lol this game is teh suck
Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days
Written by AngryJoe Wednesday, 01 September 2010 22:07
See more at AngryJoeShow.com
|
Doug's Official Facebook Page | Order the 4th Year Anniversary autographed image! Less Than 100 Left! Once they're gone they're gone! |
Comments (81)
-
09.01.2010 - 22:49 | mikecan2
-
09.03.2010 - 04:08 | BIRAAt least they are not marines, for a change.
-
09.01.2010 - 23:29 | AwayToHit
a big giant ball of suckiness sure is fail X_X
-
09.01.2010 - 23:41 | NatluvsAnime
I watched the ending on youtube after you had mentioned it and WOW was it bad! After I saw that one I went to watch the first endings. I find it so unbelievable that they would take a step backwards with their endings. Why would you want to lose storyline and creativity, something gamers are coming to expect more and more. Then again, basing from what you said about the game overall (haven't played it myself), it just seems like they were riding the controversy of the first game and expecting people to pay for a second crappy game under the same name. Way to respect your market and fans. :grr:
-
09.01.2010 - 23:48 | Sorvall4 Hours long, crappy Graphics and weak story! Worse than the original? Jesus! It wasn't even as if the first game was very good ever. No one was running to get this and I am not surprised that it went down to £24.99 one week after it came out.
Also how could this game have a ending that's worse than the original? Oh and 8's and 9's out of ten for the professional reviews? I wonder how many professional reviewers were afraid of losing their jobs over K&L 2?
-
09.01.2010 - 23:52 | H2O
I just want to say thanks Joe for being one of the few game reviewers out there with integrity and credibility. You and the rest of the folks at Blistered Thumbs are pretty much the only people I trust to give honest and fair reviews.
-
09.01.2010 - 23:53 | IntFam
Haven't seen you that angry in a while, Joe. I agree though. 4 hours of gameplay is fucking bullshit. Even Starcraft II, which you also recently reviewed, a game with CLEAR emphasis on multiplayer, had a rich and engrossing single player campaign that took AT LEAST 15 hours to complete.
You'd think after Dead Men, they'd have learned to put a bit more effort into their work, seeing as there was already a black cloud hanging over this game from the Gamespot Incident. What a waste of time and money it's turned out to be.
-
09.01.2010 - 23:55 | KariWhoa, those graphics hurt my eyes more than 3D comic books and I didn't think that was possible! How'd you ever manage to look at that migraine inducing nonsense for four hours?!
-
09.02.2010 - 00:01 | pap64
As a text reviewer myself, I don't understand what is going on with these publications giving what is apparently a mediocre game such high ratings. I mean, I don't want to bring the console wars into this, but with some Wii games they are highly critical of every aspect, regardless if the actual game is good or not. Why can't they do something similar with Kane and Lynch? Are publications so afraid of the Gamespot incident happening again that reviewers are being more forgiving with this game?
It's a good thing that Angry Joe works independently and can fight off any corporations, otherwise he would have gotten fired! o_O
-
09.02.2010 - 00:08 | Deimos1984rd
[color=green]I was expecting this game to improve after the first one...I was let down.[/color]
-
09.02.2010 - 00:10 | pap64I know, right? Considering how the first one nearly ruined Eidos's reputation in the industry you would think that improving the game significantly would be top priority.
It seems the only thing that they improved on was the presentation, while the gameplay remained largely the same.
Inspired presentation a good game does not make. =_=
-
09.02.2010 - 00:50 | S_Pac_3:16
I only played the demo but I don't plan to buy the full game...
Interesting effects yes, but I won't bother. Paying $60 does not justify me to play a 4 hour game!
Maybe the professional reviewers were afraid of Eidos breathing down their necks so they played it safe with their reviews. =_=
-
09.02.2010 - 01:07 | costas555This game was so bad, that in the ending the cameraman didn't get on the plane to avoid the sequel.
-
09.02.2010 - 01:08 | Kent_LangI usually have tolerance with some poor design choices in games but the camera effects were only annoying.
And pretty much Angry Joe said seems to be true. And this is the first time I've ever seen him be angry about the length of the game. I think even 12 hours is too little for the money it costs to buy that game. I remember playing epic JRPGs that took around 30 - 50 hours to complete. There are MMO's that can keep you occupied for over 100 hours and loads of hours to be had if you pick the right game. Hell, I'd even call a platformer a pretty good game only because it has so much game time.
4 hour games seem to be shitty games you get when buying cereals and I wouldn't be surprised if it dropped out of my cereal box the next time I buy cornflakes. Well, I would be because it's PEGI 18, but still!
-
09.02.2010 - 01:09 | blpup
Wasnt this already uploaded? :eyebrow:
-
09.02.2010 - 01:19 | hanaharuHoly crap this was so funny. I was actually going to get this game for my brother. Thank the lord I didn't he'd have probably tried to strangle me with it.(yes try to shove my head through the disk)
Thank You Joe cuz damn this game seems to be shit.
more!!!! MORE!!!! MORE SHAKY CAM!!!!
-
09.02.2010 - 01:21 | FredTHAreDGotta say Joe, its good to have you on the front-lines battling these new shitty games, and its also pretty cool you're a fellow Texan.
I can only hope you're making a difference, because a four hour campaign for $60 is literally a scam.
-
09.02.2010 - 01:37 | Uberpig
Angry Joe got angry.
Btw, it's Lara Croft, not Laura. :)
I just watched the ending on Youtube - WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? The end boss appears to be a puppy.
-
09.02.2010 - 01:44 | jalford
[color=red][size=medium]4 HOURS!!!![/size][/color]
-
09.02.2010 - 01:55 | Slatefield
http://www.youtube.com/ watch? v=0pF3PJIPHck&feature=rel ated
So the guys shoot two dogs, they get on a plane and it's over?
That....... I..... um.... what?
-
09.02.2010 - 02:06 | tiggerpeteJoe got fired up, lol, great review, now I know to avoid this like the plague
-
09.02.2010 - 02:11 | Themonsean
Running though the streets naked...ahhh! MGS2 flash back!
-
09.02.2010 - 03:39 | RedrallyYeah but at least Raiden was good to look at. Although I could just be biased since I am a girl. XD
-
09.02.2010 - 03:10 | YetAnotherGeekYou know, just because a game is short doesn't mean it's all that bad. Let's take a look at some more games that are less than 5 hours:
MadWorld (approx. 4-5 hours)
Portal (approx. 4-5 hours)
House of the Dead: Overkill (approx. 2-4 hours)
Gradius V (approx. 1-2 hours)
After Burner: Climax (approx. 15-30 minutes)
Essentially 75% of all games released before the PlayStation (ranged from $20-$50 back then, which is even more now.)
Many more that I'm sure I'm forgetting. I understand you're upset, but to repeat that as a criticism is a bit much, since there's nothing inherently bad about a game being short...especially if it IS bad, because you can finish it faster.
-
09.02.2010 - 18:34 | johnkenpwnsThat's right, BEFORE the Playstation.
These days, most people are expecting more, and why not? Time and time again, we are either challenged to either maintain the status quo of greatness or surpass it and raise that greatness to another level.
That's not to say that a game should be measured by its length alone. There are other factors that are considered when making a great game: story, gameplay mechanics, cinematics/visual effects, replayability, the "fun factor", and many more.
(Personally, the visuals of a game should be secondary to everything else that makes a great game, not the priority.)
The glaring issue here is having to spend $60 for a mediocre game when you can find a similar game of the same quality for about $10, at best.
It's about as bad as paying to see a film by Mel Brooks but getting one by Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg. Oh, and you can't get your money back even if you tried to sell your soul for the chance to get a refund.
Regardless of the price, nothing will make up for the time you [s]lost[/s] wasted playing this game or for supporting mediocrity such as this.
-
09.02.2010 - 03:48 | JunkWatcherYou know, it sounds like they just ran out of money and time and were unable to finish it properly because of that.
I don't know if you accept it as an excuse, but, from the looks of it, it seems like that's the case.
-
09.02.2010 - 03:54 | Renaguard
I've never cared for Kane & Lynch full stop.[color=black]
-
09.02.2010 - 10:25 | whatever42
I have pretty much the same feelings. I didn't care about the original, didn't care about the sequel, and probably won't care about any future efforts. -_-
Despite that, I didn't think it would be that bad. I guess that just goes to show. Good review Joe. Corporate Commander made me laugh quite a bit and I haven't seen you that angry in quite a while.
-
09.02.2010 - 04:36 | Shinigami
Shitty game is shitty and thats what Kane & Lynch 2 Dog Days is.
-
Looks like a ripoff of Army of Two - 40th Day, what with the footsie up, lift the door, run through shanghai, a much better game
-
[quote=YetAnotherGeek]You know, just because a game is short doesn't mean it's all that bad. Let's take a look at some more games that are less than 5 hours:
Portal (approx. 4-5 hours)
House of the Dead: Overkill (approx. 2-4 hours)
[/quote]
Short games are fine so long as they have a low rrp, great replay value or at least mix it up through each play through (take Left 4 Dead with the ai and director for example).
Portal is sold for a lower rrp and I think it was part of a pack of other games originally? So it's really not all that insulting to us regardless of the lack of replay value.
House of the Dead: Overkill is probably the first gun game that ever got it right when it comes to replay value (as well as story/game play). There's guns and upgrades to unlock, directors cut mode (harder play through) and a bunch of mini games so really it's an excellent lasting game for it's kind and I still find myself picking it up from time to time when I have some zombie blasting urges. For me at £7 it was an excellent buy but in hindsight I would have gladly payed £20 for it which is unheard of for me, I'm tight when it comes to games.
Can't comment on the other games listed.
-
09.02.2010 - 05:27 | Fluffyman
They could have developed a good game out of the concept they had but they just made it a generic shooter through and through, at least the first had a little more than that if not pulled off competently.
-
09.02.2010 - 05:29 | Maximillionaire
I was hoping for a review of Mafia II today, but Kane & Lynch 2 is good too. Besides, we haven't had a bad game review in a while and I miss those.
-
09.02.2010 - 05:39 | nostalgic90skid
- "what the fuck is this shit?
FUCK MEE!!!" X'D
- "Morons, all of you!"
- "fooouuur hoouurs"
I just had to qoute these lines :'D
-
09.02.2010 - 06:15 | YukoValis
The """professional""" reviewers get paid for their work, and I'm sure they get a little extra for good reviews thus swindling the buying public. Jow you do this for free, and so not only can we expect an honest review, but an entertaining one as well.
-
09.02.2010 - 11:42 | pap64This is true. The big sites (like IGN, Gamespot etc.) do get a lot of perks. Even some sites like GoNintendo get a ton of perks simply because publishers seek sites with a lot of traffic and fans. So they will go all out with extra swag, perks, free review copies and the like. Most independent websites do get review copies and can attend press events, but not to the same extend as other sites.
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by Compojoom comment 4.2.1
