Tell Us, Dammit!

Reading the very strong opinions that people have about the ending of Mass Effect 3 has been... interesting. So now we'd like to get your opinion on something. [Note: Some of the comments in this post contain spoilers for Mass Effect 3]

Moving away from Mass Effect for a moment, we're curious to know: how much power should be placed in the hands of developers and how much should be placed in the hands of the consumer when it comes to determining how a game should turn out? Should game developers bow to the demands and requests of the people who buy their games? Or should they be the given control over the games that they create?

Here at Kotaku, we've always thought of game developers as creative people with their own ideas and their own creative and artistic visions. We imagine that many of them entered game development to make the kind of games they want to make.

Would you ask a novelist to change the characters in a book? Would you ask a painter to use a different colour palette? Would you ask a musician to play their music in a different key? Personally, we wouldn't, even though we constantly wish that Skrillex would just quit already.

We'd like to know what you think. This isn't an invitation to spew vitriol at Bioware and emphasise how bad the ending of Mass Effect really is — this isn't about Mass Effect, it's about video games in general. This is a discussion to find out how you view the relationship between developer and consumer. Let us know what you think!

Note: Please include *SPOILER WARNING* at the beginning of your comment if you are going to talk about the Mass Effect 3 ending. Not every one has finished the game.


    Kotaku Australia looks different today.

    The author should have complete creative control. Period.

      I should add to this point, actually:

      The author of the work should always have creative control regardless of the approval level of the audience. Artistic mediums (whether Roger Ebert agrees or not is irrelevant) should always be placed entirely in the hands of the author, composer, artist, etc...

      If the author wishes to be influenced by their audience, then so be it, that is their choice, and it is their work. If, however, the masses decide that they are unhappy with an element of the composed work, rally to have it changed, and are successful, creative freedom with wither and die.

      Imagine, for example, 1984 ending with the protagonists escaping successfully, or Macbeth ending with the two rivals understanding each-others motives and having a cup of tea.

      The point is, creative freedom prevents that kind of sterility, even if it is is not regarded with the most sympathetic eye.

      Whilst I adored the ending of Mass Effect 3, and understand the reasons for others hating it, I still feel that, even if I were to have hated it, I wouldn't have wanted it changed. It compromises the integrity of the work.


        I agree with this. As an example for change, the Double Fine Adventure game will have a small amount of input from the backers(More an influencing factor, as opposed to actual input). But, there are lord knows how many of them, so their influence will be tiny. The majority of power will be in the hands of the people at Double Fine. Which is a good thing, since I don't want a crowd-sourced puzzle.

        "Imagine, for example, 1984 ending with the protagonists escaping successfully, or Macbeth ending with the two rivals understanding each-others motives and having a cup of tea."

        Congratulations, you have successfully demonstrated that a good ending is better than a bad ending.

        This in no way demonstrates that an ending written by "the author" (whoever that is in the context of something produced by a corporation) is inherently superior to an ending written by anybody else. Indeed arguably it demonstrates the opposite - the current ending of 1984 is *inarguably better* than the alternative you describe, no matter which one Orwell wrote first.

          Beaten to the punch!

        Just quietly,
        "Imagine, for example, 1984 ending with the protagonists escaping successfully, or Macbeth ending with the two rivals understanding each-others motives and having a cup of tea."

        This in no way supports your conclusion.
        And without getting into it, ME3's ending was not original, it was what's practically sci-fi/cyberpunk trope at this point.

          I thought 1984 had a lame ending. V for Vendetta was the same basic thing but with a happy ending, and I thought it was 50x better than 1984 was.

        In a series in which who your character is and what they choose is such a focus, the endings provided were rubbish lacking the variance which depth and choices provided up until that point. ME3 letdown of the year so far. Bioware is a sad old beast compared to the days of Baldur's Gate and Planescape torment.

        how do you go about comparing a book to a game that is all about choice and consequences that gives you the options for 90% and the last 10 minutes rips it away with a half assed ending, bioware and EA are a business and they shall answer to their consumers anybody who likes the ending of mass effect 3 is a moron.... Explain how my Garrus Died by vaporization but somehow is on the Normandy with joker during the final scene and then maybe I'll not hang Bioware out to dry come Dragon Age 3 or Mass Effect 4 when EA sees $$$$...

          Everything that happens after shep blacks out is an indoctrination dream. That's why your buddy garrus isn't there on earth and dead with you at the end. It's a clear tell.

          Also, if your shep survives, why does he wake up in the rubble in London when he was just moments before standing out the outside of the citadel (with no helmet or mag boots) as it was exploding?

          Wait for the real ending. It's a crappy end as it is, but bioware aren't stupid. They didnt derp accidentally show dead people to not be dead, derp.

      Sorry to bring this back to ME3, but the author did concede control of the story throughout the trilogy. Explicitly so - by telling the players repeatedly that their choices matter and that they are participating in the crafting of the story. To take it all back in the last scene and say "tough luck" is disingenuous, to put it mildly.
      So, if the game's story is linear and you are just along for the ride (as is reading a book, watching a film or looking at a painting), I will wholeheartedly agree with your point. Yes, if you don't like it, you stop reading, walk out of the cinema or move on to the next painting.
      But when the game's biggest selling point is that you, the player, participate in the crafting of the story, the devs already cede a measure of control to the players - obviously, within certain boundaries). Once you start and keep doing it through the entire series (in my case 400+ hours on a dozen ME1 and ME2 playthroughs), do not go back on it in the final 10 minutes - that is why so many people are aggrieved with how ME3 ended.
      In summary, the video game developer has a choice to make: maintain total control or let the players in on how the story progresses. Once that choice is made, the devs should stay consistent to it. Period.

      This second point is ibgger: I'm committing to doing at least one writing exercise every day. Furious Horses style, only without the public sharing. Perhaps at the end of each week I'll post on here the

    I think gameplay-wise developers should listen to fans to try and gauge what works and what doesn't, but when it comes to the story? Complain all you want people, but it's not your story, it's theirs.
    Fans have no right to demand anything , but it's always within a person's rights to complain, just like it's within the recipient's rights to ignore them.


      Same with movies, you walk out of a theatre and one of the big talking points is generally, "I wish this was explained" or "this would have been better". Sure we can say this all we want, but at no point do we ask the makers of the film to re-shoot an alternate ending.

      The same goes for games, just because they are far more interactive, doesn't give us ownership of the story and on how it should end. I mean even with simple decisions in the game, there might not be an option that I would actually like to do (eg: Kick back with a frosty beer, watch sport and have a scratch!) but we don't demand that to be patched in (although, when a game gives me that option, it will be an instant purchase), the endings are no different.

        Unless they're a test audience, they ask for the shooting of alternate endings all the time. And in games they're called play testers. But once the thing is released then no, we have no creative input at all and that's how it should be.

          Exactly, but that's just it, when those factors come into play the product isn't released, the same with books, manuscripts are given to publishers/proof readers/etc...

          Post release, it's the final product, take it or leave it, like it or hate it, it is what it is, Done!

          Fallout 3, Bethesda who actually care about there fans made dlc that fixed the crap ending... Viola

            I think you mean "voila" as in "here it is," not "viola" as in small string instrument.

      This argument genuinely confuses me.

      It's not my game either, so why should the designers listen to my suggestions on gameplay and not on narrative?

      I'm also not really sure if a story can be owned by *anybody* in any meaningful sense.

    People demand too much these days...
    If you dont like a game - dont complain and hate on it, just dont play it. Use your time elsewhere.
    If you do like a game, spread the word and support the creators.

    On another, though slighly related note - It's society's fault that publishers (both game and movie) keep releasing a constant dribble of crap month after month, year after year.
    The rate at which we consume entertainment is staggering. I think that's why the industry is becoming more and more consumer driven because at the end of the day - we pay their wages.
    We all hate big publishers like EA but if people keep buying regurgitated sequels year after year, then publishers will continue releasing them, while on the other hand smaller studios like THQ suffer.
    Its become more about quantity over quality, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

      Another moron... We like mass effect 1,2 and 3 just as FANS we are entitled to not like the ending so shut your mouth and pass the game first

    I still think we should be allowed to edit any of the comments on this site.

    I thought the ending of ME3 was shit, personally, as none of them suited the way my Shep had acted to that point. However I won't go demanding they change the ending as it is ultimately Bioware's decision. Tough luck for me! Just have to get myself a team of developers and make my own game if it's that much of an issue!

      And yes, that applies to every game I've played with endings I haven't enjoyed. Tough turnips, as my boss says.

        I am now going to adpot this saying....tough turnips.

        This is why you have a boss and you will never be the boss... Subjugated wuss

    As a consumer we are paying for what we get straight up, nothing more. However, seeing as they often tout DLC as soon as the game comes out, if we are to pay extra for more content (which I understand is completely up to the consumer whether or not they do) I feel they should look to their fans, see what they want, and then provide content to the fans that will make them buy it.

    Whether or not they listen and then disregard, or take it to heart and act with it in mind is up to them (the developers). I dunno, I just feel when you are asking your consumers to pay more, they should get something they want.

    My brains still a fuzz ball after finishing a certain 3rd installment of a series that I won't name. So that probably made little sense.

    People who are pushing Bioware to change the ending should read/watch "Misery" and then take a good look at themselves.

      Anybody who is advocating *imprisoning and torturing* Bioware employees needs to get help.

      But there is nothing wrong with suggesting that something that is bad would be improved by being better.

      Have you actually played all 3 games and seen the ending? Or do you think comparing a non-interactive medium to an interactive one is relevant?

        Clearly you haven't read Misery.
        He isn't comparing a non-interactive medium to an interactive one. He is referencing a novel in which the whole plot centres around the lengths a "fan" goes to in order to get the ending to a book changed from something she didn't like to something she did.
        Hopefully no one actually goes as far as that "fan" did. I like my Bioware developers with their limbs intact.


          I have read misery, huge Stephen King fan, but I just don't understand all the comparisons to movies and books.

          I hated the second and third matrix, but i wouldn't tell them to change it. It's not even really the ending that shitted me so much, it was the fact that after ALL this game time, and ALL these seemingly important decisions, what we get is and ending where none of it mattered. AT ALL. I could've played as an absolute dick (I was paragon), and let all my crew die in 2 etc etc, and still have gotten the exact same endings as if I'd played it the way I did. It's a huge kick in the balls after being promised that our choices mattered. Not even a recap on how everyone in the galaxy ended up. That's why everyone is angry, it is the biggest cop out of an ending I've ever come across.

            Stephen King, Matrix movies both terrible things that shouldnt exist... there was only one Matrix movie I'm sorry the other two need to be wiped from existence... All terrible, bioware got lazy the endings for Me3 area rubbish

          And because a fictional character tortures somebody in pursuit of a goal, that means the goal itself is unacceptable?

    I've no idea who said this, but "A good story will have parts that the reader doesn't like."
    Developers changing things in the story to satisfy their fans is usually a bad thing.
    However, I don't think I've heard a single positive thing about Mass Effect 3's ending. What I have heard seems to indicate that it leaves all the choices the players have made behind, making the adventure effectively meaningless. I've heard that it's simply poorly written. I don't know if these things are true or not, but at the very least, an ending should be written with the choices of the player in mind, especially in games that offer such choice.

    Heavy Rain did well because of the number of different endings it had to account for all the choices the players made. Same goes for Chrono Trigger or Cross. Less known would be Star Ocean 2, which had a little over 50 different small endings for the characters to put together for the game's ending.
    When a game offers choice but in the end tells a story that doesn't account for that choice, that's just plain bad storytelling.

      A good story may have parts the reader doesn't like, but so will a bad story.

      Removing the parts of a story people do not like, if those people are reasonably discerning, will generally make the story *better*.

    What I am more curious about is, how do you determine what the consumers input is, exactly? Please don’t tell me internet polls/petitions. Not only are they not a true sample of the overall consumer, but they are also at risk of manipulation. Internet polls can only be trusted with simple things such as what the female protagonist should look like.

    The only way I can think of is, the developers creating a series of scenarios, and then a significant number of the game discs are then input with a compulsory menu item that makes people vote on their preferences before they can continue with their game.

    The only really relevant example I can think of is Blade Runner.

    There are a lot of mediums where retcons do exist. I think that Stephen King did alter the first Dark Tower book to better fit with the series and comics frequently chop and change stories to fit the whims of the writer and perceived wants of the audience.

    Not a fan of that though. If they put out the product that they wanted to put out, that should be the end of it. The artist can change it if they aren't happy with what they produced but making changes to appease people is not something I think will typically go well.

    I liked the ending of ME3. I thought it fit well with what I wanted. They presented three tough choices. Is it cheapened a little by the fact that this is the last thing you do, so it doesn't really matter? Yes, absolutely. HOWEVER, it was ALWAYS going to be that way. No matter what, this was it. The end. No more Mass Effect featuring Commander Shepard and the gang.

    All BioWare did wrong here was develop their universe too well, so that everyone is having a hard time letting go. you know what would have been stupid? An ending that allowed post credits play - that would have completely devalued it.

    If you take the ending as bam - we accomplished what we set out to do and now it is over, then it's a perfectly acceptable ending.

    I bet no one wrote to Joseph Heller after reading Catch-22 demanding he add more chapters explaining what happened to Yossarian and Doc Daneeka and the Chaplain and Major Major.


    Now let's discuss our FAVOURITE parts of ME3. I'm going to say your little moment with Garrus above the Presidium on the Citadel. I have never seen such a fulyl developed friendship and mutual respect in any other game narrative ever. That moment was more special to me than any other relationship in any other game I have played.

    "Fans are clingy, complaining dipshits and the sooner you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you’ll be."

      Who said this, just out of curiousity?

    I would note that there are a *great many* people who tell novelists, painters, and musicians how to improve their work, and are paid a great deal of money to do so - do you really think editors make books worse?

    If responding to audience feedback makes a book, or a film, or a game better, what is lost, apart from the outdated idea that an "author" is something special.

    I'd also point out that it is *particularly* strange to be defending the rights of game designers to control the games they create when - outside of indie games - games are created by teams and committees anyway.

      There is significant difference between an employed editor and nerd-raged forum posters.

      And dare I point out how subjective the term “better” is?

        If "better" is a subjective term, then how can it be "better" for a text to end as the author intended, instead of ending the way its audience want it to?

        And yes, there is a difference between a professional editor and audience feedback, but both are legitimate sources of criticism of a text, and it is reasonable for a text to be changed in response to either one.

          You miss the point. What I think is a better ending and what you think is a better ending could be vastly different things. Who determines which ending is "better"? Which one is more popular? How is that determined exactly? Does the most popular choice actually make the ending better? And why do we only get to demand a different ending, I want to demand that Tali look different – she would look great with a snout let’s put that to poll as well. This is an endless discussion and will go nowhere. If you want a story with an ending specifically tailored to you specifically, then you are better off lying in a park dreaming up your own story.

          Why should Bioware get to determine how the story ends? They created the universe and had a particular vision – you think they couldn’t have done some typical ending where the good ending you save the universe and are a hero and you settle down and have a family etc., and the bad ending we all die horrible deaths or become enslaved? You think those ideas weren’t thrown around in the Bioware office and discussed? They made a decision and it was a conscious one, it wasn’t made by mistake and it’s nothing a simple patch is going to “fix”. They built a highly engaging universe and deserved the trust that the audience has given them – whether that audience want to continue to trust them in upcoming releases is up to them.

          As far as how legitimate audience feedback is – I am sorry but expecting changes made based on this solely is not reasonable. Even movie studios that run their movies infront of sample audiences don’t make significant changes. They might just make a couple editing decisions and re-evaluate their marketing strategies.

          Also, I am not a journalist but I would imagine that editors make amendments to articles based on grammar/spelling and sourcing. If an article is written that an editor completely disagrees with as it flies in the face of the value system of the company they work for, then they would probably just scrap it – not just change paragraphs to suit their own opinions. Maybe Kotaku can shed a bit more light on this.

            I'm not missing the point, I just disagree with you.

            Just because something is subjective, that does not mean it is impossible to discuss or describe.

            I think the ending is bad. I think it is bad for specific reasons (it undermines player choice, it introduces a stupid deus ex machina, and it changes the entire central theme of the story at the last minute). I believe that the game would be *improved* if those things were changed. The fact that changing these elements would make the game less like "Bioware's vision" is screamingly irrelevant.

            You can argue that the god-child isn't a stupid Deus Ex Machina, or that the ending doesn't undermine player choice, or that neither of these things matter, but telling me that "Bioware made it this way" is a meaningless non-sequitur.

            For what it's worth, I don't care if they change the ending or not, I wouldn't play the game a second time anyway. I consider the whole question to be *absurd and meaningless*.

    This whole thing reminds me of Ted Dekker and his Circle Series of books. It's called the circle series because the series sort of keeps going around and around in circles i.e book 1 comes after book 4. Originally it was only a trilogy, and didn't have this circling thing, that wasn't put in till he wrote the 4th book a few years later. The fans weren't exactly happy with that, but they were okay with it. Then about a year later the author wrote an alternate ending that doesn't make the series go in a circle. When you buy the book these days, it comes with both endings in it. The cool thing about this though, is that the alternate ending isn't out of place, this main character most likely isn't going to be going around in circles forever, he's probably going to have a proper ending sometime.
    Basically what I'm trying to say is, changing the story is okay if it fits in with the story. Other than that, once a story is out there for everyone to read I don't think it should be changed, even if the fans are on the verge of ransacking your house. :P

    I think a Beta is a good opportunity to sort everything out: gameplay, story, etc.

    Stories get edited all the time after publication: subsequent editions remove typos and plot inconsistencies (I just read that The Gap series of novels was subject to minor edits of this type between hardback and paperback)

    I don't believe any creative endeavour is any more sacrosanct than any other. If the story is buggy, perhaps it should be fixed in the same way that gameplay would be. If it's merely unpalatable though, just let the reviews fall where they may. Beta is over.

      PS: Asking for clarification/amendment is okay. Angry ranting is not okay, and you should be prepared to just hear the answer 'no.'

    The author should have complete control. That being said, when a game emphasizes choice and consequence so heavily like ME3 did, it really should have 20 or so endings, rather than 3 almost identical cutscenes, the only difference being the colour of the explosion.

    Creative control is fine, but it doesn't make you immune to criticism either, especially when the ending was so poorly written.

      I dislike this argument. You can say that cosmetically the endings looked similar with little variation, but if you want to think about the implications presented by the three choices they're really vastly different. Just because you don't get to see events play out doesn't mean the differences aren't there.

        But it didn't actually show these consequences. I like the idea of them, but there was absolutely no closure. It was pretty much a cliffhanger.

        The game really should have been delayed another 12 months. Put in those awesome loyalty missions from ME2 and rewrite the endings.

      Although now I think about it, I don't have a problem with the developers editing and rewriting a story as it's made. I don't think rants on message boards should be able to influence things, but analysing the story during development is important.

      Surely someone noticed how bad the ending to ME3 was, and yet none of the developers went "Oi, these endings are basically identical, everyone is going to complain and we didn't deliver on what we promised.... maybe we should fix this..?"

      But nope, that didn't happen.

      By author, I mean developer. They should have complete control, but they should also have an internal review process.


    I hated it. Not just because it was incredibly lazy (pretty much exactly the same ending with a colour change), but because EVERY decision i had made up until that point meant nothing. No closure what so ever for ANY of the characters. The fact that BioWare actually say on their site that the endings were going to be massively different goes to show that they were either forced to push out these "endings" just to get the game out on time, or just copped out because they couldn't actually be bothered writing a whole bunch of different endings.

    Argh I can't even put into words how angry I am.

    I'm actually starting to cave in.
    I haven't purchased Mass Effect 3 yet; although I own the collector's editions of both 1 & 2. Then I wanted to know how the story ends. Then people said the ending was bad, so I decided it was for the best if I didn't get it. Then people continued to say it was bad, and more people - many of them levelheaded people - and then everything exploded into a giant brouhaha, so I kinda became curious again. Then I looked into "the Tali Incident", and I became upset - I've never quite seen the attraction to Tali that some people do, but her face, her appearance, was a perfect McGuffin and there was never going to be a good way to reveal it, and it should have stayed a mystery. I really feel for the people that where hoping, waiting, for something special. What BioWare gave them was a huge open-palm slap.

    And then I realised that I have to play Mass Effect 3. I want to experience the ending with all it's flaws. I want it to be terrible for me, I want it to destroy everything I loved about Mass Effect. Then I can leave it behind.

    Most importantly, I want to buy it second-hand.

      More to the point at hand, I think it's also possible for a good writer to make and ending that you might not agree with, but are still able to accept as a good ending. SPOILERS AHEAD. FOR BOOKS, NOT MASS EFFECT. The most recent is still a few years old, but knowing the endings will certainly change the way the rest of the story reads. The books are a kind of "new fantasy", I thoroughly enjoyed them, and although that doesn't mean you will I'm going to recommend them anyway.

      In my opinion, each of China Mieville's "Bas Lag" books (Perdido Street Station, The Scar, The Iron Council) have endings that I did not agree with at first. I only just finished reading Iron Council last month, so it's still fresh in my mind. By the end almost all of the heroes are dead, most of those that survived were actually traitors, and the one group of people that might have been able to rise up against the dystopia are sealed away - frozen in time - by one of their own. In short, a lot of people sacrifice everything, lots of people die, and in the end, the State still wins. The book ends suddenly, with the hope for the future just a small ember smouldering in the dark. It's a pretty depressing ending. I was a little stunned at first. The reality is that ending works. The "bad guys" have such power overwhelming on their side. They have the ability to oppress and control. They are the writers of history, and anyone who rallies against them can easily become forgotten. A rag tag bunch of heroes - rebels striking against a grand empire - can win, it's appropriate for some stories, but Iron Council isn't that type of story.
      I know I said I'd spoil multiple stories, so: In Perdido Street Station, the hero watches his girlfriend's "mind & soul" get sucked right out of her, then he runs off, leaving her behind a drooling, gibbering mess. He then betrays his client , and runs away from the city. Most of his friends have died. Those responsible for the mess continue with their lives uninterrupted. The Scar is a bit hazy for me, so just assume that everyone dies.

      To me, Deus Ex is the same sort of world as Iron Council. A hero struggles valiantly against a large oppressive force, mostly in vain. Perhaps nothing changes, but in the end knowledge is earned - by the reader/player - and discussion is encouraged. Is free will really just the illusion of choice? see also BioShock.

      Mass Effect is much more of a Star Wars type story. You've got death of the mentor as a catalyst for the apprentice growing in strength (Nihilus/Obi-Wan), you've got the quest to rescue the princess (Liara/Leia), you've got the warlord who has become twisted by his search for power, but even in death he is redeemed (Saren/Vader) (Sovereign/Sidious). Shepard truly is the Hero of a Thousand Faces.

      Maybe I shouldn't comment on an ending I haven't experienced yet, but to me Mass Effect 3 should be a heroic triumph, the end of the "Shepard Saga" if you will, not an open-ended, semi-mysterious "we'll let your imagination fill in the gaps" type ending.

    They should have complete control, I agree... BUT THIS ENDING SUCKED.

    The thing, I didnt like about the Mass Effect 3 ending/s that it's so un-Mass Effect. I'm in a middle of a war then all of a sudden I get to play God.
    Plus I've seen the exact 3 choices before in the Original Deus Ex , seemed like Bioware didn't know how to end the game and got very lazy.

    Arghhhhh SPOILERS, people.
    Mass Effect 3's only been out for a week, not everyone's had a chance to play it yet. GODDAMMIT!
    This was supposed to be a discussion on creative control, not yet another discussion on what was wrong with Mass Effect 3's ending.

    The game's been out for ONE WEEK. Seriously.

    This is a discussion about creative control - not the ME3 ending!

    Shepard needed to be louder, angrier and have access to a time machine. Everytime Shepard was not on screen, everyone needed to ask "Where's Shepard?"

      The Developer ultimately has complete control over what happens, I can't really see how that's up for debate, the real question is should the developer listen to consumers and take on board their thoughts, to which I think the answer is an emphatic yes, and surely this didn't happen for the Mass Effect 3 ending... or pretty much any Bioware game to be honest. I'd be curious to know if Bioware at least use an editor... a real one... with experience in editing novels/scripts etc etc. Because I honest to god can't see an ending so objectively bad being approved by a halfway decent editor.

        Apologies, not sure about this new layout, I refreshed the page to cancel the reply to this that i accidently clicked and it still.... replied to this. *sad panda*

      If you substitute "magic space station" for "time machine" then you get perilously close to describing the actual game.

    I was one of many who were disappointed with the ending, it left me feeling empty and with a sense of hopelessness. The dream/indoctrination theory is an interesting read, but feels like people clutching at straws. I don’t think we have the right to demand a new ending, it would be nice, but we aren’t “entitled” to anything. Maybe BioWare have something up their sleeves, who knows, but all I would like is some answers to all the questions the ending raised. I would settle for a comic, a crudely sketched video, anything… I just want to know what happens afterwards.

    And… I really wanted to see baby Krogan. ;(

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now