Talk:Army of Two (video game)

message: Part of the contest section claims that the weapon will only be featured on the 360. Where is the source on that? 72.191.25.136 06:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contest Source 

message: This game has the section stating it's hype but i really think a section about this review  needs to be added, i dont usually suggest for one review but this is a particularly harsh review on a game which is suppose to be the number 1 game to watch, anyone got any thoughts? (just to let you know, i have nothing especially against this game, its just that being the #1 to watch in the whole of gaming and then to be ripped completed in a review is pretty strange) Prem4eva (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Radar

message: The release dates are from a reliable source. Don't change it back to Quarter 1.  Orracle107 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date

message: :Image:932860 20060823 screen009.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:932860 20060823 screen009.jpg

message: Some of the wording under the "description" box is rather biased and uninformed towards the United States use of Private Military Contractors. The relation to the game was intended to be that the US Army uses mercenaries, just like the protagonist in the game. That however, is false on every level. First off, the United States Military doesn't actually handle Private Military Contractors, the US State Department, DoD, and Homeland Security do. Second off, the protagonist in the game are not mercenaries, they are Private Military Contractors. There is a difference (however small, its there). Paladin Hammer (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...blackwater? Morte42 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: This one is a bit of a dubious thing to say about it being sent a day early - unless there was a geniune mistake which I've not heard about, it's not uncommon for Amazon after receiving their stock to dispatch it early so it arrives on release day with the costumer. Petrarch 11:10, 8 March 2008 (GMT)
It's not really that notable.  Most online shops send them early to avoid possible delays in the postage.  I've had a fair few games arrive early when I've ordered them online.
--92.233.170.178 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazon.co.uk Reference

message: Since the game has come out and not all expected maneuvers were implemented in the game, I'll take it upon myself to remove the ones that overlap / didn't get implemented. Someone else can reverse this or add back in the ones that did not make the cut, but were expected. Shint (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-op maneuvers

message: I'll start to actually implement the storyline further. I'll need help on the correct names for the 'bosses' used. If anyone can, please also include how Dalton plays a roll in this story. I get confused, because it seems like he's in charge of the Ranger's unit in Somalia, then turns into the CEO of SSC. That part still confuses me endlessly. Shint (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Storyline

message: A lot of this article reads like an advertisement, especially the section about the graphic novel. douglasdanger  —Preceding comment was added at 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement?

message: A good portion of people that pre-ordered through Gamestop/EB Games were told they would get codes that would unlock both the SAL-86 and the BST-V1. The problem is there were some that just unlocked the BST-V1, Gamestop/EB Games has blamed this on EA. This probably isn't worth mentioning in the article. I thought it was interesting. Kelevro (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the store in the area that I live never mentioned anything about the unlockable weapons, but that is my area.Jeffrey G. Conflict 2552 Producer 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-order weapon unlock codes snafu?

message: There's been a little bit of edit-warring over Army of Two vs Army of TWO, and AoT vs Ao2. So where else to go but EA? Note that nowhere does the studio refer to Army of TWO or AoT. Just sayin'. EdibleKarma (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, the EA blog consistently refers to the game as Ao2. I should hope at least that the game's studio knows what they're talking about. EdibleKarma (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I noticed, after I had posted. I suppose we should go with the acronym given it by the game's makers. Silly EA studio and their ignorance of acronym grammar. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 23:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the name

message: I'm aware of the rather silly decision to not allow cross region multiplayer on this (hopefully that will be fixed), but is it worth mentioning that there are apparently cosmetic differences in the armour markings between the EU and US versions? Douglasnicol (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a real region lock on the PS3 version? I.e. an American game does not run on a European console etc.. I doubt. Separating online multiplayer depending on the game version is not unusual and nothing special to this game.--87.174.92.21 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I only have the 360 version, I can't comment, and I wouldn't mention if there is a region lock on the PS3 version as I don't know.  Seperating is one thing, but making it totally unable to play against a different version is unusual.  Example on the PC is MMORPG's like Guild Wars where there are regional servers. Douglasnicol (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional differences/Real region lock on PS3?

message: I've just drastically edited the "summary" of this game's plot. It was way too long. Sorry. Also fixed some grammatical errors and the like. I also have to question if the "Co-Op Maneuvers" section is relevant. StivaTolstoy (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enormous Plot "Summary"

message: When my friends from England play this game, its diffrent it says {Euro} after the game, while my freinds from everywhere esle doesnt say anythin, Does anyone know what this means, or how its diffrent?72.138.216.89 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply there is a 'Euro' version of the game.  Now since I have the 360 version I'm not going to speak for the PS3 crowd, but it means that a person with the Euro version of the game cannot play online against someone with the US version.  As far as I know, regarding content the games are exactly the same. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Versions 

message: I'm not sure the missions section should be includd as it just clutters the pae and all the information is/can be covered in the main plot, making it redundant. 'The Ninjalemming 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't sense any opposition to removing it so I'm just going ahead with it.--Koji† 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: We still need to find a way to include the Downloaded Missions into the Plot, or maybe give them their own section.--Koji† 22:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missions section 

message: Why is this not in some separate section?  This is not something I care to read when looking for general information about this game.  Is it interesting?  Perhaps.  But not necessary to have at the very top of the page.  Jabberwockgee (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Rambling about region locking in first section 

message: Whats with the references to flying bananas and banana missiles? I've never played the game so I'm not sure if its vandalism or a reference to something in the game. Idlerp (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert revert revert. Even if it wasn't vandalism, it would still be WP:GAMECRUFT. Eik Corell (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flying bananas? 

message: Why aren't the game's homoerotic aspects (which have been featured in many reviews) mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.25.105 (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homoeroticism 

message: When will it be released for Windows XP ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.59.180 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows version 

message: Both DLC for this game have been removed last year, but apparently i can't add that information because it needs a source. Sadly, no news site reported the removal of the DLC, it happened without a notice. One of them didn't even work anymore because it had multiplayer maps. I thought the removal of a content doesn't always need a source, other gaming-related sites have similar info and nothing was reverted. What gives?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.212.9 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  DLC removal 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Army of Two (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress