As It Turns Out, Two Is Still A Really Lonely Number

Back before arcades were filled with Dance Dance Revolution machines, the arcade scene was known for having a bevy of ridiculously hard shooters. Whenever I found myself stuck on one of these satanically designed games, I’d just call up a friend; he’d pop on down to the local arcade and we’d play through the game together. Games are always more fun when you’re playing cooperatively with someone else, which is why the death of the arcade in the late ’90s was such a sorry thing. Cooperative play, however, has seen resurgence of late—thanks to the Internet, hooking up with a friend to play a level or two of your favorite game has never been easier. Army of Two is a new shooter from developer EA Montreal that promises to be one of the first titles built entirely around the idea of cooperative play. The game’s concept is definitely a winner, but it does such a poor job of executing that core concept that it just isn’t much fun at all.

Army of Two’s premise, not surprisingly, is not at all creative. Tyson Rios and Elliot Salem are two muscular, trash-talking male bimbos that left the army fifteen years ago to pursue careers working for private military corporations (PMCs) because the salary there is much better. Gamers eventually learn about some mass conspiracy by the PMCs to privatize the military—it’s a lazy and predictable story, and the remarkably poor writing doesn’t help. The banter between Rios and Salem, which should add depth to the two borderline-archetypal characters, must have been written exclusively by a focus group, as it is filled with inappropriate pop cultural references including, at one point in the heat of battle, Salem asking Rios who he thinks is the best rapper in the Wu Tang Clan. Seriously?

Even if you play the game in single-player mode, Rios and Salem are always together. The computer will control the nonhuman player, which is particularly frustrating because the computer does a lousy job. The fundamental gameplay mechanic is a device called “aggro,” which is represented in the form of a meter that sits atop the screen. The idea is that as one partner shoots his weapon, he attracts attention and builds aggro, allowing the other partner to sneak around enemy lines and attack silently. This concept doesn’t work in single player—it’s near impossible to get your computer partner to build any type of consistent aggro, and the computer is not autonomous enough to bail you out of trouble when you need help.

Playing with another human over the Internet or in person alleviates this, but fails to address a number of other problems. Army of Two tries very hard to copy 2006’s smash hit Gears of War, but it just doesn’t copy the right parts. The aiming system is too loose and floaty, and the “cover” mechanic through which players find shelter in gun battles is completely broken—often I found myself jumping over cover instead of hiding behind it. There aren’t enough checkpoints in the game, which means you and your online partner will be replaying bits of the game many times, contributing to the frustration caused by the cover system.

Don’t waste your time with Army of Two. As a great fan of co-op games, I was hoping it would be the harbinger of a Renaissance of arcade-style cooperation. In reality, it’s just a Renaissance of frustration. Just play through Gears of War again—it’s infinitely more fun, and you won’t have to hear about Salem’s gambling problems.