14

I don't understand the final "baptism" scene. How can it have any effect on how the story ends?

I understand that Booker dying should prevent Comstock from ever existing. I understand that the Booker we play as is the result of denying the baptism, and Comstock is the result of Booker accepting the baptism.

What I don't understand, is that if PlayerBooker has already previously made the decision to deny the baptism, how did killing him destroy Comstock? He has already made the decision!!

No, the answer isn't, "Well, Elizabeth brought Booker back in time to where he was supposed to be baptised." While she may be able to do that, she and PlayerBooker would see PlayerBooker from the past, or PastPlayerBooker. If they wanted to kill PastPlayerBooker, it would make sense to kill him to prevent Comstock from ever existing, but that didn't happen. We saw PlayerBooker being drowned by Elizabeths.

Someone please explain to me how drowning PlayerBooker, again since he already made the decision to deny the baptism, fixed anything.

galacticninja
  • 46,036
  • 98
  • 303
  • 557
SDF River
  • 141
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • Not to mention the inconsistencies between Booker and Comstock. Booker saw what happened in Columbia, and that by treating the "Negroes" badly, it will uninevitably lead to Columbia's downfall. Had Comstock walked the same path, he would've abused them only for as long as necessary and thus avoided the catastrophy altogether. Also, during the game it is revealed that Comstock "foresees" the future by looking through the Lutece Fields/Tears, but there is no mention of his own experience in Columbia. I therefore have difficulties believing that Booker's death was necessary as well. – Nolonar Apr 11 '13 at 20:34
  • 4
    I didn't even know Infinite had an ending. Thanks for spoiling that for me. – oscilatingcretin Apr 11 '13 at 20:37
  • @ObliviousSage Do not use the spoiler tag. It is dead for a reason and should stay that way. If you're talking about the markup, then okay. – Yuuki Apr 11 '13 at 21:18
  • @Yawus: Yes, I meant the markup, sorry. – Oblivious Sage Apr 11 '13 at 21:21
  • My theory is that some how right before he dies Emily opens a tear to another world so booker is technically dead ( or never gets baptized at all by any of his other selves) but he really isn't so that he can wake up in a different tear, travel through tear after tear after tear, and find clues as to how to get back to Elizabeth's tear. I don't know if this sounds good to others but this is what I would like to see in the next bioshock. –  Apr 11 '13 at 23:50
  • 1
  • Does this question HAVE a canonical answer? All answers seem to say "I think", "I suppose", "My theory", "We don't know"; why is it still open? – badp Apr 14 '13 at 09:24
  • @badp I don't think there will be a canonical answer to this due to the nature of the game's plot (or until the writers give an explanation). Answers will have to source in-game material or external sources related to it (e.g. Multiverse theory). As to why a lot of the answers seem to say that, maybe it could be prevented if this question is protected? – galacticninja Apr 14 '13 at 10:05
  • @galacticninja Does the game "admit" to using the multiverse theory? – badp Apr 14 '13 at 10:07
  • @badp I believe so. – galacticninja Apr 14 '13 at 10:09
  • 1
    ouch i think i got spoiled as well -_- – corroded Apr 14 '13 at 13:53
  • Changed title, as per http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/a/7135/2578 – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Apr 16 '13 at 22:30
  • I think maybe the answer is a wee bit of artistic licence. Killing Booker just before he made the decision is the logically consistent way to end both time-lines as far as I see it. The fact that it happened just after the decision was made does break the internal consistency of their universe a little, but maybe the scene just worked better this way, dramatically speaking. – Adam Jun 28 '14 at 22:57