You're actually creating a new alternate universe where a new choice was made. If you travel to one of these alternatives and change something, you're not changing the outcome of that alternate universe. When you hop between "alternate universes", you're actually hopping between universes where different choices were made. You can visualize this as a series of paths which continue to fork at each decision point. There's also an alternate universe, where you chose another option. There's the universe you're in, where you made the choice you made. Multiverse theory posits that every decision you make results in a new universe. Unless we get word from the people who wrote the story, any of us could be correct. This question will result in inherently speculative answers. Someone please explain to me how drowning PlayerBooker, again since he already made the decision to deny the baptism, fixed anything. We saw PlayerBooker being drowned by Elizabeths. If they wanted to kill PastPlayerBooker, that would make sense to kill him to prevent Comstock from ever existing, but that didn't happen. 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, her and PlayerBooker would see PlayerBooker from the past, or PastPlayerBooker. 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 already made the decision!! 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. I understand that Booker dying should prevent Comstock from ever existing. How can it have any effect on how the story ends? I don't understand the final "baptism" scene.
0 kommentar(er)
