EODTech's Kane & Lynch 2 Review

[nation15]

I agree with everything you said on the single player for the most part. It's a mildly entertaining story with new and innovative features but for the most part its one that is passable without losing much. However the only reason I own this game is the multiplayer! I know that not everyone is much for multiplayer but thats what this game was made for. In development they barely touched on the single player portion while the multiplayer had loads of trailers and information released. Not only does this add to replayability but it makes the campaign look like garbage. He did an excellent job reviewing the game, but skipping on the multiplayer doesn't give a fair view of the game for those of us who do get involved with online gaming.

I do not intend this as a put down or offensive in anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across is that this game is worth taking a look at solely for the multiplayer aspect. If you're not big on online play, do not pick up this game. If you enjoy online play, at least rent it and give the different modes some testing, I find it to make the game worthy of owning.

[[ODG]ODG6Actual]

A lot of games these days end up weak on the SP and banking on the long term playability of the MP.

If you're interested, and feel that there is more to the story, it might be interesting to get your full review of the MP. Maybe we can run it as a counter point.

[[ODG]EODTech]

nation, here is my philosophy in a nutshell: Given a game with both Single Player and Multi Player modes, SP is the most important thing. If that is bad or even mediocre, the MP can't save the game.

I feel the multiplayer is a supplement to the game, not the main meat and potatoes as it were. A strong multi element can't make up for a game that ignores or neglects its SP element. If you do want to have both, you need to do both well--like Halo, Marathon, Myth, Brothers in Arms, even GTA4 had decent multiplayer. Borderlands had a decent story and great MP.

If your focus is multiplayer you need to not even bother having SP as it's insulting to people who play for enjoyment rather than competition. If you don't have the money or manpower to focus on both equally, then SP needs to be the focus and MP the afterthought, not the other way around.

There are plenty of games which do only MP and do it well. The Left 4 Dead games are a great example. Chromehounds in its limited way is as well. Many MP-focused racing games or sports games (which by definition don't have SP stories), while I dislike them because of personal taste, I will freely admit are very good, and realistic, and even beautiful.

I must note here that any game which has MP but NOT split screen needs to die. Online-only MP is a big middle finger to the gamer.

Back to the point: I could indeed have hit on the MP for K&L2, but I figured why bother since the SP is so barren. For what it's worth, if it's as good as the MP from the first game then it's pretty good--but if that is so, it doesn't deserve to be dragged down by a mediocre SP experience.

To sum up, I disagree with the point you make that a game is worth playing MP if its SP is awful. Why reward a developer for phoning in what should be their main effort? There are plenty of games which do both well, and we should reward the developers of those games--otherwise we'll get more of the same.

[nation15]

nation, here is my philosophy in a nutshell: Given a game with both Single Player and Multi Player modes, SP is the most important thing. If that is bad or even mediocre, the MP can't save the game.

I feel the multiplayer is a supplement to the game, not the main meat and potatoes as it were. A strong multi element can't make up for a game that ignores or neglects its SP element. If you do want to have both, you need to do both well--like Halo, Marathon, Myth, Brothers in Arms, even GTA4 had decent multiplayer. Borderlands had a decent story and great MP.

If your focus is multiplayer you need to not even bother having SP as it's insulting to people who play for enjoyment rather than competition. If you don't have the money or manpower to focus on both equally, then SP needs to be the focus and MP the afterthought, not the other way around.

There are plenty of games which do only MP and do it well. The Left 4 Dead games are a great example. Chromehounds in its limited way is as well. Many MP-focused racing games or sports games (which by definition don't have SP stories), while I dislike them because of personal taste, I will freely admit are very good, and realistic, and even beautiful.

I must note here that any game which has MP but NOT split screen needs to die. Online-only MP is a big middle finger to the gamer.

Back to the point: I could indeed have hit on the MP for K&L2, but I figured why bother since the SP is so barren. For what it's worth, if it's as good as the MP from the first game then it's pretty good--but if that is so, it doesn't deserve to be dragged down by a mediocre SP experience.

To sum up, I disagree with the point you make that a game is worth playing MP if its SP is awful. Why reward a developer for phoning in what should be their main effort? There are plenty of games which do both well, and we should reward the developers of those games--otherwise we'll get more of the same.

I do understand what you are saying but from my point of view the single player is a small portion of a game. While the campaign of any game may be outstanding like Killzone 2 or like the upcoming Medal of Honor which will undoubtedly be amazing the experience is limited. Not having dynamic and ever-changing positions on a linear story means re-playability is very low, unless it is an open world game. For me, and many gamers, the multiplayer breaths life into the game and makes it worth getting, Mafia II has an amazing single player element, but do I feel it worth $60 for the 6 hours of entertainment I got out of it? No. Kane and Lynch 2 had a mediocre single player campaign I blazed through in under 5 hours, do I feel that's worth $60? No. However the multiplayer for Kane and Lynch 2 acts as a supplement to the game, adding new depth, and infinite re-playability to what otherwise would be a shooter not worth $60. While yes I do believe games should focus a lot more on the single player aspect and adding co-op to games, for those with storylines that only allow solo play, the multiplayer aspect could add to the value of the game.

I remember nights at two in the morning playing through epic campaigns in Brothers in Arms growing connections to the characters and loving every minute of it, but when they just add in so-so multiplayer like they did, to me it feels like they focused on the campaign, made it outstanding and said DONE. Someone said hey I played for 4 1/2 hours and now what? So they added basic multiplayer, which for me didn't add anything to the game.

I don't believe games should be judged solely on either aspect, SP or MP. However the combination of the two as you said is how we should chose to award those games our time and money. On the flip-side while you state that in the forum, in your review you skip over the MP aspect completely and say that you'll never pop the game in your 360 again. In a review standpoint you just left out the most substantial part of THAT game (not all games.)

[[ODG]ODG6Actual]

Wow you two should team up for some Point / Counter Point!

[Rant]

I like cheese...that is all.

[.Heavy]

Long ago you had single player games and very few multiplayer. In those days you had to dail to the other person and have both computers during the game. Hopefully no one else picked up the extension anywhere in the home during the whole round in either house.

Single Player can be done very well. I have enjoyed a number of them. Online Play is secondary.

Perhaps I have made a mistake of slipping into Online play as being primary. I will be returning to Single player first to learn a game and then go to multiplayer last if it is offered in a game.

Usually Single Player games built right are far more satisfying than hordes of targets in Multiplayer. Just my tiny voice lost in a sea of voices online.

[nation15]

Provisional Review of K&L2: Dog Days Multiplayer

To give credit where credit is due EODTech reviewed the single-player in a far better fashion than I could ever hope to and with accurate depictions. This is not a review trying to top his or anything of that nature, this is simply a supplemental review of the multiplayer which was not touched on in his outstanding review. Bear in mind this is not a complete review of the game as this covers only the multiplayer aspect, for a single-player review please refer to EODTech's review found under the Reviews section of Off Duty Gamers. Now on with the goods.

Multiplayer
Unfortunate days have befallen us where a big draw for console games has become the multiplayer aspect. Games that used to be focused around movie-style cinematics, entrancing gameplay, and a story you felt connected to have been dumbed down and sped up. While most games still put forth in effort to give a great singelplayer experience, the majority of them fall short. Where they attempt to make up ground is the multiplayer. Gamers and companies have come to realize that although their single player portion may be great or sub-par, the multiplayer adds the replayability gamers desperately search for in a game. Each experience adds new players, new skillsets, new strategies, and new challenges. Unfortunately for us it is a area that singleplayer cannot match without having a wide range of dynamic enemies and cooperative gameplay.

Game Modes

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days comes packaged with five forms of multiplayer, first being a cooperative single-player campaign, a feature I'd love to see in more games. Unfortunately I feel this falls flat as the difficulty doesn't change to meet two players as opposed to one with A.I., with no scaling or benefits, it's just like having an A.I. ride-along that talks a lot more and keeps picking up the ammo and guns you want.

Arcade Mode

Second is the Arcade mode, which offers a taste of Fragile Alliance with A.I., without respawning as a cop when you die. This mode works well to kill some time waiting for your buddies to hop on or configure settings. Also it's nice to test out the guns and learn the maps without getting into the competitive multiplayer. The A.I. never turn on you, so you are guarantee'd to make it to the end if you can deal with the A.I. cops.

Fragile Alliance

Third is Fragile Alliance, this is the meat & potatoes of the multiplayer. Anyone who played the first remembers this game mode that has a huge tactical tone to it you may not get at first. With Fragile Alliance you and your buddies work to steal a large amount of cash on any given map against some A.I. police, however the twist and tactics come in when you figure out the person at the end of the set amount of rounds with the most cash wins. After looting begins you can open fire on your team mates and take the cash/data/coke they looted, but be warned as doing so marks you as a traitor. Anytime you betray your team in this mode, you have to be careful of three things. 1.) Any fellow robber you kill comes back as a cop on the side of the A.I., and get rewarded for taking down the person that killed them. 2.) You are a marked target for those still alive on your team with a bonus to anyone that takes you out.
3.) When trying to getaway, if you're a traitor you better be first to the van or helicopter, otherwise it's a good chance the team will leave you behind. Having all these things to thing about, when to turn or if to turn against your team at all adds a level of excitement and tension to the multiplayer that is rarely offered elsewhere. I love this mode and spend most of my free-time in it.

Cops & Robbers
Fourth you have Cops & Robbers which is the most basic game mode that doesn't offer the excitement of the other modes. This is 6v6 Cops -vs- Robbers, a fun game we all played as kids, but with a much more violent tone. The Robbers attempt to steal various forms of loot and extract, while the Cops attempt to stop them. Unfortunately in this mode the Cops seem to be heavily favored, if you know the map you know the exits, and where the extraction point is so you can stack up in cover and wait for the Robbers to come to you before conveniently mowing them down. There are no traitors in this mode so you do see a lot more team-work than the other modes. This can make for some intense firefights, but outside of that it's the least enjoyable online mode.

Undercover Cop
Last but certainly not least you have a mode I absolutely adore. In this your team works together a la Fragile Alliance to steal the money, and at the end of three rounds the winner is the guy with the most cash. However the wrench in this mode is that one player is selected at random to be an undercover cop. You never know who it is unless it's you. The cops job is to stop the robbery and make sure no one escapes. When the bullets start flying and people start dying, you have to watch out for two things; Your team mates that are just regular ol' crooks can still shoot you and take your money, doing so marks them as a traitor as in previous modes. The cop however can kill you without an alert marking him as a traitor (known as a yellow card in the game) so if you happen to be in an alley with an A.I. cop an the undercover cop, he can kill you and move on without the rest of the team knowing what happened. This makes for some psychological madness when you look at your team mates wondering who's going to rob you and who's going to kill you. All the while you have A.I. cops trying to stop you too, it's tense and makes for bad friendships in game.
I've had many times I've been playing with a few friends and one of us gets the role of cop, instantly no one trusts anyone, regardless of if we've known each other for years. You get a bonus if you kill the undercover cop, so unfortunately what seems to happen in a lot of games is someone always tries to kill EVERYONE when the looting begins. If successful they pull out a $4,000,000 heist, bonuses for killing the Undercover Cop, and all the A.I. kills. This can put a person far far ahead of the rest, however most of the time the criminals can thwart someone attempting this so it rarely ever pays off.

Summary
In closing I think that Kane & Lynch 2 has a great multiplayer setup, allowing for games that will create a lot of tension and cause you to sit on the edge of your seat always on the lookout for that undercover cop, traitorous swine, or big score. The downside of the multiplayer is that there are only a few maps and the loot/extraction points never change, creating a very redundant scenario if playing with familiar people. The exciting part is playing with people you don't know, not knowing what they'll do next. Coupled with the single-player this makes the game worthy of a look, however I would not make this a recommended buy on the list with so many great games coming out this fall. If you're bored until Halo/Dead Rising 2/Medal of Honor/Call of Duty/Star Wars/Gran Turismo/Assassins Creed come out, it's worth renting or picking up on Amazon for $35. However I won't be touching this game for a while when the new slate of games start coming out at the end of September.

[[ODG]ODG6Actual]

Thanks for a VERY detailed MP review. I have no doubt that more resources from level headed points of view featuring the facts will ultimately let the military gamer make a solid decision on where to spend hard earned money and limited time.

[[ODG]EODTech]

Excellent work nation15.

For any who are interested, I frequently check out Ben Croshaw's excellent (and NSFW if you work in a civilian button-down type office, so some of you should be warned) video reviews. Guess which game he happened to choose this week?

Link

I thought it was good but much less forgiving than my own. I did notice that like me, he didn't even mention MP. If you're a regular watcher then you'll know that's because, also like me, he doesn't really care about MP.

I must admit, you guys are making me very curious about MP in BFBC2. I played the SP and was so disappointed that I didn't even bother trying MP. I am toying with the idea of trying it out. But dammit, the research I've done into that aspect of BFBC2 just proves my point...the developer obviously spent about 90% of their brainpower on the MP element. It makes sense to me now why the SP story sucked so much.

nation15, I totally see your point about MP adding to a good SP element. But I don't think a good MP element can save a game with bad SP. The story is the crucial bit for me--to a lesser extent gameplay, to a much lesser extent graphics and replayability and realism.

Somewhat presumptuously, I'll admit, I often refer to games as "literature." I realize how ridiculous that sounds to some but I believe it, so I approach games like I do other forms of literature. A book is great if it has a great story--not if it's fun to read with friends. A movie is great if it has a great story--not if it produces a good experience in the theater. I do tend to look down on MP-only gamers, but I got no beef with casual MP gamers; I just don't understand why you'd base so much of your opinion on that element. Go back to the book experience: if the friends you're reading the book with are awful and stupid, then it will ruin a great book like Mistborn. If the other theater patrons are loud and answering cell phones and letting their babies scream the whole time, then it will ruin a great movie like Taken. And the people online are inevitably awful. I realize that counteracting this (fixing that problem by linking up with each other online) is one of the purposes of this very site, but we're the exception that proves the rule. Do you see my point?

EDIT: Having said all of the above, I reiterate what I did earlier: I always thought it was fantastic that the developer found a way to make teamkilling a part of the game rather than try to counteract it. "If you can't beat em, join em" worked out really well. Other developers should try it out, because it's certainly not working trying to boot the cheaters on any other game I've played.

Again, great work nation.