One step forward, two steps back, Stupid EA.

[ConsoleFreek]

http://www.destructoid.com/army-of-t...t--75041.phtml

Region locked online co-op... Seems the in house developers need to stop drinking the retard water. I'm really just floored by this act of dumbtardery, just like it mentions in the article i was interested in this game despite the reviews. I honestly think EA are actively trying to get me not to buy this...

[roushimsx]

For Army of Two, it makes perfect sense. They're more concerned with the quality of the play experience than your ability to play with some random person on the other half of the world.

Typical internet anti-EA kneejerk reaction post.

[boatofcar]

For Army of Two, it makes perfect sense. They're more concerned with the quality of the play experience than your ability to play with some random person on the other half of the world.

Typical internet anti-EA kneejerk reaction post.

Agree 100%. Speaking as someone on the other side of the world, playing against people in the Western Hemisphere sucks for anything other than XBLA games like Catan.


But don't let that stop you from bashing EA. Fight the power. Or whatever.

[ConsoleFreek]

For Army of Two, it makes perfect sense. They're more concerned with the quality of the play experience than your ability to play with some random person on the other half of the world.

Typical internet anti-EA kneejerk reaction post.

Maybe I have relatives in Texas that I play online with all the time.
But I would expect this type of knee jerk reply from a EA fanboy.
__________________
.
Edit for spelling.

[Leo_A]

Maybe I have relitives in Texas that I play online with all the time.
But I would expect this type of neek jerk repley from a EA fanboy.

Considering you didn't even spell knee, reply, or relative correctly, I doubt he'd be bothered by that insult much.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm having trouble coming up with a reason they'd do this other than to reduce lag. Is there another sinister reason behind something like this I'm missing? If it's not being done to reduce lag then what other purpose could this serve?

[roushimsx]

Maybe I have relitives in Texas that I play online with all the time.
But I would expect this type of neek jerk repley from a EA fanboy.

This is a wonderful quote.

Is there another sinister reason behind something like this I'm missing? If it's not being done to reduce lag then what other purpose could this serve?

Nope, that's the only reason behind it.

[Slate]

Um, what? They don't have multi region co op? Why would it "reduce lag"? I thought army of two only had co op and no versus modes!

[Ed Oscuro]

Typical internet anti-EA kneejerk reaction post.

I'd still say "knee-jerk reaction" applies to the way EA tends to handle things.

My favorite example thus far: Miniguns on the blackhawk in BF2 getting you down? Zero out splash damage but don't remove the damage effect (lol) and make the guns worthless!

If this region-locking seems a problem, wait until Battlefield Heroes comes out; I'm wondering if they aren't going to force people to play with people "ranked similarly" to them.

By the way, brilliant response from the original thread:

MaxVest says:
03/11/2008 13:06
Yeah, well this is for that half-assed "coalition of the willing" support. See what it's like to go it alone, Europe?

Next time there's an empire to be built, you're not invited.

Extra ironic 'cuz the game is (supposed to be) anti-war, of course.

[roushimsx]

I'd still say "knee-jerk reaction" applies to the way EA tends to handle things.

My favorite example thus far: Miniguns on the blackhawk in BF2 getting you down? Zero out splash damage but don't remove the damage effect (lol) and make the guns worthless!

If this region-locking seems a problem, wait until Battlefield Heroes comes out; I'm wondering if they aren't going to force people to play with people "ranked similarly" to them.

But that's DICE, not "EA", much like how Army of Two is EA Montreal, not "EA". DICE has a nice history of botching patches, so their mishandling of various aspects of Battlefield 2 doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they somehow managed to botch a killer neat idea like Battlefield Heroes through misguided balancing decisions.

EA Montreal's decision to region lock the game was solely based around the developer's desire to ensure a smooth, consistent co op play experience. Of course, that doesn't excuse the blatant omission of LAN-based co-op, but I find it odd that the OP didn't bring that up and would rather complain about how retarded the developers were for their decision (how dare they have standards!) and how EA must obviously be out to sabotage it (despite allowing the game to be delayed for months on end because they believed in the product and didn't want to rush it).

Hell, even LAN-based co op I can kind of sort of see as something that wouldn't be absolutely essential to the initial shipped product because of the incredibly small number of people that'd be able to use it (with TVs getting larger and larger, it's getting less likely that people are going to chuck their set in the back of the jalopy and set up a console LAN party with their buds), but a patch for it would be nice down the line. Just sayin'

tl;dr - Misguided hate, misinformation, and blatant bias courtesy of the internet! Yay!

Tangent - Remember Codename Eagle? That game was both a buggy pile of shit and incredibly awesome (when it wasn't crashing / dropping you through the world / etc)

[XYXZYZ]

This certainly is a stupid move on EA's part. If there's one thing they suck at, it's making good business decisions that would have earned them millions and millions of dollars.