Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 5, 2007 2:25:47 PM

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/
December 5, 2007 3:35:44 PM

8.0...Do you guys got paid by Eidos for this score? :pt1cable: 

Of course you will say no whater it's true or not!
December 5, 2007 4:32:32 PM

outlandos said:
8.0...Do you guys got paid by Eidos for this score? :pt1cable: 

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.








Related resources
December 5, 2007 4:45:43 PM

Rob, I actually took outlandos' comment to be somewhat tongue in cheek given what happened to Jeff Gerstmann from GameSpot the other day?
December 5, 2007 4:49:29 PM

BigMac said:
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.
December 5, 2007 4:50:58 PM

A 7.3 is about what it should be,....8.0 is a bit high but acceptable.
December 5, 2007 5:11:57 PM

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).
December 5, 2007 5:33:49 PM

outlandos said:
8.0...Do you guys got paid by Eidos for this score? :pt1cable: 

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
December 5, 2007 6:18:26 PM

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).
December 5, 2007 6:43:25 PM

killian101 said:
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.

December 5, 2007 6:46:11 PM

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
December 5, 2007 6:59:48 PM

mcBullet said:
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.

December 5, 2007 7:31:37 PM

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...

December 5, 2007 7:43:59 PM

lanceton said:
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.
December 5, 2007 10:47:08 PM

lanceton said:
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.
December 5, 2007 11:48:55 PM

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..............

December 6, 2007 12:06:41 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 2:42:40 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 3:13:16 AM

FaceLifter said:
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.
December 6, 2007 3:58:25 AM

(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.
December 6, 2007 4:25:36 AM

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%
December 6, 2007 4:38:23 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 4:52:52 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 6:35:35 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 6:45:15 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 10:31:13 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 11:44:13 AM

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.
December 6, 2007 1:08:16 PM

tmeacham said:
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.
December 6, 2007 1:34:54 PM

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.
December 6, 2007 1:36:44 PM

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).
December 6, 2007 1:40:19 PM

robwright said:
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. :pt1cable: 
December 6, 2007 1:59:26 PM

llama_man said:
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.
December 6, 2007 2:01:26 PM

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.
December 6, 2007 2:30:35 PM

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
December 6, 2007 2:58:14 PM

jumbo_cards said:
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/

dsavercool said:
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...
December 6, 2007 4:04:25 PM

I haven't seen a review on Hellgate London. Could we expect one soon?
December 6, 2007 4:37:15 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
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.

:hello: 
December 6, 2007 4:40:26 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
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.

December 6, 2007 4:42:23 PM

outlandos said:
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.

:hello: 


So if there had been a half a point difference, then you wouldn't have joked about us being on the take?
December 6, 2007 4:51:03 PM

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.
December 6, 2007 6:28:03 PM

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.
December 6, 2007 7:13:14 PM

tmeacham said:
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!
December 6, 2007 8:02:09 PM

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
December 6, 2007 8:44:41 PM

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.
December 7, 2007 6:58:04 AM

llama_man said:
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.
December 7, 2007 10:25:11 AM

tmeacham said:
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).
December 7, 2007 11:54:29 AM

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.
December 7, 2007 1:37:57 PM

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.
December 7, 2007 2:03:51 PM

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.
December 7, 2007 2:06:25 PM

bfellow said:
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!
!