Spartan 117:
Can you use USB drives and alternate hard drives as memory units? The Xbox ones are pricey... ...
OXM SAYS:
An Xbox 360 won't recognize a USB flash drive or another external hard drive as a memory unit, so you can't save...MORE
Posted on: Mar 10, 2008
Army of Two
WORDS BY: Dan Amrich
Army of Two was designed as two-player co-op shooter, which probably explains why the single-player campaign stinks. Whether you choose to play as Rios or Salem — the private military wrecking crew that must combine their elite talents to flip switches, open doors, and shoot terrorists in the head — you’ll find your partner to be infuriatingly stupid, frequently choosing the wrong priorities and tactics. (Not that your enemies are the sharpest crayons in the box, either: they sometimes sneak up from behind you, only to creep right past you en route to nearby cover.) In both single-player and co-op games, it’s all about teamwork: as one player draws enemy fire and attention (“Aggro”), the other can sneak around and flank. When your partner is injured, you’ll need to drag his ass to safety and patch him up, or you’re both dead. Unfortunately, levels from Somalia to China devolve into repetitive, blind-firing shooting galleries — and if you hear Salem say “bro” one more time, you have our permission to shoot him yourself.
Yet all this is tolerable — fun, even — when you play with a friend. The game was expressly designed for co-op play, but that makes the enemy A.I., poor vehicle mechanics, and the inability to save on command hard to accept, considering it costs you and a friend a combined $120 to play the game “as intended” over Xbox Live. But when you’re in this silly plot together, the annoyances melt into a testosterone-fueled buddy-action movie. With the satisfying Aggro mechanic, a useful GPS mapping system, and pretty, gritty graphics, co-op is the only way to play Army of Two — even if it’s still flawed and anticlimactic.
On Xbox 360
- Testosterone-fueled fun with a friend…
- …but only with a friend.
- Both enemy and ally A.I. are sadly undertrained.
- Was the original version (Army of Two almost came out in November) better or worse?
Wed, 03/12/2008 - 00:02
Posted by PeeKnuckle
I think metacritic pretty much nailed it.
Critics: 72/100
Average Joe: 8.4
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 21:42
Posted by wickedclowns95
I though exactly the opposite of everyone else. I loved the campaign and I hate the online multiplayer. I wish it had a regular deathmatch gametype instead of the wierd objective based gametype. Yeah it's different from normal but I think deathmatch and team deathmatch would have been fun in this game as well. As for the A.I. yes it can be quirky at times but I've also seen my A.I. partner do some amazing things plus the achievements come easier than a lot of games. I haven't done all of them yet but they all seem possible.
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 18:38
Posted by SteelCerberus
While I agree with most i still found this game fun. I think a choas theory coop like game would have been better but this game isn't that bad. The AI partner is stupid but still helps out.The coop is insanly fun. I would say its a 7.5.
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 15:27
Posted by damashiuchi
ok, Dan ... i forgive you ... you (OXM) and I certainly didn't see eye to eye on Rock Band ... which I sold to some guy a week after buying it ... utterly loathsome ... I love Army of 2 though!
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 13:55
Posted by kevLegend
personally, I enjoyed the singleplayer and the 2 v 2 isn't bad... if you are able to find a match you don't instantly lag out of.
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 12:45
Posted by PaperLantern
Hm... Guess I won't be picking this up.
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:38
Posted by Dan OXM
Yep, Darth, first thing I tried was the 2v2 online. In fact, the second screenshot of this review is from that session -- look closely at the HUD and you'll see it's the team interface.
This is the same text that will appear in the next issue, and I was working under the word count restriction, but here's the sentence that you're looking for: 2v2 was fun but wasn't the kind of thing that would pull me away from COD4 or other online options.
I know I'm on the low end of reviews on this one, but as usual, if the stuff that I specifically note as negative isn't the kind of stuff that bothers you, you still have the info you need to make a decision. As a staff, we discussed this score at length before deciding.
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 09:44
Posted by damashiuchi
it's not THAT bad ... sheesh!
your AI buddy is ALOT smarter than the yahoos you're stuck with in ALOT of other games (brothers in arms? c'mon ... gears? how many times in a row does Dom get downed my Kryll?) ... AI Rios and I played very well together! I'm not sure you and I played the same game?!
Mon, 03/10/2008 - 23:40
Posted by MitchyD
Dan is one of, if not THE critic I trust the most - perhaps a rental is in order, here.
-- http://www.nukoda.com --
Gamertag: MitchyD88
Mon, 03/10/2008 - 23:12
Posted by PeeKnuckle
This is one of those very few times I disagree with OXM on a game review. I enjoy the game a lot. I'd rather play with a friend, but that's fine... many of mine have it. It's no where near perfect, I freely admit that. But I have a ton of fun playing it.
I've never been one for online, multiplayer shooters. I seriously dislike them. I've always liked co-op games and this one may bring me back into shooters.
I disagree with the plot being silly and repetitive shooting galleries statement. I can name off several games that won awards and received much higher review scores, that fit that same pattern.
It was bound to happen though. We can't always agree on the same things. =]
Mon, 03/10/2008 - 21:10
Posted by Darth R3van224
I agree about the AI,but What about multiplayer? I think its good. Why not even mention the 2v2 combat WHILE fighting the AI natives? its fun,frenzied,and fast paced. Did you even try it?