The lights are on
Too many reviews are way too happy to give glowing scores to sequels that do nothing to innovate. Bioshock 2 is a great example. There is a game that did almost nothing the original didn't already do, yet was raved about almost everywhere you looked. Here we see the developers go out of their way to make K&L 2 a different, memorable experience while at the same time fixing everything everyone complained about in the original, and still it gets a bad review here. I would like to point out that other reviewers enjoyed this game and gave it much better reviews.
I am one of those people. I can easily look past a few A.I. problems for the overall picture. I was floored by the fantastic camera work and the way they nailed the whole "digital camera" angle. They hit the nail on the head. Being someone who has used cheap digital camera's a lot when I was younger, I can say that this is exactly what it looks like trying to chase a buddy down the street at night while he is trying to pull off a trick on his BMX. They nailed it.
The story, while sparse, it gritty and gets right into the action. The characters are just as great as they were in the first game, and have a bit more depth thrown in for good measure. The shooting feels great and is really, really improved over the original. The cover mechanic was fixed and the multiplayer is even better than before. All this comes together to give you a shooter like you've never played before, and you owe it to yourself to try it.
If you are the type of person who complains about the cookie cutter shooters out there then you have no one but yourself to blame if you let this one fall through the cracks. Obviously reviewers are split on this game, because I have read a number of good reviews before reading this one. How are you going to know which camp you're in until you play it?
Most of us wouldn't be willing to take that risk. Considering I still need to get Red Dead Redemption. I'll pass on Kane & Lynch
So what if they nailed the digital faux-doc angle? No one was clamoring for a game that looks "exactly what it looks like trying to chase a buddy down the street at night while he is trying to pull off a trick on his BMX" that I knew of. You want to experiment with camerawork? Make a movie.
And a sparse, gritty story in a shooter? The guys at IO just know how to push the envelope in every direction...
TO be honest, you probably have a point. Some people are quick to judge, but that is only because we know what kinda of quality IO is capable of and we're just not seeing it here. I just hope this isn't a trend that carries over to the Hitman series. I've been waiting for the next one for quite a while now.
Given that it has a Metacritic score of 64, indicating average to mixed reviews, based on 27 reviewers, including this website, I wouldn't say that reviewers are "split". Especially with the breakdown of those 27 being 9 Positive, 15 mixed, and 3 Negative. (And they're VERY negative.) At current game prices, plus the abundance of shooters available, I need something more than "eh, it's alright." When a user review says they returned it the same day, that's harsh. When you have to work to find a redeeming feature in a game, film, or TV show-It's not worth your time or money.
Kane and Lynch 2 did nothing to innovate besides multiplayer. It innovated just as much, if not less than Bioshock. This was NOT a true sequel