Army of New

---

March 13th, 2008 posted by SpecialK89 in General News, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

Recently in the gaming industry, there has been a lot of talk about the new 360 and PS3 game, “Army of Two” (hereby called “AoT” throughout this article). For anyone unfamiliar with this game, it follows around two mercenaries–Tyson Rios and Elliot Salem, two ex-army guys–as they fight terrorists all over the world. The more missions they complete, the more cash they get, the better weapons they buy. Where the uniqueness comes from in AoT is in the “aggro” system it has, in which the game puts a higher emphasis on teamwork and ingenuity in co-op, rather than the simple “shoot, kill, wait” method many other games employ. At the same time, AoT relies heavily on the two-player co-op, as the one-player mode often results in much confusion and difficulties when it comes to the AI.

However as more and more press about AoT is garnered, a unique phenomenon seems to be sweeping across all sorts of game forums, websites and reviewers; the idea that this game is simply too violent. While criticism of videogame violence isn’t a new concept (in fact has been around for a while–just look at any news article about the 1976 game “Death Race”), for the most part it has come from outside the industry; politicians are always quick to point fingers at music, movies and videogames when it comes to witnessed violence. What’s unique and new for AoT however, is the fact that much of it’s criticism is coming from the inside.

The two sources I have seen be the most vocal so far are Gamespot and Penny Arcade, both of which have quickly garnished negative feelings towards the AoT. One in the form of a bitter review which constantly brings up the ethics and appropriateness of AoT (Gamespot) while the other pokes fun at the over-the-top actions via a comic strip, and then takes it a step further via a podcast (Penny Arcade). Both roughly have the same idea however, which is that the way AoT portrays violence in such a nonchalant manner is ridiculous; that AoT is truly working to interest the lowest common denominator when it comes to its target audience.

For me, I can somewhat understand where they are coming from. With the current war we’re in, the overpowering insensitivity of AoT may not definitely be the best thing for our public relations. And I will agree that based off of the descriptions I’ve heard about the way the two main characters celebrate violence–with fist pounds, comments, and joking actions like using their guns as guitars–this may be a little over the top, but at the same time does that mean it shouldn’t be made or enjoyed? Of course not. Ultimately it’s a videogame and it’s purpose is to entertain, not inform or influence. What is leaving me baffled however is why AoT and why now? Not taking outside organizations like the government and religious groups into account, why is AoT getting what appears to be some of the harshest criticism across the net? Even Grand Theft Auto–the Holy Grail when it comes to video game violence and criticism; the game in which you can openly kill police officers and civilians–received good reviews from Gamespot (and the rest of the industry). So why AoT? I think the answer can be found somewhere in two main ideas and questions:

The first is that AoT is visually showing a growing blending of videogames and society. With the growing trend of videogames appearing across pop culture and society (it’s no longer simply the nerds playing the games now, athletes in almost all professions seem to admit their love of videogames via Madden or NBA2K, etc etc) and current business models similar to Nintendo’s, in which there is a large emphasis on attracting new audiences and consumers into the market, slowly videogames is moving out of the preconceived notion of “nerdiness” and “lame” by the masses and into a more acceptable form. Seven years ago I was called the weird kid by some because I played Starcraft. Now those same kids are the ones playing WoW. I often think that if AoT came out five years ago, this would be far less of an issue, because five years ago people wouldn’t have envisioned the idea that videogames may one day play a role in society on a much larger scale. However as the industry has done wonders to make videogames a much more acceptable form of media, all of a sudden people are taking a much closer look at just what this media entails. In my gut, this leads me to initially think that this may almost be a negative thing. After all, if all of a sudden criticism is beginning to come from the inside about videogames as opposed to from the standard outsiders, the idea of censorship seems much more plausible. However, when I look beyond this fear, I am left to realize that this is in fact a good process. We need people and companies to see that the videogames they are making are doing more than just appealing an isolated audience; we need them to see that the media and public will respond vocally to the messages and the ideas they are putting forward. Without this, companies would become stagnant and change could take forever. As videogame makers become more serious about the ideas and messages, along with the quality of the gameplay they produce, society as a whole will become more serious about accepting videogames as a true means of communication and art. AoT is already beginning to show this slow merger, but we can only hope it continues.

However, with all of that in mind, I am left with one big question when it comes to AoT and its criticism: If the gameplay were better, more challenging and enjoyable, would it receive as much criticism? Part of me feels like it wouldn’t; that certain rules can be bent and lines can be crossed when it comes to the message and ethics of a game as long as it provides for an incredibly entertaining medium (again, GTA as a prime example. but “Postal” comes to mind too). Oh well though, who’s got time to think when there are terrorists to kill.