Despite a suspicious silence accompanying its (delayed) arrival, EA's smack-talkin' shooter seems to have mostly delivered on its promise of consistently cooperative violence. Unsurprisingly, most reviewers seem to agree that a one-macho-man army is at a disadvantage in Army of Two, with the lone experience highlighting some of the game's flaws and unremarkable design. It might be worth a look if you and your BFF have already blasted everything in Halo 3, Crackdown and Gears of War.
  • IGN (79/100): "As a single player experience, Army of Two is a fine game -– one that manages to provide a fun, engaging time despite its length, AI issues and elements that don't seem fully implemented. However, it's really co-op play and multiplayer where the game stands out, and these two modes will most likely keep you playing for a long time."
  • Game Informer (75/100): "Like dysfunctional characters in a buddy flick, Army of Two has some annoying problems, but if you just want a fun cooperative experience, it gets the job done and delivers sizeable thrills you won't find anywhere else."
  • Eurogamer (70/100): "Any level of the current co-op king, Halo 3, has more spectacle and incident packed into it than the entirety of Army of Two; more that you'll want to relive in company over and over again. Bearing the strong Vs. mode in mind, it would be wrong not to warmly recommend this as a smart twist on a stupid shooter, but perhaps it should have taken itself a little more seriously after all."

This article was originally published on Joystiq.

Yet another PSP phone patent surfaces