Talk: Zachary Hale Comstock

Is this an update to Combstock, or is it a new character?

Box art for the board game, starring Handyman, Daisy Fizroy, and... Combstock with a beard?

The statue of the same bearded man.

Apparently, there's a bearded man that seems just as important as if he's Combstock, and even appears on the cover of BioShock Infinite: The Siege of Columbia. So I'm wondering if he's an update to Combstock, or is he new and Combstock is just another Saltonstall ( i.e. a minor character)? Hopefully, I.G. will have updates to share about what we've seen in the trailer. --Evans0305 (talk) 22:22, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like from an enlarged image of the trailer's pic that he is Combstock. On the one hand, its completely different from his cleaned up look. Then again, these warring factions would be too much to worry about than shaving. Evans0305 (talk) 23:42, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Possible hint at a relationship with...

Would it be worth noting something that has been said in many of those reviews from the 2 1/2 hours previews for the press?

• • SPOILERS, MAYBE

-That he's Elizabeth's father?

I'm gonna try to get the source again, so, I'll edit this later, or if you saw it as well, I think it should be noted...

Thanks! 189.227.85.82 19:40, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Coincidently, I did add this to the article days ago, although, I did add that Cornelius Slate's claims about Comstock being a false Prophet and a liar could later debunk this relation. Its a plauseability, but speculative, that Comstock kidnapped Elizabeth at a young age for her abilities, so he can take advantage of Columbia and its citizens by claiming her Tear-opening powers as "prophecies", as well as using the Tears to "upgrade" Columbia. But until the game's release, who knows if that's the real story for the character. Evans0305 (talk) 01:48, December 26, 2012 (UTC) 

Comstock in full perspective???

I picture Comstock with his "prophet" appearence, dressed in mostly in a preacher outfit, what do you think he might look like? share your answer here!!!!AirPatriot1912 (talk) 18:52, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Possible Fontaine-like fight with Comstock

I think Comstock will infuse himself with so much Vigors, he might take the appearence of a greek god. I suppose he might use Bucking Bronco, Shock Jockey, Undertow to fight Booker. Put your answer here to see what he might look like.AirPatriot1912 (talk) 15:19, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

That..is not really...i don't have a good word for it. Well, I mean that Comstock is not really your enemy. You fight with The Founders and with The Vox people, Comstock is more like the brain of the operation. Yes it is possible to fight him, but I don't really think that he would use Vigors...He could use anything, including Elizabeth and her powers, but I don't really think that it would look like fight with Fontaine. More like a flood of enemies coming from every possible direction. Ison (talk) 15:27, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

I say when you fight him, the whole fight will be similar to Daud's fight from Dishonored, with various super powers being used.AmberWing65 (talk) 23:38, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Why change his appearence???

I think this is what Ken Levine meant by "polishing the game", but why give him the bearded look and the religous father role, i mean its a very good job i could of count for something better.AirPatriot1912 (talk) 03:24, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

I think the beard was meant to fit his "prophet" appearence and his God-like personality, as some prophets (i"m not saying its true) got beards like John Brown.AmberWing65 (talk) 02:00, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Statue=Lady Comstock?

I don't know about this, but something tells me that the statue in the 10-minute demo has to be Lady ComstockAmberWing65 (talk) 16:15, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt it. She looked more like Elizabeth when she still had black hair.

Who's really the bad guy?

I'm caught in a speculation zone, who's really the bad guy in the game, Comstock or Rosalind Lutece? cause Comstock kept Elizabeth in the tower for all her life he just wants to keep her safe and Rosalind wants Elizabeth for probablly a WMD.AmberWing65 (talk) 16:59, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, noone can tell until we will get the game. I don't really know what to think about it, but if it was Rosalind's voice telling about the debt...then I can tell only one thing. She is not 100% innocent... But I really wonder how will the plot go. Ison (talk) 19:38, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Having already beaten the game, I can say that Comstock is the firm main antagonist. (186.30.64.15 21:18, April 7, 2013 (UTC))

Elizabeth

"Comstock is visited by an archangel of God named Columbia—however, she was no angel; in reality, she was an alternate version of Elizabeth, from the future—she tricked him into creating a floating city, which she claimed would usher the world into righteousness." Where in the game can this be inferred? Why not Rosalind Lutece? --Questionaredude (talk) 15:34, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this seems made-up, I don't recall anything in-game even suggesting that Elizabth led to Columbia's creation. Comstock was deluded, he might have imagined it or even made it up to gain religious power. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I vote that this gets removed. 2.219.148.212 15:47, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his knowledge of the future came from observing tears (the way Booker does in the Comstock house [except those are tears to the past]), like how Fink was able to rapidly develop new technology (like Songbird and certain vigors) based on what he saw in tears. The angel part is likely made up to control people. "An angel of the Lord told me" sounds more authoritative than "I saw the future through a tear in space-time" KevinTheDestoryer (talk) 21:26, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretation of Ending

Anna/Liz doesn't drown Booker, she baptizes him. It's a metaphor for forgiving him.

The entire story line is about a father guilty about his past (Wounded Knee) and worried about how his baby daughter will think of him.

Comstock is a Booker that didn't have a child, was baptized but never forgave himself so he built a persona (new name and "Prophet") to hide his past and lied to make himself look better that made him enemies (Slate with the Boxer-Rebellion, blaming the Indians for Wounded Knee and Daisy with Lady Comstock's suicide). He used the Tear technology to build Columbia (by observing technology in other times or dimensions) and it eventually made him impotent so he stole another Booker's baby, Anna, to raise as his own prodigy.

The baby is Elizabeth, so that final act where she's dunking you into the water is her (and every other version) forgiving you for what you did and what you could become (Comstock), thus ending the guilt inside Booker and destroying the possibility of Comstock emerging in another dimension. Mallissin (talk) 22:40, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Cease to exist"? Please.

How on earth does the baptism actually stop Comstock from ever existing? There could be a billion other baptisms where he emerges. Right when Elizabeth makes the decision to drown him there could be another split where she does not and Comstock still exists. There could be universes with Columbia that don't even involve Anna DeWitt/Elizabeth. Irrational dropped the ball when they decided to use something as complex as quantum physics for so simple a storytelling technique. 173.3.172.98 04:48, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that time travel in fiction tends to play more by the writers' rules than by anything else, the point here is that every Elizabeth/Anna who gains full power also exists beyond time and space, and so their decisions would affect every timeline without creating new parallel universes (since their decision would be the same everywhere). Killing Booker during the baptism would thus erase every timeline that branched off from that event, and since no Anna/Elizabeth would choose to let Booker go on with the decision, there would be no splits. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:31, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

What Willbachbakal said: when you cut a limb off a tree, all the branches and twigs that grew from that limb go with it. The only way for Comstock to continue existing would be for Elizabeth to falter--and, as Will said, she exists beyond time and space, and does not do so. Even if there was a version of Columbia wherein she does not exist, it doesn't matter: it only matters that Booker went to that specific baptism and made a choice whether or not to accept it. If that baptism does not occur, there is no Zachary Comstock.

It's quite elegant, really.

Molotov.cockroach (talk) 08:19, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

Comstock launched Columbia at age 19?

I don't understand why the pivotal events of the game's history are given as happening in 1893 instead of towards the end of that decade when Booker and Comstock would've been in their mid-twenties. According to the timeline given in the game, Comstock would have only been 19 years old when Columbia took to the skies(1893), meaning he would've had to be at MOST only 18 when he somehow got an audience with the U.S. Government and successfully petitioned them into giving him millions of dollars to build and personally run(that part's the kicker) an entire city, which was then constructed and launched in a matter of months. Not to mention that he already would've had to meet and befriend Rosalind Lutece, get his vision of Columbia from her machine and set the whole process in motion before this, i.e. at high school age.

There's also the matter of Booker already having his own private detective agency by the age of 19 at the oldest(but that's a bit more plausible). The whole thing is just really awkward and uncharacteristic for the BioShock writers given their attention to this kind of thing. The only real deadline for Columbia being airborn is the Boxer Rebellions of 1900, so why wouldn't they set it at most a year or two before that, so we wouldn't have to believe Comstock was baptized, met and gained the confidence of Rosalind Lutece, had his vision, petitioned the government, got his funding, constructed at least part of the city, made it airborn and was allowed to personally run the entire thing all within the space of a few years while he was still too young to be allowed into the very bars he was building! In my head I just fudge the launch dates, but is there any plot point or something I'm overlooking which helps to explain this stuff? Paraknight 19:56, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well he got funding from the U.S. government for showing Lutece's inventions, so who's to say a 19 year old from that period couldn't get funded for an idea, especially with something as grand as that?

And also, we're talking about a person (Booker) who at the age of sixteen was in a war and was found scalping his enemies.

KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 22:12, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems pretty unrealistic, even with the younger working age at the time and all. However, in-game info suggests he started aging prematurely at 18, which would then have lent him more credence in front of the government as he oversaw the construction of Columbia in between 1893 and 1894. The fact that he had the Luteces' discoveries, perhaps the most revolutionary in history, to back him up while doing so might explain why the government was so eager to throw money at him. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:31, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Explanations for Timeline Changes

I did a bit of research on the timeline of events that preceded Columbia's launch, and realized that it isn't possible for Comstock to have seen Columbia through the Tears, based on the evidence below. If there's relevant in-game information that proves these points incorrect, feel free to cite it, and I will recant.

• Rosalind first develops the Lutece Field in 1890, meaning the technology for suspending an atom existed long before they were able to open Tears.
• Columbia is launched sometime during the year 1893.
• The Voxophone Undeserving, wherein Comstock recalls seeing his vision of Columbia, is recorded on September 9th, 1983. He therefore saw his vision of Columbia sometime before this date.
• On October 15th, 1893, Rosalind Lutece recorded two critical Voxophone messages: A Window, and One and the Same.
  • In A Window, Rosalind says that "his [Comstock's] money means the Lutece Field could become the Lutece Tear -- a window between worlds." Use of the term "could" shows that the Lutece Tear has not yet been developed.
  • One and the Same details Robert's transfusion into Columbia (likely immediately after the recording of A Window), which acts as the first successful opening of a Tear.
• Fink's discussions with his brother about the Tears begin in early 1984.

This evidence together suggests that Columbia was built--and likely even launched--before the invention of the Lutece Tear. 

There are, however, two hitches in all of this:

• The calendar in Booker's apartment which reads October 8th, 1893 during the epilogue.
• On the Entropy of Genes, detailing Comstock's physical deterioration, which was recorded on July 3rd, 1893.

Obviously it is impossible for Comstock to have used the Tear machine so extensively as to have been rendered sterile before the technology had been developed, or for Robert and Rosalind to team up to abduct Anna before having met. Even if you theorized that Robert passed through the tear for the first time while abducting Anna, that still doesn't match the October 15th date. These two pieces of contrary evidence are going to take a bit of puzzling out, but I believe the preceding evidence is still compelling.

As to how Comstock saw his vision of Columbia--Bioshock's never been short on crazy people, has it?

Molotov.cockroach (talk) 08:44, May 9, 2013 (UTC)