Military.com Reviews America’s Army: True Soldiers
By William on Sunday, December 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 PM PST In Microsoft
A while back, we reviewed America’s Army: True Soldiers for the Xbox 360. To be completely honest, it was one of the worst games I ever reviewed. I just stumbled across a review for the game on military.com and was slightly shocked at how great their review made the game sound. The review starts like this:
New “America’s Army” has look, feel of real warfare
There are so many tactical shooters on the market right now that I wasn’t very excited when another showed up for me to review this week.
But “America’s Army: True Soldiers” (Rated T for Teen) — which was co-developed with the U.S. Army — saved me from being burned out.
I’m definitely not trying to knock other reviewers too harshly, but I find it strange that anyone could come out of this game with a positive review. Their final rating of the game is a B, while our final grade was a generous 3/10. Game journalists definitely have a long way to go, considering reviews are just so hard to put a lot of value into these days. I had high hopes for True Soldiers. My hopes were crushed within about 20 minutes of actually playing the game.
Its called Call of Duty 4, play it =/
COD4 definitely
Actually, I’d rather play most tactical shooters on last generation’s consoles than the Army game on the 360.
Maybe he is talking about the old PC AA, which was actually quite well recieved by reviewers.
WOW HE IS TOTALLY RIGHT THIS GAME SUCKS….. TOTALLY THERE IS NO SP…only training and when i wanted to play multiplayer THERE WAS NO PLAYERS!!! AT ALL…. I RETURNED THE GAME WHERE I RENTED IT AND GOT MY MONEY BACK… this game sucks . it is worse than … i dunno lots of bad games
It is so nice playing a game that takes skill without the usual losers you have to deal with on Live. This game is hands down the best tactical shooter available on the 360. Then again, I want a game based on realism, the type of realism that one can only understand by actually doing it perhaps? But, seriously, answer one question: Why did GRAW 2 get 8s and 9s and AA get such low ratings? The games have ALOT in common if you haven’t noticed. The main differences: you follow real squad tactics,you must follow the ROE’s set out by the Geneva convention, the weapons are real and act/react the way they should (except the M249 SAW doesn’t have the bi-pod) and of course it is in first-person and you can’t move the camera. Which my friends, if you can tell me any game on 360, that is more realistic than that I am all ears and ready to go buy it now, believe me, they are the only types of games I play.
Now don’t get me wrong there are some serious issues with the game. The lag and connection issues being my number one complaint. I will also agree the single player is not great and has some bugs. But this game is for multi-player and as I said before if anyone can give me an honest alternative to this, please do, because as far as I and many others are concerned, there isn’t one.
If you seriously gave up on the game in 20 minutes, what kind of reviewer are you? That is almost the exact same thing that the IGN reviewer said. You may not like this type of game, thats fine, but realize there are people who live for realistic tactical shooters, and if you talk to most of the people who do and gave the game a chance, you’ll start to see that you will here many more positives than negatives.
AA: ROAS was good, but this is better in many ways. OFP was good too, but once again sorry this blows it away. Until maybe the sequels and other tactical games come out for 360 (Rogue Warrior, OFP2, ARMA2) this game has no competition. I may play GRAW 2 again when the new maps come out, but after playing AA: TS, GRAW 2 seems so less realistic than it did before.
I realize it may have been hard to find a good game/room at first and I will be first to admit the lag/connection issues are lame as hell, (The game works great if you have high speed or limit rooms to 8 and don’t use air-strikes currently) but once you do, the fun and tactical immersion with this game is unrivaled.
OK, thats it, now you can go back to the COD4 teh pwwwns, AA sux rhetoric.
AA is pretty good, and the more you play it the more you like it. It is true that the graphics are not amazing but it makes up for it in gameplay. Teamwork is extremely important and if you and some other people learn to communicate and work together well you dominate. Its almost impossible for a person to single handidly win a game becuase you have to work with your teamates.
I would give it a 8 out of 10, and if all of the defects and minor issues where worked out I think it could easily be called a better game than Halo or Call of Duty 4. Even as it is many people who actually take the time to play it like it much better than those games.
There is not many other games where you can set up ambushes and traps, use real strategies and formations to win, and thats what makes it great.
Here is a link to a person who has a pretty good review. He played the game for a couple days and lays out all of the pros and cons. If you are wondering if you should get this game read this, download the demo of the marketplace and then make your decision
http://www.simhq.com/_land2/land_093a.html
Next time you review a game try playing it for a bit first. “Game journalists definitely have a long way to go”. I would agree. Its a bit odd when you read your review which says its sucks, and then read the reviews of people who play it who say it is very good.