Reviews// Kane & Lynch (Xbox 360)

Sibling Rivalry

Posted 23 Nov 2007 17:02 by
In the Eidos / IO Interactive marriage, the happy couple has watched their little baby Agent 47 grow into a strapping young murderous lad befitting of the Hollywood treatment. Inevitably the urge to spawn a fresh new screaming brat into the world takes hold. The scan shows that its twin boys, Kane and Lynch. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so say many in that prejudicial - "all knowing but not really knowing anything at all" - way. So, let's take a proper look at the latest delivery and see whether it's a still birth or the potential for year of joy like its big bro.

Kane & Lynch: Such nice kids
Kane & Lynch: Such nice kids
Given the first child is a successful, disciplined, sociopathic killer, it's no surprise that the young Kane and Lynch collective is aiming to follow suit. Kane is an ex-mercenary and the character you control in single player. Your playmate throughout is Lynch, a psychotic wife murderer - a constant as your non-playable cohort in single-player or controlled by a friend in co-op play.

Like all blood siblings, K&L shares many attributes with its elder. Kane and Lynch is a third-person, over-the-shoulder shooter that's narrative-led. It's best to pay attention to the story, or you'll find yourself taking the wrong approach for the situation ahead. You wouldn't want to start shooting in a dancefloor full of raving clubbers – that would be just rude. So at these times it's probably best to use the crowd and keep that gun holstered. However, these elements of stealth are less important than they were in Hitman – indeed, this is the first big differentiator between the two, as Kane and Lynch is less a 'hide-and-seek-em-up' and more a 'shoot-them-in-the-legs-and-stamp-on-their-groaning-face-em-up'.

Both unsavouries begin the game incarcerated for their past misdemeanours, but get a surprise 'get out of gaol free' card in the form of a prison break orchestrated by Kane's mercenary ex-comrades, a shady group known as 'The7'. Oddly, it's only after being thrown in at the deep end, evading capture while fumbling with the game's handling, that you are presented with the tutorial. Taking the form of showing Lynch the ins and outs of weapons handling, use of cover and rappelling from heights, it's a novel approach, but slightly arse about face given prior engagement.

Like all good twins, the pair like to work together in their endeavours, and this is the other big difference to our Hitman friend. The first chapter of the game is pretty regular shooter fare - working from one objective to another, taking cover from a hail of fire and providing covering fire while non-player characters such as vault breakers get on with their job. It's an effective way of slipping you into the game's handling prior to things moving up a gear when Lynch becomes an active member in the game.
-1- 2 3   next >>

Read More Like This


Comments

Granny 30 Nov 2007 10:22
1/9
57%!? That's a sacking offence in some parts of the world y'know!
...allegedly ;-)
DoctorDee 30 Nov 2007 10:45
2/9
Granny wrote:
57%!? That's a sacking offence in some parts of the world y'know!
...allegedly ;-)

Not here though.

Makes my Jericho score look positively generous.


more comments below our sponsor's message
TimSpong 30 Nov 2007 11:05
3/9
Granny wrote:
57%!? That's a sacking offence in some parts of the world y'know!
...allegedly ;-)


I am going to be horrified if Jeff Gerstmann was actually sacked on the basis of a single review. My sensible head rather than my conspiracy head tells me that Gamespot management would have to be out of its collective mind to sack a long-standing journalist for one review. That is especially true if that one review was in agreement with the general feeling of other reviews.

If the management did fold in the light of a single advertiser saying, "Sack that writer or we pull a month's worth of ads" then the shareholders need to sack the management - as it's an appalling decision - unless Jeff defamed the hell out of someone.

My conspiracy head would be happy but sad if it was true... that's the problem with conspiracy heads.

What's shocked me too has been the reaction on some boards. Things like, "What's the problem Kane and Lynch Roooools!" up to "I'm sure he'll get a new job soon" would support a management team sacking a writer based on one review. The management could sit there and say, "Well, the readers aren't going to care one way or the other... they have the minds of 8 year olds and the cash of 25 year olds!"

Jeff's alleged sacking should be an issue for publishers... and readers.

However, the available information makes it all too easy to make 2 + 2 = 22.

Cheers

Tim

P.S. Gareth? You're sacked!
P.P.S. Allegedly.
TimSpong 30 Nov 2007 11:09
4/9
DoctorDee wrote:
Makes my Jericho score look positively generous.


Your Jericho score was positively generous... no! I jest. You are sacked for having an opinion and not writing a review like a walk-through. Also, for not finishing it with, "If this is the kind of game you like, then you might like this", 86%.

Cheers

Tim




Granny 30 Nov 2007 11:46
5/9
Tim Smith wrote:
Granny wrote:
57%!? That's a sacking offence in some parts of the world y'know!
...allegedly ;-)


I am going to be horrified if Jeff Gerstmann was actually sacked on the basis of a single review. My sensible head rather than my conspiracy head tells me that Gamespot management would have to be out of its collective mind to sack a long-standing journalist for one review. That is especially true if that one review was in agreement with the general feeling of other reviews.

If the management did fold in the light of a single advertiser saying, "Sack that writer or we pull a month's worth of ads" then the shareholders need to sack the management - as it's an appalling decision - unless Jeff defamed the hell out of someone.

My conspiracy head would be happy but sad if it was true... that's the problem with conspiracy heads.

What's shocked me too has been the reaction on some boards. Things like, "What's the problem Kane and Lynch Roooools!" up to "I'm sure he'll get a new job soon" would support a management team sacking a writer based on one review. The management could sit there and say, "Well, the readers aren't going to care one way or the other... they have the minds of 8 year olds and the cash of 25 year olds!"

Jeff's alleged sacking should be an issue for publishers... and readers.

However, the available information makes it all too easy to make 2 + 2 = 22.

Cheers

Tim

P.S. Gareth? You're sacked!
P.P.S. Allegedly.



Indeed. As a fellow journalist (but not in the games area) I find it hard to believe. A review shoulld always be the individual's fair, honest and balanced opinion and be taken as such by all concerned. Ad revenue is an entirely seperate consideration.
RiseFromYourGrave 30 Nov 2007 14:27
6/9
if the people who publish the game are going to get to decide the careers of the people who independently review their games, that is f**ked up beyond belief. once theyve removed any potential 'troublemakers' from the writing staff theyll just be able to tell us all their games are amazing
TimSpong 30 Nov 2007 15:13
7/9
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
if the people who publish the game are going to get to decide the careers of the people who independently review their games, that is f**ked up beyond belief. once theyve removed any potential 'troublemakers' from the writing staff theyll just be able to tell us all their games are amazing


I was going to be all pseudo-serious business-head there until I realised that the statement: "No real business wants blanket good coverage of its products because the public will soon see through it"... is total balls - and the construction 'blanket good coverage' is plain ugly.

I apologise for almost being naive.

In terms of publishing, however, readers will leave in droves if all they see is unanalysed advertorial run as if it was independent opinion (and not marked as advertorial). Although all people can be stupid, once you have bought three things on the basis of editorial opinion, and those three things did not work or did not deliver, then a you will go and look elsewhere.

I'm still to have the Gerstmann case proved to me to my satisfaction though... but, as I say, I am just a naive little ol' thing.

(In the event is it true, then the entire management staff at GameSpot need to have their spines ripped out and sautéed with mushroom... oh, except if it is true, they would have no spines.)

Cheers

Tim





hollywooda 4 Dec 2007 17:38
8/9
I've been looking 4ward to this game & im pissed that it apears that the developers made none of the changes that people complained about on the early demo's!!!?... are they f**king stupid!?, who play tested this game, Steve Wonder?. I just cant get my head around how so many developers, time after time, keep missing things in games that the average gamer gets f**ked off with?, it makes no sense, you read reviews & think, yer he hated that bit of the game too! & speak to friends who say, "ohh man the targeting was way off", so why the f**k cant developers see these things & get them fixed!?.... they spend two years on a game, building this universe of characters & storylines with cinematics & dont seem to be bothered that the main character cant shoot for f**king toffee or the fact that your squad cant work out that bullets hurt so maybe i should get out the way?.......man IT F**KS ME OFF!!!..........
TimSpong 4 Dec 2007 18:40
9/9
hollywooda wrote:
...man IT F**KS ME OFF!!!..........


So, how are you feeling about this, H'?

Cheers

Tim

Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.