answer: now that the game's out, WP doesn't care about hiding spoilers. We just need to make sure we present, until sources come about, a non-intepretive version of events in the game. When I get to the ending, I'll review this) the plot length will be helped when I pull out separate articles on Columbia and Elizabeth, and movie other facets around. I consider what the original BioShock plot can be reduced down to, and I think - based on my experience so far - this can be done too, but I just can't make a full judgement at the time right now.

If there is something factually wrong with the ending (I didn't touch that beyond moving it), please detail what needs to be fixed. Remember, we can't interpret yet. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, that all said, we might be seeing more of these types of articles about the ending over the next few days. If this is the case that the ending is one of personal interpretation, we need to take steps like I had to before with Limbo (video game) or Braid (video game) to make clear what is obvious on the screen - and then where possible sourced interpretations start. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the description of the ending on the page at the moment is garbage. It is not taking place in Booker's head - that's an affront to Ken Levine's terrific writing. It should be changed to describe what is actually HAPPENING in the game without trying to interpret it; the ending is open to interpretation but "It was all a dream" is not one of them. TheDocThomas (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think 2 major errors are that Anna is Elizabeth, who is Booker's daughter and not Booker's wife. http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Elizabeth I think almost any fansite would confirm this. Another is that the current wiki ending does not state that Booker is both Booker and Comstock where Booker became Booker when he refused baptism and became the religious fanatic Comstock when he accepted baptism in another universe. The above fan wiki also states that Booker is both Booker and Comstock. This can be also be seen from the ending scene where he goes back in time before his baptism at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-VJ3j2bPJk at 15:50 . Priest: And what name shall you take my son? Elizabeth: He's Zachary Comstock, Elizabeth: He's Booker DeWitt, Booker: No... I'm both. I think this is explicitly stated very clearly. The current wiki ending " Booker sought out, but rejected salvation in the form of religion before branding his own hand with the initials "A.D." as a form of penance to remember his wife, Anna DeWitt, creating Comstock as a villain who stole his daughter from him, and then let himself slide into alcoholism to convince himself that his new memories were genuine." Firstly, factually wrong about Anna, and the words "creating Comstock as a villian" seems randomly inserted and I don't think this sentence makes any sense. The current wiki ending "Booker realizes that everything that happened was set in motion when he refused to forgive himself, and he lets the Elizabeths drown him to reset reality." I don't like the wording because this seems to suggests that if he forgives himself everything would also be fine. This also does not clearly reasoned why should Booker be killed at specifically this point as he was already depressed before the baptism and continued to feel depressed after refusing the baptism. The ending scene where Booker says he wants to go back and smother Comstock when he was born http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-VJ3j2bPJk at 14:15 and then entering the door appearing at the place of his baptism suggests he would have became Comstock if he accepted baptism. If you think I'm interpreting well then at least remove the interpretation "when he refused to forgive himself" and replace with "at the baptism" instead. Also I preferred the word "universes" instead of realities, parallel realities just sounds weird. The current wiki ending seems like a very bad personal interpretation.Kumarkia (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, without spoiling myself too much but to keep WP working, I'm going to strip some of the ending (pretty much, it seems like after Comstock's mansion is where interpretation flies) and tag with "in progress", no afront to PrisonerMonkeys's work. Once I know personally how the ending is presented (in exactness or vagueness) I can judge what should be fixed, but for now, this is to avoid OR (and no, not spoilers). --MASEM (t) 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. To say it was all in his head is a personal interpretation and thus should not really be put down in gold. To be honest nearly any story can be linked to it all being put in someones mind (I remember someone telling me that Pokemon was all set in Ash's head and explained it quite well). My personal interpretation is the same as 110.175.43.73|110.175.43.73 and that the confusion of it all being in his head comes from the two Lutece's saying that his mind is trying to write itself...which was due to the effects of the dimension travel rather than Booker having a mental breakdown. Mishka Shaw (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the interdimensional travel theory is that it has several massive plot holes:

1. Booker's baptism is presented as the event that led to the first split in the timeline, with Booker walking away in one version, and Comstock accepting it in the other. But there is nothing to show that such an event ever occurred - you would think that, for such an important event in the storyline, something would actually happen to mark its progress, since every other split is marked by a tear.
2. Elizabeth cannot exist without Booker, but she survives. If the Booker/Comstock split happened before she was born (and it had to, so that Comstock could take her), then drowning Booker in a time before that baptism took place should kill Elizabeth because she was never conceived. It doesn't.
3. The only time Booker and Comstock have any exposure to one another (before Booker goes to Columbia) is when Booker chases after Comstock to try and get Elizabeth back. But when Booker chases him, he doesn't have the "AD" branding on his hand. He added that after he lost Elizabeth. So how does Comstock know Booker branded himself? The branding is presented as being the only way of identifying the False Shepherd.

Any one of these is big enough to undo the theory. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Just to comment that much of what you're saying falls squarely in OR that we simply cannot work with on WP. Stray observations like the absence of the AB screams OR. Hence why it is better that we go exactly what is shown and if it is at all wide open to interpretation, we stay far away until we can gather other opinions about the work. (again, not to put down your starting work, PM, just to note the problem here). --MASEM (t) 22:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that it qualifies as OR, but I think te problem is that the ending doesn't convey its intentions so well. Half of what supposedly happened goes completely unexplained. If what I've posted qualifies as OR, then the above descriptions of Booker and Comstock being one and the same, but in different realities are also OR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would defiantly expand the ending as it stands at this time since there is exposition given in game that is not mentioned, along with the post credits scene. Granted a lot can be read into it but if we are only allowed to simply explain it as it is shown, there is plenty lacking. EDIT: just to clarify I am referring to, along with the previously mentioned; actions (the debt), visiting the "multiverse (including Rapture and Songbird)" and of course the final moment. All of these can be described in this article, even if they're vague or not. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As there is no deadline, I do want to make sure we give it an impassive, impartial writeup that has no issues with interpretation. I'm hoping to get done tonight by which I can judge it (I know youtube has the ending up ,but I still want to see it at my own pace). I've had to do this before for Limbo and Braid (both vague endings) so I know what I'm doing, but someone else if they can feel they can write towards the ending without interpretation, go ahead. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just expanded on some of the details up to the point before they deal with the multiple realities as I agree it does need care although it is very vague and can be explained on a basic visual level. EDIT: after adding a bit more and looking at the previous articles you mentioned, I do suggest you make a blunt description as before. In regards to the potential interpretations people can draw, that will no doubt be mentioned later in time when the games media, writers and developers inevitably talk about it (like many films with vague endings and their industry reactions). EDIT: Sorry for another addition but is the developer quote at the end of the same section required anymore at this stage? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone in and tried to write up an alternative version that explains everthing as neutrally as possible. This is the key line:

Booker accepts that every version of Comstock that is a religious fanatic was created because of a choice that he made.

This explains Booker's responsibility for creating Comstock, but does not go into details of how he created Comstock.

I also had to remove a few other little bits. For one, the mention of the Lutece twins - I cut them out of the original write-up because explaining their role and presence throughout the game would have taken up too much time and space, and understanding their function of the plot isn't critical to understanding the plot itself.

I also cut out the mention of Rapture. Yes, it's obviously Rapture, but its being Rapture doesn't affect the outcome of the game. It could conceiveably be anywhere without affecting the plot, so it's really ust a nod to fans of the series and doesn't need to be mentioned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That all seems fair (what do you think Masem?) although in regards to Rapture, while I am inclined to agree that it is more than likely a nod, it is where Songbird (an important part of the game) also ends up. Granted you can leave Rapture out but I would typically mention when a major character leaves the story. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

One last major change: I got rid of all ther guff explaining the development of various cahracters that didn't belong in the plot section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The new version is much better guys! Definitely clears up a lot. The article still seems to dance around the issue that Booker and Comstock are the same person. Am I just misunderstanding what the article is saying or are you guys being hesitant to outright state that as fact? Because its pretty clear to me (not via interpretation, but just paying attention to the plot very closely) that these two characters are the SAME PERSON in diffetent timelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.43.73 (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is deliberately worded to account for several possible interpretations without committing to one of them. Any interpretation, be it canonical or otherwise, needs to be supported by sources.

That's what the debate to date has been about. You think the game makes it clear that Booker and Comstock are the same person in different timelines. On the other hand, I feel that there are contrdictions in this that make it impossible, and that there are other explanations for it. As such, the article is deliberately worded to account for these interpretations. By saying that Comstock was created as a result of the choices Booker made, both your explanation and mine can exist without excluding the other. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, just finished it (watching credits here). I am reasonably assured that we can state without interpretation that Booker is Comstock - the act of walking away from his baptism is what sets him on the Comstock path in every multi-verse but one. This is straight from dialog (no voxophones). The end (pre-credits) is Elizabeth helping him to accept the baptism and prevent Booker from becoming Comstock - (the implication being that he thus cleared his debt and would not be guilted by Robert Lutece into giving him his daughter). But let me at the plot now knowing exactly how it's presented. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still disagree. After watching the ending again - several times - I have come to the conclusion that it is either deliberately ambiguous, or very poorly written. Since it is only the ending that suffers from this (everything after the Syphon is destroyed), I'm inclined to believe that it is the former. There are simply too many contradictions between what is said and what is shown for us to commit to one interpretation. Therefore, the current wording of the plot section (most notably the line about Comstock being created because of a choice Booker makes) is the best version. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I also now have to disagree. Having watched the ending again, Booker remarks that he is going to kill Comstock by going back to when he was born and smothering him. At the final baptism Elizabeth says "you were born again as a different man" to which Booker replies "Comstock", thus allowing himself to drown, everyone saying "smoother him in the crib" over and over. I find it hard to read this any other way, that they are the same person since the characters out right say. Some aspects are still vague before and after this point, but I think as they are now are fine. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I really think you're just misunderstanding it. Out of every piece of analysis I've seen of the ending online, including here on Wikipedia, everyone seems to agree that there is NO ambiguity and that Booket IS Comstock. Prisoner monkey, you are the only person who seems to be arguing against this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.43.73 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The current write of the plot is perfect since should people want to discuss or research the plot more than they can do their own search for the hundreds of forums or posts explaining it with their own analysis, since it is not wikipedias job to do it.86.143.233.76 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As a note, this is one of those games that I do expect to see RS's trying to analyze the plot (see above Forbes article). As such, we may have to actually provide sourced analysis from these as to appropriately summarize the game. (Further, there's the issue the plot's simply too long and needs to be trimmed somehow. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The events that are 100% clear (that I would not take as OR) are:

• All timeline divert at the baptism after Wounded Knee. Up to this point, there is one man named Booker DeWitt.
• One timeline - Booker accepts the baptism, becomes reborn as Comstock, has a vision of the future, and takes Columbia in that direction.
• The other important timeline - Booker runs out from the baptism, wallows in his grief.
• Comstock enlists the Lutece twins (who have means to travel through tears) to get Anna from Booker as to fullfil his prophecy since he is infertile by this point. Booker takes "give us the girl and wipe away the debt" as a means to forget Wounded Knee, but regrets the choice at the last minute, and as a result, when Luteces and Comstock go through the tear with Anna, she loses her finger then.
• The final scene (w/ many Elizabeths) show this scenario has played out an indefinite number of times in different realities, but always around Booker's choice at the baptism.

Now, my personal interpretation here is that the last pre-credits scene is Booker accepting the baptism to wipe out his past sins of war, but having the memories of what he could become and able to avoid - the last post-credit scene is this this "best" timeline where he never sold Anna and has lived happily since. However, I can't justify that at all.

That said, I've started to try to rewrite this twice and get stuck. There's almost two distinct plots here but difficult to separate. I am sure that having a separate Characters section will help cut down on plot details, but I'm struggling with how much of the actual events aboard Columbia and how much of the mindfuck ending we have to balance out. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I have people please check what I did? I shorted up the main plot and left most of what had been added for the finale - just clarifying points that resonate from the main plot (the Lutece twins, the missing finger for example). I think as it is otherwise written it does not beg any more speculation than the game provides, nor does it attempt to make any sense of the multiverse theories. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if this has already been discussed but in the plot summary you say that Booker allowed his daughters to drown him in order to prevent Comstock from ever existing - surely even if this happens then there would be an alternate universe in which he wasn't drowned and therefore Comstock rose to power anyway?Core1911 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the interpretations that we cannot really discuss without a source to support it. In order to explain that, the Lutece twins would have to be agents of reality, who seek to correct the anomalies that Booker's decisions created. It could therefore be assumed that in the alternative reality where Booker does not allow himself to be drowned, he would have the knowledge of what would come next, and would simply go through the door and start over from the rowboat. It would create a closed loop where although new realities are created by his decisions, the events within those realities would not be new. This would keep happening until Booker accepts that he has to be drowned - at which point, reality would be reset and Booker would wake up in his office in the post-credits scene (where his reaction to hearing Anna implies that he has some awareness of the events that transpired) in a world where Comstock never existed. But all of that would need to be supported by sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I managed to get it down to about 850 words. I think that's the best we can do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

While the plot of the game is admittedly convoluted the current description leaves out many important points, including why the events of the game even take place. Here's a basic breakdown of the plot in in as much of timeline as possible given the overlapping worlds:

• Comstock hires Rosalind Lutece to build the machines to make Columbia fly. In doing so she builds a machine that's capable of opening windows into alternate realities. Via this she is able to contact an alternate version reality of herself in the form of Robert, who developed the same technology in his timeline, and he joins her in Columbia. They are the same person.
• Comstock is rendered infertile by his long proximity to the machines but needs an heir. In order to secure an heir that is actually his blood he has the twins open a tear to an alternate version of himself that is desperate enough to sell his baby. A piece of Anna is left in two different timelines which gives her the power to open tears.
• Looking through the tears Comstock sees what Anna/Elizabeth is going to bring in the future and this is what sets him on his maniacal religious fervor and seeing himself as a prophet. The twins regret helping him so Comstock has them killed by having Fink sabotage the machine which makes them part of all timelines. He also has his wife killed to hide his secret.
• The twins try to thwart Comstock's future by going into DeWitt's timeline and offer to pay off his debts if he will "rescue" Elizabeth. They bring DeWitt through a tear into Comstock's timeline, hence DeWitt's bloody noses before he even meets Elizabeth.
• Comstock keeps Elizabeth's powers mostly nullified by using the siphon until he can brainwash her into fulfilling the timeline where she destroys the world.
• When the Songbird (which, incidentally, was built using Big Daddy tech borrowed from the reality Rapture is in)destroys the siphon Elizabeth becomes aware of all timelines at once. She realizes the only way to stop them all from taking place is to stop them before they split. She makes DeWitt come to understand this through the reality hopping during the ending. To avert these realities he allows himself to be killed.

The plot should explain the twins a bit better as they are the motivator of everything that takes place in the game. I'll take a stab some way to incorporate them a bit better in a while after I give it some thought Capeo (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that it requires some non-obvious (mostly, through optional voxophones) to connect the dots. Most of the nature of the Lutece twins, for example, is vague outside of points about being the same person from different realities, the agents that help get Anna to Comstock, and the agents that get Booker to Columbia. I do suspect we will have several articles, and perhaps Levine himself, explain the ending in depth from which we will have to rely on to fill in the voids we simply can't state. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The voxophones are the story though, for the most part. Them being optional has no bearing on their veracity. They explain all of the above about the twins explicitly. That's why the Bioshock wiki already has full backgrounds on the twins (and all characters actually). I'll see if anyone has posted all the transcriptions from the voxophones yet. I'd be shocked if someone hasn't. Capeo (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything that solely rests on info from a voxophone will likely need sourcing, either the voxophone or from a third-party. People are analyzing the ending so we'll likely be able to source something. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We actually might want to consider sitting on whether to explain some details such as the Luteces. There is planned DLC apparently that may do that for us further. As for the the last few changes, they seem fine since that state the obvious without needless details or theory. That is what forums are for. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the twins literally are the cause of the events in the game it seems odd to leave any explanation of them out. How can you explain the plot without mentioning they made the technology that lead to the tears and Elizabeth's powers in the first place? They were the ones (one really) trying to avert the future where Columbia attacks the US. It was because of them that Comstock became a "prophet". He was able to see possible eventualities hence making him seem like he was actually prophetic. Comstock knew there were possible timelines where DeWitt would appear hence he preemptively made his version of the antichrist have the AD brand. I wouldn't mention all that in there but a sentence or two explaining that Rosalind developed the technology, that they're the same people, and that they were trying to stop Comstock from attacking in the future seem necessary. Again, they set the entirety of what we experience in the game in motion in effort to fix their mistakes.Capeo (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

See the "Characters" section. They are in there in appropriate detail, save for their motive which is not directly clear (again, going about what voxophones (60ish of 80 I found) say). Remember,we, on WP, are going for a very summarized picture to of the plot, and not a detailed on, that's better for a Bioshock wiki or the like. We need to make it clear that there involves multiple realities, different versions of the same character, and the like as this will be part of the critical reception of the game, but the exact whos or whats aren't details we should be overly-elaborating on. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree that pointing out the driving force behind the entire plot is over elaborating. The exact whos or whats, as far as they are readily discernible without conjecture, is the plot by definition. Also, the Character section about them is wrong. Or not clear at least. The reason, again clearly stated in the game, that they can appear and disappear at will is due to the accident caused by Fink's sabotage that "killed" them. Rosalind actually enjoys being in said state while Robert often laments it. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I'm going to do a little rework of the plot and post it here then you can see if you think it's actually more clear and concise than the current one. Capeo (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering what the player experiences and how we are trying to write an encyclopedic article about the game which is more than just the story it tells, certain facets do become over-elaborative. I don't argue the Luteces may be the spark that started events, but the game's presentation almost removes this as a background event that just is, and instead focuses on the events post-Wounded Knee baptism and Booker's choice there. This is not to ignore the Luteces' roles, but their larger story is a side story of the main plot. Now, and this is quite possible, that the Luteces will be very notable characters on their own for a separate article (reception is pointing that way, but I want to hear Levine or another IG dev's take on that) before doing that. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the plot section is already pretty hefty at over 850 words (the Manual of Style for plot recounts suggests a recount should be no more than 700 words if possible), and so adding any more detail is only going to make the section bloat out needlessly. BioShock Infinite already has a very complex plot to begin with, so we had to write it in the simplest form to understand the basic plot. Some details naturally had to be cut, and the exact nature of the Lutece twins' role was one of these acceptable losses.

That said, explaining the Lutece twins' role in a little mroe detail would be preferable to mentioning the visit to Rapture. That is only tangentially related to the plot; Elizabeth's explanation of it could reasonably be used to explain any setting, to Rapture's presence makes it a nod to fans. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the plot word count numbers are guides. 95% of the works out there don't need more than 700 words to summarize for an encyclopedia. But as you state, BI is a very complex plot, and while the sources aren't there yet, I suspect we'll have more sources to help fill it out, and would justify the longer plot section. We're not talking to like 1200 words, but we do have a hundred or so extra to play around. However, there's a lot of rabbit trails that we could go down that would fill that easily, like the full role of the Luteces. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I think we've got the plot section rather well done in terms of avoiding any interpretation or the like, while hitting the fundamental points of the game (surprisingly most of the actual gameplay sections are irrelevant to the larger plot). The one piece that I can't confirm myself and seen conflicting statements on is the Lutece twins who we state were killed by Comstock but remain alive past that point. My vague understanding is that Comstock, in wanting to kill them, tinkered with their device so they were "killed" by their own actions, but this actually left them in a state of quantum flux allowing them to pop in and out through the universes. There might have been a vox that clearly stated this, but if someone can be sure about this, that's the last thing that really needs adding. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I took this line from the plot section - "One by one, the Elizabeths disappear, leaving a single Elizabeth standing in the water." Actually in accord with to a generally applied multiverse logic, the last Elizabeth should have disappeared as well. Some say the background music suggests that. Still I understand it's not a "should-have" issue here, what we need for this section is facts - and the fact here is, the screen fades to black BEFORE we can know if she disappears at all. It matters, I think. Lerox-Donut (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Giantbomb review

Giantbomb gave the game a 5s stars out of 5 stars User:Prolaxed —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rendering Resolutions; Video Display Output Options

Currently, video game articles on Wikipedia do not include resolution information. I think this information is important for comparing the same game across platforms (for instance, some PC version of games are rendered at higher resolution than the PS3 or Xbox360 versions). Currently I need to image search the back-cover of games to find the resolution options, and I think this information should be included in Wikipedia video game articles, such as Bioshock Infinite.

PS3 resolution: 480p or 720p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.177.199 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

For VG articles, we have come to consider video game requirements to not be important to include unless there is critical discussion about them (eg, like in BioShock 1, the FOV of widescreen vs standard resolution). I have yet to see anything reported that would necessitate it here. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Drowning vs. Authentic Baptism?

How certain are we that Booker is drowned at the end of the game? Right now the plot section says (at the end): "Booker allows them to drown him".

But this is how I interpreted the end of the game, and I'd like to know if we couldn't possibly present it to readers as well: The first baptism creates the Dewitt/Comstock split, but not simply because Comstock chose to be baptized -- it was driven by a surface-level desire to wipe away the pain of Wounded Knee, et al. Worse, he knew it was a cosmetic baptism, and the resulting chaos (trapping his own daughter, the persecution of the Vox Populi, the desire to wash blood with blood) derives from the false nature of his "redemption". If so, then the final scene is the only authentic baptism, which erases all of the false-redemption timelines, and leaves us with one Elizabeth and a happy future for Booker where Comstock doesn't exist.

I know Booker being drowned is the prevailing orthodoxy on the Bioshock Wikia and elsewhere. But given the facts of the game, I don't see how this possibility is less probable. What do people think of including it very quickly? Perhaps: "Booker allows them to either drown him or conduct an authentic baptism."? Scartol • Tok 14:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if an RS posited such a interpretation it could be included but as is the plot should just state what is shown and said. The multiple Elizabeths outright state he has to die before the choice was made, DeWitt acknowledges this himself by saying "Smother the baby in the crib", and you have the Elizabeths saying "smother" over and over, and DeWitt never rises from the water. At face value everything points to his death.Capeo (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this is the point that that one dev nearly quit over that was brought up in sources. As such, I believe we'll get some insight on the right way this should be phrased, but I do to agree that this was more a drowning than a baptism as presented to the player. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be obstinate, I promise -- look at my userpage and Wikipedia history; I think I can be trusted with good faith.

Which RS says that Booker dies? In the final scene Lutece asks the question: "How would one know how far back to go?" Booker replies: "That's the only way to do it. I'll go back to when he was born and I'll smother the son of a bitch in his crib." But then he realizes that Comstock is only "born" when Booker refuses the baptism. So again: Can't this smothering (which the Elizabeths all repeat) be a figurative smothering of both the murderer Dewitt and the zealot Comstock? The final moment, then, is the first time he reconciles these two identities within himself, thus ending the possibility of Comstock enslaving Elizabeth and Booker trying to atone for his error. (This also fits the larger allegory of Elizabeth and Columbia representing the fledgling nation, trying to find its way after so much bloodshed and slavery.)

It's true that DeWitt doesn't rise from the water at the end of the game, but we don't see him rising from the baptism before entering Columbia, either. Right? And in both cases we have the act (as it always is in literature) as a prerequisite for entering a new world.

How about this: Why don't we simply state what we see on the screen -- "Booker allows them to submerge him in the water and the screen fades to black"? Then we can leave interpretations up to the reader. Scartol • Tok 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missing a large aspect of the story. There is no choice. That's the point. Both taking the baptism and not taking it are necessary for all the bad things to happen. As soon as he makes the choice timelines diverge and both Comstock and DeWitt exist. That's why Elizabeth says he has to be killed prior to the choice.Capeo (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing any aspect of the story, but I'm not interested in carrying out this debate so I'll just step away with one last request to indicate only what happens on the screen. Scartol • Tok 23:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Attempt at clarifying the plot

This is basically what I was thinking. It clips some things but adds clarity (I think) to others:

In 1912 New York a destitute Booker DeWitt is hired by the Lutece twins to retrieve a girl for them and return her to New York unharmed. He is taken by boat to an island lighthouse and given little instruction other than her name, her picture and the phrase "give us the girl and wipe away the debt". [18] Atop the lighthouse is a rocket which takes him to Columbia.

Booker's presence in Columbia goes unnoticed until a citizen identifies the letters "AD" branded on Booker's hand, a sign of the False Shepherd that Comstock foretold that will take away Elizabeth and bring about Columbia's downfall. [15][31] Now a wanted man, Booker fights his way to Elizabeth who is being held captive within a giant statue. Within the statue he discovers a large device called the Siphon with no clear purpose. As Elizabeth and Booker attempt to leave the tower Songbird attacks and the pair narrowly escapes with their lives.

Booker decides to take an airship to escape Columbia and convinces Elizabeth of his plan by promising to take her to Paris, a city Elizabeth has always wanted to see. Once on the ship, Booker instead sets a course for New York infuriating Elizabeth who knocks him out. He awakes to find the airship under the control of the Vox Populi, and their leader, Daisy Fitzroy. Fitzroy offers to return the ship if Booker can procure weapons from a Columbia gunsmith.

Reunited once again, Elizabeth uses her powers to move them through tears in an attempt to acquire the weapons. She becomes increasingly disturbed that actions the pair takes in one timeline seem to linger in the new timelines they enter. Finally they arrive in a timeline where Booker died and has been turned into a martyr for the Vox Populi cause, leading to open warfare between the Vox Populi and the Founders. Fitzroy refuses to believe Booker is real, and sets her forces against him. Booker and Elizabeth attempt to recover the airship, but while on route, Elizabeth is forced to kill Fitzroy after she threatens to kill a Founder boy. As they are about to leave Columbia, Songbird attacks the airship and they survive its crash back into Columbia. While searching for the means to stop Songbird they learn that Elizabeth is not the biological daughter of Comstock and that he had the Lucete twins and Lady Comstock murdered to protect his secret while placing the blame for their deaths on the Vox Populi. During another confrontation with Songbird, Elizabeth saves Booker’s life by agreeing to return willingly to captivity. Booker follows but travels through a tear where he finds an elderly Elizabeth, now in control of Columbia and following Comstock’s example, destroying the world below: the judgment that Comstock promised the people of Columbia on its founding. She implores him to stop this future from ever coming to pass, and offers him the means to control Songbird before returning him to the present.

Booker rescues Elizabeth only to find that she no longer wants to escape and instead seeks to confront Comstock. When the three finally meet Comstock tells Booker to explain why Elizabeth is missing a finger. Booker takes affront to this accusation and kills Comstock, but Elizabeth assures him that Comstock is still alive. She asserts they must destroy the Siphon for her to fully realize her powers that have been constrained by it. After fending off Vox Populi attacks, Elizabeth sends Songbird to destroy the rest of the statue. Elizabeth’s powers are now fully realized and she is able to travel through time and space at will. When Songbird turns on Elizabeth and Booker she uses this power to transport the trio the city of Rapture from the previous Bioshock games. Trapped outside its walls Songbird is killed by the ocean pressure.

Elizabeth and Booker leave Rapture via another island lighthouse to find themselves looking out over an ocean where there seems to be an endless number of other island lighthouses. Elizabeth explains that each lighthouse represents one of an infinite number of possible realities, with each one being created as a result of a choice Booker has made.

Booker is shown his choice to refuse baptism after the Battle of Wounded Knee. He is subsequently shown years later in his apartment, standing over his daughter in her crib, when he is visited by Robert Lutece who states "give us the girl and wipe away the debt". To clear his gambling debts Booker gave Anna DeWitt to Lutece who was working for Comstock. Booker had a last minute change of heart but could not stop the twins and Comstock from escaping through a tear. As the tear closes it severed Anna’s pinky revealing that Elizabeth is Anna. His guilt for giving Anna up had driven him to brand “AD” on his hand. Comstock needed Anna to be his heir as he himself was infertile due to using the technology the Lucete twins invented. Using this same technology he was able to see the possible future Elizabeth would bring to Columbia but also a possible future where Booker would arrive in Columbia. Hence he knew the False Shepard he prophesized would have an “AD” branded on his hand. The Lucete twins weren’t truly killed when their machine was sabotaged in their attempted murders. Instead they became able, much like Elizabeth, to travel freely through time and space. They sought to stop Comstock’s plans from coming to fruition by bringing Booker through a tear into Columbia.

Booker decides to kill Comstock in the past, or “smother him in his crib”, to prevent his nightmarish vision from coming to pass but Elizabeth convinces him that this is not possible as Comstock, like himself, exists in “millions of millions” of worlds at once. Instead, she returns Booker to the one common denominator in all of these realities: the point where Booker was to be baptized and cleansed of his sins after the Battle of Wounded Knee. Here Booker is greeted by multiple versions of his daughter from different timelines. They come to make him understand he and Comstock are different versions of the same person, one who took the baptism and went on to become Comstock, and one who refused the baptism and remained Booker DeWitt. To avoid the choice ever having been made he allows the various Elizabeths to drown him. One by one, the Elizabeths disappear as their realities collapse, and the game ends with a single Elizabeth standing before a doorway.

In a post credits sequence, Booker awakens in his apartment on the same day he gave up Anna. He rushes to Anna’s room while calling her name. As he opens the door the screen cuts to black.Capeo (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what is already in the plot section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Important ending info: Different dimensions for Baptism sites

I think it should be mentioned in the article that Booker visits the baptism site twice. The first baptism site he visited was where he had rejected baptism. The second baptism site he visited was where he had accepted baptism and became Comstock, and this was the place Elizabeth drowned Booker.

Remember this? "(After visiting the second baptism site) Booker: What is this? Why are we back here? / Elizabeth: This isn't the same place Booker. / Booker: Of course it is. I remember it. / [...] / Elizabeth #2: You chose to walk away. / Elizabeth #3: But in other oceans, you didn't. / Elizabeth: You took the baptism." This pretty much verifies that Booker killed himself in the dimension where he accepted baptism and became Comstock.

Personally this is how I interpret the ending: Booker allows Elizabeth to kill him to prevent Comstock's existence. However, Booker did not kill himself in the dimension where he rejected the baptism (the first baptism site he visited with Elizabeth). He killed himself in the dimension where he got baptised and became Comstock (the second baptism site he visited with several versions of Elizabeth). Thus, the Booker who became Comstock was killed, NOT the Booker who rejected the baptism. This results in Booker (who rejected the baptism) to have never crossed paths with (the now non-existant) Comstock, thus never selling Anna, allowing the father and his child to finally have a normal life. The post-credits scene even shows Booker waking up on the same day he sold Anna, only to presumably find her still in her crib.

Of course my interpretation shouldn't be written in the article, but I think the fact that Booker visits the baptism site twice and killed himself in the second one (dimension where he became Comstock) should be written in the article, as this seems to be an important plot point where could people could interpret the ending from.

This article is where I got this idea from, hope it helps. It's pretty informative actually: http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/28/understanding-bioshock-infinites-ending-ending-explanation/

Oh and one more thing, is it just me because I didn't hear a baby cry in the post-credits scene.--Wrath X (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a very clear theory and highly interpretive. It's also counter to some of the more prevailing ones. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Spiltting into separate articles

As it currently stands, the article is over 140,000kB in length. That is more than enough to justify splitting the article up into additional sections.

At the very least, I think individual articles on Elizabeth (maybe with a subsection on Songbird) and Columbia would be appropriate, and possibly one on Booker and Comstock (depending on how much emphasis should be put on their relationship to one another).

Is there anyone who particularly agrees or disagrees with this, or who thinks that other pages might be justified? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been expecting to give Elizabeth her own article, and Columbia is pretty clear that it can stand on its own (redirects are already in place); I just needed to make sure that critical reception on both characters existed. That'll take out at least half of the Development sections on the city inspirations, and Elizabeth's AI aspects. I don't think we can do the same yet with Booker or Comstock. If anything, Slate or the Luteces might merit an article before Booker. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Setting of Songbird's death

In the Plot section of the article, it is very vague as to where Elizabeth transported herself, Booker and Songbird. as well as how exactly Songbird died. But seeing as that Elizabeth had transported them to an underwater city (possibly even the same city that BioShock 1 & 2 took place in), and that it was the ocean's pressure that killed Songbird, I feel that this is a crucial piece that shouldn't be glazed over for it opens up the possibility that, even if Infinite doesn't actually take place in the BioShock universe, it very likely takes place in the BioShock multi-verse. Therefore I would appreciate it if you would please change "At the last moment, Elizabeth opens a tear and takes the three of them away from Columbia altogether, taking the opportunity to destroy Songbird." to "At the last moment, Elizabeth opens a tear and takes the three of them away from Columbia to an underwater city, possibly the same city featured in the previous BioShock games (or an alternate world version of it), allowing the pressure of the ocean outside to destroy Songbird."Sonicking2004 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done — It's quite obviously based on Rapture, the city the original BioShock took place in - you can see a sign that says "Ryan DOESN'T own us!"

However, there is no confirmation that it is Rapture. After all, Elizabeth says that it is simply one of many realities that may exist, and so there is no way to tell if it is the same Rapture that the original game took place in.

Furthermore, even if it absolutely is Rapture beyond a shadow of doubt, the fact that the character visits it has no bearing on the plot at all. Technically, the events that take place there could take place anywhere, and so the inclusion of the scene is really just a nod to the fans of the series. Given the complex plot of the game, including this detail is hardly a priority.

Finally, even if we could find a way to incorporate this detail into the plot, I'm afraid we couldn't use your wording. This is why:

"At the last moment, Elizabeth opens a tear and takes the three of them away from Columbia to an underwater city, possibly the same city featured in the previous BioShock games (or an alternate world version of it), allowing the pressure of the ocean outside to destroy Songbird."

Firstly, that is far too lengthy an explanation for what is only a twenty-second sequence of the game, but more importantly, the way you have used words like "possibly" and "or" make it speculation, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. We can't prove that the city Booker and Elizabeth visit is Rapture. To claim that it might be is speculative; to claim that it is constitutes original research, which is likewise discouraged. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Where it happens and that the next thing that is said in the plot, about Elizabeth taken them out of time and space and explaining about the multiverse, means that we don't have to worry that if this Rapture is the same Rapture that was in BS1; it simply is Rapture (perhaps one of many). The fact that Songbird is based on the Big Daddies further cements that they go to Rapture. Every RS that discusses the ending mentions Rapture. It's not a guess. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the {{edit semi-protected}} tag solely on the basis that protection of this article has expired. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Setting - Minor Issue

A minor issue on the setting that I wanted to bring up here first, currently it says the following: "The primary setting of BioShock Infinite is a city suspended in the air by giant blimps and balloons..." In the game they actually make it fairly clear that the city is supsended due to a quantum effect, to quote one of the voxphone's in the story "I had trapped the atom in the mid-air. Colleagues called my Lutece Field quantum levitation, but in fact, it was nothing of the sort. Magicians levitate-- my atom simply failed to fall. If an atom could be suspended indefinitely, well-- why not an apple? If an apple, why not a city?" Perhaps we should update the setting accordingly? Darkstar949 (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding it. (Though I note you can see still balloons and blimps on other parts, so it's a combination of the two). --MASEM (t) 15:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still making my way through the game, but I there is also a kinetoscope that has a clip that says that the way the city stays up is "quantum mechanics." That said though, they never really explain how it works. Blimps are used as a method of transport through.Darkstar949 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Including GR/MC ratings in prose

Generally, we should not be detailing out the GR/MC ratings in the prose section. The aggregators provide a rough measure of critical review, they are not meant to be taken as an authority. Further, while the game is likely ranked high on the top lists for both sites, it's a measure that can change over time. I do believe these sites will give out end of the year lists, and likely BI will be one of the top 5 (if not higher) so then we can say 'BI was ranked the 2nd highest reviewed PC game at Metacritic', but only when that information is available. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The first split and the deadly paradox

1.According to the ending, Booker's baptism seemingly presented as the event that led to the first split in the timeline. If it is true, why is the event(or Booker) so powerful to split the world? After that, multi-reality is created into countless possibilities.

2.If it is not the first split, that means multi-reality already exist before all of the story. And the "final solution" won't work since there are already countless version of universes before the baptism. There could have been more Bookers died by other events in other universe, such as "Booker died in the battle of Wounded Knee". Thus one Booker died before baptism in a dimension doesn't mean much but creates more opposite possibilities.

P.S. Theoretically, if world split is possible, then there is no guarantee that the world won't split again and again by each decision Booker makes after the post credit scene and causes more paradoxes. Thus the ending is unsolved for me. :'( --Hydralisk mk2 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to discuss the game itself, but to improve the article. Mind you, these are fair questions that if we have reliable sources posing their theories we can include, but we shouldn't be doing it ourselves save towards article improvement. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason to be married to "universal acclaim"?

From Wiktionary, universal means "Common to all members of a group or class" and acclaim means "To shout approval; to express great approval." By definition, if there are reviews that do anything but "express great approval," that's a false and contradictory statement. I understand that people who may want to edit this article (myself included) tend to love the game, but we don't need to puff it up in a way that contradicts the actual content of the article. Let's find a word that expresses the positive nature of the reviews without creating a literal untruth. I'm going to edit the article to use overwhelming, and I won't edit this part of it again. Croctotheface (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. Honestly, you didn't have to start a discussion. "Are we all good with "overwhelming"? "Universal" is literally untrue if there are reviews that do anything other than strongly praise the game." was enough to convince me. I appreciate the thought though. I just saw the first BioShock article, a featured article, and saw "universal acclaim" there, and since the scores of both games were comparable, I thought "why not? Let's aim for consistency"; also Metacritic's label. But I get what you're saying. "Overwhelming" it is then. I"ll just mention the "universal acclaim" as Metacritic's consensus. --Wrath X (talk) 11:37, 03 April 2013 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is also untrue, how is it overwhelming? Overwhelming for whom? Critical acclaim is the most appropriate terminology, and that is pushing it, the most neutral term is positive reviews. Universal acclaim is pandering by fanboys, they add it to a game even if it got middling reviews. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This comes from Metacritic and a long "tradition" of using Metacritic's "description" in the lead sentence of reception. In essence, that's where the sentence is sourced from. Whether or not it's appropriate I'll leave to smarter folks than I. -- ferret (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Critical acclaim then? --Wrath X (talk) 12:38, 03 April 2013 (UTC)

It's clear with 90+ MC/GR scores that the game can broadly be considered universal but I'd rather us see a source that quotes that than us pulling from MC's ranking. "Critical acclaim" is perfectly acceptable as its not peacock-y at all. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Universal acclaim is a puffy term, it's the kind of thing you see on an advert for a film, not in an encyclopedia, and it gives undue weight to Metacritic's opinion which as we may have seen from the last week, is not exactly the most open and honest system. Additionally it opens issues with any game rated higher, and there are many games rated higher, because if this one has universal acclaim because MC says so, then every other game rated higher on MC will have IPs adding it, and pointing to this as an example. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think these are all really strong points. The current writing is a little clunky, though, with "critical acclaim from critics." I'm going to take out the "critical," but any other non-clunky phrasing would work. Something like "critical acclaim from both professional and amateur reviewers" would work, too. Croctotheface (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We should not mention "amateur" - fan reviews, unless they themselves have had some type of mention by other source (eg SimCity scores). I haven't seen any user review phenomena here so there's no reason to mention them. We assume that as long as the source is from WP:VG/S as reliable, that the reviewers given are professional. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are not many games rated higher. --SubSeven (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the article now says "near universal acclaim" which avoids the literalness issue but still sounds rather peacocky. I think that "acclaim" is already very strong, and once you start modifying a word like "universal," the quality of writing starts to dip. What does everyone else think? Croctotheface (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth article almost ready

I've started putting together User:Masem/Elizabeth for a separate article on her. I need some help filling in the reception section but we don't need it perfect yet. But my goal is that I want to put a WP:DYK fact here once I move it to mainspace, though right now I'm not 100% sure what the most interesting fact about her is. But once it's moved this will cut about 1/3rd of the development section. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the most interesting thing about Elizabeth is the way she has been designed. At its heart, the game is one giant escort mission as you try to get her out of Columbia - but the way Elizabeth has been designed addresses many of the issues gamers have with escort missions. Her AI is written so smartly that she never gets herself into trouble. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Booker in the post-credits scene

I have one minor edit to the plot write-up that some people might find contentious. Previously, the article read like this:

In a post-credits sequence, a Booker awakens in his apartment

There was a hidden note explaining that there was no evidence that the Booker in this scene was the same Booker as the one in the main events of the game, and that because of this "a Booker awakens" instead of "Booker awakens" was the best wording.

However, I think we can reasonably infer that the Booker in this scene is the same Booker from the events of the game, and this is why:

Firstly, there is no evidence that it is a different Booker. Nothing is presented to suggest that we have somehow transitioned into a different Booker. There is no evidence to suggest that we have not transitioned into a different Booker, but because we have spent the entire game playing as Booker, the idea that it is the same Booker has the benefit of continuity.

Secondly, if the post-credits scene features a different Booker, then this makes absolutely no sense in the context of the wider game, and undermines the point of including the post-credits scene altogether.

With these in mind, I think it is altogether reasonable to assume that the Booker in the post-credits scene is the Booker from the game. Suggesting that it is an entirely different Booker requires a greater suspension of disbelief, and would therefore need some evidence to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The post-credits sequence is quite abstract and disconnected from the plot of the game. It was probably meant to be open to the player's interpretation. Unless Ken Levine comes out with a concrete statement one way or the other, I think we should just describe what actually happens on the screen (Booker wakes in his apartment, calls Anna's name and opens her bedroom door) without imposing any decisions as to whether it's our Booker or a different Booker. —Flax5 14:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Way too much interpretation. All we can do is describe that we know we're back in a viewpoint of a Booker. Again, we're wikipedia so it is not our place to try to guess. Thanksfully there are lots of signposts in Voxophones to explain other parts of the game, and at least two-three RS published articles on what happens in the ending that agree with all events as presented. But none of them have cleared stated who this Booker is. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

So we can say that the underwater city is Rapture - however indirectly we do it - but we can't say that the Booker in the post-credits sequence is the Booker from the game? To my mind, that's two different rules for the same situation.

The idea that it is a different Booker is a greater departure from the events of the game as they are presented than the idea that it is the same Booker. Therefore, because it is a bigger change, it demands more evidence, especially since suggesting it is a different Booker makes the purpose of the scene unclear.

Also, the source about the baby's cry is wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y_r9FIbKZU Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't say it's the Rapture, but a Rapture (as the plot description is now); there's zero question that it's based on what everyone say from playing the first game but there is the logic that in game, no one calls it out as the Rapture. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You say there is no citable evidence to suggest that the Booker in the post-credits scene is the same Booker as the Booker in the game. But the wording of the article implies that it is a different Booker - of which there is also no citable evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"a Booker" would include the player's Booker. Only because of the fact that at one point you see dozens of other Bookers means we can't assert that the ending Booker is the same as the game's Booker, even if you think it makes sense. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of "a Booker" still implies that it is a different Booker. If anything, it puts more weight on the idea that it is a different Booker. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we have no sourcing or obvious summary from the game to say "the" Booker. If anything, we can add a note that the game does not make it clear if this is the same Booker or a different one, but we can't just say "its only the player's Booker". --MASEM (t) 05:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And at the same time, we have no sourcing or obvious summary from the game to say another Booker. Do you see the problem now? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you are making it a problem, and now past 3RR. When we say "a Booker", we are, implicitly, saying "either the Booker the player played through the game with, or a different Booker". We don't have any information to make a choice which one that is, but we aren't eliminating the fact it could have been the original Booker that we see now. This doesn't require any source beyond what the game presents and what spoiler ending discussion have been presented. But, we cannot say, 100% from just the game and current sources, that it is the same Booker the player has been playing through with. Is it likely? Sure, but per WP:OR, to say that with what we have to go on is specifically violating synthesis that is not appropriate. --07:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that the use of the phrase "a Booker" takes in every version of Booker that ever existed, including the Booker that expereinced the events of the story. That is not my issue with it.

My issue is that the phrase "a Booker" strongly implies that it is a different Booker from the one who expereinced the events of the story. The wording does not sufficiently address the idea that it could be the same Booker. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You're reading far too much into it and/or sticking to the claim it is the same Booker. If we had used "a different Booker", then obviously yes, that's disingenuous. But there's no other concise way to say "we see events from the viewpoint of a Booker but whether this is the same Booker or a new one is unclear" besides just saying "a Booker". That's why i suggested a footnote on that line to add that clarification, but in the running process, "a Booker" is perfectly suitable. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On a note about the date that the final scene occurs at, we have zero information to say when that occurred, if it was meant to be the same day that Lutece would have arrived to take Anna (which likely can be determined). Without double checking, there doesn't appear to be any difference between the various scenes in the office (where you have some control) - the same betting slips on the desk, etc. so we shouldn't be using much in there to establish a date, and definitely not for the final scene. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a calendar on the desk when Booker wakes up that clearly gives the date as being some time in 1893. That said, that does nothing to establish which Booker is present in the scene. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We could state "A calender on his desk shows October 9", but we can't say "On October 9th, ...". It's original research to make the assumption of what the date is, and moreso that its the same date that Lutece appeared originally. For all we know, Booker could have just come out of a week-long drunken state and the date wasn't updated. We're talking about reuse of the same graphics, and the date is never purposely called out, so this could just be IGames being "lazy" in order to complete the game. They could have perhaps meant it to, but we have zero evidence to point to that. If there was some indication in the narrative that it was, importantly, the same date, that would make this fact important (and given how tight the rest of the narrative is without relying on background graphics like that, if this was a key fact to know, IG would have highlighted big time). But as best we can state without clear narrative evidence we can't make that assumption, nor is it a critical fact to appreciate the ending, which only suggests that in one timeline (perhaps now the original) Booker kept Anna, but even that's a improper conclusion since it cuts before that point. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To cover several points made in this discussion so far:

1. The reason I included "a Booker" in the article is because, since the playable Booker is drowned by Elizabeth during the baptism, which took place before Anna was conceived, there is no possible way it could be the same individual. That said, without concrete evidence (i.e. Ken Levine agreeing) all we can do is mention that a Booker awoke, with confirming nor denying he is in fact the same Booker we have been playing through the game.
2. Re the date of the final scene, Anna DeWitt / Elizabeth was taken by Lutece on October 8, 1893 and this is confirmed both in-game and in marketing material released beforehand; the best I can do at the moment is direct you towards the BioShock wiki for this information as my work network bars access to Games-related websites. The fact that this exact date is seen on the calendar in the final scene clearly indicates that he drowning of player-Booker has effectively wiped Comstock, Columbia and the events of the game-proper from existence (along with every other version of Booker who underwent the baptism). Masem, you mention above that IG would have drawn our attention to the calendar if it was undeniably the same date, what exactly do you want them to do? Large flashing lights point towards it (which would not only break the fourth wall, but destroy the mood of the scene); as it is, they basically shove the calendar under your nose in that scene, there's no way you can't see it. You have also said that it would be OR to state that, since the calendar says it's October 9, it definitely is. It would be even moreso if we were to say "although the calendar says October 9, there's a possibility it could be any number of days on either side." The game calendar says "October 9", so this is what we should take as read.
3. Finally, there is no mention on the article that Anna is in the room, or that this Booker even kept her, only that Booker calls out her name.

The information is clearly important to both the scene, and the greater story of the game and so should remain in the article. If the date wasn't important, the calendar would be sitting there shoved under our noses and so, because of this, I will be re-including this information in the article once again. if a general consensus is reached to preclude the line is made at a later date then I shall support it, but until then we should not censor and/or hide information important to the story. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not important detail, as it is not called out, and is not given any weight in the plot. I agree there's likely a chance the date was the same; in most works on time travel where a future is undone or something like that, a common motif is to return to an establish date to show how things are the same or different, and that would be a reasonable assumption here. But it's only an assumption. Oct 9 is not given any weight in the narrative outside of a graphic texture showing that. (Even if there was on screen text to show "October 9" in captions rather than a desk calender, presented with purpose to the player, that would be better to go on). There's no other indications that it is the same day - again, going back to the trope of such works, if there was a common event in the Lutece visit and the post-credit scene (like an argument next door, a car accident heard outside, the same song playing on the radio, something to be a constant), I'd not be arguing this, but there's nothing to suggest this. Even if it was the same date, is it a different reality? Maybe it was an hour before Lutece arrived; maybe it was an hour after he did. The fact we don't see Anna or have any other frame of reference means that we have little else to be able to accurately set what this scene is - all we can say is "a" Booker wakes, runs to the door to the other room, calls for Anna, and opens it, cutting to black. We cannot make any assumptions beyond that because the game gives us nothing to know how this scene is connected to the rest of the game. Now, common sense tells me this is supposed to be the righted-reality, where Booker didn't have to make the choice, so Comstock never existed, and so he has Anna still, and having that scene occur on the same day that Lutece would have appeared is a good conclusion. But that's simply not supported by anything in game. Putting this in without any other source to back it up (and I just checked the two "ending" discussion articles from Eurogamer and CVG to see if they caught the date thing, which they didn't) is synthesis and original research and must be removed until we have more clarity on the issue. And without that clarity, what exactly the date is does not matter to an encyclopedic summary of the game's plot. It simply shows a post-credit scene that, by description alone, implies a corrected timeline, so what date that scene happens is not critical to understanding the game's events. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

By your logic, we should be ignoring anything not glowing in fluorescent colours and shouting. Just because the calendar is little more than a "graphic texture" does not mean it isn't important (the whole game is made up of graphic textures after all). You also recently said in your edit summary that you thought it might be a repeat texture and for that I direct you to the following two images; this one taking place directly after Booker's "baptism" upon his arrival in Columba and this one in the post-credit scene which very clearly shows the calendar was added specifically for that scene. Besides that one thing, the scenes (and the items on the desk) are exactly the same. This suggests that your theory that the calendar is non-important is, respectfully, incorrect. Once again, I also have to repeat the fact that it is stated in-game that Anna was taken on October 8th (not 9th, as we've been stating mistakenly), further supporting the argument that the importance of the calendar in this scene is paramount.

The point of whether this Booker is the same as Booker Prime is not the point in question (IMO, he's not, considering Elizabeth drowned him at the baptism, thus killing Booker Prime, Comstock and any other Booker who underwent the baptism), it doesn't matter that this Anna is not the same Anna who will become Elizabeth; what matters is that the date given is the same date Booker Prime gave up his daughter. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"By your logic, we should be ignoring anything not glowing in fluorescent colours and shouting." To a point, yes. This is was writing about fiction on Wikipedia is about, particularly here where there is a lot of chance for speculation and interpretion. We have been careful to this point to only state what can be clearly be stated via voxophones, or what is very observant to a player. A date on a desk calendar on a post-credit scenes is not this obvious thing, though certainly present (I'm not questioning it exists). I don't question Oct 8 is the date in the original history Lutece arrived to take Anna. And yes, that calendar was added between the two shots and shows that date. But, given none of the other props on the desk appeared to change (save for one betting slip now absent), it is completely fair to ask if this was intention or a blooper (not including the calendar earlier). It is such a small detail that has zero impact on the nature of that final scene (barring further clarification from Levine on what it's meant to imply) that us pointing it out in this detail is inside the edge of what would be considered original research via synthesis. It makes sense to be true, a player sympathic to Booker would want it to be true, and to that, it seems to be exactly what it seems, but I've in this situation with several other "mindfuck" works like Inception and Memento in the past, and we have to be careful to tread the line of what is shown and what is implied. The implication this is what took place in the "fixed" reality after Booker's drowning instead of Lutece's arrival is the problem here. I have no problem saying the date of the final scene is October 8th, I just don't think we can imply anything more beyond that (that this is what happened than Lutece arriving). --MASEM (t) 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have found one way to word this better, however, since the Oct 8 date is "firm", but with out creating the necessarily implication. That is, I've specifically identified earlier when Anna was taken (previously it was an unspecified date, but now we can state it was Oct 8 1893), and then left the final scene taking place at Oct 8 1893. We let the reader go "Oh, oh!" that that's the same date and make whatever conclusion they may, instead of us trying to suggest it is the alternate to the Lutece's arrival. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's... sufficient. Should do the job nicely. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The last Elizabeth

I took this line from the plot section - "One by one, the Elizabeths disappear, leaving a single Elizabeth standing in the water."

Whether she actually disappeared or not leads us to a question - did we see her disappear in front of our eyes?

Actually in accord with to a generally applied multiverse logic, the last Elizabeth should have disappeared as well. Some say the background music suggests that. If she didn't, it might suggest her omnipotence at that time. But a suggestion is only a suggestion - I understand it's not a "should-have" issue here, what we need for this section is facts - and the fact here is, the screen fades to black BEFORE we can know if she disappears at all. It matters, I think.

Lerox-Donut (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We can only edit in what is shown in the game. The screen cuts aay before we see what happens to the last Elizabeth. Whether or not she disappears is not shown, and so open to interpretation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, the article currently reads " One by one, the Elizabeths begin to disappear until the original Elizabeth is standing in the water alone, and the screen cuts to black" which, besides the fact that it's poorly written, strongly implies Elizabeth Prime (I'll call her) does not dissapear. This doesn't really make sense if you consider the fact that she drowned her own father before he conceived her. (For now, let's just disregard the fact that, if she had done that she wouldn't have been alive to do the drowning, according to some theories.)

I think a better sentence would be "One by one, the Elizabeths begin to disappear, the screen fading to black on the original." --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bryce DeWitt

I added to the characters section, saying that Booker DeWitt shares his last name with Bryce DeWitt. My edit was reverted by Darkwarriorblake for being original research. With all due respect, it's not OR that Booker DeWitt and Bryce DeWitt both have the same last name. I didn't say that the name of the character was deliberately based on that of the physicist; I only said that the two are both named DeWitt. I tried to be very careful not to make any claims that could reasonably disputed and are not supported in-game. The bit I added: " DeWitt shares his surname with real-world theoretical physicist Bryce DeWitt, who advanced the formulation of Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, a theory on which BioShock Infinite's story is based." I understand that this can be construed as trivia. Anyway, I suppose it is OR that BI's story is based on the many-worlds interpretation. Or has that been definitively stated? Thirtysilver (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No one has stated as best I can tell that Booker's last name was specifically chosen to be a reference to Bryce. It is interpretation to say this, and thus not appropriate for WP, which requires verifyability. There is a good chance it was chosen for this, but we can't make the assumption. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Booker DeWitt shares his name with the tv show Booker about Dennis Booker who was a cop, and they both know how to use guns." It is OR because you're giving meaning to the name based on your own original research, two people share the same name and you're stating as such without a source and apparently without having performed any original research, so you're just stating a random item of trivia. THEN you are saying that the plot is based on his theory even though this is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I do understand. You were right to remove what I added; I apologize! We should, perhaps, also remove the mention of Booker DeWittt on Bryce DeWitt's article.Thirtysilver (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize, and I am sorry if I came across strong. And yes if the same information exists without a source on Bryce's article it should go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)