News

• Reviewed on: Xbox 360
• Also available for: PS3
• 
  
• The Good: The "aggro" system works, even if it isn't particularly refined. More fun in co-operative multiplayer than it really should be
• The Bad: Depressingly terrible writing. Seems unfinished, with aspects such as weapon modification poorly implemented. Badly designed and uninteresting levels.
• The Verdict: Army of Two is intended as a co-operative game between two players, and that really is the only way you're going to be able to scrape any enjoyment out of it.
• 
  

Let's admit it: last year we were incredibly spoiled when it came to good writing in games.

Ken Levine and his team at 2K came along and blew us away by using objectivist philosophy to craft a true work of "interactive fiction" with Bioshock at a point where we were still wondering if it was even possible, and then a small team at Valve introduced Portal, which showed us that sometimes, simply writing clever, funny dialogue was enough (and revealed to us how few games until that point could even boast that).

Even games we wouldn't normally crow about storytelling surprised us (see Call of Duty 4's mature take on modern warfare) and games that were otherwise flawed redeemed themselves with writing — not least Mass Effect, which tempered it's cold, old-school SF world with warm characterization.

As a result, we've probably got a bit cocky about the state of game writing. But as we all know, pride comes before a fall. And that fall is Army of Two.

Broken Promises

There was so much promise. Inspired by Blackwater and the rise of PMCs (Private Military Contractors) in the endless war on terror that was stirred into motion by the events of September 11th, 2001, EA Montreal planned to examine exactly what it means to be a member of a private army: where it's a paycheck, not patriotism, that leads you to risk your life — and end the lives of others.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, it's a topic ripe for exploration, as capable as fodder for pure satire (blinged-up mercenaries kill for thrills?) as it would be as a deep examination PMC's new place as a formidable military force on the world stage.

Given such a bounty of storytelling possibilities, and taking into account promises of the development team during the (admittedly protracted) development, any player would surely expect more than the result.

This is a game that has the audacity to feature the 9/11 attacks (well, as seen from a TV screen) and name check Hurricane Katrina, yet offers a plot in which our heroes, Rios and Salem, discover that someone on the inside of their organization is feeding information to the enemy (oh no) and then have to rescue their sexy (but strong willed) female dispatcher from said double agent (how novel)

Rather than try and do something (anything) new, it simply apes the clichés of action films in a way we've become too accustomed to in video games: but since Bioshock, since Portal, no more.

Aggravating

Of course, the writing is only one part of even the most story-led games, and the argument rages on if it even has any importance at all if the core game design is good enough.

It would be nice to say that in that respect Army of Two redeemed itself, but it does not.

At least true to its title, Rios and Salem act as an "army of two" due to a uniquely direct "aggro" system. When one is creating the most obvious danger to a group of enemies (say by firing at them wildly) the other is ignored, allowing them to flank or otherwise maneuver to attack them from a more favourable position. Should that new position result in a larger ruckus, the enemies' attention will be diverted, and so on.

This system is obviously intended to be skillfully controlled between the actions of two players, as it forms the entirety of the game's encounters. Reach a new area, disturb some enemies: one player provides covering fire from a position of safety while the other picks them off by flanking.

With a little more variety, this wouldn't outstay its welcome. However, hampered by some poorly designed locations and waves after waves of enemies between each checkpoint save, even in a game as short as Army of Two (the whole thing clocks in at about 6 hours if you're good) it's tiresome long before you see the end credits.

Army of Poo, More Like

Indeed, maybe the game is short and repetitive because it's just not what it was meant to be. Army of Two has a lingering lack of completeness that's obvious in every aspect — maybe the story is so bad because the cut scenes which represent it are abrupt and badly explained. Rios and Salem, promised to have a rich banter during missions, chat occasionally, but there's little insight to be found.

Aspects of the game design such as the way in which you take cover lack a sense of refinement, and trumpeted features, such as a varied range of weapons to purchase modify into a personally unique collection are so poorly implemented as to be meaningless (I didn't purchase a third weapon until after I completed a play though, and modified only one - out of curiosity, not necessity).

Army of Two is intended as a co-operative game between two players, and that really is the only way you're going to be able to scrape any enjoyment out of it. Perhaps a sequel (Army of Two Two?) could address the many problems, but until then, Gears of War offers a similar (but far superior) game experience.