Damn, dude's got a pretty good voice, did not see that one coming although I knew he was playing a character 
Pretty touching story indeed, glad everything worked out for him. Sadly for every guy like this there's unfortunately some that aren't as fortunate...
Anyhow, not gonna drag the thread down by bitterness. Life's a giant lottery!
TressFX not bad on performance? That thing really put a strain on my GPU when playing Tomb Raider...
Can't wait to see it in HD!
More theories: http://www.giantbomb.com/bioshock-infin…te-faq-1431358/
Booker being sent "back" by Old Elizabeth doesn't change time, but moves him back to the junction point of "Booker arrived in time" and "Booker came too late". When Elizabeth drowns Booker, she makes a replacement reality to introduce the constant of Booker rejecting baptism - the baptism site is not really the one where Booker made his choice, which is signalyzed by his dialogue."
Alright that makes sense, guess I should stop thinking about it like time travel.
Anyhow, thx for the help guys. I think I'm just gonna call it quits. At this point I just can't care anymore or I'll become mad 
Quote from Senturawatch the segment after the credits, it should shed light on your question
Sadly, it does not. 
I think I know where they wanted to go with the story (unless you believe some of the more exotic theories out there). The Booker after the credits is a Booker together with Anna because Comstock cannot ever exist again. But they shouldn't really have fixed anything by killing the older Booker (the one you're playing as, the one 20 years after the baptism divergence point happened).
You're supposed to kill the young Booker. So I'm super frustrated, I just have to suspend my disbelief, they somehow, managed to stop Comstock from happening.
I'll quote someone from a different forum that basically says the same things as me but might do it better:
When Booker is drowned by Elizabeth at the end of the game, are we to assume that this is the same Booker you have played through the game with?The game alludes to it being the same Booker by him making the choice before you walk into/through the final lighthouse, when Elizabeth asks if you're "sure you want to do this".
However, this Booker has ALREADY made his choice to reject the baptism after Wounded Knee. He is a Booker 20+ years AFTER declining the baptism so drowning him is pointless and will alter/eradicate nothing.
An analogy of this would be trying to stop WWII by taking a 1945 camp Hitler back to some point before the war and topping him. It would serve no purpose because he has already transitioned through this choice/point.
...therefore, we must assume that the Booker who steps through that final lighthouse IS NOT the same Booker we have been playing the game as, but the Booker who Originally made that particular choice in the first instance.
And another one: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/bioshoc…finite-1432092/
Thank God I'm not the only one.
Alright, let's take it from there then. Wasn't the whole resolve of the game that you have to go back to the root, back to where you branch of between Booker and Comstock. If you're just a bystander visiting a universe like you describe then why let yourself (and not the Booker in the universe) drown? If you were supposed to get rid of the Booker that was about to make that decision then why don't you visit that universe when it's taking place and you (or Elizabeth for that matter) kill him then? Why is the story resolved by killing yourself, rather than the Booker in that universe? Does a visitor-Booker, like I like to call it, affect the universe he's visiting by dying somehow?
I think we're almost there, hopefully
I remember there being a mention of killing Comstock in his crib. Why can't you just go back and kill the baby Booker laying in his crib? Sure there wouldn't be an Elizabeth/Anna but who cares, the whole point was that no one had to suffer, right. I see that as a happy ending as well
Quote from Senturai stopped watching that after he went on about how stuff was borrowed from fringe. really? all of these concepts are older than any modern tv show, what the fuck makes you think this is from fringe? way to seem uneducated.
as for your questions: #1, the doors don't differ from the tears. there is just an infinite amount of bioshock lighthouses.
#2 this is purely speculative - the whole interdimensionality may be just his depression/grief putting images of what could have been in his head. remember that he almost drowned in the beginning of the game, this could be his last moments before death. if it was real, then there'd be an infinite amount of universes where he would be trying to rectify his mistakes, but also an infinite amount of universes where he didn't. there is no infinite loop, infinity exists beyond that. to understand this better, read up about string theory. according to it, all space, all infinite universes exist inside an 11 dimensional manifold. there are infinitely infinite possibilities in all those universes.
As far as I remember he didn't really say it was borrowed from Fringe, he just remembered it being used there as well, coincidentally. None of the stuff here is super revolutionary.
#1 Alright, I understand that when you travel through a tear you go to a different dimension where things happened differently, endless possibilities and all that. But it's still not explained while throughout the game you get duplicated into other universes when you go through tears and then at the end of the game when you step through a doorway you become the Booker/Comstock in that very universe and play those sections like flashbacks. It doesn't resonate with me
For instance, you stepped into Columbia, you are Booker. You don't become the old Comstock, seeing things through his eyes, you're a duplicate in the same universe; there's a Booker, there's a Comstock. Killing him proved that much. Then at the end of the game you step through a tear in the universe where Comstock was supposed to be "reborn" and then you let yourself die. Which doesn't make sense to me cos if we apply the same concept it would mean that you yourself just walked into a different universe and then committed suicide, there still would be the "real" Booker of that universe; perhaps even standing next to you. And he'd all be like: Damn boy, why the fuck do you drown yourself, retard. And he then becomes baptized and becomes Comstock.
Is this because it's the past and not the future/present or something?
Visitor duplicate <> Becoming another Booker in a universe. That's where my head hurts. Fuck I feel retarded.
WHY IS HE SHOUTING OMG STOP SHOUTING!!!!!!!1!11!oneone!1!
Ok, that still didn't explain some questions I had (and posted here earlier to no avail, please help me yo!)
Question 1: How does the mechanic of the doors differ from traveling through tears? How come it's not the same. When you walk through a tear your body will be in that universe, (along with the other Comstock). But in the end sequence, when you open the doors and travel to another tear... you become the person itself. You step into "booker/comstock". Why is this? Doesn't make sense to me to have 2 different mechanics for the same thing 
Am I missing something?
Question 2: Infinite loop, is it merely that in a whole lot of different universes he tries to rectify his mistake. Goes into Columbia, and achieves nothing. "For what has happened, will happen", or some other metaphysics stuff? So the only way this Booker succeeded was because he understood he had to die, while the others... did not?
OR, is this infinite loop something caused by Elizabeth being in a universe she did not belong, her pinky being left behind in the other universe, etc...
Not exactly sure what you mean, but don't you just have to walk over to the boat that they fixed?
Tbh, I really liked the idea of the tombs but they were way too short and easy 
Everything was always there in your face, hardly any climbing around so you see all the different "pieces" of the puzzles. A bit of a shame.
http://kotaku.com/th...ombat-468530143
More or less agree with it. Of course there's some pros and cons with every design though, and to be fair... there's plenty things that Bioshock Infinite does right as well! .
Where are you applying to if you don't mind me asking?
And do let us know how it went! GL (Although at this point it's already over?)
Never saw that video (or anything else for that matter) before playing this game. Sad to see some parts cut/reworked but that's just how things go. It's the first time I get a glimpse at a different studio's iteration process actually, quite interesting
Some parts seem to give off a better atmosphere though in that video, although it appears to be scripted as fuck and not really "actually playable" (or was it??). Personally I would've wanted more of that rather than guns blazing.
I still don't understand some things though. If you travel to a different universe do you:
a) Embody "yourself", the other you? And alter your memories.
b) Merely come into the universe, and thus... 2 versions of you exist in that universe. (And memories are still altered to accommodate this, although somewhat fucked up).
Since Booker and Comstock were able to exist simultaneously in the events of the game I'm led to believe option B. And Daisy also said you were impostors since she saw you die, also hinting at copies of yourself.
But the whole resolution in the end was that booker went back in time to the baptism, I assume there is only 1 booker in that universe, and killed himself which was the booker of that universe. To be consistent with how the universe thing works, doesn't it mean he needed to step into that universe at the time of the baptism and kill the other booker that was about to become Comstock? Why is he suddenly "that booker", why aren't there 2 versions there?
Am I missing something?
Another thing that's messing with my mind is the relevance of the "infinite loop". As far as I understood Comstock's universe HAD to exist, because it relied on stealing a foreign entity/baby from a different universe. Therefore there couldn't exist a universe where the baby wasn't stolen?
Cos otherwise the whole plot would be nullified right, cos for every choice there's a universe. Therefore there could be a universe where Booker chose to give the baby away and a universe where he didn't. Because of the "infinite loop" however, that choice was impossible. Is my understanding of the "infinite loop" correct?
Alright I finished it Too bad I didn't get around to playing Bioshock 1&2... I'm sure the nostalgia factor must've been awesome (only played 1h of the first).
In all honesty, the story and idea of it were definitely (for me) the more interesting part of the game. At times I felt a bit bored and just wanted to skip to the next chapter and see what happened. For instance I explored the whole area around Comstock's House before trying to enter it the first time and then when I finally went to the house I was forced to replay the whole area, pretty much. That was an overly long experience, guess it's my own fault for wandering off but how was I supposed to know All things considered though I deem it a very solid experience.
The "reveal" was somewhat abrupt to me, I didn't really see it coming. Some more time to let it all sink in would've been nice. When I learned Booker = Comstock I had to think for a moment to recall all earlier events that would explain this. By that time the credits had already started so there wasn't that much "OOMPH" to it as it could've had. It hurt my head, but I'm glad I was able to figure it all out.
So I said some parts of the game felt a bit dull, perhaps puzzles could've helped, I kinda missed those. I felt some areas were a bit too "corridor" like, having to trackback for a chest with a key was a bit of a bore (the first chest in the game I think?).
I felt there was something missing from the combat, I can't really figure out what though. Perhaps it's just not my kind of game. The enemies were very easy at times and I didn't feel like investing or using too much Vigors (except spamming the area with electricity thingies + OP blast to the skies). Perhaps it's because of how the enemies moved but there usually wasn't a "set-up" time so by the time I got the area figured out to place traps I had already blasted my way through half of the enemies. Also my fault for not remembering about Possession... Do those work on Patriots?
Most of the enemies felt the same-ish to me although I know they weren't, I didn't really have to react particularly different to them so perhaps that's why. Except for the Patriots and Handymen, I'm glad they weren't too overused. Both provided a real challenge at times, those were some fun encounters That blast vigor is way too OP against Crows and Firemen. If I didn't have that then I feel those encounters would've been way more interesting, my fault for overusing it but oh well.
So that's me nagging and nitpicking, I actually enjoyed the game quite a bit
Quote from blackdogWell, I want to see it again because it left me with mixed feelings... but you cannot say it's a bad movie to me. It's a bad Alien movie, as they advertised like that.
As an atheist, I really enjoyed the religious aspect of the movie. (And unsurprisingly, a friend that is a firm catholic, find the movie to be rubbish.)
Interesting that you say that, I always find the religious undertone of Hollywood movies (if they have it) to be a huge thorn in the eye ("Signs", wtf...). It always detracts from my experience.
Gonna rewatch the movie at some point though, gonna order a bluray pretty soon I think. I suppose the overall quality is questionable but at least it can be appreciated in its full CG glory So yeah, guess it still would make a fine addition to the collection.
I watched Django Unchained the other day, very interesting watch Although if I think about it there wasn't really a strong story tbh Just stuff happening, interesting stuff nonetheless, I was entertained the whole way through but didn't find much story/character arcs or whatever that movies normally have. Then again, Tarantino usually doesn't follow standards I believe
Guess I'll just conclude that it was very enjoyable but it won't leave me with any hard thoughts, although it wasn't entirely mindless action either.
Alright, fiddled the ini's some more. Was able to cap framerate to 60 with bSmoothFrameRate=true. However, there seems to be screen tearing below 60 FPS, I thought that was impossible? 
/confused
It's kind of a dealbreaker atm, I really wanna start playing but screen tearing is a big no-no for me
Does anyone have experience with Catalyst Control Center or a 3rd party application like Radeon Pro?
I wanna get Vsync triple buffering working cos the tearing is horrible but it doesn't seem to override the ingame settings :s
No David Hayter wtf Goddamn that sucks.
I think everyone had way to high expectations. Throwing an excessive amount of money at a person doesn't magically turn into quality, it's still a one man (lol) team.
I think she only asked for $6000 did she not? But she got a hundred times that amount... That doesn't necessarily mean you have to use up all that money, or is there a legal clause on kickstarter that says otherwise?
There should be an upper limit...
Scrolling the web is so depressing. A lot of people can't even tell the difference in graphical fidelity between BF3 and 4. But then again, they couldn't tell the difference in lighting between MW3 and BF3 either Such a shame since so much time goes into that.
http://www.starbreeze.com/2013/03/starbreeze-statement/
Apparently they don't stand behind it, nor are involved with it. The video shot itself.
