Difficulty:

Just Right

Time Spent:

20 to 40 Hours

The Bottom Line:

"Underappreciated"

This review will make some comparisons to Gamespot reviewer Joe Dodson's critique of the game, for the sake of fairness.

I suppose I should start by saying that I believe it is clear that Joe Dodson allowed his review of this game to be severely tainted by his anger over the subject matter.

Yes, the story does touch uncomfortably close to the events of 9/11 and current military activity in the middle east. But in all honesty, the game drops that shtick a few levels in to focus on a high conspiracy - the type of which is so over the top and action movie-esque that normal player will have abandoned any real world connections.

The graphics for the game are rather impressive and realistic. When I read previews for this game I thought the hockey-masked protagonists looked a little corny but in action they actually look pretty cool and in all honesty, when you really think about it, if you were to make a complete facemask out of some bullet-proof material, it would probably look pretty close to a hockey mask after all.

Gameplay-wise, Army of Two skirts just close enough to realism to be intense and have cinematic flair, while retaining some video game necessities for the sake of gameplay. Not all enemies drop ammo, for instance, even though all enemies are clearly using guns to shoot at you. But the relative scarcity of ammo forces you to think about where and who you shoot, and having your buddy watch your back while you leave cover to snag an ammo pack, baseball slide back behind the nearest pillar, reload and rejoin the fray is thrilling and fun.

"Aggro" is one of the key components to the co-operative gameplay. Joe Dodson's claim that Aggro is inspired by online RPGs is absolutely ludicrous. The systems are similar only in name. While one player draws fire from a group of enemies, the other player can sneak around to set up a cross-fire but it isn't nearly as simple as going around back and gung-ho shooting everyone dead. The enemies clearly prioritize threats and while your buddy may have all the "aggro", if you get close enough and into their line of sight, they'll switch to firing at you. Close range kills also seem to move the aggro meter in your direction faster, meaning the aggro system is really best used as a way for both players to safely leapfrog to a better position and then take out enemies cooperatively.

In my opinion, this game is a evolutionary step for co-op games. Certainly some of the co-op functions fall flat: co-operative sniping is never useful outside of two or three instances where you must use it, and I played through the entire game before I even remembered that I was capable of switching weapons with my buddy- a tactic that doesn't seem to accomplish much unless you're carrying vastly different weapons and want to switch playstyles.

However, this game otherwise utilizes co-op play to an effect never yet seen before. This is the first game I've played in which I actually felt like it was impossible for my buddy and I to go do our own thing and then rendezvous at the checkpoint. You literally rely on the other player the entire way through the game and sticking close and setting up an effective strategy together is the only way to win. The experience is fun and intense and I'm really looking forward to a sequel.

Certainly some of the dialogue is cheesy but not nearly as bad as I expected when I picked up the game and actually not as bad as I would typically expect from an action game, all told.

The game is, unfortunately rather short and my buddy and I finished it over two pretty long sessions. Of course the single player is lacking compared to the multiplayer but it's unfair to dock a game like this for that - would a reviewer ever take points off an MMO for its lack of single player? This game is meant to be played together with a friend; like a party game with guns.