[012]
Preda
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \'\'not\'\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz as you say, I think the writers would have given us a visual cue (ViewersAreMorons): different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article \\\'\\\'seems\\\'\\\' to agree with me.
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz as you say, I think the writers would have given us a visual cue (ViewersAreMorons): different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article \\\'\\\'seems\\\'\\\' to agree with me.
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \'\'not\'\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz as you say, I think the writers would have given us a visual cue (ViewersAreMorons): different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article \\\'\\\'seems to agree with me.
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz as you say, I think the writers would have given us a visual cue (ViewersAreMorons): different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article \\\'\\\'seems to agree with me.
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \'\'not\'\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz as you say, I think the writers would have given us a visual cue (ViewersAreMorons): different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz as you say, I think the writers would have given us a visual cue (ViewersAreMorons): different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \'\'not\'\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her (\\\"our\\\" Elizabeth) and took her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she remained captive and was eventually indoctrinated. The implication for the shift that takes place on the bridge to Comstock House is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, \\\"our\\\" Liz reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912, brought him to 1984 (if memory serves), and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \'\'not\'\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her and tooke her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she was indoctrinated. The implication is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, she reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912 and brought him to 1984 if memory serves, and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved from the tower and thuse \\\'\\\'never met Booker\\\'\\\'. After Songbird captured her and tooke her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time he tried, and as such she was indoctrinated. The implication is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, she reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912 and brought him to 1984 if memory serves, and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \'\'not\'\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved and Booker never met. After Songbird captured her and tooke her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time, and as such she was indoctrinated. The implication is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, she reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912 and brought him to 1984 if memory serves, and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because his white wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=].
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved and Booker never met. After Songbird captured her and tooke her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time, and as such she was indoctrinated. The implication is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, she reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912 and brought him to 1984 if memory serves, and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \'\'not\'\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because of his Founder wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=] (I might be wrong about this, but I don\\\'t think the original, \\\"Chinese wife\\\" version of reality \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' had her brother as chief of security).
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved and Booker never met. After Songbird captured her and tooke her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time, and as such she was indoctrinated. The implication is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, she reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912 and brought him to 1984 if memory serves, and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. As a consequence, the Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because of his Founder wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=] (I might be wrong about this, but I don\\\'t think the original, \\\"Chinese wife\\\" version of reality \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' had her brother as chief of security).
Old Elizabeth is a future version. She is \\\"our\\\" Elizabeth from the future, not the [=AltElizabeth=] that Comstock moved and Booker never met. After Songbird captured her and tooke her there, he also stopped Booker from saving her every time, and as such she was indoctrinated. The implication is one of \\\'\\\'time travel\\\'\\\': after her siphon \\\"collar\\\" was turned off and she destroyed the world, she reached back in time, plucked Booker out from 1912 and brought him to 1984 if memory serves, and showed him the BadFuture, then sent him back to 1912 \\\'\\\'inside Comstock House\\\'\\\' (thus bypassing Songbird completely).
Now, if she \\\'\\\'were\\\'\\\' a different version of Liz, the writers would have given us a visual cue: different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances, as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence.
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\\\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
I can\\\'t understand why people claim \\\"travel between universes\\\" over \\\"bringing pieces of them to here\\\", when, during combat, Liz does the \\\'\\\'exact same thing\\\'\\\' as a game mechanic. The developers have clearly used it as a storytelling tool as well (no GameplayAndStorySegregation, I think).
And how does you version explain the half-dead-half-alive people?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. Old Elizabeth is a future version. The implication is one of \'\'time travel\'\'.Different Elizabeths have slightly different appearances (as is made clear from a narrative standpoint in the ending sequence).
to:
Nope. Plain and simple, you are the one who is wrong. It is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' presented as travel in the story, and Elizabeth refers to it as \\\"opening\\\" a Tear, not \\\"going through\\\" (or perhaps \\\"going through \\\'\\\'with it\\\'\\\'\\\", which has another meaning if I know my English). Please present reference (gameplay videos will do) if you are going to claim otherwise.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
And before you say that Elizabeth cannot time-travel, I\'d like to remind you that un-siphoned Elizabeth takes you on a tour of your own history. Old Elizatbeth is un-siphoned as well.
to:
The massive changes that take place when Liz opens the tears with the weaponsmith or his tools are clearly foreshadowed by Booker: \\\"you can\\\'t just bring one dead man back to life\\\". It would have been ideal to do so, but at that point she wasn\\\'t fully in command of her powers, so she brought back more that they wanted. The Vox was \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a small resistance movement because they had weapons. They had weapons because the smith was safe. He was safe because of his Founder wife\\\'s brother was Chief of Security at [=FinkTech=] (I might be wrong about this, but I don\\\'t think the original, \\\"Chinese wife\\\" version of reality \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' had her brother as chief of security).
