Originally Posted by jackanape
This isn't a co-op game. You can have two people playing but the co-op aspects have been spectacularly nerfed to the point where you may as well just stand side by side and blast everything in sight.
The original AO2 and games like Gears actually require some teamwork, this game just requires that you spray an inordinate amount of bullets at enemies. Half the time I didn't even use cover - until I realised there was an achievement for it.
People expect too much out of every game they play. I know it has it's issues but that score was just ridiculous. It seems like it was rated low just because it wasn't the reviewers preferred type of game. That would be like me rating bioshock infinite a 55 out of 100 just because I dislike Bioshock. But I'd still rate it higher and make it a point to point out the good things about it. Army of Two TDC while it was to short, and had minor issues it was still overall a really fun, mindless co op shooter. I just don't agree with the review.
Originally Posted by CounterInsurgnt
Duuuuuuuude, did you notice there were more options and features in the second game? Did you notice the second game was NOT pay to play coop? Did you notice the shit story in this game? Come on brah! Be real!
It had split screen co op. It's only pay to play if you don't buy the game. And that's not their fault you're a cheap bastard. They wanted to make a fun co op shooter, they made a fun co op shooter. Games don't need half the crap people rate them on to be good. It didn't need some epic story, or top notch voice overs, all it had to do is be fun and it was.
Your complaints are just gamer entitlement bullshit. "THE OTHER GAMES HAD MORE THIS ONE SHOULD HAVE MORE TOO"