Quick Look: Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel

Gezz might as well call it Army of Too Generic the Devil's cliches

Maybe he just really hates throats.

It's kind of weird that we're all here commenting on the third and most certainly the final game in the series. Frankly I don't think this franchise deserved any more. Mechanically it was competent but that's pretty much all you could say about it. It did have one potential hook with the co-op but wrapped it in this bizarre mix of tones and forgettable storytelling. I kind of agree with the people here that at least Blood On the Sand brought an appropriate level of ironic crazy that befits a hyper-machismo-violent pseudo-Gears shooter. FIFTEA

Fucking shame. The first one was decent, the second one was improved, and this one looked promising then they just said "fuck it".

EA is a shitfest.

IMMA COMMIN FOR YA FIFTEH

They didn't even bother changing the HUD style from the Battlefield 3 one did they?

any way to customize mask like in 40th day? I wanna wear a luchadeer mask

I skipped around a bit but did Jeff actually accurately predict the story of the game?

Meh, I Salem going rogue seems unbelievable.

I just love how people bitch about them having a very snarky attitude coming into this and The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, yet they did the exact same thing, only much heavier, in the Rogue Warrior QL and that's a benchmark for all the QLs.

2/5

wow this looks like poop

I do not like the Salem heel turn at all.

Not shocking, the first two of these games controlled and played well even if they were dumb.

Cold Winter was stupid fun too.

Having a game be mid-tier does not mean that is should not be enjoyable. Mid-tier should be reflective of the content of the game and not the quality.

I don't want to waste $60 on a game I don't enjoy and I also don't want to waste $40 on a game I don't enjoy. For me, the idea of mid-tier games is more like having a $30-40 version of a mostly renowned game like Uncharted, but the visuals may not be as nice and the content is a 5-6 hour campaign with very few extras.

Another good example would be Metal Gear Rising. I would not purchase that game at $60, but at $30-40 dollars I might have already picked it up.

Part of the reason why mid-tier games do not exist is because of economics. The price of a game can be lowered over time. Start the game off at $60 (full MSRP) and get as many sales at that price as you think you can. Once the price lowers over time the people who were waiting may go out and buy it then (assuming they did not forget or move on). The extra revenue generated from the initial full price sales may make up for lost revenue for the reduced price sales.

I'm not an economist, but I assume that this is part of the thinking process when it comes to releasing ALL retail games at the same price (perceived quality and opportunity sales).

LOL, the story is so cheesy and bad.

I'll buy this when it's $7 used.

I do wish someone would come out with a game that has all this gun porn stuff, and is actually good.

Also it should probably have all the real guns.

@saturdaynightspecials: Black did get made.

Well, I mean specifically the customization. Changing stocks and barrels and shit.

The perfect QL, I knew nothing about this game and now I know everything about this game

I don't think this is true at all. Maybe - maybe - you could argue that this is part of the reason that mid-tier first- or third-person shooters are dying out, but not all mid-tier games. The fact is there are games that are years old at this point that do this genre better, in terms of action, storytelling, characters, graphics, etc. than this game does. Thus reviewers should rip into it, because it is a poor product. You want to know why mid-tier developers are dying, maybe it's because they try to turn out three or four sequels to a game that probably shouldn't even have had one. And the thing that makes it worse in this case is that they seem to have moved away from the humor or sarcasm of the first two games that gave them some chutzpah and helped them to stand out a bit from the AAA titles. The point is, there are many things that could have been done to make a more original, interesting and/or entertaining game, but instead the devs put out a shitty CoD/GoW clone and try to cash in on a somewhat well-known title.

You clearly don't get it. This is not a poor product, this is a perfectly fine mid-tier game. Why would any company want to put this out at $40 if they know reviewers are just going to bash it? Instead they push this out at $60 and make more money. Reviewers today are far too critical unless its a AAA game. In this quick look they are making fun of the fact that they are just shooting people. Yet when Bioshock Infinite came out and does the same thing Jeff makes no digs at that.

are the two duders with their masks up in the thumbnail clones? packing as much generic as possible into one game!

So then who IS the best Wu Tang clan rapper?

No, it's pretty clear you're the one not getting it. Reviewers don't have any responsibility to play nice just because EA lowered the price on an already-mediocre product. Also, they're mocking that it's "just shooting people" because the shooting is so bland and unoriginal that there's nothing to distinguish it from all of the other "just shooters". Not to mention that BioShock Infinite isn't just shooting people. It has a story that avoids cliche, while Army of Two just falls directly into it. It was so cliche that they called the twist (as did anyone watching it) and poof, there it is.

This. Exactly. The comparison with Bioshock Infinite is a perfect example of what I was trying to suggest about making a more original or interesting game by embracing humor or sarcasm or (in this case) superb storytelling to undercut the typical themes and cliches of modern shooters. I can only surmise that you haven't played Bioshock Infinite, but even reading Jeff's review, he makes it clear that it's ultimately the complexity of the story and characters that make it a fantastic game, not just the fact that it's a AAA title and looks pretty, etc. You can also see this in Jeff's review of Bioshock 2, which he notes improved many gameplay elements but got a lower score because the story elements fell short compared to the first game. Contrary to Army of Two, Bioshock devs have created an extensive, engrossing universe filled with interesting characters, and then used this latest sequel to riff on the themes and imagery from the first game in order to present a truly unique experience, even though it is still clearly a "Bioshock" game. Another good example would be Deadly Premonition. I'm sure many people wouldn't actually want to play it themselves, or might think its story is silly, but plenty (including most of the bombcrew, I believe) truly enjoyed that game even though the production value was poor and the controls were flat out terrible.

Furthermore, I don't see how you can say that armytwothree is a perfectly fine mid-tier game when the QL and most of the comments on here, even from people who enjoy the series, show that the story takes trivial and predictable "twists" that don't really make sense in the broader story arc, and that many of the genuinely interesting gameplay elements from the other games (like aggro) are muted almost to the point of nonexistence. As someone else on here mentioned, the whole idea of "overkill" essentially making you a one man army kind of negates the whole premise of army of... two. Also, the AI looks just awful in this QL, Jeff runs straight up to like 9 guys and knifes them with almost no resistance. Sometimes enemies run straight to him and save him the effort. This game is fairly short, has no competitive multiplayer, has an apparently broken cover system, etc. etc. etc. Worst of all, it just looks monotonous.

I think the source of our discord, fiberpay, lies in the formulation of the question you have now put forth a few times. You ask why a company would want to put out a game like this for $40 if they know reviewers are going to bash it. Instead, you suggest, they should just put it out for $60 and try to cash in. I think the question you should be asking is why a company would put out a game that they know reviewers are going to bash, period. Mid-tier devs should be pondering what they can do to make a game that is genuinely exciting and original, even if they don't have the funding of a Cod or a GoW - instead of gambling on how many bland sequels they can squeeze out of some relatively well-known title.

@buyme220: When did you assholes start spamming this site? Keep it clean here.

@fitzcarraldo: you're right. They can hurt the industry all they wan't it's not my line of work so don't bother me. I was merely pointing out a fact. That mid-tier games are drying because of quicklooks, and the following reviews, like this. By the way I have played though bioshock infinite and the shooting is just as boring as in the last two.

@thecheese33: You don't get it.

Alright........ I guess that ends this dialogue. It's hard to argue with the "fact" that quick looks are ruthlessly killing mid-tier companies - for no justifiable reason, no less. I sure hope the crew reads this soon and takes a long hard look at their actions.

Considering how streamlined and action oriented games like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect are, you should be allowed to shout "RPG!" as a warning to people who don't like games with too much strategy and stats.

THANK YOU! It was driving me nuts for a few moments.

I'm not sure, but I think he meant that mediocre games are fine as mediocre entertainment and that they shouldn't be bashed because they're unoriginal and unimaginative and clichéd, because that's what they're supposed to be and some people just want to play unoriginal half-way competent shooters (or whatever genre) at a lower price point. And if game reviewers aren't selling those products as decent second rate alternatives to "proper" games then (for some reason) the publishers won't sell them at a lower price but will try to sell it full price to recoup lost income.

I don't necessarily agree, that's just what I got out of fiberpay's comments.

Also, some people don't care about anything else in games beyond mechanics, I guess. I'm kind of the opposite. The gameplay can be basically broken as long as the story and characters and the world suck me in.

Uh, this Army of Two seems to have a distinct lack of Nolan North.

For a game that seems very average overall, the voice work and writing are actually pretty impressive. I'd like to play through this at some point to see the whole story pan out.

I might buy into an argument like this to some degree, but I don't think this is what he was saying. First of all, if people are going into these games knowing that they are unoriginal and cliched, then a review probably isn't going to impact them anyway. And I'm with you in that I enjoy games more for good story and characters than for mechanics. But as someone else has said, the "mid" in a mid-tier game should reflect the content of the game, not its quality. Fiberpay here is firing a full frontal assault on reviewers for ripping into a mid-tier game, specifically this game, essentially for no reason except that it isn't as good in certain ways as a AAA product - and claiming that this is precisely why mid-tier developers are going out of business. I disagree with that on multiple accounts.

I don't think the guys mention AAA games in the QL other than to mention that this came out concurrently with Bioshock and a couple weeks after GoW, which I think we would all agree is an extremely poor marketing decision. Other than that, they spend most of the QL bashing the game for not being as good as the previous games in the series. Clear and simple. Even though Ryan and Jeff didn't love those games, they are pretty clearly disappointed that the latest game has lost the humor of the first two; appropriated (fairly) well-established characters to use in a shitty story line with predictable twists and new generic characters; and muted many of the gameplay aspects that they thought were original and worth developing. That also seems to be the consensus of the comments. Shouldn't sequels serve to expand the story or the universe in a meaningful way, or cultivate mechanics that devs were unable, for whatever reason, to fully realize in the first game? Otherwise what purpose do they serve except as a cash-grab for huckster game companies? This is what fiberpay is arguing for, game companies throwing up their hands at a shitty product and saying, "Well, let's try to get as much money up front as possible to mitigate our losses on this game that we know is bad." I think that's an insult to the gaming community and a waste of time for everyone involved.

Beyond this, I just don't understand how someone could watch this QL and argue that this is a "perfectly fine mid-tier game" when it seems like such a shoddy product. Another good example (in addition to problems I listed before) is the 3-4 typos in this 30+ minutes of gameplay. My point is that if you are making a mid-tier shooter in 2013, the devil is in the details. You are going to live or die by the aspects of your game that set it apart from the CoDs and the GoWs and the BFs, and by the polish with which you present your final product. How much love and care am I supposed to believe went in to a product like this when they didn't even spend the time to proofread the subtitles or to make sure that punchlines of jokes aren't cut off randomly during cutscenes? I don't know how reviewers are supposed to review games except with reference to their gameplay mechanics, story and characters, and polish. Devil's Cartel seems to be lacking in all three.

Now that I've written all this about a game that I don't really care about in the first place, I don't remember why I even started arguing with someone who apparently played Bioshock Infinite and thought it was a boring shooter...

One of the original two becomes a bad guy. And Tom Cruise kills MR. Phelps and becomes the head of IM. Because respect for the past. Farrrrt.

I could never play another turret sequence again and be ok.

@fitzcarraldo: You have not even played this game so why are you even talking?

@chtasm:

the 40th day never happened

also its possible for them to both live

Dude, play the game, watch the QL, read the comments/reviews, do whatever you have to do to get a handle on this, and then tell me a single thing I've said that misrepresents the game. In this vein, you could try to make thoughtful responses to the arguments I've made instead of telling me "I just don't get it" or that I have no right/reason to comment. I've mostly been objecting to your broader claim that reviewers are killing mid-tier games anyway, only using the Army of Two series as an example because you identified it as a "perfect example" of your purported "fact."

By your logic: why do you feel the urge to go on a Bioshock Infinite forum entitled "Poor gameplay: Why all the love?" and make it known that you don't like the combat in BI? You sir, are single-handedly destroying AAA shooters.

@fitzcarraldo: Again you have not even played it so why are you still talking?

My bet is.... 12, maybe 13 years old? Any takers?

If I had to guess probably 13.

Wasn't... wasn't Rios black?

Arr Pee Gee!!

Meh. I'm currently playing this with a friend and yeah, the game is pretty bland. Most of what was charming in the last two games was taken out and we're left with an everyday third person shooter.

Anyway still better than Gears Judgement, we couldn't even finish that boring piece of crap. Both are uninspired grayish brown co-op TPS games with lackluster characters... but this one at least has a cool weapon/character customization component.