I love the concept of the series. It’s a failing of the industry that ideas are only lifted from successful games, while there are dozens of games with great concepts and poor execution that are begging to be picked over for the creamy goodness in the middle.

That said, there’s also an annoying tendency for the wrong ideas to be stolen. How long was it before GTA’s sandbox gameplay was copied, instead of the cars ‘n’ guns ‘n’ gangsters?

Also, I’m not sure I’d agree with your suggestion that their relationship gets worse as the game goes on. In the first half, both characters have wildly different motives and loyalties – when Kane is prepared to listen to Renamoto’s (Or is it Sakamoto’s) plan for dealing with the7, Lynch’s loyalties lie with them and he tells Kane not to do it. The fact that Renamoto’s daughter is then shot is left ambiguous – was Lynch having a turn, or did he actually shoot her to stop Kane breaking off the deal with the7 (and by proxy ruin Lynch’s chance for promotion, which he believed he was getting).

But once both are betrayed, their goals become the same – kill the7. There’s still tension between the pair, but it becomes more about methods than outcomes. It’s still conflict between them, but it isn’t as pronounced or interesting.

I always thought it was a shame they put Kane out as the “main character”, with Lynch relegated to player 2 or computer status. In co-op, you actually remain in control of Lynch during his moments. So in the bank, for example, you see policemen streaming around the lobby, and your first natural instinct is to shoot them. When Lynch’s medication kicks in shortly afterwards and you realise what you’ve actually been shooting at, it’s rather chilling. Not that K&L was the first or only game to attempt this sort of thing, by any means.

Personally, though, the interest of the characters can’t be sustained as the plot spins wildly out of control and unravels. The early half of the game felt like it was trying to emulate classic heist movies, but the second half veers off down normal shooter territory – the prison section is a bloodbath, and once the game switched to a full on civil war in Venezuela I found it hard to care.

Kane’s attempts to keep control of events in the first half of the game put him at odds with Lynch and keep the two-character dynamic interesting. That sense of everything falling apart that sections like the Bank or the kidnapping evoked are lost once the game goes all gung-ho, and that’s a shame. It wasn’t a good enough shooter, but with some tighter writing and a better second half, it could have at least been a good story.

@blug

Lewis beat me to the reply there, but I’ve something to add. If what you say about most action games is true, then I’d suggest that K&L is one of the first games to openly acknowledge and play up to the fact that “the whole enterprise is basically cruel, vicious and depraved”. It’s remarkably honest in its callousness, and that’s something you rarely see. And that’s the kind of stuff that interests me, so that’s part of why I find these two characters fascinating.

You’re not alone, as will be apparent in the piece, when it comes to being unable to enjoy the game at all because of the nature of our two protagonists. Their very nature handicaps your attempt to “get into” the game. And that’s the potential problem with this kind of approach, as I point out. It’s got serious risk attached to it. But I think that’s why it’s so brave and unusual.

I don’t think that makes them uninteresting characters (I’ve not played the game, so can’t comment on that part) by default. If anything, it’s a fascinating decision for a developer to make. You’re guiding these people through atrocious actions. That’s pretty powerful stuff, potentially.

I’d suggest another reading of Kane and Lynch. In most action-y games, the player basically commits mass murder. The whole enterprise is basically cruel, vicious, and depraved. Sure, there’s some sort of story that more or less justifies the whole thing, but that is subordinated to the gameplay experience. Kane and Lynch made that process untenable for me; guiding the actions of these unpleasant fellows made me feel annoyed, if not angry. I had no ability to choose an alternate path: the game did not include a “just stop running around like an asshole murdering people” ending. I could not identify with them one bit. I wanted them, and thus myself, to lose. Thus the shadowy connections between the violence on-screen, the character, and myself were short-circuited. Enjoyment became impossible.

Once again, I fear the problem is one of video game formalism. Games are second-person. It’s what makes them potentially so powerful, but also the cause of Kane and Lynch’s failure. Would Lolita have been the same had it been a Choose Your Own Molesting? I’m not a hateful thug like Kane or Lynch, and I don’t want to be forced to pretend I am. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place a place for these characters in “art” – just that they don’t make good video game protagonists.

Otherwise, it’s just a case of uneven gameplay quality. The bank robbery, club, and Tokyo Tower shoot-out are fantastic. There are a couple of unskippable cutscenes before boss fights and some other game design crimes. And as soon as you get to Venezuela, it turns into a mediocre action game.

And the plot…you hit it dead on. There’s no other game that has you playing characters as such absolutely awful people. It is definitely something new.