My review isn't really a review, more of a counterpoint to JP Hurh. I mostly agree with his rating of an overall B, but I think that he has mislabeled several key points of the game. On three occasions he dogs the game for something that I thought wasn't just ok but was quite accurate. First he doesn't like the "3rd grade sense of humor" of the characters, but what he needs to understand is that this game appears to be trying to have its characters mimic men that have actually seen combat overseas. When you are actually over there its amazing what a "3rd grade" sense of humor can do. He also goes into a little dialog on the Blackwater Scandal...which the issue is in its name "scandal". I doubt any of use really know enough about what really happened to comment on it, I understand for the comedic effect but I enjoyed a game that gave a new storyline...at least I had never seen it before. Secondly I liked the co-op sequences and didn't even think of any of them as "homo". If you were in that situation you would do the exact same thing, when bullets fly there is no such thing as homo nut to butt tactics. Again the game seemed to be going with the "what would you do if you were really there" idea, and I doubt many of use wouldn't get on a shield behind a buddy in enemy fire because it was "gay". I also enjoyed the idea of being able to do a handshake thing or a headbutt...there are many times in halo1-2-3 I wished I could have done something to a buddy other than kill him due to annoyance. Lastly he made fun of the word for the concept of "aggro". A little more homework is required because "Aggro" is a legit gaming term for a character taking hold of an enemy's "aggression" and holding it. (World of Warcraft anyone?)
Solid review overall but I think sometimes gamers should step back and try to look at it through the eyes of it actually going on, of you actually being there.
"Why is the sky blue? Because God loves the Infantry."