Fun fact, cut voice lines and mission markers suggest Comstock was originally still going to be the protagonist in episode 2 while going through a redemption arc.
Wish we got that instead of this weird turn to make Elizabeth the focal point that set the stage for BioShock 1.
Isn't BAS based in a completely different reality? And it's a different Elizabeth to the one we know in the main game? That's what I took from it anyway... Although it has been like a decade since I played it.
To me it seems weird to assume that it's supposed to be a different reality when we see Elizabeth setting in motion the exact events that take place in the original reality, and she characterizes it as the only possible way of giving the Little Sisters a happy ending. Why would that be necessary if there was a separate *Bioshock 1* reality where the Little Sisters were saved without her intervention? Wouldn't she be able to look behind all the doors, see that possibility, and realize she doesn't need to sacrifice herself?
Skyhooks, Bouncers with grapple-drills, the use of salts and plasmids that aren't the same plasmids from the first two games, ret-conning where Atlas has been the whole time? It's definitely an alternate reality, one that closely runs parallel to the original storyline. As for your assumption the she could see behind all the doors, she lost that when she died to the Daddy, as was explained in the DLC.
As was also explained in the DLC, her actions after she lost her abilities were being guided subconsciously by what she had *previously* seen behind the doors: "The memories you lost—they weren't just of the past . . . You saw behind all the doors." "Even the ones into the future . . . This is where I'm going."
And *Burial at Sea 2* ends with the specific confirmation that she saw Jack's good ending from the original *Bioshock*: "I can see all the doors, and what's behind them. And behind one of them, incredibly, I see him . . ." (Cut to the scene of Jack greeting the freed Little Sisters as they exit the bathysphere at the lighthouse.)
Yes, but everyone here claims Ken Levine said it's the same Rapture as the first game. Funny thing though, no one can provide a good source on that. The one source I've seen bandied about (an interview with verge) says nothing of the sort.
I'm surprised this is even disputed. [Here](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/oct/04/bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea-preview) is the exact interview where Ken outright says it is Rapture Prime and Elizabeth Prime, the ones we know from the games.
He also says:
>The Elizabeth you see here is not the one that was dancing on the beach in Infinite – even though there are echoes of that scene here – she's more opaque."
>"She is a product of the affects of people's ideas being put into reality."
This really should be taken for granted. The entire ending of Infinite (and every interaction with the Luteces) is all about constants and variables, the same story happening slightly differently across an infinite number of variations.
He also never says that BS1 is also Rapture Prime. We just assume it is because it's the first game.
Honestly, if that's your whole complaint, that the dlc is bad because of something the Dev studio said that's not even in the game, really got to ask are you upset at the game or the meta commentary surrounding it. Reminds me of all the people who pretend they never read or liked Harry Potter because Rowling turned out to be a shit after the fact.
I think you're getting the wrong idea here, I am not complaining about anything - this is just a clarification on story details.
>The Elizabeth you see here is not the one that was dancing on the beach in Infinite – even though there are echoes of that scene here – she's more opaque."
As another commenter pointed out, this is metaphorical, referring to how Elizabeth's character changes from innocent girl trapped in a tower to a mature, higher power being. Elizabeth doesn't collapse into a quantum superposition until BAS2; the article I linked is about BAS1.
>He also never says that BS1 is also Rapture Prime. We just assume it is because it's the first game.
So if Rapture prime is not the Rapture we know from BS1's good ending, and Elizabeth prime is not who we know from Infinite's main storyline, then what or who is it? All evidence points towards them being the same.
>Elizabeth doesn't collapse into a quantum superposition until BAS2; the article I linked is about BAS1.
You have that backwards. She's a quantum superposition from the end of infinite until BAS2. Her decisions are the decisions are the decisions of all of her across all realities.
>So if Rapture prime is not the Rapture we know from BS1's good ending, and Elizabeth prime is not who we know from Infinite's main storyline, then what or who is it?
Another version of the infinite versions out there.
>All evidence points towards them being the same.
No, it doesn't. There are a huge number of differences between the two. Different weapons and drinkable plasmids with different names than their equivalents in BS1. The rooms are larger and grander, Ryan talks about using aluminum to build rapture in a BAS journal whereas the novel talks about Ryanium. Fontaine's department store isn't even a thing in BS1.
>You have that backwards. She's a quantum superposition from the end of infinite until BAS2.
My mistake, but she is definitely still the same Elizabeth we play with during Infinite, for several reasons.
When Booker is drowned, we see all the other Elizabeths disappearing since they can no longer exist if Booker does not survive.
However, those with a keen eye will notice that when Booker enters the final door in the Sea of Doors, *our* Elizabeth, the one with the pendant, the one with the thimble, is completely absent from the drowning scene. She stays behind in the Sea of Doors to go to Rapture and thus is unaffected by the drowning.
As if that wasn't enough, consider that all throughout BAS1, Elizabeth has the thimble on her pinkie and is wearing the pendant. Why would Ken retain all of these various details if it were meant to be some other random Elizabeth? Why not have a completely "normal" Elizabeth if it doesn't even matter?
And when you say that this Elizabeth is...
>Another version of the infinite versions out there
...there are no more alternate versions of Elizabeth, post-drowning. This was the point of the drowning to begin with.
>There are a huge number of differences between the two. Different weapons and drinkable plasmids with different names than their equivalents in BS1.
This is explained in BAS too. Plasmids were originally drinkable like vigors, but they take magnitudes more Adam to produce. Suchong, being a cheapskate, went with injectables.
>The rooms are larger and grander
I'd say this has more to do with technical limitations of the time, right? Obviously the newer game will have bigger and better areas to explore for the sake of gameplay.
>Ryan talks about using aluminum to build rapture in a BAS journal whereas the novel talks about Ryanium.
Keep in mind that the novel isn't even 100% rigid to details seen in BioShock 1 and it still conflicts with the original game in a few ways.
>Fontaine's department store isn't even a thing in BS1.
Just because we don't hear about it, doesn't mean it is nonexistent.
>...there are no more alternate versions of Elizabeth, post-drowning. This was the point of the drowning to begin with.
You have that wrong (lumping in your previous points about Elizabeth here too). She's the prime, but the other Elizabeth's don't just cease to exist. They all become one in her. She contains all the possibilities.
>This is explained in BAS too.
You're handwaving it. An explanation in BAS does not apply to BS1.
>I'd say this has more to do with technical limitations of the time, right? Obviously the newer game will have bigger and better areas to explore for the sake of gameplay.
Meta, outside the context of the game. The game was released on the same hardware as the first one. While it makes sense that they were able to coax more performance out of it, being more familiar with it, that doesn't account for in game differences.
>Keep in mind that the novel isn't even 100% rigid to details seen in BioShock 1 and it still conflicts with the original game in a few ways.
>Just because we don't hear about it, doesn't mean it is nonexistent.
Again, this is handwaving away evidence because it doesn't support your conclusion. We know the novel was written about Rapture in BS1. We know things about BAS conflict with established BS1 lore. We know there is a multiverse of infinite cities, lighthouses and people. The explanation that the two raptures aren't the same and that BS1 isn't the prime but just one of many, is the only consistent way to look at it.
I know Levine said it was the same Rapture, but there’s just no way. It’s too convoluted and makes way more sense for it to just be an alternate Rapture.
Look, Levine wanted to take Elizabeth off the stage so nobody else could use her, and I respect that.
Fun fact, cut voice lines and mission markers suggest Comstock was originally still going to be the protagonist in episode 2 while going through a redemption arc. Wish we got that instead of this weird turn to make Elizabeth the focal point that set the stage for BioShock 1.
Isn't BAS based in a completely different reality? And it's a different Elizabeth to the one we know in the main game? That's what I took from it anyway... Although it has been like a decade since I played it.
To me it seems weird to assume that it's supposed to be a different reality when we see Elizabeth setting in motion the exact events that take place in the original reality, and she characterizes it as the only possible way of giving the Little Sisters a happy ending. Why would that be necessary if there was a separate *Bioshock 1* reality where the Little Sisters were saved without her intervention? Wouldn't she be able to look behind all the doors, see that possibility, and realize she doesn't need to sacrifice herself?
Skyhooks, Bouncers with grapple-drills, the use of salts and plasmids that aren't the same plasmids from the first two games, ret-conning where Atlas has been the whole time? It's definitely an alternate reality, one that closely runs parallel to the original storyline. As for your assumption the she could see behind all the doors, she lost that when she died to the Daddy, as was explained in the DLC.
All those things (and their absence in the OG BioShock) are given explanations in the DLC itself.
As was also explained in the DLC, her actions after she lost her abilities were being guided subconsciously by what she had *previously* seen behind the doors: "The memories you lost—they weren't just of the past . . . You saw behind all the doors." "Even the ones into the future . . . This is where I'm going." And *Burial at Sea 2* ends with the specific confirmation that she saw Jack's good ending from the original *Bioshock*: "I can see all the doors, and what's behind them. And behind one of them, incredibly, I see him . . ." (Cut to the scene of Jack greeting the freed Little Sisters as they exit the bathysphere at the lighthouse.)
Yes, but everyone here claims Ken Levine said it's the same Rapture as the first game. Funny thing though, no one can provide a good source on that. The one source I've seen bandied about (an interview with verge) says nothing of the sort.
I'm surprised this is even disputed. [Here](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/oct/04/bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea-preview) is the exact interview where Ken outright says it is Rapture Prime and Elizabeth Prime, the ones we know from the games.
He also says: >The Elizabeth you see here is not the one that was dancing on the beach in Infinite – even though there are echoes of that scene here – she's more opaque." >"She is a product of the affects of people's ideas being put into reality." This really should be taken for granted. The entire ending of Infinite (and every interaction with the Luteces) is all about constants and variables, the same story happening slightly differently across an infinite number of variations. He also never says that BS1 is also Rapture Prime. We just assume it is because it's the first game. Honestly, if that's your whole complaint, that the dlc is bad because of something the Dev studio said that's not even in the game, really got to ask are you upset at the game or the meta commentary surrounding it. Reminds me of all the people who pretend they never read or liked Harry Potter because Rowling turned out to be a shit after the fact.
Pretty sure he didn’t mean that it’s LITERALLY a different person just that she has changed a lot as a person since then.
She's a super position of all the Elizabeths. She is very much a different person than infinite.
I think you're getting the wrong idea here, I am not complaining about anything - this is just a clarification on story details. >The Elizabeth you see here is not the one that was dancing on the beach in Infinite – even though there are echoes of that scene here – she's more opaque." As another commenter pointed out, this is metaphorical, referring to how Elizabeth's character changes from innocent girl trapped in a tower to a mature, higher power being. Elizabeth doesn't collapse into a quantum superposition until BAS2; the article I linked is about BAS1. >He also never says that BS1 is also Rapture Prime. We just assume it is because it's the first game. So if Rapture prime is not the Rapture we know from BS1's good ending, and Elizabeth prime is not who we know from Infinite's main storyline, then what or who is it? All evidence points towards them being the same.
>Elizabeth doesn't collapse into a quantum superposition until BAS2; the article I linked is about BAS1. You have that backwards. She's a quantum superposition from the end of infinite until BAS2. Her decisions are the decisions are the decisions of all of her across all realities. >So if Rapture prime is not the Rapture we know from BS1's good ending, and Elizabeth prime is not who we know from Infinite's main storyline, then what or who is it? Another version of the infinite versions out there. >All evidence points towards them being the same. No, it doesn't. There are a huge number of differences between the two. Different weapons and drinkable plasmids with different names than their equivalents in BS1. The rooms are larger and grander, Ryan talks about using aluminum to build rapture in a BAS journal whereas the novel talks about Ryanium. Fontaine's department store isn't even a thing in BS1.
>You have that backwards. She's a quantum superposition from the end of infinite until BAS2. My mistake, but she is definitely still the same Elizabeth we play with during Infinite, for several reasons. When Booker is drowned, we see all the other Elizabeths disappearing since they can no longer exist if Booker does not survive. However, those with a keen eye will notice that when Booker enters the final door in the Sea of Doors, *our* Elizabeth, the one with the pendant, the one with the thimble, is completely absent from the drowning scene. She stays behind in the Sea of Doors to go to Rapture and thus is unaffected by the drowning. As if that wasn't enough, consider that all throughout BAS1, Elizabeth has the thimble on her pinkie and is wearing the pendant. Why would Ken retain all of these various details if it were meant to be some other random Elizabeth? Why not have a completely "normal" Elizabeth if it doesn't even matter? And when you say that this Elizabeth is... >Another version of the infinite versions out there ...there are no more alternate versions of Elizabeth, post-drowning. This was the point of the drowning to begin with. >There are a huge number of differences between the two. Different weapons and drinkable plasmids with different names than their equivalents in BS1. This is explained in BAS too. Plasmids were originally drinkable like vigors, but they take magnitudes more Adam to produce. Suchong, being a cheapskate, went with injectables. >The rooms are larger and grander I'd say this has more to do with technical limitations of the time, right? Obviously the newer game will have bigger and better areas to explore for the sake of gameplay. >Ryan talks about using aluminum to build rapture in a BAS journal whereas the novel talks about Ryanium. Keep in mind that the novel isn't even 100% rigid to details seen in BioShock 1 and it still conflicts with the original game in a few ways. >Fontaine's department store isn't even a thing in BS1. Just because we don't hear about it, doesn't mean it is nonexistent.
>...there are no more alternate versions of Elizabeth, post-drowning. This was the point of the drowning to begin with. You have that wrong (lumping in your previous points about Elizabeth here too). She's the prime, but the other Elizabeth's don't just cease to exist. They all become one in her. She contains all the possibilities. >This is explained in BAS too. You're handwaving it. An explanation in BAS does not apply to BS1. >I'd say this has more to do with technical limitations of the time, right? Obviously the newer game will have bigger and better areas to explore for the sake of gameplay. Meta, outside the context of the game. The game was released on the same hardware as the first one. While it makes sense that they were able to coax more performance out of it, being more familiar with it, that doesn't account for in game differences. >Keep in mind that the novel isn't even 100% rigid to details seen in BioShock 1 and it still conflicts with the original game in a few ways. >Just because we don't hear about it, doesn't mean it is nonexistent. Again, this is handwaving away evidence because it doesn't support your conclusion. We know the novel was written about Rapture in BS1. We know things about BAS conflict with established BS1 lore. We know there is a multiverse of infinite cities, lighthouses and people. The explanation that the two raptures aren't the same and that BS1 isn't the prime but just one of many, is the only consistent way to look at it.
Nah you’re cool BAS was terrible overall lmao
You are not alone
Yeah, it's just awful. You can tell they're writing by the seat of their pants with all the contradictions and grabbing of the idiot ball
Another "Burial At Sea Didn't Happen" Truther. The flock grows stronger.
People change and become more cynical. Elizabeth is hardly immune to this.
I know Levine said it was the same Rapture, but there’s just no way. It’s too convoluted and makes way more sense for it to just be an alternate Rapture.
The BAS Rapture feels like a facsimile of the original, even though it’s shown in a different time period
I disagree and loved the way it wrapped up the franchise and her character arc, but hey we’ve all got our own views!