But like a post I had earlier about personal preference, I like the game and I cleared it and honestly it's my blog so that's pretty much all that matters (haters gonna hate).
I didn't get a chance to play the first installment, perhaps I should. AoT:DC got me intrigued because I had never played a 3rd person army shooter kinda game. I guess I could say I am a closet war/gunfight kinda girl (I mean, I like The Hurt Locker). First-person console games always give me a headache which is why I usually gravitate towards game's that are third-person yet first-person, if you can understand what I'm saying.
Why Army of Two and not Battlefield or Call of Duty? It's not that I haven't played those games before... I do. There really isn't that much of a difference in terms of the storyline. Some may argue that AOT's plot is thin and predictable, but isn't that the case with most army/war games anyway? The uniqueness of AOT is that you're not in a group. As in you aren't deployed as a group. You work as a duo, a partnership and the survival of both is essential for the game's success. If either Alpha or Bravo dies, you restart. Granted it's almost like unlimited life but the save points and all aren't quite so close together. So when you die at a tricky part at the end of a stage of sorts, you'll be booted back to the beginning and go through hell again.
An issue I faced with this game, or rather a pet peeve, was not having a mini-map. I think I've been so spoilt and pampered by games that offer me mini-maps and locations of my enemies that when I first started playing, I was so disorientated. I didn't know where the enemy was or where they were firing from and often got confused by my partner's shots and theirs. At least in some games there are arrows that kinda show you the general direction where your enemies are firing from. This one... not so much help.
Ammo can be a-plenty. The arsenal of weapons is pretty generic and limited. Then again, I don't know my SMPs to the M4s or whatever they are. I prefer sticking to my modified and customized sniper rifle, this AK-47-ish rifle with a scope and my Desert Eagle. Also... what's the point of having a small shield on a gun? I thought shields were to protect the body and person, not the gun. Unless there's another reason and my brain is just too lagged out to process and compute.
Fine I admit that I felt a little cheated when the game ended. It was tough in some parts but I guess I expected a little bit more for expanding so much energy, effort and time in taking the risk to play it on medium-hard (I would vacillate between the two depending on how many times I would have to restart a stage/mission). Granted I was given money to purchase and customize my masks, tattoos and weapons but that was pretty much it.
In multiplayer mode, it's pretty much the same although I felt that I had much more initiative and action than my counterpart, whoever it may be. Points are scored based on who kills more, does certain skills more or decoys blablabla and it all adds up after each stage. Somewhat faintly reminiscent of Time Crisis.
The game's playability (as in how often you'd wanna boot it back on the PS3) depends on how well you like the multiplayer. I guess it's ok. I prefer this to Tomb Raider's only because I am a little slow when it comes to aiming using a console as opposed to a mouse and keyboard (though I suppose that's pretty much the same with everyone else).
What did you think? Hate it or love it?
Why Army of Two and not Battlefield or Call of Duty? It's not that I haven't played those games before... I do. There really isn't that much of a difference in terms of the storyline. Some may argue that AOT's plot is thin and predictable, but isn't that the case with most army/war games anyway? The uniqueness of AOT is that you're not in a group. As in you aren't deployed as a group. You work as a duo, a partnership and the survival of both is essential for the game's success. If either Alpha or Bravo dies, you restart. Granted it's almost like unlimited life but the save points and all aren't quite so close together. So when you die at a tricky part at the end of a stage of sorts, you'll be booted back to the beginning and go through hell again.
An issue I faced with this game, or rather a pet peeve, was not having a mini-map. I think I've been so spoilt and pampered by games that offer me mini-maps and locations of my enemies that when I first started playing, I was so disorientated. I didn't know where the enemy was or where they were firing from and often got confused by my partner's shots and theirs. At least in some games there are arrows that kinda show you the general direction where your enemies are firing from. This one... not so much help.
Ammo can be a-plenty. The arsenal of weapons is pretty generic and limited. Then again, I don't know my SMPs to the M4s or whatever they are. I prefer sticking to my modified and customized sniper rifle, this AK-47-ish rifle with a scope and my Desert Eagle. Also... what's the point of having a small shield on a gun? I thought shields were to protect the body and person, not the gun. Unless there's another reason and my brain is just too lagged out to process and compute.
Fine I admit that I felt a little cheated when the game ended. It was tough in some parts but I guess I expected a little bit more for expanding so much energy, effort and time in taking the risk to play it on medium-hard (I would vacillate between the two depending on how many times I would have to restart a stage/mission). Granted I was given money to purchase and customize my masks, tattoos and weapons but that was pretty much it.
In multiplayer mode, it's pretty much the same although I felt that I had much more initiative and action than my counterpart, whoever it may be. Points are scored based on who kills more, does certain skills more or decoys blablabla and it all adds up after each stage. Somewhat faintly reminiscent of Time Crisis.
The game's playability (as in how often you'd wanna boot it back on the PS3) depends on how well you like the multiplayer. I guess it's ok. I prefer this to Tomb Raider's only because I am a little slow when it comes to aiming using a console as opposed to a mouse and keyboard (though I suppose that's pretty much the same with everyone else).
What did you think? Hate it or love it?
No comments:
Post a Comment