BioShock 3. Game establishes that it is a multiverse. There are many worlds/universes, but there is always a girl, and always a light house. You did something bad and it caused suffering. At the end of the game, you go back and change something, and create a bright happy future. Everyone sings Kumbaya (literally they play a song called break the cycle). The idea is that there was a single event and everything bad happened because of that. Going back and stopping it prevents all the bad stuff. The problem is, that only works with “Back to the Future” style time travel. The game already established it is a multiverse. So yes, you did create 1 future where everything didn’t go to shit. But because it’s a multiverse there are still an infinite number of universes where things are still very bad, and there is suffering. For whatever reason the writers just didn’t think about that I guess? It seemed really asinine at the time I played it.
spoilerI clocked its ending as you became a coalescence of all Bookers, and since all the Elizabeths kill you it stops you in every timeline in which you exist.
If it means the same as in french, convalescence is the period of time after an illness during which one recovers. Coalescence would be the action of joining/merging things
btw I never really got the ending of Bioshock Infinite, so your explanation is welcome. It felt a bit masturbatory to me at the time. It doesn’t help that I didn’t really enjoy the game itself, contrary to the previous two
It does. My just having woken up brain mixed the two up.
Also, I was actually a huge(ba-dum-tiss) fan of it. It’s one of my favorites. It’s flawed and you can tell that it had to drop some things to make it out the door but I liked it. My wife and I actually have matching tattoos based on the series.
All the Elizabeths come together to kill their Bookers. It’s not just one universe. It’s every universe. You only get to see your universe’s Booker die.
I get why the ending to 2017 Prey might have been annoying, but I honestly thought it was very in line with the themes present in the rest of the game. The more time has passed, the more I’m satisfied with the ending. That being said, IMO the only right ending is
Was going to comment this as well! I enjoyed the story quite a bit too. Despite nothing really “happening” per se I remember the ending feeling emotional regardless.
A bit late to the thread, but I wanted to add the Gothic games to the mix. They don’t hold your hand and are relatively grounded in reality (within their fantasy world). Controls are a bit janky and the English voices as well. If you can, you should play in the original German or Polish. The Witcher series was heavily influenced by Gothic, especially Gothic 2.
If they are too old for you, the Remake is slated for early 2026. A demo is available on Steam and GOG and should give you a pretty good overview of the atmosphere and the way the games work.
Just stay away from Gothic 4: Arcania. Totally different studio with none of the charme.
I have a playthrough going on of Bravely Default on my 3DS, but I got stuck on a difficult fight and never finished it. I wonder if I should go back, but it’s been a while and I’m unsure if I remember the story.
The other games leave room for long term consequences but the 1st game is entirely pointless in the broader scope of the story.
If you don’t link the fire, you just did all of that adventuring for nothing. You may as well have just stayed in the asylum and let Gwyn slowly burn away.
If you do link the fire then you just reset the clock for the age of fire to fade again later while you wait for the next guy to come kill you just like Gwyn.
I agree with the point, but would argue that choosing not to link the fire is distinct from never adventuring at all. Letting the dark gradually take over with no wielder/ruler would make events like Oolacile much more likely than if a Lord of Dark was there to control and direct that power, imo.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne