I was bothered by the army of two review.

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 reviewer is letting politics ruin the game for him and is taking it way to seriously. Thats from the review by the way, apart from that everything else is fine.

The highlighted part is what I found dumb, sure it might not be a powerful army but keep such remarks to yourself. C'mon, he should review the game for what it is. Should real world polotics be a factor in video games?

J_Dodson

I'm not any more biased about Army of 2 than you are about my review of it. The game's trivial portrayal of something real and controversial offended my sensibilities, sensibilities you do not share. My review of it offended you, just like the game offended me.

This was the reviewer's response to my message to him. He seems content with admitting he was offended by the game. Only if he would admit he should leave his offended "sensibilites" out of the review.

Read this ..the review was biased and he admited to it ..read what all of us have to say over in the ps3 forums

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26282166&page=3

this page is where our users need to be heard

thanks Pelek I was just about to post this tooDrummerShane12

I always faced reviews as an opinion so I never mind with the score.

But, this review was just....too focused on what HE felt and not how the game worked. I read the review and the only thing I got from it was that the game was about 2 guys that were mercenaries...and the rest yelled offended ,offended ,offended.

But it's just a review, which is just an opinion. But keep in mind that even being just and opinion, it's an opinion based in wrongs aspects :His views of politics and personal opinions.

Are we getting any sort of response from Gamespot on this?

Or is it just a rant to them falling on deaf ears? C'mon GS step up!

You know, there are a loft of great titles coming out this year. So as a consumer I realized that my wife would not "let" me (I know laugh if you must) go out and buy every single title that I want this spring and summer. Having said that I also realized that I am going to have to do some hard digging of reviews to check out what games seem to match up across the board and make at least some of my gaming decisions on such reviews. While I know what games I will be purchasing without a shadow of a doubt this year, there are some games that I need to look into more and get some professional opinions on.

Army of Two is one of those games I am talking about. I had been waiting for this review from GS since the game first launched. I personally have been a member on this site for a very long time and have always trusted the reviews from the writing staff. I could have gone to ps3fanboy, IGN, Gamepro, or any other gamming website/mag to get my reviews, but I (as always) came over to gamespot. I was a little taken back by the viewing of the 6.5 since it did fall below many of the reviews on some other reputable gaming sites, but gamespot as always held games to a high standard so I digress into reading the review. I can honestly say that I haven't been this dissapointed in a review for a long time. I am all for freedom of speech but when you are trying to inform users of your website about a particular game, it is best that the material in the review be presented in an unbiased and professional manner. If there is one weak spot that I have heard about AT, it is the weak story. Is it worth it to give the game that low of a score simply because the story line was weak? No. The reason this was done is simply because the subject matter (the new buzzword on the ps3 forums regarding this review) offended the reviewer. Simply put, Gamespot needs to uphold their high standards of gaming news and reviews by instilling a bit more journalistic integrity into their operation. I have said my peace, GS do the right thing.....

I had a 3 page thread going on about this in the 360 fourms, and yeah. It seems like a fair amount of people share this opinion. That review was Biased more-so then any other review on this site. It focused more on how the reviewer feels about PMC's and State Armys then the game itself. If I wanted a political rant, I would go to a political site. I come here for professional reviews about games. Call the story stupid, good, or say it makes no sense if you want, but don't let your opinions of the source material overwhelm the game itself. This is like someone giving Halo a 5 because he doesn't like it's treatment of aliens as bad, and it shows the earth being taken over by them.

Sensibilities? Wow, that's a big word. Here is my short review of Oblivion, then:

"Basically, the game allows you to slaughter various different kind of animals, such as boars and mudcrabs. Despite of the caroonish appearance, the game clearly attempts to portray murdering animals as a form of justifiable entertainment."

"Score: - 6.5 P.S. I love animals!"

Army of Two review should be taken down. It might have brought up some valid points, but the non-objective attitude simply ruins it. If a reviewer gets personal about something and is not afraid of admitting it, then he should not be reviewing games

Sensibilities? Wow, that's a big word. Here is my short review of Oblivion, then:

"Basically, the game allows you to slaughter various different kind of animals, such as boars and mudcrabs. Despite of the caroonish appearance, the game clearly attempts to portray murdering animals as a form of justifiable entertainment."

"Score: - 6.5 P.S. I love animals!"

Army of Two review should be taken down. It might have brought up some valid points, but the non-objective attitude simply ruins it. If a reviewer gets personal about something and is not afraid of admitting it, then he should not be reviewing games

yian

Thats exactly what happened. I think he needs to keep in mind that this a game, and games have storylines with scripts that cover issues in society.

The review was horrendous.

Army of Two is definitely not in the top tier of shooting games, but its first effort was actually pretty decent.

The tongue in cheek tone of the whole modern day, mercenaries are cool concept is interesting. I think the reviewer let something get to him that ended up dominating the review.

Some parts were good, the life bar over enemies for example.. a valid statement. Putting down the whole mercenaries, hardcore, tough guy concept for simply a dislike and political correctness... not a good reason.

I couldn't really care less about the score, but I feel its not reflective of the ACTUAL game itself. I would've liked to see a full discussion about the campaign and some more in depth analysis of the multiplayer.

If the gameplay mechanics, graphics, sound, and AI were more deeply discussed and it truly reflected this score. Then hey, fine. But, that review was covered in so much bias that I refuse to take it seriously. Maybe its just me, but the Army of Two 360/PS3 boards are up in arms.. so I guess I'm not alone.

Comment from staff in this thread

I have to disagree with you here. I think it is appropriate for a reviewer to share his experience and perceptions fully. He did not go off on a tirade about his personal views on the subject referenced. But he did point out what he felt was offensive content in a game that I personally agree also is offensive.

For that reason I personally am glad the guy put that in so I know before spending my hard earned money that what I too find offensive is in there. If you do not find it offensive, so be it. That is your right and enjoy the game. The purpose of a quality review is to give both you and me the information we need to make choices we'll be happy with hopefully before spending the money. It's not to tell either you or me what we want to hear but rather what the reviewer experiences they best they can. Well he told you. So be it. Don't blame him for telling you. Go play it and have fun if you disagree. I have played games panned in the reviews and knew I would probably like them even after reading the reviews because of the information they provided which was always colored by the reviewers personal take on what is good and what is not. That's ok. I just want the info. I can form my own opinions once I have it. The more info the better, not less rather than risk offending my fragile sensibilities. I can take it. ;-)

Reviews ought to be as comprehensive as possible and its up to you what to do with the information in making your own decisions about what is ok with you and what is not, what you want to play and what you don't.

I did a reader review of the Vietcong 2 game in which I mentioned something similar and I absolutely felt my feelings about their trivialization of loss of life in a historically factual recreation should be shared. Don't care about that? OK, go ahead and play it. Do care about that? Glad I let you know then. The opening cinematic of that title makes light of someone in the US ARMY dying like its no big deal with a level of disrespect and disregard that I personally found highly offensive. So I said so. I would again too and I would hope a Gamespot staffer would as well if they encountered similar. I want to know this stuff, not debate opinions over it. I just want to know if its there.

All i am going to say... I expect better from someone who is getting payed to review games professionally. If you think the game offended you, fine. But don't tell everyone else not to get a game based on political views. Sure we have freedom of speech, but this is gamespots creditability on steak. Maybe Gamespot should choose someone more fit to review the game.

If you have personal feelings towards something, blog it. Don't put it in a professionally written review.

The main thing is that his views got in the way of the review, its like if I reviewed Kane and Lynch, said that I hate swearing and I hate excessive violence and therefore I give it a 3.

I quote from the review:

"Provides a dumb take on a real issue." Which would directly effect the review and the score.

"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." So it plays fine but yet the review is harsh?

"Army of Two is a better than average shooter that roughly treads on a political landmine when it should have stormed some future battlefield" If its better than average then why a 6.5?

The more I read it the more I see that he barely places any focus on the actual game, but rather belittles it constantly. If you take out all the bias parts, it would be considerably shorter and contains very little specific information about the game. Horrible review.

The main thing is that his views got in the way of the review, its like if I reviewed Kane and Lynch, said that I hate swearing and I hate excessive violence and therefore I give it a 3.

I quote from the review:

"Provides a dumb take on a real issue." Which would directly effect the review and the score.

"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." So it plays fine but yet the review is harsh?

"Army of Two is a better than average shooter that roughly treads on a political landmine when it should have stormed some future battlefield" If its better than average then why a 6.5?

The more I read it the more I see that he barely places any focus on the actual game, but rather belittles it constantly. If you take out all the bias parts, it would be considerably shorter and contains very little specific information about the game. Horrible review.

DEWMAN08

yeah I agree with ya , even if the game deserved the score it got the written part of the review was poorly done

I am a nurse. One early morning at work I was about to give shift report when a telephone call came in. The nurse receiving this call began to cry. She then related the content of the call and everyone sitting at that desk felt frozen in time, shocked by what we had just heard. One of the girls who was soon to deliver a new baby had just gotten the news that her husband stationed in Iraq had been killed in action. For me personally for the first time, the war in Iraq had just come home and landed right in front of me with the very real suffering and loss of life we become almost numb too after endless news reports of a death here and a death there always involving some poor person we have no connection to at all.

At that moment surrounded by tears I became connected in a new, intense and meaningful way.

Does it matter when a game makes light of any of this at all in way whatsoever? To me it sure does. There is nothing light about it. Zero. It is real. The horrific loss of life is real. This current conflict doesn't belong in a game at all. Not at all. If you saw and felt what I did that morning as I thought about a newborn baby who will never know her now dead young father I think you would view of all of this differently. To trivialize anything about a war we are presently in with our young men and women in peril daily and dying often, with scenes like I experienced played out just as often all over America, yes, it is damned offensive for any computer game to make light of it in any way at all. Not a little offensive but a lot.

Does the game deserve a good hard whack in the review for that little bit of indescretion? Yes it sure does. This is not about why Gamespot's staff or reviewer was so wrong. It is about why I have always chosen to come here first. If I want the juvenile take on life I can find that on Gamespy's pages and the like any time I want, which by the way is never.

I am sorry if that seems harsh but honestly, once you have been touched by the suffering firsthand it changes you. It takes away the numbness. The horror comes home. It makes you find a game that deals with it poorly when a game probably should not go there at all repugnant. On encountering that like I did with Vietcong I probably would have uninstalled frankly. So, should a review react to that and tell me? I think so. I am glad it did.

With all the quality entertainment out there I find giving a game that would cross that line even a fair review generous regardless of whether or not they hit every other note in creating a quality game well. They didn't have to blow it that way. Journalistic integrity even in game reviews is not about watering down what you think people might disagree with in large numbers even. On the contrary, it is all about having the guts to publish something knowing there is a good chance of such fallout because you feel you are doing the right thing and telling the truth as you see it.

My brother who is in his 40's and did not have to go at all volunteered to go over there for a year and just recently returned. He is a psychiatric nurse practitioner with a masters in his field as such. They were glad to have him. He gave up a year of the comforts of home to go help those young people who are suffering every single day after seeing and experiencing things most of us probably never will I hope. I have observed that my brother is not the same since his return. His face is not the same. He does not like to talk about it and I think it is because it is too painful. You see, he was the guy they go to see right after a best friend's body is mutilated and destroyed by gunfire or bombs. I will never know what he saw and heard exactly I don't think but I don't have to know. One look at the changed man he is tells me plenty. How can a game make even one reference to this in the current context and be ok? I don't know.

While some games such as the Call of Duty series or the Brothers in Arms series tend to give you some appreciation for what took place in the past and even can make you think about what those guys went though they are done tastefully and with respect for those men many of whom died to protect and preserve the well being and safety of others. It's too soon for a game that deals with what is going on and it is never right to be anything less than respectful of our men and women who put thier lives on the line for us.

This is not about the politics of the war. It's not about views regarding the President or whether we ought to be there or anything controversial. This is about a current conflict being in a game and references to that confict being inappropriate. The big question in my mind is how did so many other reviews fail to address this? Are they all numb to the reality? Maybe they are.

I think I will stop there on this subject but I just wanted to share that experience with you guys. The war however far away is real. The death and suffering and loss is real. The little girls who will grow up with no dad is real. Making offhand remarks of any sort that disrespect or trivialize a moment of what goes on over there is not cool at all. It's not just ok.

* Sorry for the edits, went in to fix some grammar (probably more is wrong) and added just a bit more.