Moby Poll: How many game soundtracks do you own?

Army of Two (PlayStation 3)

100 point score based on reviews from various critics.
5 point score based on user ratings.



The depiction of the mission in Somalia is not accurate because there are too many concrete buildings visible. Given that Somalia is so unbelievably and tragically poor, the capacity to build or maintain concrete buildings is very limited, so most buildings are composed of materials like clay, crude plywood, and thin corrugated metal. Also there are no civilians caught in the war zones anywhere in the game, and this is extremely unrealistic.

The depiction of a fictional successful hijacking of a US Navy aircraft carrier, by Abu Sayyaf terrorists from the Philippine Islands, is also extremely unrealistic. This fictional counter-terrorist mission supposedly takes place in 2008, but the aircraft carrier that has been seized is referred to as USS Constellation -- even though the only aircraft carrier by that name was taken out of service in the year 2003! Further, the game character Alice speaks of the Abu Sayyaf, literally the Sword Bearer Group, as "one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world" but this is incorrect. It is true that they are affiliated with the Usama bin Laden organization, but they were never the all-powerful bugaboos suggested in the game. After they kidnapped many people from the Dos Palmas resort in 2001, including two Americans, they were very severely punished by the clandestine Philippine Marine Corps unit called "MC-2," working in close cooperation with the CIA. The charismatic rock-star type leader of Abu Sayyaf, who called himself Abu Sabaya, "Bearer of Captives," was killed in an ambush along with most of his men. It is said that today, Abu Sayyaf may even have less than 100 combatants. It is therefore preposterous to suggest that Abu Sayyaf could seize a US aircraft carrier -- much less do so in 2008.

Lastly, the aircraft carrier captain in the game makes a big deal about the fact that there are nuclear weapons aboard the ship -- as if this were not obvious -- and he claims that the terrorists intend to blow them apart in a suicidal conventional explosion of the ship, in effect attacking Manila with a giant dirty bomb. In reality, the core function of an aircraft carrier is to project stability and control, and when necessary to enforce that control through fear and the capability for destruction. For this reason, they *always* have nuclear weapons aboard in case of need. Furthermore, with the exception of those ballistic missile submarines that are not in port, there are always elite Marine detachments present to guard nuclear weapons wherever the Navy has custody of them. These men have only one task. If pressed, they would scramble the security codes, would activate the chemical destruct systems to melt the wiring, would weigh them down and throw them in the sea to be recovered later by Navy Divers, or if there were absolutely no choice, they would set them off rather than let them be stolen. The idea that the US Navy would not immediately deploy a small army of SEALS in such a situation, but would first dispatch mercenaries and then send the SEALS to take credit later, is equally ridiculous. If nothing else, the SEAL unit called DEVGRU would already have done extensive rehearsals just in case such a hijacking were to occur, while mercenaries would not have this level of preparation or skill.

Contributed by 88 49 (65) on Sep 07, 2009. [revised by : Patrick Bregger (112546)]. -- edit trivia