Army of Two

[Kyonye]

Have any of you guys tried this game yet? I like it. It's a fun coop game.

[Baneblade]

I've seen a preview, but haven't tried it yet...might pick it up on payday.

[Giovanni]

Liked it.

[OneManArmy]

its fun with people. way too short. multiplayer adds some replay value, but for me its only when I'm with friends.

[Kyonye]

I can't really play games anymore, unless I'm playing with friends (there are very few exceptions). I don't play games like I used to, just because of my busy life, so when I play, I'd rather play coop with a friend or two.

[Kikinchikin]

Thinking about trying it out.

By the way, Frontlines sucks dick. It's like a shitty version of battlefield 1942, only like 4 years late.

[Kyonye]

Originally Posted by Kikinchikin

Thinking about trying it out.

By the way, Frontlines sucks dick. It's like a shitty version of battlefield 1942, only like 4 years late.

My friend has been talking nonstop about that game. he really wants me to get it, but I am just not interested.

[Kikinchikin]

If you have played CoD 4 you can't even try to enjoy that game, the mechanics are so poor and it seems so uninvolved.

[Kyonye]

Originally Posted by Kikinchikin

If you have played CoD 4 you can't even try to enjoy that game, the mechanics are so poor and it seems so uninvolved.

Yeah I play CoD4. Love that game. Too bad Frontlines sucks. It seemed like it could have been a good big server game. Of all the Battlefields I liked Vietnam the most. I would just drive people around and listen to the music.

[Hamma]

I need to pick up COD4

[Giovanni]

It be fun.

[Rbstr]

[OneManArmy]

I never understood why all the critics complained about that.

I personally enjoyed the humor in it. maybe I'm just an asshole though.

[Kyonye]

Originally Posted by OneManArmy

I never understood why all the critics complained about that.

I personally enjoyed the humor in it. maybe I'm just an asshole though.

It's because too many people feel it will be taken to reality. It's the same stuff we have been dealing with since games became just a little more violent.

Look at Las Vegas. When Rainbow Six Vegas came out, the city actually complained saying that it would push people away from going to the city because of the "terrorist" activity in the game.

New York City got upset with Rockstar games because they are using the real city in their game. Either they tried to bring a lawsuit on them, or they did. I don't remember.

People have to realize that it will always just be a game. I wouldn't be surprised if someone said Video Games were the cause of World War II. I mean, video games are violent, no?

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Kyonye

It's because too many people feel it will be taken to reality.

No, that is not the reason I take issue with it. Or the writers of Penny Arcade.
I don't take issue with the game at all really. It's fun. But I object to the events and actions in the game.

Your going to have to stick with me on this one:

It's not the levels of violence, it is the glorification thereof.
It is showing that fist bumping is an appropriate action after you've killed a couple dozen people. The game doesn't paint it as ironic or an outcome of a human being's need to cope or show it as social commentary in any way. The game lets us know that the action is Okay.

Video games are gradually becoming an art form and a way of conveying a message. As such we should increasingly judge the medium by artistic standards. Very similarly to how we judge movies or books(and perhaps more so, as the medium can be much more immersive and suggestive) a video game can be examined.
An example we see, in Bioshock, commentary on a number of things (like moral objectivism, Ann Rynd kind of stuff). One thing that might strike you is that, in the end, the reason you've undertaken these actions is that you where asked to. Your actions have been called into question. That is great social commentary. The game has made you think.

Army of two does not present present that kind of depth that Bioshock may, granted. However, we can still judge the actions of the characters on these grounds and call the fist bumping action disturbing.

The reason that army of two strikes me so is not that this attitude toward death and destruction might creep into real life.

It is that it is already present in real life.

We have seen this kind of disregard for violence and suffering often during the past few years. Security and Military Contractors (what a nice way to describe modern mercenaries) have been involved in a number of scandals that have died off rather quietly.
We see it in the constant refusal to ban so called enhanced interrogation, another wonderful euphemism of our time(which in the end does not squeeze information from people. It causes people to make things up.)
Just recently we saw the somewhat lesser, but still despicable, puppy-of-a-cliff video.
I don't see how we, as those with the supposed moral high ground, are okay with these things.

Army of two has managed to bump into this kind of issue inadvertently.

As a movie, Army of Two would fall into the entertaining category, not the good movie category.
Entertainment was it's premise and we can enjoy it as such, but it does contain deeper issues that can be discussed.