Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review

[llama_man]

Totally diagree with Airblazer. Games in general seem to becoming obsessed with eye candy at the expense of gameplay - of which plot can be a crucial element. Whilst having a plot reduces replay value, it makes the first play-through a much deeper experience. Those of us who tend not to replay games prefer the latter, and it's nice to see games developers making games for this market.

 

[d_kuhn]

What I'd like to see is a metasite that puts an asterisk beside any web review done by a company that has an advertising relationship with the game publisher. Not necessarily because I think shenanigans are commonplace... but rather because that sort of transparency is a big disincentive to even think about fudging a review, and because it would allow readers to look at a review and KNOW that there's no potential conflict of interest.

Of course... they are just games so it's not a life or death problem - but there's HUGE money in gaming today, and whenever there's that kind of value on the table, there's going to be some too-clever marketing exec who decides to maximize his companies take through some strategic advertising leverage.

 

[FaceLifter]

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.

I'm sorry if my words seemed harsh. I do like coming to you guys and I will keep coming to you in the future. I absolutely agree with what you said about the scoring system currently employed by most review sites. There is a fundamental problem with the way that games are reviewed on most sites. Good games are being gauged on a scale starting from 8.0 and great games are on a scale that start at 9.0. To most gamers, a 7 is a crappy game, which is very sad. A 6 or a 7 should be worth a look.
Even though this may be true I; I feel that you guys should try and separate those games that deserve to stand out.
Thanks alot for the transperancy. You guys now have my full respect.

 

[jp182]

It's very interesting because alot of people seem to be caught up on the score he gave in relation to the review when I thought this whole Gamespot fiasco would highlight the issue of scores in general.

I personally agree that scores should be thrown out for now or just reduced to a 4 star system. Right now, some people seem to consider 6 or 7 to be a terrible game while some consider those games to be renters. Because of interpretation and expectations, the 10 point scoring system has becoming essentially useless.

And while I think it's awesome that you guys give background on the reviewer; it's obvious that many people that frequent this site don't read those or understand why you write that.

Some people are all about playing other people online and some people hate it. Some people think that a story has to be LOTR epic in order to be good and some can enjoy a good action storyline (think Ridley Scott and not Michael Bay). It all comes down to an opinion.

I'm surprised to see that a few of the people who actually commented in this thread actually played the game because it seems that, recently, many people read a few reviews and develop an opinion about a game without playing it. Some academics would call that a "mob mentality" and it can be dangerous and sad at the same time.

 

[KekaiGenkai]

You know, a score doesn't really mean anything unless there is some sort of significance beyond just the number. If the only scores being given to games range in value from 6 to 10 then there can be difficulty in deciding what the score really means in the end. In my mind a 6 should be an above average game, conversely a 4 is a below average game. An eight should be a game that I would recommend to my friends with reservations.

Perhaps rather than simply giving a raw score there should be some sort of value attached to the score. For example, Tom's (I don't remember who the reviewer was, but that's not doesn't change my point) recently gave UT3 an eight, but the review made it seem that the reviewer would not highly recommend this game to friends or readers. This review, on the other hand, give the game the same numerical score, but Ryan makes it clear that he does or would recommend this game.

Here are my two points; the first being that Tom's should decide on a scoring system that is universal amongst its reviewers, the second is that that scoring system should reflect values that have more depth than a simple number, thus making it easier to score games and making the reason for the number more transparent. If an eight can mean significantly different levels of like or dislike it is indicative of there being a problem beyond a simple difference of opinion.

As a final, marginally related, point: I've been getting sick of people ripping a reviewer's lack of integrity just because a person doesn't agree. This happens every time an intel/amd/ati/nvidia product gets reviewed on Tom's hardware. To me, and probably to most people who read the reviews, it is obvious that Tom's does a very good job of remaining objective about their reviews. Disagree if you feel inclined, but otherwise shut up or find a new website that you don't think is getting paid (but you won't 'cause you're just a fanboy turd anyhow).

 

[wicketr]

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.

I'm assuming all of you play the games though. So, after playing the games, everyone should give it a score and that combined score should be "Tom's Hardware's Score". At that point one person write the review.

If each game is given a score by a different person, then your scoring system is completely worthless.

 

[jumbo_cards]

Totally diagree with Airblazer. Games in general seem to becoming obsessed with eye candy at the expense of gameplay - of which plot can be a crucial element. Whilst having a plot reduces replay value, it makes the first play-through a much deeper experience. Those of us who tend not to replay games prefer the latter, and it's nice to see games developers making games for this market.

I hardly consider plot as part of actual gameplay. Story element should be considered alone. But I agree with you that it is a crucial element in the game. I'm sure there are plenty of games with crappy game play but good plot and vise versa (on top of my head, I can think of Final Fantasy 8 -- although I'm sure people would disagree with me ).

As for Kane & Lynch, I haven't played it. I personally would not enjoy a linear progression story line. If they engaged in something that are on the lines of GTA series, it would be bit more interesting. Although game developers now are targetting the lowest comsumer common denominator (ie. 12yr boys). Games these days (especially FPS) are way too easy and most of them are one-shotted through. Why would I buy these games?

Finally, I'd like to point out that reviewers these days should take unpolished buggy products more seriously in terms of penalty. Nothing more annoys me when playing a game where it is unfinished and buggy. The build quality of the games in the past decade has decreased rapidly.

 

[dav_man]

I, personally, look for a story line before graphics. I also prefer games that do not curse every other word, or use excessive blood (sorry guys, but that includes Gears). however, i do not expect every other gamer to like the same things i do. Maybe, if each section of the game (storyline, graphics, gameplay, etc) were all examined, and then compiled for a total overall score. and if you needed to, all of the editors could review the games, and submit their own scores, so that gamers could possibly relate to one of the editors that looks at games the same way that they do.

 

[dsavercool]

I have to admit, I read this review and the first thing that pops into my head is the Gamespot controversy (which prompted me to delete my paid membership there). I for one value a truly good story and new features in gaming over graphics and other ascetics. I came to this discussion area to question the high score for a game that has not been praised anywhere else and seems to even have a few not so stellar comments about it within the review itself.

What I found in reading through this discussion area is an incredible atmosphere of communication between the site's staff and the community. Lacking political tight lipped responses and filled with true information. I've been worried about Tom's new ownership making it too corporate like, but this calms those fears a little.

Please carry on.

(Reputation with dsavercool as increased +250)

From all the reviews I've read, bad and good, this game doesn't sound at all like my cup of tea. I'd play a demo. Give me more Hitman

 

[tmeacham]

Finally, I'd like to point out that reviewers these days should take unpolished buggy products more seriously in terms of penalty. Nothing more annoys me when playing a game where it is unfinished and buggy. The build quality of the games in the past decade has decreased rapidly.

I've noticed that, too. When I reviewed the PC version of Stranglehold I was really put off by the lack of polish done after the port. That was one of the big factors in the score. It's a fun game in the same way that great arcade games are fun but because the PC presentation was so poor it ended up getting a 6.5. In my mind that isn't a terrible score. It's a "good" score.

Stranglehold PC Review
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/10/05/stranglehold_pc_review/

What I found in reading through this discussion area is an incredible atmosphere of communication between the site's staff and the community. Lacking political tight lipped responses and filled with true information. I've been worried about Tom's new ownership making it too corporate like, but this calms those fears a little.

That's good to hear. We run lean compared to a lot of other sites and magazines out there and that allows us a lot of control over how we do things. We pick and choose what games to review and if you guys show interest in a title that's all it takes to get on the list.

Seems like there's a lot of dislike about the number system in general...

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

I haven't seen a review on Hellgate London. Could we expect one soon?

 

[outlandos]

I haven't seen a review on Hellgate London. Could we expect one soon?

Hellgate London is one of the most difficult games to review imo.

Anyway, about my first post, it did not mean it in a bad way, it´s just a comment to start a discussion and some heavy reply´s. This said though, I think 8.0 is quite high and I think a 7.5 would suit it far better.

 

[outlandos]

I haven't seen a review on Hellgate London. Could we expect one soon?

Hellgate London is one of the most difficult games to review imo.

Anyway, about my first post, i did not mean it in a bad way, it´s just a comment to start a discussion and get some heavy reply´s with.

This said though, I think 8.0 is quite high and I think a 7.5 would fit it better.

PS... Why can´t I Edit my message, please delete the above one.

 

[robwright]

Hellgate London is one of the most difficult games to review imo.

Anyway, about my first post, it did not mean it in a bad way, it´s just a comment to start a discussion and some heavy reply´s. This said though, I think 8.0 is quite high and I think a 7.5 would suit it far better.

So if there had been a half a point difference, then you wouldn't have joked about us being on the take?

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

If anything, I would want Toms to review HG:L because not only can they stand up to their review score but I find they're one of the only non-biased reviewers. Props to Ryan for standing up to its original score.

The difference between 7 or 8 is not a big deal...and I don't know why we're even arguing about a 0.5 difference lol.

 

[tmeacham]

Hellgate: London is on my plate next. The Crysis review and my current article took priority over it but next week I'll be on it full bore. Keep in mind it's a big game so the review will still be a few weeks out. We play games all the way through before reviewing them.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

Hellgate: London is on my plate next. The Crysis review and my current article took priority over it but next week I'll be on it full bore. Keep in mind it's a big game so the review will still be a few weeks out. We play games all the way through before reviewing them.

Sweet!

 

[RedPhoenix]

All this because the very odd thing at gamespot...
maybe not Eidos fault or maybe it was.
truth be said we will most likely never know..
but only someone blind cannot see that in a multi-billion dollar business there is pressure.
major companies getting together to make super companies recently..
but in the end we are all here for one reason!
we enjoy playing games. Some recently and some as i for several years.
still remember the joy of warcraft, duke nukem, sonic, mario , etc...
There are several ways of rating a game, is any perfect? No, and you know why?
Because we are different people , with different views, with different taste and past baggage...
After half-life and counter strike for instance the bar of fps was raised so high that very good games released after cannot measure, but still, there are good games.
This Kane & Lynch may not be a great game but at least they try to bring something new into fps, just that deserves a 6.0! The fact that a game for pc has bugs, well my Friends, bad publicity is still publicity! and making us go and get a new patch, makes us go to their site and see other offers, etc... and the faster they start making money the better for them because we are just buyers... after all game development involves more money than we really notice.
In the end we are stuck with crappy games that are not finished on the selves of the store...
BUT, did we just spend $60 plus for a game that we wish we could find the team who made it and just kick there ass because i want my hard earned money back!
See, that is where sites like gamespot, ign, 1up and toms game section came in handy. BECAUSE these guys help prevent us from trashing that game disc. Well most of the time...
I personally will refer games to Friends, and some games i will not. and 0.5 difference is important because some times even 0.1 difference means you pass that test or not...
I Love playing games , i have a pc, 360, ps3, wii, psp, ds,ps2,sega saturn,dreamcast(to bad pirate games killed it) I have lots of games in my collection because ive been around a couple of years,and sometimes ill play a older game for ex kotor.
With all this i admire the fact that there is interaction on this site, several heads working together will make this site better.(use readers opinions if any good) I've used your reviews of hardware for years for my buys and i trust and refer site always!
On the other hand , this gaming site has potential and some positives in relation to others sites with more experience but still lacks that extra professional site design and presentation(the review is quite good). I'm sure you guys will get there.
Of course i'm just another guy with an opinion sitting in front of a PC with notting better to do right now (surely not here if that hot girl from the coffee place was here..., got to wait until latter..) And an opinion is just that, one persons view. So while a better ranking system is needed some of the existing is pretty good.

0-10 is needed for a quit reference, sometimes we need to compare in same game category and then read the ones better rated( we can't always read 20 fps reviews) the 0-10 must have at-least 0.5 increments
0-10 vs star system - how many games can get a 5 star in a year(maybe 0 or 2) , how many can get a 4 star? Several! not all 4 star games are equal that's why 0-10 is better with smaller increments than 1.0.
And yes having feedback from other editor is good or how about this, lets specialize in one area, one editor one game type? One for rts,one for fps,one for rpg, etc.. (some of your same genre ratings disparities are im sorry more than arguable because different reviewer)If not financially possible at least one game review by one editor but scored by 2 other editors with just the cons and pro or a small summary for the rating they give.because lets be honest every person (including editor) prefers a game genre..

Having a reviewers background is a fantastic idea, very well done! Kudos for you!! but also if we know what kind of games a reviewer played that he most enjoyed or have a rating attached to that game, ill help us readers see if his taste equals ours..

having a summary of what the reviser liked and disliked in the game is good but by having some general aspects that are in all games of that type beeing always highlighted would be an interesting addition for ex:

Controls - have a small learning curve, and are easy to get in to but below cod4 standard
Story - don't expect a half-life storyline but it wont make you fall asleep most of the time
Graphics - not as good as crysis but who has a PC from the future anyway! overall in check with today's console games
Gore - lots of blood on the floor, you'll even get some on your shirt but no chainsaw...
Summary : blah, blah , hehehehe
Score : 7.5 minus ( hehehe)


Having videos and pics of the game is good, and even a link to the demo...
everywhere we have standards , and maybe this years a standard for story will change with other game but readers beeing able to relate to your review because we played that other grate game is an added value.

categorize! please! i think it be nice rankings and reviews by game type and even make a Best Space Simulators, Best RPG, etc..
These are just some examples.

Well If anyone was able to read this all, time for coffee..
Good gaming for all!
P.S. if you guys ever want a review from readers i some free time, lol just joking
By: Rafael

 

[tmeacham]

Regarding the increments of less than .5 I would vote against it. I mean there's a difference between an 8.0 and a 8.5 for me, but what is the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.3? Once again let me stress that the written review will always be the best way to gauge our interpretations of a game's quality.

 

[airblazer]

Totally diagree with Airblazer. Games in general seem to becoming obsessed with eye candy at the expense of gameplay - of which plot can be a crucial element. Whilst having a plot reduces replay value, it makes the first play-through a much deeper experience. Those of us who tend not to replay games prefer the latter, and it's nice to see games developers making games for this market.

Agreed but that is not the point I was making. There are serious graphical issues with this game,, the camera+ controls suck which is why it should be heavily penalised.
I have no problem with a game using a 2 year old engine providing it runs flawlessly.
And for me the story/plot of the game takes precedence over graphics..eg Bioshock was a real disappointment to me. Was hoping to be something like Dues EX but alas it wasn't to be.

 

[outlandos]

Regarding the increments of less than .5 I would vote against it. I mean there's a difference between an 8.0 and a 8.5 for me, but what is the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.3? Once again let me stress that the written review will always be the best way to gauge our interpretations of a game's quality.

I fully agree on your scoring system! (Thats why I thought this game should have a 7.0 or 7.5 the highest).

 

[airblazer]

having reread the review again I'm shocked that they considered an 8 for it.
Here's a quick what he didn't like (direct quote)
"I didn't like some of the AI goof-ups, such as poor aim or shooting into walls. Multiplayer crashing is annoying to deal with considering that it is difficult to get enough people to launch a game right now (although this is expected to change). I really do not like the concept of the Live Silver and Gold package system for the PC, as premium Live features are difficult to sell for PC owners, and it only stands to split a new community. Some challenges were too easy, and on the opposite side of the spectrum, it would have been nice to have a couple of additional major encounters like the helicopter battle. I personally did not enjoy the two endings available in Kane and Lynch."

"You'll find yourself occasionally having to baby sit Lynch and friends, most of whom typically miss their target in combat; thus, you will find yourself doing most of the killing in the game. Furthermore, you'll occasionally see both friendly and enemy AI doing stupid things such as running into a wall for a brief moment, or even shooting into a wall. While your friends are sometimes poor in relation to aiming, the enemy AI can be relentless with their accuracy while at other times they act like they've never shot a gun before. It's really quite random."

Plus? Great story...wow!!




How the hell is this game an 8? Yep the story is good but looking at all the bad points there's no way this game is an 8. A 7 maybe at the very most.
The thing is AC is getting hammered for much of the same thing and repetitive play and it only gets a 5.5.

 

[ryanlord]

AC is a different game, and was reviewed by a different reviewer. While Assassin's Creed got a bit of a beat down, Rob had his reasons, and I can understand his point of view. The cities really don't differ from eachother all that much, you're always doing the same thing over and over, and it's really more of a cool E3 demo than a solid game. There is also nothing to keep you playing once you're done. No MP, no major SP features, just a $60 paperweight. K&L is a different type of game, and offers constant changes in your goals, missions, environments, and just about everything else.

Also, Xbox Live Silver and Gold is going through the early bumps in the road, and that's really not the fault of IO. I'd rather see Xbox Live succeed on the PC platform than having to be stuck with GameSpy for the rest of eternity (no offense to GameSpy, I used to work for them) . The sentence about the endings I believe was slightly changed in the editing process, but regardless, just because the endings were not what I expected does not mean that they were bad endings. They certainly work to set up the sequel. Going to a movie and getting an unexpected or "shock" ending doesn't necessarily ruin the movie.

In regards to my complaints about babysitting, and friendly AI doing stupid things, the key word is "occasionally". Had I said "always", it would have been a constant nuisance and I'd have lowered the score more because of it. I try to make sure though that I cover some negatives in every review. In the case of K&L, the flaws were not overbearing over the story, the environments, and the multiplayer. There are a full 2/10 points shaved off of the game, and I by no means declared it a high B, or an A or even AAA game. It's in C+ / B- territory. As I mentioned earlier, had I had the option to give a fragment score, it would have been given a 7.8.

I'm sticking to the score Airblazer, as I said it is not a bad game. I am not sure why you are so passionate about us changing our opinion that it's a 8.0 game. There are many other sites and magazines that agreed that K&L was a decent game and worthy of a 7-8 score, so I really don't consider myself crazy here. Can we just agree to disagree on this one? Your opinion that it's not an 8 is respected and understood.

 

[bfellow]

I'm just waiting for them to take a key sentence from this review and put 5 ***** right above the sentence and "Tom's Hardware" next to it.

 

[ryanlord]

I'm just waiting for them to take a key sentence from this review and put 5 ***** right above the sentence and "Tom's Hardware" next to it.

I'm sure Rob would kick them in their happy place if they were to do that. I can't comprehend how their web and graphic guys managed to screw up - with a site that didn't even review it no less (Kotaku). Talk about bad timing!