Reviews// Kane & Lynch (Xbox 360)

Potty-mouthed bad boys

Posted 23 Nov 2007 17:02 by
A whole new raft of tactics is opened with squad-based gameplay. Doing the team thing, you issue commands to Lynch to follow you, defend a spot or attack a location. You're soon thrown into situations where a single-player approach would require careful planning to take out surrounding threats, but squad tactics give you the option to quickly fight back from multiple angles. A couple of chapters in and you're charged with commanding three further team members, each with up to four grunts of their own.

Your team's AI appears convincing; they run where commanded, take cover and attack any threats. If they come under fire from a different angle they'll move around to avoid a pummelling. Similarly, enemy characters act in a believable manner, running for cover and attempting to out-flank your group. Watching a fire fight unfold is entertainment in itself – it's like watching a mini-movie, as cover gets destroyed, pillars and walls crumble, vehicles explode and the characters run to new locations.

However, you can't stay too far away, as your constant command is required – more on that later – and if any of your team falls, you have to administer a 'lifeline' adrenaline shot pronto, otherwise they'll die and with them, your game. That's a mechanism that works both ways – if you fall, one of your team can give you adrenaline, essentially granting you another life. You can take as many shots of adrenaline as required, but too many in close succession will cause an overdose.

On the surface, it's a clockwork arrangement, but problems become evident very early in the game. Firstly, the script sucks. The overall story is fine. It's a little infested with clichés, but I can live with that – every year I pay good money to see it at the summer blockbusters. The dialogue, however, is rubbish - a B-movie affair replete with swearing . If I didn't know better (which to be honest, I don't) I'd suspect it was written by a 15 year-old. This is a shame, because it lets down an otherwise interesting story and is integral to Kane and Lynch's edgy 'Reservoir Dogs' world of mercenaries, psychotic murderers and treachery. Hammy dialogue is neither cool nor edgy and skipping cut scenes, while possible, isn't advised, as the content is needed for the following sections.

Despite the shocking dialogue, the delivery is excellent and well produced. The voice actors have delivered their best given the words they've been told to spout. Audio throughout is well constructed and executed. Your team chatter isn't too repetitive, though Lynch's responses to your commands could have been expanded, and their comments often help to guide you in the right direction should you wander from the planned path. Incidental music picks up the pace during key moments, but otherwise the soundtrack to your game is the distant rattle of weapons fire and the zings and thuds of bullets flying around you, delivered in surround and providing cues to the source of an attack while you're taking cover.
<< prev    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.