Why do people get so butthurt by reviews, anyway?

**Kane Knight** · 03-25-2008, 07:33 PM

Below is the review that's got Army of Two fans in a massive fit.

Army of Two is a decent third-person shooter that unfortunately sticks its boot in its mouth. It does so by belittling volunteer armed services and selling a power-but-no-responsibility mercenary fantasy, part of which takes place in the modern-day Iraq war. It mostly plays fine. The Aggro system works well (whereby your partner can hold your enemies' attention while you flank), and the online multiplayer is hectic fun. But the way it broaches and then mishandles such a controversial modern day issue is far from army strong.

The story follows Salem and Rios, two mercenaries who fight terror for big bucks with big guns. As they battle through ambush after ambush, it begins to dawn on them that someone within their own organization is selling them out and setting them up. That's right, one bad apple is screwing up the privatized military business for the rest of the upstanding mercenaries. Neither Rios nor Salem engages in any dishonorable behavior, aside from making fun of the Army for being so slow and ill-equipped. That would be fine if the Army they were making fun of were the Venusian Army. Or conversely, if Blackwater mercenaries in the real world hadn't been asked to leave Iraq for flipping out and massacring its civilians. But in Army of Two, there's no such thing as a civilian. If they aren't good guys, they're terrorists.

The game itself is a lightly tactical third-person shooter in which you take on terrorists from Somalia to Miami by shooting them with guns, punching out their lights, and hitting them with car doors--all while wearing a scary-looking goalie mask. As you thwart terror and complete missions, you earn cash that can be spent on awesome guns. From there, you can spend even more money pimping out stocks, adding grenade launcher attachments and even gold plating.

But with all this, you'll have a hell of a time hitting anything. Sure, you can stop, aim, and quickly kill a stationary target with a headshot. But if you're trying to run and shoot, you won't do nearly as much damage with that pimped-out AUG as you'd like. This was probably done to force you to rely on your teammate, but it seems like an unnecessary handicap all the same. Even worse, enemies have incongruous visible life bars, and some of them can take more bullets than a terminator. To top it all off, they have superior aim and can hit you just as easily from 50 feet as they can from five. Talk about asymmetrical warfare.

To keep yourself and your partner alive, you have to take advantage of the Aggro system. Borrowed from online role-playing games, Aggro is an artificial intelligence system that makes enemies focus on whoever is doing the most damage and ignore the person doing the least. The basic idea is to have one guy draw all the enemy fire while the other one sneaks around back and shoots everybody dead. It isn't rocket science, but coordinating attacks with a friend or with the CPU is still rewarding. Sometimes, one plus one equals fun.

At other times, it can be a little confusing. In the single-player campaign, you either control Salem or Rios; you can't switch between the two. If you're mortally wounded, your CPU partner can drag you to safety and heal you. Sometimes, however, he'll ignore all the obviously safe places and drag you through the entire level (assuming you both survive) before patching you up.

The campaign isn't that long, but to the game's credit, it is fun to play through cooperatively. You can set up public co-op campaigns that just anyone can join, or private ones for just you and a friend. Once you finish, you can go online to challenge other two-man squads in versus mode. The point of any match is to make more money than your opponents, which is earned by making kills and completing objectives. Some modes have you flying around, racing to kill enemy non-player characters, while others have you rescuing hostages or planting bombs. The best of these throws a mix of objectives at you, so there's a great deal of diversity within a single match. Then again, the fact that you can't hit targets without stopping and aiming is especially apparent online. Instead, you're better off running up and smacking people, then shooting them when they're down. This is entertaining for a few hours, but it gets old pretty fast.

The PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of Army of Two are almost indistinguishable from one another, though the former incorporates some minor motion controls. Both versions look and sound good. But with numerous loads and small environments, they should. And even though the graphics are impressively realistic; the silly hit point bars attached to your enemies break the spell a little. The silly suicide bombers who run at you screaming like something out of Serious Sam don't help either. The gun sounds are mostly fine, and the voice acting is OK, except that any time there's an enemy who has to be killed from behind (once every 10 minutes), your partner will repeatedly say something along the lines of "He looks tough, better take him from behind!" If there's one thing that can be said for private military, it's the lack of a don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

Army of Two is a better than average shooter that roughly treads on a political landmine when it should have stormed some future battlefield. It features cool co-op mechanics and is fun to play online, with or against friends. But even its title mocks the Army, literally one-upping its slogan while glamorizing a sector that, if anything, deserves scrutiny--not macho fantasy. If you're the type of person who would rather shoot first and ask questions never, by all means, pick up Army of Two. But if you like to think--and the fact that you're reading this review suggests that you do--be warned: Army of Two is less than the sum of its parts.
By Joe Dodson, GameSpot Posted Mar 10, 2008 7:03 pm PT

---
He gives it a 6.5 out of ten, which I think is a bit low, but not the "pissing on a picasso" that people seem to be making it out to be. While he does make it painfully clear that he doesn't like the placement in modern Iraq or the mercenaries badmouthing the troops bit, his argument seems to be justified based on actual gameplay issues.

**U-Warrior** · 03-25-2008, 08:49 PM

Well as you said, his gameplay arguements are more than justified, but his rant about the political issues is unnessecary, and quite frankly, stupid.

But I'm sure people will try and defend the gameplay, to justify to themselves that they made a good purchase with what little allowance their parents give them, whenever they decide to venture forth from the basement.

**Kane Knight** · 03-25-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by U-Warrior

Well as you said, his gameplay arguements are more than justified, but his rant about the political issues is unnessecary, and quite frankly, stupid.

But I'm sure people will try and defend the gameplay, to justify to themselves that they made a good purchase with what little allowance their parents give them, whenever they decide to venture forth from the basement.

Well, the problem is, the story really does suck, and it's common to feel that ongoing operations should be trod upon lightly. Even when done in a tasteful fashion, such forays in media are often controversial. Ranting about the issue of paralleling Blackwater, or dealing with Iraq, was probably done too much, but it's not exactly entirely out of place.

Not to mention the often forced attempts at humor and attempts to be cool. And as Penny Arcade pointed out, the "fist pound."

It was especially funny when the "They're demeaning the troops" bit was attributed to "liberal" bias on GameFAQs.

Anyway, the bulk of it is mechanical issues and the like, but you're right. They're going to focus on the political soapboxing to pan the review than pay attention to legit issues. It's kind of irritating, though, to see.

**Funky Fly** · 03-26-2008, 04:26 AM

If you don't like a review, ignore it. It's just some asshole's fucking opinion. End of discussion.

**Kane Knight** · 03-26-2008, 08:11 AM

That would be nice, in an ideal world.

It's worth noting that while the 6.5 is kind low, it's not much lower than the average review of the game, either. 7.5 is the average, which is not exactly glowing praise. Not that the game sucks balls, but really.

**Kalyx triaD** · 03-26-2008, 01:36 PM

Ya know I don't make purchases based on any one review. I take in hands-on articles, pics and clips, previews, and different reviews. Though usually I know I'm going to buy it or not like a month before after I read a few hands-on stuff. Then there's brand trust and blah-blah.

Basically anybody taking a review as an attack on their game is ghey. I've disagreed with some reviews before but never enough to up and write about it. I got stuff to do like look up porn and organize people-data.

**dablackguy** · 03-27-2008, 12:46 PM

Cause people figure nowadays when you spend your money it makes you a card carrying fanboy. Anything against your game or your console and its stuff like this

OmGzzzz it doesnt suck, you suxx lulzzz

**Kane Knight** · 03-27-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dablackguy

Cause people figure nowadays when you spend your money it makes you a card carrying fanboy. Anything against your game or your console and its stuff like this

OmGzzzz it doesnt suck, you suxx lulzzz

Yeah, I suppose that's part of it. People act like they own stock in the game.

My favorite is the Dynasty Warriors series. Every game comes out to like a 6, and people bitch about the reviews' bias, how it's unfair, and so on. Are you still buying the games? Yes? Are you having fun? Yes? What's the problem?

**Kane Knight** · 03-27-2008, 02:37 PM

But when games come out and get a bad review, people act like the reviewer slapped them across the face with their cock. Far as I know, few reviewers actually do. Though I do enjoy how people started attacking me on GameFAQs for pointing out that most of his criticism was valid....

**UmbrellaCorporation** · 03-27-2008, 02:58 PM

I love the place. Hang out on the boards a lot and such, but....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight

GameFAQs

...I think it's safe to say that's why you were criticized for making a valid point.

**Kane Knight** · 03-27-2008, 03:44 PM

Because the vast majority of people there are halfwits?

**BigDaddyCool** · 03-27-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight

Because the vast majority of people are halfwits?

**Kane Knight** · 03-27-2008, 04:21 PM

BDC may be on to something.

**Ninti the Mad** · 03-27-2008, 05:45 PM

I am offended by the name Salem and Rios.

03-25-2008, 07:33 PM	#1
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Why do people get so butthurt by reviews, anyway? Below is the review that's got Army of Two fans in a massive fit. Army of Two is a decent third-person shooter that unfortunately sticks its boot in its mouth. It does so by belittling volunteer armed services and selling a power-but-no-responsibility mercenary fantasy, part of which takes place in the modern-day Iraq war. It mostly plays fine. The Aggro system works well (whereby your partner can hold your enemies' attention while you flank), and the online multiplayer is hectic fun. But the way it broaches and then mishandles such a controversial modern day issue is far from army strong. The story follows Salem and Rios, two mercenaries who fight terror for big bucks with big guns. As they battle through ambush after ambush, it begins to dawn on them that someone within their own organization is selling them out and setting them up. That's right, one bad apple is screwing up the privatized military business for the rest of the upstanding mercenaries. Neither Rios nor Salem engages in any dishonorable behavior, aside from making fun of the Army for being so slow and ill-equipped. That would be fine if the Army they were making fun of were the Venusian Army. Or conversely, if Blackwater mercenaries in the real world hadn't been asked to leave Iraq for flipping out and massacring its civilians. But in Army of Two, there's no such thing as a civilian. If they aren't good guys, they're terrorists. The game itself is a lightly tactical third-person shooter in which you take on terrorists from Somalia to Miami by shooting them with guns, punching out their lights, and hitting them with car doors--all while wearing a scary-looking goalie mask. As you thwart terror and complete missions, you earn cash that can be spent on awesome guns. From there, you can spend even more money pimping out stocks, adding grenade launcher attachments and even gold plating. But with all this, you'll have a hell of a time hitting anything. Sure, you can stop, aim, and quickly kill a stationary target with a headshot. But if you're trying to run and shoot, you won't do nearly as much damage with that pimped-out AUG as you'd like. This was probably done to force you to rely on your teammate, but it seems like an unnecessary handicap all the same. Even worse, enemies have incongruous visible life bars, and some of them can take more bullets than a terminator. To top it all off, they have superior aim and can hit you just as easily from 50 feet as they can from five. Talk about asymmetrical warfare. To keep yourself and your partner alive, you have to take advantage of the Aggro system. Borrowed from online role-playing games, Aggro is an artificial intelligence system that makes enemies focus on whoever is doing the most damage and ignore the person doing the least. The basic idea is to have one guy draw all the enemy fire while the other one sneaks around back and shoots everybody dead. It isn't rocket science, but coordinating attacks with a friend or with the CPU is still rewarding. Sometimes, one plus one equals fun. At other times, it can be a little confusing. In the single-player campaign, you either control Salem or Rios; you can't switch between the two. If you're mortally wounded, your CPU partner can drag you to safety and heal you. Sometimes, however, he'll ignore all the obviously safe places and drag you through the entire level (assuming you both survive) before patching you up. The campaign isn't that long, but to the game's credit, it is fun to play through cooperatively. You can set up public co-op campaigns that just anyone can join, or private ones for just you and a friend. Once you finish, you can go online to challenge other two-man squads in versus mode. The point of any match is to make more money than your opponents, which is earned by making kills and completing objectives. Some modes have you flying around, racing to kill enemy non-player characters, while others have you rescuing hostages or planting bombs. The best of these throws a mix of objectives at you, so there's a great deal of diversity within a single match. Then again, the fact that you can't hit targets without stopping and aiming is especially apparent online. Instead, you're better off running up and smacking people, then shooting them when they're down. This is entertaining for a few hours, but it gets old pretty fast. The PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of Army of Two are almost indistinguishable from one another, though the former incorporates some minor motion controls. Both versions look and sound good. But with numerous loads and small environments, they should. And even though the graphics are impressively realistic; the silly hit point bars attached to your enemies break the spell a little. The silly suicide bombers who run at you screaming like something out of Serious Sam don't help either. The gun sounds are mostly fine, and the voice acting is OK, except that any time there's an enemy who has to be killed from behind (once every 10 minutes), your partner will repeatedly say something along the lines of "He looks tough, better take him from behind!" If there's one thing that can be said for private military, it's the lack of a don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Army of Two is a better than average shooter that roughly treads on a political landmine when it should have stormed some future battlefield. It features cool co-op mechanics and is fun to play online, with or against friends. But even its title mocks the Army, literally one-upping its slogan while glamorizing a sector that, if anything, deserves scrutiny--not macho fantasy. If you're the type of person who would rather shoot first and ask questions never, by all means, pick up Army of Two. But if you like to think--and the fact that you're reading this review suggests that you do--be warned: Army of Two is less than the sum of its parts. By Joe Dodson, GameSpot Posted Mar 10, 2008 7:03 pm PT --- He gives it a 6.5 out of ten, which I think is a bit low, but not the "pissing on a picasso" that people seem to be making it out to be. While he does make it painfully clear that he doesn't like the placement in modern Iraq or the mercenaries badmouthing the troops bit, his argument seems to be justified based on actual gameplay issues. �There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old�s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.� --John Rogers

03-25-2008, 08:49 PM	#2
U-Warrior Not Fignuts OLE! Posts: 3,306	Well as you said, his gameplay arguements are more than justified, but his rant about the political issues is unnessecary, and quite frankly, stupid. But I'm sure people will try and defend the gameplay, to justify to themselves that they made a good purchase with what little allowance their parents give them, whenever they decide to venture forth from the basement.

03-26-2008, 04:26 AM	#4
Funky Fly The Satanic Mechanic Posts: 52,521	If you don't like a review, ignore it. It's just some asshole's fucking opinion. End of discussion.

03-26-2008, 08:11 AM	#5
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	That would be nice, in an ideal world. It's worth noting that while the 6.5 is kind low, it's not much lower than the average review of the game, either. 7.5 is the average, which is not exactly glowing praise. Not that the game sucks balls, but really.

03-26-2008, 01:36 PM	#6
Kalyx triaD Raw Video Footage Posts: 45,950	Ya know I don't make purchases based on any one review. I take in hands-on articles, pics and clips, previews, and different reviews. Though usually I know I'm going to buy it or not like a month before after I read a few hands-on stuff. Then there's brand trust and blah-blah. Basically anybody taking a review as an attack on their game is ghey. I've disagreed with some reviews before but never enough to up and write about it. I got stuff to do like look up porn and organize people-data.

03-27-2008, 12:46 PM	#7
dablackguy Tacos! Posts: 795	Cause people figure nowadays when you spend your money it makes you a card carrying fanboy. Anything against your game or your console and its stuff like this OmGzzzz it doesnt suck, you suxx lulzzz

03-27-2008, 02:37 PM	#9
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	But when games come out and get a bad review, people act like the reviewer slapped them across the face with their cock. Far as I know, few reviewers actually do. Though I do enjoy how people started attacking me on GameFAQs for pointing out that most of his criticism was valid....

03-27-2008, 03:44 PM	#11
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Because the vast majority of people there are halfwits?

03-27-2008, 04:21 PM	#13
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	BDC may be on to something.

03-27-2008, 05:45 PM	#14
Ninti the Mad Mad as in crazy, dumbass Posts: 27,739	I am offended by the name Salem and Rios.