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?