Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review

[tmeacham]

Review written by Ryan Lord.

Hitman series developer IO Interactive has released a new crime thriller with Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, which pits two criminals together in an uneasy alliance. Can Kane & Lynch live up to the Hitman standard?

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/12/05/kanelynch_review/

 

[outlandos]

8.0...Do you guys got paid by Eidos for this score?

Of course you will say no whater it's true or not!

 

[robwright]

8.0...Do you guys got paid by Eidos for this score?

Of course you will say no whater it's true or not!

No, we did not get paid off by Eidos or any other entity for this review or any other review. But it's clear your mind is made, so I'll just ask you a simple question:

Have you played the game yet, Outlandos, or are you just basing your petty comments off of other Kane & Lynch scores/reviews that you've read? Perhaps it would be more productive for everyone if you come come up with a few points of contention regarding Ryan's review and express your own opinion of the game before resorting to cheap, drive-by insults that question our integrity.

 

[BigMac]

Rob, I actually took outlandos' comment to be somewhat tongue in cheek given what happened to Jeff Gerstmann from GameSpot the other day?

 

[robwright]

Rob, I actually took outlandos' comment to be somewhat tongue in cheek given what happened to Jeff Gerstmann from GameSpot the other day?

Well if it was tounge in cheek, I apologize. I figured he was referecing the GameSpot controversy, but in a bad way.

 

[fonzy]

A 7.3 is about what it should be,....8.0 is a bit high but acceptable.

 

[bfellow]

It's just not the Gamespot controversy, but it's also the rating controversy.

EIDOS Kane and Lynch site had to pull off their website all the '5 star ratings' given to the game by a bunch of reviews when none of them did not gave them 5 stars or even use a star system (like your 8.0/10).

 

[killian101]

8.0...Do you guys got paid by Eidos for this score?

Of course you will say no whater it's true or not!

I have to agree with this comment...and ive played through the game...The story is good and draws in you in...but as for the game play...meh. The game reminded me of another game (the name slips my mind ATM) on the PS2, so the game play didnt seem new...and to top it off...the AI is bad.

Overall the game is flawed...5 or 6 at best. With better games out there...i can see this getting pushed aside really quick

 

[chumbawumba]

I think the review does include the issues but they are heavily embedded behind a slightly sugar coated review, in summary:
* Good story (for a FPS, nobody expects too much depth :-D )
* The AI is stoopid (mostly) or too accurate.
* Cover system is poor (when compared to GOW)
* The Graphics are ok but not up to the recent crop of releases (However on the 360 version I played I must say framerates were good).
* Buggy Multiplayer ("crashing") with need for (Silver/gold) m$ live account

It ain't that bad but 6.5 (maybe 6.9 tops). For a game that needs "polish & refinement".

I think the other problem that Gerstmann did point out was the language. But then maybe thats me being a Brit & the fact I feel that the F' word is a poor excuse for some extra gritty dialogue...

As for the long discussion over game reviewing in general, I can only hope developers increase the use of downloadable demos. This should allow the game to sell itself (or not).

 

[robwright]

I have to agree with this comment...and ive played through the game...The story is good and draws in you in...but as for the game play...meh. The game reminded me of another game (the name slips my mind ATM) on the PS2, so the game play didnt seem new...and to top it off...the AI is bad.

Overall the game is flawed...5 or 6 at best. With better games out there...i can see this getting pushed aside really quick

That's fine, I have no problem with people criticizing reviews or offering drastically different opinions of a game. In fact, I welcome such activity. I just hate when someone disagrees with a score/review and automatically assumes that the reviewer/site/magazine is on the take. Like I've said before, if you want to bash us and call us idiots, crack-smoking noobs or whatever, hey, I can live it (though I'd rather read more constructive criticism). But questioning our integrity because of a reviewer's opinion, to me, is out of line.

 

[mcBullet]

While I do disagree with your review of the game, I respect that you had the courage to write your own (favorable) review of the game after the whole Gamespot thing.

But, I must say, with regards to the gamespot thing you had to expect to get posts like #2

 

[robwright]

While I do disagree with your review of the game, I respect that you had the courage to write your own (favorable) review of the game after the whole Gamespot thing.

But, I must say, with regards to the gamespot thing you had to expect to get posts like this.

Of course we did. In fact we discussed this a few times over the last week. And truthfully, I'm really thankful we didn't have a big, sprawling background ad for Kane & Lynch running on Tom's Games, because that surely would have looked bad. And don't credit me, I just run the site -- Ryan is the author on this one, and he had the guts to go with a good review of this game after it had gotten bashed. And we can take the heat for that, I assure you. But I just hate when opposing opinions on a game automatically lead to accusations of selling out to commercial pressure.

 

[lanceton]

I've played it through in my friend's place under lowest difficulty.

And if I'm not mistaken, you guys gave Crysis 8.5/10 and this thing 8/10

I don't believe anyone who's played both games would find it convincing, not even close.

Well, since you guys gave COD4 9.5/10, I assume you guys value story/plot more than any other elements.

But come on, the story in Kane and Lynch is good?

Two guys killed a lot of cops in the US and Japan, trying to get their hand on important stuff. And then they gone to some other places killed more militia and mercenaries and their bosses who want them dead. The end.

You call that a good story?

If that's the case I don't have much to say...

 

[robwright]

I've played it through in my friend's place under lowest difficulty.

And if I'm not mistaken, you guys gave Crysis 8.5/10 and this thing 8/10

I don't believe anyone who's played both games would find it convincing, not even close.

Well, since you guys gave COD4 9.5/10, I assume you guys value story/plot more than any other elements.

But come on, the story in Kane and Lynch is good?

Two guys killed a lot of cops in the US and Japan, trying to get their hand on important stuff. And then they gone to some other places killed more militia and mercenaries and their bosses who want them dead. The end.

You call that a good story?

If that's the case I don't have much to say...

One thing I want to point out is that Travis Meacham reviewed Crysis, and Ryan Lord review Kane & Lynch. Two different writers with two different views of two different games. And I gave CoD4 a 9.5 because I think it's one of the best games I've played in the last two years. That's my opinion.

 

[tmeacham]

Two guys killed a lot of cops in the US and Japan, trying to get their hand on important stuff. And then they gone to some other places killed more militia and mercenaries and their bosses who want them dead. The end.

That actually sounds better than the story that Crysis ended up having which can be summed up thusly:

North Koreans take over an island where archaeologists just uncovered an ali--the end.

 

[caamsa]

I think a lot of these (FPS) type of games are truly lacking. I tried the Crysis demo and was not that impressed. Now I will admit I don't really play a lot of these types of games anymore. To me it is deja-vou after reading about or playing these types of games. Two of my favorite FPS games were Return to Castle Wolfenstein and the original Max Payne and Call of Duty. I am still waiting for a new Castle Wolfenstein game to come out. I know there are a lot of good games out there but for some reason I just have a hard time enjoying them due to the fact that I feel like I have already played the best. Great graphics mean nothing unless it is a good story line. I imagine it is difficult to review and then rate a game because you have to put yourself in the shoes of thousands of people who don't own the game and give an honest review about its' over all appeal to a large audience.

I think my problem is that I enjoy gaming online against other people. Also MMORPG's rule as long as the developers update the game and keep it fresh. Of course I am a big City of Heroes/Villains fan. Ok go ahead and laugh now :lol:

just my two cents..............

 

[ryanlord]

Whew, just got back from brushing snow off my new Lamborghini. Easily affordable with editors pay!

In all seriousness, thanks for your feedback guys. My review was completed and submitted close to two weeks ago, it just wasn't queued for publication until today. I assure you, I'm not the only one that enjoyed the game, as other sites also gave K&L 7s and 8s. I can say pretty confidently that EIDOS has not exchanged money with anyone at Tom's Games for a higher score.

Regarding comparisons to other titles, as Rob said, I did not review Crysis or COD4. Also, keep in mind that this is a 3rd person shooter, and I reviewed it for what it was with other similiar titles in mind. I also considered multiplayer, which many sites seemed to have ignored.

For what it is, I did enjoy Kane and Lynch. While it isn't among my favorite games of all time, it was a pretty decent game and I look forward to the sequels, and upcoming movie. It will be interesting to see where this series goes.

In regards to score criticism, my opinion is just that, and if you guys feel that it was poorer than an 8, I respect your opinion as well. I however will not respect if you choose to bash this game, without having played it. The GameSpot drama was a pretty big over-reaction to a situation that no one knew anything about. Over-reacting to rumors, despite coincedences, is just silly. As Rob said, it's a good thing we don't have K&L ads up, because I'm sure the gaming community would want us to provide access to our bank statements to prove we weren't paid off if that was the case.

 

[FaceLifter]

Same review from the same website!!...It doesn't matter WHO from TH wrote the review. We come to your site to read your reviews, because we trust the site, not because we trust the reviewer. You guys need to work together and communicate with each other on your reviews. I for one will say that I lost a little respect for your reviewing process.

"Dead Men is a one-shot deal"
"storyline and character development make it worth at least a look"
"Multiplayer crashing"

Coming from your own words this game is not an 8!

Come on guys.

 

[tmeacham]

Same review from the same website!!...It doesn't matter WHO from TH wrote the review. We come to your site to read your reviews, because we trust the site, not because we trust the reviewer. You guys need to work together and communicate with each other on your reviews. I for one will say that I lost a little respect for your reviewing process.

This is actually something Rob and I talked about this week as well because that trust is important to us. We do bounce things off each other and talk about the games as we're going through them so there is communication there but what we don't do - and this is something that some other sites and magazines do - is have a roundtable discussion about the numerical score. We just starting doing game reviews this year and we're going to be doing a lot more so we're still working through and making changes to our review process. We started using the numerical system because it's an unfortunate industry standard but we wanted to put our own spin on it as well which is why each review has that section in the end where we talk about "where I'm coming from". That's where we can talk about whatever baggage we brought to the game and you can gauge how it affects our review.

The problem with the numerical score is that it allows quantifiable comparison where there shouldn't be any. Having said that I do take the other guys scores - as well as my own previous scores obviously - into account when I score something. I urge you guys to put more stock in the written review and not to sweat the number as much but your point is taken, FaceLifter.

 

[copious]

(this message was composed before i noticed the one right above)
The best way to bypass all of the controversy is by NOT using a alphanumeric scale...i know it's hard to get twitchy gamers to actually read a review these days, because i've been known to only watch a video review or just skip to the end for a score.....but by doing away a number score system, you actually get people reading the review [that's why it was written, right?] and prevent people from commenting before actually playing the game.

I've read reviews that only gave Pros, Cons, and a Bottom Line, without using the number score system. I think more companies should adopt it. i highly doubt a reputable/popular review website would lose readers if they switched over. i'd rather get a real, honest review, than one that i have any amount of doubts on. (i've already deleted Gamespot from my bookmark)

I'm sure you guys have thought about this before, perhaps after the Gamespot incident, it might be a good idea to think about it some more?

--------------
after reading tmeacham's response...i'm curious about this "industry standard" for a numeric system.
specifically what do you lose by NOT having a numeric score? less publicity? (in turn less readership?)

i can speculate more, but i won't.

 

[ryanlord]

I think that there was absolutely no way to avoid controversy in this case, but I do agree that scores can generate specific amounts of disagreement more than anything in a review. This is not to say that scores do not work however, as that's really the bottom line for some people, no matter what you say. Leaving out a score may make some feel unsatisfied. If we were to make a change, I'd prefer something along the whole "Buy, Rent, Skip" system.

Regarding round-table reviews, I have always been for that type of system, as I think that there is nothing wrong with discussing a review with the team to look for any areas where things may have been considered too much, or not at all. There is nothing wrong with considering the reviews of others, such as Travis said, although you still have to avoid considering reviews which cannot, or should not be compared. In my eyes, a 3rd person shooter is different than a first person shooter, and a turn-based puzzle game is different than an RTS. Over-considering what you gave Lumines 2 when you score Soldier of Fortune 3 wouldn't make much sense.

One thing I do when I submit any work is ask if there is any feedback before publication, as I'm wide open to hearing opinions on my opinions and / or my score. In Kane and Lynch, even before this drama, my mind was fluctuating between the 7s and 8 level of scores. I create a sort of mental scale, where the good and the bad weigh up, and I go from there. I never said Kane and Lynch was a great game, but it's certainly not a bad game. Also, consider that almost all games are a one shot deal, even Call of Duty 4, in terms of single-player. While CoD may have had a 9.5 in single player and a 10 for multiplayer, the average was still somewhere between the two. Kane and Lynch had a 7.5 to 8.0 single player game, with an 8.0 multiplayer in my opinion.

Had Rob or Travis had a bone to pick with one of my reviews, I'd have no problem re-evaluating my own work to make sure that I considered everything possible. In the end though, an editors final score should be respected, even if an entire team thinks he's crazy. Sometimes EGM for example will have a mix of scores in their reviews that are so far off between the reviewers that you'd wonder if they were all playing the same game. That's just how it is though, editors are entitled to their opinions. Do you want honest reviews? If so, you have to respect the reviewers opinion.

Finally, I did mention a flaw like crashing, but I will say that with the Call of Duty 4 review, Rob had mentioned to me that there was a nasty multiplayer server bug that was going on during his play through. I experienced this myself for numerous days and nights, where it seemed the master server would crash and it'd be impossible to connect to a server and / or authenticate the validity of your key. Should this have significantly affected the score when it was something that we were all sure would be handled in a timely manner?

Edit : Thought I'd share a quick list of others who enjoyed K&L :
Gamers Temple : 84%
PGNx Media : 82%
Official Xbox Mag : 80%
GameTrailers : 80%
PSW Magazine UK : 80%
PC Zone UK : 79%
Play UK : 73%
EGM : 71.7%
ActionTrip : 71%
Game Informer : 70%
IGN : 70%
Eurogamer : 70%
VideoGamer.com : 70%

 

[copious]

RyanLord, you were saying "my mind was fluctuating between the 7s and 8 level of scores"...how about changing the scoring system so you have RANGE instead? in this example, where you had some doubts about the final score, instead of giving it a 8.0, why not a 7.0-8.0? (one point range). For a game that's unequivocally spectacular, say Super Mario Galaxy, instead of 9.5, it can be 9.5-10.00 (0.5 point range)....nobody said scoring had to be uniform.

 

[ryanlord]

I think a range would make our reviews sound a little bit wishy washy, but it's worth consideration. I'd rather be able to grade in fewer increments than .5, as after I made my final decision on the score (it changed once post-submission of my article, again, pre-drama), I would have gone with a 7.8 if I had the choice. Since that wasn't an option, I stuck with an 8.0.

I'd understand trust concerns if I had rated it a 9.5 but in this case, I wasn't out of the norm. I've been evaluating and reviewing games for close to 8 years now, and I spent two years in game dev. I've seen some pretty crappy games, and some great games. As I said, I try to weigh the good and the bad of each title, and make sure that I'm giving it consideration for the genre that it's in.

 

[airblazer]

Just knew it was going to have a high score when the bad points of the game was glossed over by the "great story".
No way is this game an 8.
Which is a pity because I was looking forward to this game as well.
I also like a great story in games..it's an essential part of the game to me but not at the expense of gameplay.

 

[ryanlord]

I respect your opinion Airblazer, but it is just that, an opinion, just as it is my opinion that it's an 8. Neither opinion is any more or less valid than the other. We can agree to disagree I suppose.

With that said, my experience on the PC was that the gameplay was not poor at all, it was actually pretty decent. Throughout all missions I had fun, and never felt like I had to stop playing because something was frustrating me to no end. It's really not a "bad" game.