Hey guys, finished the game and it is literally in my top ten games of all time. I did a lot of research after the ending to clear things up and there are still some lingering questions I have:

1. What is this infinite loop concept? I know that Booker has visited Columbia 122 times (based on the number of coin flips), but I just assumed that it was the Lutece Twins just finding an alternate universe of Booker and transporting them into a universe where Comstock (the one who stole his baby) existed. If that Booker failed (Like how he died in the world where your Booker goes through in the tear), then the Lutece Twins would just find another pair of universes (one being Booker, the other being Comstock) and try again. This doesn't seem like a loop to me, but just another case.

2. Near the end when Booker and Elizabeth walking between lighthouses, you see other Bookers and Elizabeths running as well. Are those other versions where they also succeeded, killed Comstock, and Elizabeth got their powers back? I don't really understand what's happening there especially if the infinite loop concept is true.

3. Where did the other Elizabeth's come from when they drown Booker? Are they as powerful as our Elizabeth? 

Thanks for your help. I've been thinking about these questions for a while now. 

[QUOTE="HiHaru"]

Well Christina Norman who was lead gameplay designer of Mass Effect 2 had this to same about the game: "We wanted to make sure every gamer who have already played a shooter could have a good experience in Mass Effect 2 and look at the RPG stuff as not being the barrier to entry, like you don't get to play a shooter if you don't do this RPG stuff and make it more like "You can play it like a shooter, but if you want to be really awesome, if you want to just destroy everything, you really have to engage that RPG stuff." And that becomes sort of a competitive edge to a gamer when you engage those RPG mechanics."

Now I know everyone interprets things differently, but it seems quite clear that Mass Effect 2 was intended to be a shooter 1st and an RPG second. She even states that the game was meant to target the shooter fans and have the RPG elements simplified so those players wouldn't get intimidated.

Link:http://gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-interview-bioware-christina-norman-gdc-trung-71733/

XVision84

Yes, I heard about that, I hate it when devs try to simplify things like this and dumb everything down :-/, but anyways, Christina was talking about the item management and upgrade/party management (since those are usually what intimidate RPG rookies). What I'm trying to argue, is that in Mass Effect 2 there are different outcomes to the missions, you mold your own character with their own c-l-a-s-ses, manage your party, and make decisions in the game that affect the story. Those are all RPG elements, so I'd say that it's an Action RPG (An RPG that has a less focus on traditional RPG elements, and also adds Action and cinematic scenes, IMO that fits Mass Effect perfectly).

Fair enough. I guess it basically boils down to what the definition of an RPG actually is. And that definition differs among everybody. However I do agree with what you said though :P I think it's just dissapointing that Mass Effect really simplified the cla sses, loot, item management and talent trees that were so great in their other games such as KOTOR and Dragon Age.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Amd I the only one who saw the immensly contradictory nature in that first sentence? Besides that, to say that playing a role doesn't constitute a role playing game? Seriously? That's like saying making laps around a circuit and gaining position against the competing cars cars has no bearing on a racing game. Or that tournament combat in best 2 out of 3 rounds doesn't make a fighter. Does scoring goals and team coordination no longer constitute sports games? RTS games shouldn't require unit deployment and resource management to be RTS games?

XVision84

I am saying that playing a role is not enough. It is a big part, but just being able to play a role is not enough to qualify.

If it was enough games like Diablo, Sims and all those tabletop Hack and Slashes would be RPGs. The game actually needs to focus on letting you play your role.

"playing a role is not enough". Role Playing Game

If you play a role in the game, it's a Role Playing Game. Diablo is an RPG, and that's that, there really is no arguing it. A big part of Mass Effect is making decisions, just like Dragon Age: Origins. They're by the same developer's and are somewhat alike in terms of their RPG elements (though Dragon Age: Origins has a larger focus on those certain elements than Mass Effect 2 does). Bioware calls Mass Effect 2 an RPG, every gaming site has it labelled as an RPG, so it's basically an RPG.

Well Christina Norman who was lead gameplay designer of Mass Effect 2 had this to same about the game: "We wanted to make sure every gamer who have already played a shooter could have a good experience in Mass Effect 2 and look at the RPG stuff as not being the barrier to entry, like you don't get to play a shooter if you don't do this RPG stuff and make it more like "You can play it like a shooter, but if you want to be really awesome, if you want to just destroy everything, you really have to engage that RPG stuff." And that becomes sort of a competitive edge to a gamer when you engage those RPG mechanics."

Now I know everyone interprets things differently, but it seems quite clear that Mass Effect 2 was intended to be a shooter 1st and an RPG second. She even states that the game was meant to target the shooter fans and have the RPG elements simplified so those players wouldn't get intimidated.

Link:http://gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-interview-bioware-christina-norman-gdc-trung-71733/

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

Playing a role is not enough for me to consider a game to be an RPG, the games focus needs to actually be roleplaying for me to consider it an RPG. Or at least have the Roleplaying elements strong enough and maybe I can pass it as an Action RPG.

XVision84

Amd I the only one who saw the immensly contradictory nature in that first sentence? Besides that, to say that playing a role doesn't constitute a role playing game? Seriously? That's like saying making laps around a circuit and gaining position against the competing cars cars has no bearing on a racing game. Or that tournament combat in best 2 out of 3 rounds doesn't make a fighter. Does scoring goals and team coordination no longer constitute sports games? RTS games shouldn't require unit deployment and resource management to be RTS games?

Yes, porting over your save files is a large part of Mass Effect and there are so many missions that end up changing the story. A lot of people are contradicting themselves, I remember when Mass Effect 2 was announced for PS3, people said porting over save files is very important and the PS3 version is going to take a big hit because it doesn't have that. Now, suddenly those decisions don't matter anymore and are insignificant. If those decisions were so insignificant and only lead to being reminded of what you did like some people here suggest, then Bioware wouldn't have had the feature to port over your save file, it wouldn't be a big part of Mass Effect, and Bioware wouldn't have bothered making a Mass Effect 1 Dark Horse comicbook for the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2. Plus every review site consider's Mass Effect 2 an RPG, how do you argue with that? :lol:

mass effect 2 was a mediocre tps and an even worse RPG (if you can even call it that). It's only saving grace is the solid story and characters. Hopefully Mass Effect 3 will improve in both shooting and RPG. From what I've seen in the trailers, shooting and moving around seems to be vastly improved. Dunno about RPG elements though.

well it will only get better from here for 3dtv owners. And its not like 3DTV's suck at 2D quality. Sony and Samsung's 3D TVs still look great with the 3D function off.