At My Limit: Mass Effect and the 5 Stages of Grief

I've been playing Mass Effect a lot recently. In fact that's pretty much all I've been playing. And whenever I look to discuss Mass Effect with other players, the discussion always comes to the topic of the end of the trilogy. Yesterday, I came to the realization that Mass Effect fans are so stuck on the end of the trilogy because they are actually grieving the end of the series.

Now, before you start talking about how its a game, its not like a person died or anything, just stop and think about it. Commander Shepard, the main character, is a reflection of who we are as a person. A part of us is always put into the character that is molded with our hands through the trilogy. It is only natural that we grow attached to the character because playing the character requires you to create a bond with him or her.

Now that we've established this, I submit to you that the reason why there is such a harsh reaction to the end  is because the players are actually experiencing the five stages of grief. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. This may seem far-fetched to most of you but if you really look at the overall reaction of fans its actually quite obvious. How about we go through each individual stage and compare them to the fan's reactions.

DENIAL

Within a week of release there was an outrage across the internet. Fans of Mass Effect could not believe the outcome of the final instalment of the trilogy. And they were rightfully disappointed. The original end was filled with unexplained occurrences that created many plot holes. However, with the release of the extended cut many of these holes were mended. Still, fans do not accept this new ending. They still demand more details, and even more changes to the game itself to fit their desires.

Another example, is the trilogy itself. When the writers began talking about the first Mass Effect game, they said that Commander Shepard's story would only be covered in a trilogy. Once again, fans seem to be missing the memo. I can't count how many threads I've seen on the internet about how hopeful people are that Shepard remains the main character for the next game.

And then there's the Indoctrination Theory. This is a popular theory that fan's are using to satisfy their own desires for a different explanation. It basically says that Shepard was partially under the control of the Reapers and most of the end sequence to the game was a dream. Bioware outright denied that this was the intended story. Those who subscribe to the Indoctrination Theory still try and justify it, even though the Extended Cut adds details that deny it. Some of those people also consider fans who accept the official endings of Mass Effect 3 to be narrow minded and unimaginative for taking things at face value.

ANGER

This step is the most evident of all of them. At almost every turn, many fans have raged at Mass Effect 3's endings. It has ranged from calculated passive aggressive criticism of Bioware, to outright immature name calling. Even after the Extended Cut. Even after DLC packs that add a new perspective to the story. Fans have still not been satisfied, and have launched many verbal attacks against the lead writer of Mass Effect 3.

After such a Negative Reaction to the 3rd game, many representatives of Bioware tried to answer the fan's questions, and calm their frustration. Instead of being met with appreciation for their concern, they were met with hostility and rage. They became prime targets for fan's to point the finger and say "Its you're fault I'm not happy!". Needless to say, Bioware's attempts to reach out to fans did not last long. Now, the fans still want more answers, and they expect Bioware to answer them. Instead, Bioware sits out and lets them simmer, not eager to be targeted by the immature anger of unsatisfied fans. And instead of pointing the finger back at themselves, some fans are now even more angry at Bioware for "abandoning" them.

BARGAINING

After seeing the original, and even extended ending for Mass Effect 3, many fans wanted a new ending. Some of these fans were even willing to pay for it. There were even offers made to Bioware to raise the money required to remake the end of the trilogy. To me, this is shocking. I mean, you can dislike an ending, and you can get upset about it, but to try and bribe a writer to change their ending is a little ridiculous. Bioware rejected their offer claiming it would injure their "artistic integrity", and needless to say, they were criticized for it.

DEPRESSION

I, and many people that I know who played through Commander Shepard's final chapter felt some sort of solemn remorse at the end. Over the next day or so, a wave of apathy hit me and I couldn't stop thinking about the game, but at the same time, couldn't think positively about it. It wasn't that I was upset, it was just a weird feeling. The best emotion that I can compare it to is depression. I don't know how many others experienced something similar, but that is my own example.

ACCEPTANCE

Over time, and with the aid of the expanded endings, many fans have come to the point of accepting and enjoying the series as a whole, including the end. Many people who have reached this point are turned off by the people who are still complaining about the end of the trilogy. I sincerely hope that everyone can reach this point eventually.

Please take into account that this is not actually a psychological analysis of Mass Effect players. Its something that I noticed and wanted to compare the reactions of players to the 5 stages of guild. ]Though there are a lot of parallels I wouldn't say that players are grieving over Mass Effect, though it is a funny idea. I hope it was an enjoyable read and it got you to think.

At My Limit: A Case for Mass Effect 3

Note: Before I get started, I'll explain why I didn't post at all last week. Well, I realized that I don't have the resources it takes to constantly review new games as they come out. If I review older games, all I do is sit on my soap box and voice my opinion, which is essentially what I do during "At My Limit"s. So I have decided to change up my schedule a bit. I will only be reviewing games when I have something recent to review, or when I want to give a throwback review to an amazing game. So from now on I'll be doing At My Limit on Tuesdays, and my Saturday slot will be replaced by a video game news recap of the week.

SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED THE MASS EFFECT GAMES AND DO NOT WANT THE PLOT SPOILED DO NOT CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE!

Mass Effect 3 has sparked one of the biggest controversies in recent gaming history. The controversy doesn't revolve around the game's violence, potential sexual content, swearing, or even the fact that it gives you the option for a homosexual romance. No, the game's controversy comes from it's ending. Many fans have played the entire Mass Effect trilogy and been disappointed once they reached the end. In fact, after the release of the 3rd game the series lost a lot of fans, and most of those who remained weren't happy. Bioware, the developer, even released an extended version of the endings to fix some of their mistakes, but people still were not happy. Why is this?

The story of Mass Effect revolves around a soldier, named Commander Shepard, who is trying to stop the destruction of the galaxy caused by a race of giant nearly indestructible sentient machines called the "reapers". You postpone their attack in the first game, and then postpone it again in the second, but in the end they still make it to the milky way galaxy and start purging all sentient life. You find schematics of a super weapon that could be used to destroy them in a relic from an ancient space faring race. 

Male Commander Shepard

You rally the galaxy to develop this weapon, and then prepare to fire it. It malfunctions and you have to go to its main controls and fix it. At the controls an AI appears and explains to you that he created the reapers. The reapers purpose is to destroy all sentient races when they reach a certain level of technology so they do not end up in constant war. He explains that this solution is now obsolete since you are so close to destroying them. He gives you 3 options. You can destroy them, as you had planned. You can control them and do what you want with the reapers. Or you can cause a synthesis between all organic and synthetic life creating a lasting peace across the galaxy. 

If you destroy the reapers you destroy all synthetic life, and cause damage to a lot of the essential technology throughout the galaxy. If choose synthesis, there is indeed lasting peace throughout the galaxy, and no damage is done outside that which the reapers had previously caused. If you choose to control the reapers, some technology is damaged, but you, now in control of the reapers use them to rebuild and defend the galaxy. In all 3 endings, you pretty much die.

A Reaper

Most people tend to choose the destroy ending, which is sad because that is the worst of the 3 endings. One of the biggest complaints is that Shepard dies and there is no way to prevent it. To this I have one response: seriously? Most of the conversations of Mass Effect 3 create a foreboding feeling of doom that points to Shepard's death. Shepard himself constantly reminds us that he is simply human, just another soldier, nothing special. He even has a dream leading up to the final battle which shows him engulfed in flames. The game pointed at it the whole time. You had plenty of time to prepare yourself for it.

This doesn't address the basis for those complaints though. Mass Effect is a game about player choice. It gives you several options for completing your mission and allows you to develop the character you desire. Most of your decisions influence the outcome of the current game, as well as the sequels. Most people feel that the end of Mass Effect 3 makes their choices pointless. On the contrary, Mass Effect 3 values the choices that you've made, and the effort that you put into the game. However, it also tells you that just because you are the main character, it doesn't mean you will live.

We do not have control over life, we just think we do. But when it all comes down to it, we can do nothing to prevent our own death if something beyond us comes along. If a atomic bomb falls from the sky, there is virtually nothing we can do to prevent our demise. So why should it be any different in Shepard's case? He has stood strong and conquered unbeatable odds multiple times, he even did something that no race was able to accomplish in over 50,000 years, and now he has the opportunity to save the galaxy! The price is simply his life. Really people? How self centered are you? You have become so attached to the character you designed that it pains you to sacrifice him for the lives of the entire galaxy? Just think about that.

Another complaint is that the story of 3 doesn't work with the lore of the previous games. Having just finished the third game, and started a play through of all 3 games, I can say that this is completely ungrounded. Mass Effect 3's story was set up since Mass Effect 1. Most of the concepts that are re-explained in 3 were present in 1. Another complaint is that the reapers allow races to live provided they serve them, which doesn't add up with their purpose of purging the galaxy. In Mass Effect 1 it is explained that the Reapers destroy all the technology as well, and brainwash those who serve them, then when they are finished they leave them to die to exposure or starvation on now barren worlds.

I understand where the complaints came from when there was not much explained about the ending. But thanks to the extended cut, our questions are answered. So why is it, that nearly a year later people are still whining about the endings? Maybe because its not how they wanted it to end. Yet another illustration of how self centered we are, thinking that we can control exactly how a series ends. Don't get me wrong, there were some things in Mass Effect 3 that I was disappointed in. There is a significant decrease in the conversation options in 3, and you can't really talk to your crew mates as much as in the previous games. But you don't really need to either.

Mass Effect 3 has earned several Game of the Year awards, it received high ratings, and people are still playing it. Its time for us to grow up and realize that the stories of video games are not about us. Are they designed for our enjoyment? Yes. But they do not revolve around the characters that we enjoy. I can accept if you didn't like Mass Effect 3, but don't just bandwagon on ideas that are a year old and still ungrounded.

At My Limit: Being Inhuman

Did you ever notice how most good developers don't really develop anything below an M rating? Did you ever notice how most popular video game characters these days could be described by the term "bad-ass" (pardon my french, but this term may be used in the future)? Why is this? Why does the majority of our culture think that gritty, dark and mysterious gun toting, sword wielding, scowl wearing, super soldiers are what defines cool?

Master Chief, Kratos, Marcus Fenix, Cloud Strife, Ezio Auditore, Issac Clarke, Chris Redfield, Dante, Soap MacTavish. What to these names have in common? Poorly developed characters, with plot devices for personalities. Their games rely on creating a testosterone fueled soap opera of action, violence, drama, and awesome stunts. I mean, most of the plot twists involved with those games can be seen in various daytime soap operas. My wife and children died. I'm related to an evil entity. Someone I trusted deeply betrayed me. Everyone thought I was dead but I'm really not! Really guys, we buy into poorly developed characters just because they look and sound awesome.

Don't get me wrong, there are characters that are well developed and do awesome things. Earlier this week I reviewed Far Cry 3, and both Jason Brody, and Vaas are very well developed and definitely fit the profile of a "bad ass". But these are few and far between. Most video game characters are so cool, that they're as inhuman as the characters we consider "unrealistic".

(Note: I do not mention any female characters, not because I don't think that some are applicable here, or that some are cool and well developed, but because I want to save that topic for a later time.)

There are other places where under developed characters made of pure awesome are acceptable. Take satire for example. In games like Duke Nukem (save for his most recent appearance, obviously) he doesn't need to be a well developed character because he is supposed to be making fun of the poorly developed characters out there. You experience the same type of satire when you read a Judge Dredd comic, or look into the lore of Warhammer 40k.

Complete and Total Bad Asses

Do you remember where video games started? Were those characters awesome looking? A yellow hockey puck with a mouth. A fat Italian plumber. A blue hedgehog with spaghetti for arms. A young robot in light blue tights and blue armor. These are games that we consider classics, yet their sales didn't decrease because they don't feature main characters that have so much testosterone they grow a beard when they sneeze.





I've been very long winded about this, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't enjoy games like the ones I've been putting down. Getting back to my original point, these are pretty much all that's out there. Nintendo is the only game designer that has been consistently producing action hero games that are suitable for all ages, and don't rely on a character who's primary feature is their testosterone level. There have been some games here and there, but not many.

I'm tired of seeing dark, drab, gritty environments in every game that I look at on the shelves of Game Stop. This is why I'm really looking forward to an upcoming game, Ni No Kuni: the Wrath of the White Witch. I'm looking forward to this game because not only does it challenge the norm, but it has great potential. Studio Ghibli, the animation studio that does the animation for Hayao Miyazaki's movies, such as Princess Mononoke, made the storyboard and animation for this game. You can definitely expect a review of this from me in the future.

If we really think about it, Master Chief has just as insignificant a personality as Mario. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Lets enjoy both styles of games without trying to tell ourselves that one is "too kiddy" for us. We're playing with toys. Pretty advanced toys, but they're still toys. Let's diversify our gaming experience, and not just write something off because the game's animations actually feature colors besides black, brown and grey.

Far Cry 3... Oh! I Play This Game!

Far Cry 3 was released on December 4th 2012 for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Windows. It is a first person shooter role playing game. The game takes place on the Rook Islands, a semi-fictional place based on a set of islands off the coast of Papau New Guinea. Far Cry 3 was nominated for 18 best of E3 awards. It features an in depth single player story, an online competitive multiplayer, and a cooperative side story that can be played with up to 4 players.

Story - 9

You are Jason Brody, a young man on vacation with his friends, girlfriend and two brothers. You tour Asia and then decide to do something a little more risky. You and your friends take a plane out over some islands in the pacific and skydive. As you land, you find are abducted by a group of human trafficking pirates. Your older brother, who is ex-military, try and escape. Vaas, the leader of the pirate band, catches you and shoots your brother. He tells you to run, giving your a 30 second head start. Then Vaas sets his band of pirates on you. You run for your life, across a rope bridge, but a helicopter catches you off guard and shoots the bridge out. You hang on for your life, but fall to your apparent death.

Jason Brody, The Protagonist of Far Cry 3

A few days later you awake in a small village. A man stands over you. He explains how he found you, and tells you how you've earned the village's respect. The village is under the control of the Rakyat, a tribe of warriors trying to take the islands back from the pirates. You have been idolized by the Rakyat as the only person to see the inside of Vaas' camp and live. The Rakyat teach you how to fight, and start you on the path of the warrior. You vow to take revenge on Vaas and rescue your remaining brother, friends and your girlfriend.

Along the way you uncover that the human trafficking ring is larger than it appears, and the story gets deeper. The writers do a great job at keeping the game fresh, however the last quarter of the game feels rushed. One of the great highlights of the story is the inner battle within Jason. As the game progresses Jason has trouble deciding deciding if he wants to return to his old life, or continue on the path of the warrior. This leads to a decision at the end of the game made by the player. This decision can lead to two different endings, of which some people have found disappointing. Personally, I thought the ending linked to staying on the island wasn't well thought through, while the other was enjoyable for me.

Video - 8.5

Warning: This video contains strong language.

Far Cry 3 puts forth some extremely beautiful visuals. The jungle landscape is extremely vibrant, and the character designs are very well done. Also, a few times throughout the story there are times when you are "high" on something. It usually involves some bad mushrooms, a potion the Rakyat give you, or being drugged in some way shape or form. These sequences are bizarre, but downright beautiful. So why did I give it an 8.5? Well, there's some significant flaws in the aesthetics.

There are some significant glitches with the graphics. Sometimes I saw enemy vehicles disappear from my very eyes leaving people floating in the air, driving what appears to be imaginary cars. While this could have been attributed to the main character's slow decent into madness, or whatever toxins were still in his system, sadly its a glitch. Also, in some cinematics the character's facial expressions don't match the emotion they are trying to get across. These are rare occurrences, but the glitches were quite obtrusive when they appeared.

Audio - 8.5

Vaas' Voice Actor Getting Into Character

There isn't any big names on the voice acting cast of Far Cry 3. However, the voice acting is very well done. When there is a lack of emotion on a characters face, you can still feel the appropriate emotion through their voice. The sounds of the animals are also really well done and can be legitimately terrifying from time to time. On the other hand, the music wasn't really that memorable. There was only one specific song that stood out to me. "Make it Bun Dem" by Skrillex and Damian Marley (Bob Marley's son). I have to say, Reggae mashed up with Dubstep is oddly appealing.

Gameplay - 8

Overall Far Cry plays like your average shooter. The only thing new are stealth take downs. If you sneak up behind an enemy you can use various skills do take them out quietly, while making you feel awesome. Some have you stab someone take their pistol and shoot up to 4 more enemies, others have you execute an enemy, pull the pin on one of his grenades, and kick him back into a group of enemies. They're fun and they look cool, but they don't really add anything to the game.

Frequently, you can do side quests like capturing enemy outposts, hunting exotic animals, or assassinating enemy officers. Though these are extremely monotonous, and there's not a whole lot that changes between each quest. (Have I told you the definition of insanity?) Fortunately, I found driving around to the various locations that those side quests were to be fun.

Far Cry 3's Co-op Cast.
(left to right: Tisha the ex-soldier, Leonard the crooked cop
Callum the Scottish thug, and Mikhail the Russian hit man)

I have played some of the cooperative side story, but none of the competitive multiplayer yet. The co-op mode disappointed me. It has a ton of bugs when played online. So far out of the 5 missions I played through, twice the game didn't update objectives which forced a restart. And so far, I've completed the same mission twice, and not once did I receive the in game rewards, or trophy for completion. The overall story for the co-op is interesting, and the multiplayer gameplay is fun, but the bugs have really put me off from playing it.

Far Cry 3 is a fantastic game, and a lot of fun, but it still has a lot of bugs to be fixed. That being said, I give it an 8.5. I highly recommend this game, though only for mature gamers (the game is rated M for Mature after all). But really, the game is extremely violent and gory, it has tons of bad language, substance abuse, and the potential for 2 sex scenes and at least 3 scenes with unavoidable female nudity. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME FOR YOUR KIDS. I say this not because I think they'll become killers, drug users, or swear like a sailor, but because this sort of material is not appropriate for someone under the age of 18. Some games are rated M, but if done by movie ratings would be closer to PG-13. This game is rated M for a reason, and would be rated R if in a theatrical format.

I hope you enjoyed my review of Far Cry 3, feel free to leave a comment requesting other games for me to play through and review. Don't forget to subscribe to receive email updates whenever I make a new post.

At My Limit: Trophies and Achievements

Just about everyone who has had some exposure to the current generation of gaming is familiar with trophies or achievements. For those of you who are thinking "Wait, you can get trophies for playing games at home?", yes, indeed you can. However, these are simply virtual awards for completing specific tasks in the game. If you play games on a PlayStation 3 you are awarded trophies and they cumulatively add to your gamer "level". On Xbox 360, however, you gain achievements in the same way, but they give you "gamer points" which pretty much amount to the same thing. Some players are obsessed with them, and others believe them to be a stupid waste of time.

Recently, someone close to me has begun calling me a "trophy whore" from time to time as a joke. The term trophy, or achievement "whore" refers to someone who plays games with the goal of increasing their gamer level or score. Most of these gamers are looked down upon. They don't really play games to enjoy them, but simply to gain bragging rights from their enormous amounts of trophies or achievements. So because my gaming honor has been questioned, I bring this topic to the table: Achievements and trophies, are they a bad thing?

To really examine how gaming awards effect players we have to look at them from different perspectives. We could speculate on the pros and cons of the topic, but there's not really anything conclusive either way, so this is purely my point of view on the matter. There are two ways to look at awards in video games: 1. As an incentive, or 2. As a mile marker.


As an incentive trophies are limitations. Achievement whores play a game, not for the game itself, but to collect all the achievements and increase their gamer score. In this way, you are limiting yourself within the game. Instead of enjoying a game for what its meant to be, challenging and fun, you have turned it into work. You have essentially made your gamer level or score something of extreme importance and started "level grinding" to gain a higher level and therefore more prestige among your online friends. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term "level grinding", it refers to the act of doing a repetitive action in a video game to gain experience for your character and gain more levels with him. It is usually very time consuming and feels more like work than play.)

If you sit in the house all day playing video games, and are gamer level 100 on PlayStation Network, you should be pitied, not exalted. Video games are not life, they are a hobby, a form of entertainment for your pleasure. If you make money by playing video games, more power to you. (Real money, rupies and poke-yen do not count.) But trophies and achievements in video games do not compare to real life accomplishments. I mean, getting a gold trophy from a PlayStation game looks pretty silly when compared to winning something like, say, the Stanley Cup.

On the other hand, if we look at it as a mile marker, we can look at achievements in a better light. Games have always been about competition and challenge, and video games are no different. Before trophies and achievements came along gamers would brag that they beat Castlevania without dying, collected every ring in a level of Sonic, or beat Super Mario 64 in an hour. Now, with achievements, you can prove it.

Achievements also add a list of side challenges to the game. When I played PlayStation All Stars Battle Royale, I decided I wanted to collect all the trophies. (I'll get to my reason why later.) One of the trophies was to win a match without dying. This was extremely difficult, but gave me a new challenge to attain to. The same thing has happened when I have played Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Mass Effect, and other games. The fact that the trophies were there was something that I wanted to do in addition to all the other features in the game to add more challenge, not because I craved the trophy.

That being said, I am not a "trophy whore". Do I like trophies and achievements? Yes. I think they are a great way of showing off your gaming skills to other players. But they should not be valued to the point of playing games simply to get them. That's it for today. Hope you enjoyed my rant on trophies and achievements.

What do you think about awards in video games? Leave a comment below with your response. Also, feel free to request any topic to be discussed in future "At My Limit"s or games you'd like to see me review.

PlayStation All Stars: Battle Royale... Oh! I Play This Game!

PlayStation All Stars: Battle Royale is a party arena fighter in the same vein as Super Smash Brothers. It was released November 20th, 2012 for both PlayStation 3 and the PlayStation Vita. It is the first of the retail "cross-buy" games released by Sony. The "cross-buy" feature allows you to purchase the specified game for your PS3 and receive a free version of the same game for your PSVita.

Battle Royale features a good cast of Sony exclusive characters, like Kratos, Nathan Drake, Sly Cooper, and Sweet Tooth. However, unlike Nintendo's Super Smash Brothers, All Stars incorporates many Third Party Characters as well, such as Big Daddy, Dante, and Raiden. The roster currently only has twenty characters. More characters are being released in pairs of two as DLC. The first batch holds Kat from Gravity Rush, and Emmet from StarHawk, and will be free to download for two weeks after its release.

Story - 5

All Stars really doesn't tell much of a story. When you start the "story" mode, you choose the character you wish to play as, then watch a small clip bringing your character into the story. Essentially, your character becomes involved in this multi-dimensional tournament because of a lust for power, treasure or adventure. Then story seems to go out the window for a while as you battle in round after round of this arena fighter. 

Before the final battle you encounter a rival character, who challenges you before your encounter with the final boss. The rivalry is usually comedic and ironic, but really doesn't do much for the story. Once your final obstacle is out of the way, you face off with Polygon Man, a giant face. He reveals that he is the all powerful being in the PlayStation universe and claims to be unbeatable. After his inevitable defeat, you gain an aura of power that seems to be what was fueling Polygon Man. And you get to watch a small ending clip explaining what your character does with said power.

Video - 7.5

The graphics are very well done, but not above and beyond what is expected. There are some faults in the story clips, as well as a few video glitches in the online multiplayer during the early stages of the game. The story clips are extremely basic. They are two dimensional static images, that barely move and feature narration behind them. As for the glitches, in the online multiplayer, occasionally enemies will never appear on screen, or disappear randomly during a match. Other than that there's nothing really wrong with the graphics.

Audio - 8.5

Battle Royale uses the original voice actors from the various games it draws characters from. It is nice to play a character and be able to listen to lines taken almost right from the pages of a game, with the voice you are used to. However, the background music is nothing to write home about. Most of the music is repetitive, but doesn't really stick with you after a session of gameplay.

Gameplay - 9

This is what this game is all about. It is not meant to have an interesting story, amazing graphics, or an award winning sound track. Its about being fun. And that's exactly what PlayStation All Stars Battle Royale is. The gameplay is simple. There different moves associated with triangle, circle, and square. If used in combination with a directional button, the move changes. Attacks don't actually deal damage to your opponents. Instead, landing attacks causes you to gain ability points. Once you have enough ability points you can use a special move.

Special moves come in 3 different levels. The first is usually powerful enough to kill one or two opponents if placed well. The second level can easily get you two to three kills. Finally the third level special can kill the all your opponents at once, and sometimes even do it a second time before the time runs out. I enjoy the special move system because it adds more strategy to the game than just trying to deal tons of damage to your opponent. You have to carefully set up kills instead of just hacking away till you can smash attack your opponent off the map.

All Stars is lacking in a few areas. It has a limited number of arenas to play on, and a very small in game item list. This can make the game feel quite monotonous and bland after a few hours of gameplay. Also, the single player modes don't offer you much to do on your own. There are some balancing issues between characters too. Some feel quite overpowered in comparison to others. However, this issue is being addressed and updates are released from time to time to aid balancing.

PlayStation All Stars: Battle Royale is very fun to play with a group of friends, or online. I've had a lot of fun playing this game with some good friends, and have played it enough to unlock all of its trophies. Overall, I'd give the game a 7.5, but don't let that discourage you from buying it. This game is another must own for any Playstation 3 or PSVita owner.