Army Of Two Gamespot Review Up: 6.5/10

they are always below.

not suprising, im glad when E.A. games get trashed.

I don't get it? They rave about Gears but tear this game apart. Its the same friggin game sans chainsaws and chase cam.

Whatever, I'm having a blast with it, if you want to add me to your friends list I'm MrZ33.

I don't get it? They rave about Gears but tear this game apart. Its the same friggin game sans chainsaws and chase cam.

Whatever, I'm having a blast with it, if you want to add me to your friends list I'm MrZ33.

De_Bears

tada! thats why gears was raved and what made it cinematic...and who doesnt like using chainsaws? :)

Here Wow, I'm suprised. Another below-everyone-else's review from Gamespot. Whatchu think?Chaos_Bladez

I agree with their review. Why Don't you READ THE REVIEW, instead of criticizing the score.

I don't get it? They rave about Gears but tear this game apart. Its the same friggin game sans chainsaws and chase cam.

Whatever, I'm having a blast with it, if you want to add me to your friends list I'm MrZ33.

De_Bears

I agree, the cover system works better in Army of Two. As for the dialogue, there's better voice acting and lines in Army of Two then the caveman voice acting in Gears. See you online.

Well, I liked the game :(

But that's all reviews really are, opinions. And I respect this one too.

Look at Mass Effect for example, great game with a not so good rating. It just doesn't make sense.DEWMAN08

I don't get it? They rave about Gears but tear this game apart. Its the same friggin game sans chainsaws and chase cam.

Whatever, I'm having a blast with it, if you want to add me to your friends list I'm MrZ33.

De_Bears

The reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about at all!

Here are the reasons:

1. he obviously has some personal issue with the game's story about fighting in Iraq. maybe he served there or something. But what ever his personal grudge against the story, he let it affect the score. You can clearly see this by his closing comment. He said the game should be in a future battlefield. Why should it be?

2. He said the game is an above average shooter... yet the game got 6.5. When was the last time an average shooter rated lower than 6.5? Average shooters are rated above 7!

3. The game has life bar, big deal! Lots of games that are immersive have life bars.

4. The game's character talks too much. What, you'd rather play a co-op game with no talking? Then why would you even play a co-op game (even if it's co-oping with the computer)?

5. The reviewer takes a great issue at running and gunning. guess what, in real world, that's how it is. most poeple, even the trained soldiers, miss a lot when they run! It's too bad that this game is too hard for the reviewer, it's too bad that "other" games like Halo 3 isn't like real world combat.

BY any account, the reviewer just did a superbly incompetent job reviewing an "above average" game with an below average score.

this game looks good to me. you cant always go by reviews, you need to try it for yourself

its all a matter of opinion

The reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about at all!

Here are the reasons:

1. he obviously has some personal issue with the game's story about fighting in Iraq. maybe he served there or something. But what ever his personal grudge against the story, he let it affect the score. You can clearly see this by his closing comment. He said the game should be in a future battlefield. Why should it be?

2. He said the game is an above average shooter... yet the game got 6.5. When was the last time an average shooter rated lower than 6.5? Average shooters are rated above 7!

3. The game has life bar, big deal! Lots of games that are immersive have life bars.

4. The game's character talks too much. What, you'd rather play a co-op game with no talking? Then why would you even play a co-op game (even if it's co-oping with the computer)?

5. The reviewer takes a great issue at running and gunning. guess what, in real world, that's how it is. most poeple, even the trained soldiers, miss a lot when they run! It's too bad that this game is too hard for the reviewer, it's too bad that "other" games like Halo 3 isn't like real world combat.

BY any account, the reviewer just did a superbly incompetent job reviewing an "above average" game with an below average score.

henry4th

well said..yes reviews are just opinions but it seems he didnt give very good reasons

This is a great game. It at least deserves an 8 imo. I don't mind the fact that once again GS gives a game a lower score than average cause that what they're best at, bit to call the games subject matter garbage and give it the whatever "batitude" means icon is ridiculous. In his review he says, it would be OK if he was making fun of the venusian army, but since the game makes fun of the US army, it's wrong. He even mentioned how the title plays the army of one motto.

JUst because a game does this, doesn't mean that it should be reviewed poorly beacause of this. I find it offensive that this guy is putting out a review that clearly represents his personal beliefs on what is politically correct. It's not his place to say that this game is wrong for doing so, because some people like myself could care less. This review should be unbiased. He even says it's fun to play. I honestly think he lowered the score just because the game touches on a sensitive subject. To him I say, get over it. No one else sensed this while reading it?

The reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about at all!

Here are the reasons:

1. he obviously has some personal issue with the game's story about fighting in Iraq. maybe he served there or something. But what ever his personal grudge against the story, he let it affect the score. You can clearly see this by his closing comment. He said the game should be in a future battlefield. Why should it be?

2. He said the game is an above average shooter... yet the game got 6.5. When was the last time an average shooter rated lower than 6.5? Average shooters are rated above 7!

3. The game has life bar, big deal! Lots of games that are immersive have life bars.

4. The game's character talks too much. What, you'd rather play a co-op game with no talking? Then why would you even play a co-op game (even if it's co-oping with the computer)?

5. The reviewer takes a great issue at running and gunning. guess what, in real world, that's how it is. most poeple, even the trained soldiers, miss a lot when they run! It's too bad that this game is too hard for the reviewer, it's too bad that "other" games like Halo 3 isn't like real world combat.

BY any account, the reviewer just did a superbly incompetent job reviewing an "above average" game with an below average score.

henry4th

exactly my thoughts....he mentioned more than once about them putting down the army. He's obviously got a personal problem with that, but IT'S A VIDEOGAME and he can't let his personal thoughts interfere with the score...which he obviously did

BY any account, the reviewer just did a superbly incompetent job reviewing an "above average" game with an below average score.henry4th

The reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about at all!

Here are the reasons:

1. he obviously has some personal issue with the game's story about fighting in Iraq. maybe he served there or something. But what ever his personal grudge against the story, he let it affect the score. You can clearly see this by his closing comment. He said the game should be in a future battlefield. Why should it be?

2. He said the game is an above average shooter... yet the game got 6.5. When was the last time an average shooter rated lower than 6.5? Average shooters are rated above 7!

3. The game has life bar, big deal! Lots of games that are immersive have life bars.

4. The game's character talks too much. What, you'd rather play a co-op game with no talking? Then why would you even play a co-op game (even if it's co-oping with the computer)?

5. The reviewer takes a great issue at running and gunning. guess what, in real world, that's how it is. most poeple, even the trained soldiers, miss a lot when they run! It's too bad that this game is too hard for the reviewer, it's too bad that "other" games like Halo 3 isn't like real world combat.

BY any account, the reviewer just did a superbly incompetent job reviewing an "above average" game with an below average score.

henry4th

Glad to see you noticed it too. He should be fired if he can't leavehis personal beliefs out of his reviews.

This is a great game. It at least deserves an 8 imo. I don't mind the fact that once again GS gives a game a lower score than average cause that what they're best at, bit to call the games subject matter garbage and give it the whatever "batitude" means icon is ridiculous. In his review he says, it would be OK if he was making fun of the venusian army, but since the game makes fun of the US army, it's wrong. He even mentioned how the title plays the army of one motto.

JUst because a game does this, doesn't mean that it should be reviewed poorly beacause of this. I find it offensive that this guy is putting out a review that clearly represents his personal beliefs on what is politically correct. It's not his place to say that this game is wrong for doing so, because some people like myself could care less. This review should be unbiased. He even says it's fun to play. I honestly think he lowered the score just because the game touches on a sensitive subject. To him I say, get over it. No one else sensed this while reading it?

cmpepper23

Yeah i thought the game deserved at least an 8 but yeah his review was confusing , becuase he says one thing then contradicts it later

an excellent review, end of story. i guess the score is deserving as well. Don't care about this EA bs hate that everyone seems to posses, nor do i care about GS's (numerous) past mistakes, THIS review is hits the nail-on-the-head, period.

Yes there are parts that are questionable in the review, but, all in all, his opinions are justifed in way or another.

an excellent review, end of story. i guess the score is deserving as well. Don't care about this EA bs hate that everyone seems to posses, nor do i care about GS's (numerous) past mistakes, THIS review is hits the nail-on-the-head, period.Rakuho

So are you also offended at how it supposedly mocks the US army, it is based on a touchy subject such as PMCs and the Iraq war? The review is garbage. I don't ind the score although I don't agree with it, but he clearly has some personal issues with the games story, and it shows. That is very unprofessional.

Has the delegate from Venus chimed in yet on his/her/its thoughts about the reviewer's opinion of their army?

Honestly, the game did have problems. Especially in the online multiplayer area. However, it was a nice offline multiplayer experience and a decent offline single player experience. The game really didn't deserve anything below a 7 (my opinion, I know, but I think it's a fair one). I don't see what the game's depiction of the US Army has to do with how it reviews, nor do I think it really made fun of the US Army at all (how is the title a mockery of the Army exactly?). Was the game flawed? Yes. Should it have been better after being pushed back to a later release date (it was supposed to be out last year)? Yes. Is the fact the online multiplayer lags and that the story wasn't shakespeare enough to bring the score to a 6.5? I don't think so. I think the game was fun and had a lot of neat and funny moments but I'm not the reviewer.

So Gamespot didn't like it. Who cares? Try the game for yourself and then rate it or better yet, buy it. That's how publishers know something's good. A bad critic's review hurts but as long as the retail sales roll in, EA will get over it.

[QUOTE="Rakuho"]an excellent review, end of story. i guess the score is deserving as well. Don't care about this EA bs hate that everyone seems to posses, nor do i care about GS's (numerous) past mistakes, THIS review is hits the nail-on-the-head, period.cmpepper23

So are you also offended at how it supposedly mocks the US army, it is based on a touchy subject such as PMCs and the Iraq war? The review is garbage. I don't ind the score although I don't agree with it, but he clearly has some personal issues with the games story, and it shows. That is very unprofessional.

u posted right before i forgot to add something to my original post. Nevertheless, the GAME in it self is 6.5. If you want to pick out the points in his review that you can personalize, fine, that's your call if you have a desire to feel offended. I played the game and share some similar issues, not all. Does he sound like a prick yes, is the review about the GAME itself good, ignoring all of the other junk he said, yes.

I think the game is average, and that's it. and no i don't get offended when someone who apparently has no idea of what He's talking about (the reviewer) talks smack, that kind of ignorance happens too much these days.

all i did was give credit to a review of a game minus rants, that happens to be similar to some of the issues i have with it. If that's crime, i apologize.

[QUOTE="Chaos_Bladez"]Here Wow, I'm suprised. Another below-everyone-else's review from Gamespot. Whatchu think?FearTheRain

I agree with their review. Why Don't you READ THE REVIEW, instead of criticizing the score.

Ok my friend had bought the game. All I have to say is EA is messing up, they hyped that game up so much it just sucks period. I played it for like 20 minutes and was discusted. The multiplayer is also wack, seems like the camera is sooo damn slow like a fat man with a camera from cops is behind you and cannot keep up. Army of 2 should have gotten a lower score. Socom and the Call are military games. They should have retailed it for 30 bucks because it blows. Oh yeah playing Warhawk lately now that is a true next gen game as is all other sony produced titles.kreemghandour

I agree, specially bout the camera part, (fat man with the camera, lmao!!) ... this might be the first time that my opinion get along with gamespot's review..

[QUOTE="DEWMAN08"]Look at Mass Effect for example, great game with a not so good rating. It just doesn't make sense.septemberluc

[QUOTE="henry4th"]BY any account, the reviewer just did a superbly incompetent job reviewing an "above average" game with an below average score.septemberluc

lol. thought you should check the REAL AVERAGE score on this website about shooter games! Reality speaks better than anything else. Just because they say a score of 6 is average, doesn't mean it's real average.

If 6.5 is REALLY average, then by all means, you sum up all the scores in the history of shooting games, then divide by the number of games, you should arrive at around 6.5. That's what an AVERAGE really means.

Please learn math before you trust some corporate statement.

I wanted this game to be ground breaking.... I think I'' pass on it

[QUOTE="cmpepper23"]

[QUOTE="Rakuho"]an excellent review, end of story. i guess the score is deserving as well. Don't care about this EA bs hate that everyone seems to posses, nor do i care about GS's (numerous) past mistakes, THIS review is hits the nail-on-the-head, period.Rakuho

So are you also offended at how it supposedly mocks the US army, it is based on a touchy subject such as PMCs and the Iraq war? The review is garbage. I don't ind the score although I don't agree with it, but he clearly has some personal issues with the games story, and it shows. That is very unprofessional.

u posted right before i forgot to add something to my original post. Nevertheless, the GAME in it self is 6.5. If you want to pick out the points in his review that you can personalize, fine, that's your call if you have a desire to feel offended. I played the game and share some similar issues, not all. Does he sound like a prick yes, is the review about the GAME itself good, ignoring all of the other junk he said, yes.

I think the game is average, and that's it. and no i don't get offended when someone who apparently has no idea of what He's talking about (the reviewer) talks smack, that kind of ignorance happens too much these days.

all i did was give credit to a review of a game minus rants, that happens to be similar to some of the issues i have with it. If that's crime, i apologize.

I wasn't trying to come off as an a ss towards you. If you agree with the review then that's fine by me. To each his own. I just didn't like the way this guy went about it. My brother and I just finished beating it earlier today and had lots of fun. We really liked the story, and the overall experience. I just think it's a shame for someone working for a website to write a biased review on a rather good game imo due to his own personal problems with the subject matter.

I wanted this game to be ground breaking.... I think I'' pass on it

rockbottom3

I engourage you not to pass on it just becuause of GS review..I think its a great game..at least rent it.

wow, that sucks. i love the game. and would give it an 8.9 . and i thought the plot was one of the best parts. i don't think they reviewed this game with a sequel in mind.

and idk what the hell they're talking about with the running and shooting. i can clear almost an entire room running around with my pimped out P90 with silencer while my buddy with the minigun just peppers the whole place and draws all the aggro.