Yes, possibly the very worst title I could ever have used, but I am tired and suffering from man flu right now, so it's the best you'll get.
Let me preface this with a spoiler warning, I will be discussing the ending of bioshock infinite, so if you haven't finished it stop reading now.
So, having recently completed the game and it having sparked my interest once more in the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, I felt a need to talk about it. Yes, that's right, another egocentric post where I feel my opinion matters, but I will admit that this will not be anything spectacularly original, and I'm sure theories all across the internet have many similar conclusions.
Firstly, let me just say I loved this game, it was a worthy prequel to a series that brought us various ethical implications concerning the evolution of science and technology. However, as clever as it was, the ending was rather predictable, and disappointingly created a paradox that has yet to be concluded. It's always fun to have a game end in a way that leaves it open to interpretation, it leads to discussion and debate, and everybody can create an ending that they are happy with, so I can't fault them for attempting that. I can fault them for the rather obvious non-conclusion, though, and that's exactly what I'm going to do.
I'll start with the obvious 'you are the bad guy in your own story' cliche... It was always heading that way, and they extended it to Elizabeth becoming the villain in her future too. Constants and variables, the game called it, but I prefer the quote 'those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it'. This worked, in theory, as a nice link between storylines and was clever... And giving so many rather blatant hints to the revelation is a good technique for making players feel insightful, which is how you get around the problem of 'we had a major plot twist in the first game that nobody saw coming, we will never manage that again so let's make this twist obvious to flatter the punters'.
The second problem with this game is the reliance on decisions, particularly early on in the game, that ultimately have no impact upon the story. I accept that that level of intricacy is difficult to achieve, particularly in a linear fps with elements of rpg and a passing acquaintance with free roaming opportunities, but if that's the case then why give us the choices? Especially when you know the theory behind the ending that I'm about to give.
Before I start on that, though, I will explain the paradox that has annoyed me enough to discuss this. Here's the big spoiler, the game ends with the revelation that another version of your character became the main antagonist in the game. Then, in order to stop him ever existing, you are taken back to a point in time when your life split to create both versions of you, and you are subsequently drowned by various incarnations of your daughter... This is all very well, and even if we ignore the fact that you are not your younger self (and therefore too late to prevent Comstock from being created), we still have the problem of you being drowned by a daughter that will not be born if you die at this point in time. It's plausible that you drowned yourself, just lay down and let the water fill your lungs, but you did so because of a revelation by a girl who ceases to exist, thusly creating the paradox that a girl who was never born tells you various possible futures that scare you into preventing the future from happening, which as paradoxes go is nor the most impossible to find a loophole for, but it's still a major plot hole.
That brings me onto the many worlds interpretation... According to that, every outcome is catered for in at least one universe/dimension, which means for every time you choose to drown yourself to prevent the future there is another you who presumably decides not to die, which is obviously the 'comstock' version of you... Now, fair enough, if you die you can't have a child which means Elizabeth isn't born and so Comstock potentially has no heir... And there's the possibility that the game developers do not believe in the many worlds interpretation, and instead subscribe to an alternative multiverse theory which allows them to limit the number of dimensions/universes so that Comstock is never born (which also brings up a paradox and questions of its very own, but I'll not get into that right now). If that is the case, then their choice of title is a problem, the 'infinite' presumably referring to the number of alternative universes.
Now, I did say I loved this game, it was highly intellectual, and on that note I'll end this with a reason why their multiverse creation was a good idea; it explains new games. The idea that there are a potentially infinite Booker DeWitts out there means that each time you start a new game it's a different character, even if you do exactly the same as you did in your first playthrough (why you would is beyond me, but I believe in the many worlds interpretation, so there must be a version of me somewhere who did just that) it's still a different version of that character. It's me reading far too much into this game, but I'd like to believe the developers at least had a similar thought while working on it.
Sorry that this wasn't as filled with jokes, sarcasm and obscure references as my previous blog posts, but I hope at least somebody found it interesting and if it got at least one person thinking them I consider that a success.
On that note I'll say it's goodnight from me, and it's goodnight from him... (see what I did there?)
