Kane & Lynch: Dead Men
Multiplayer and more unveiled.
"Play it like a soldier and you'll lose. Play it like a criminal and you'll win." That's the advice of IO Interactive on the online multiplayer mode in Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. It's good advice. You may have captured more flags than you've had hot deathmatches, but you're not in the army now. This mode is about strategy, not just shooting. It's about betrayal and greed and revenge. It's about working as a team in a world where it's every man for himself. But most of all, it's about swearing.
That's our experience, anyway. We've spent the last 20 minutes trying out the multiplayer mode in IO's Copenhagen studio, and we've spent most of that time doing some really quite comprehensive swearing. Like all good multiplayer modes this one leaves you infuriated and exhilarated at every turn, and consequently coughing out expletives like there's no ************* tomorrow.
There were already to reasons to look forward to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men based on what's been shown of the single player mode alone. For those who aren't familiar, it's a third-person squad-based action game from the team behind the Hitman series and Freedom Fighters. The two protagonists are professional criminals who work as a team, but will always put their personal agendas first.
In single player mode you always play as Kane, but you can order Lynch and any other squad-mates you've picked up to move and attack. One of the game's most interesting features is the option to take weapons and ammo from other members of your team. Characters can also revive each other using syringes of adrenaline if they take too many hits.
Otherwise controls are typical for a third-person shooter. You can crouch, you can cycle between weapons and you can hide from bullets simply by walking up to cover. This last bit didn't work too well in the version we played, with Kane sometimes refusing to take cover or being too quick to, but this ought to be sorted out for the finished game, due out November 23rd on PS3, Xbox 360 and PC.

Thankfully the targeting system already works well. You can fire at enemies from a third-person perspective or zoom in for an over-the-shoulder view. This gives you a more precise aim, but at the expense of cover and you lose the wider view of what's going on around you. In a game where there's an awful lot going on at any given moment, this loss of perspective is significant.
There's also a lot going on with the plot which IO says is full of twists and turns, McGuffins and surprises. As the game progresses you are get to know more about Kane (ex-mercenary, alleged traitor, family man) and Lynch (schizophrenic, alleged murderer of own family, bad hair but good sunglasses). You also learn more about their unique motivations and complex relationship.
The phrase "complex relationship", of course, is always a euphemism for "mutual loathing", and this instance is no exception. Kane & Lynch's single player game explores themes of human emotions and behaviour, with particular emphasis on greed and revenge. As game director Jens Peter Kurup explains, IO wanted to carry these themes through into the multiplayer game rather than abandon them in favour of traditional modes.
"Quite early in the production process it became apparent the normal deathmatch, capture the flag thing didn't fit. It's all so army-like. It didn't fit with the themes of Kane & Lynch," he says.
"The game is essentially a crime drama about two guys who hate each other, they don't trust each other, they backstab each other, they get away with as much as they can. So we took these core concepts of betrayal and disloyalty and revenge, and turned that into a new multiplayer mode."
That mode is called Fragile Alliance. It sees up to eight players pulling off a mission together - the level we played involved a bank heist. The goal is always to move from the start of the map to the end, picking up as much cash as possible along the way. It all has to be done within 200 seconds as rounds never last longer than that.

To start out with it's advantageous to work with the other players, taking on the police as a united force. You can try to remain allied for the rest of the mission if you believe there's strength in numbers, but that means you'll have to share all the cash with any other players who make it out alive.
So instead, you might opt to become a traitor. This involves waiting till one or more players have accumulated a significant amount of cash before taking them out and walking off with their haul. The advantage here is obvious - you get very rich quick. But you immediately become a target for other players as a big orange Traitor tag will appear above your head, and they'll want to kill you before you betray them too.
You also have choices when it comes to how you play through the level. You might prefer to hang back in the initial stages, letting other players run up front and do the work of taking out the police. However, you might find by the time you get to the vault they've already taken the money. This is no good as the overall winner is the player who accumulates the most cash over the course of the rounds. You can also use cash to buy better weapons and armour in between rounds.
But it's not a good idea to pick up huge amounts of cash without thinking first. Each player's current haul is displayed alongside their name above their character, and a USD 1 million bounty could instantly make you a prime target for any nearby rivals. To make things even trickier, characters' balaclavas change colour according to where they're ranking - the richest character's is always black, making them easy to identify.
If you are killed you lose all the money you've collected, but you do get a second chance thanks to one of the cleverest elements of Fragile Alliance. Regardless of whether you were killed by a fellow criminal or an NPC, you get to come back as an armed police officer. You can then get revenge on whoever took you out, or just blast away in a bid to prevent any of the other players from getting away with any cash.
Even as a police officer you still have a chance to win the round. You can earn rewards and pick up money dropped by rivals. If you're killed again, you're properly dead this time and have to sit the rest of the round out.

The options to come back and take revenge, prevent others from winning and even still win yourself add an entirely new dynamic. Combine that with the traitor mechanic and you have an innovative multiplayer mode which you can choose to play in many different ways. You may also find yourself forced to play in different ways as you have to react to other players' actions.
"It plays a little bit like co-op in the beginning, but at one point somebody starts picking up money. What happens when somebody's rich and you're not? You get greedy," observes Kurup.
"That's why we chose the title Fragile Alliance for it. It's not an alliance which always breaks at a specific point. It's based on your human nature, how greedy or loyal you are, and how much you really want to win."
The game's other multiplayer mode is a lot more traditional. It's co-op play on a vertical splitscreen, with one player as Kane and the other as Lynch. There are some interesting twists on the single player game; for example, the player controlling Lynch is shown the world as he sees it. So if Lynch is hallucinating you might see every character on the screen turn into a police officer, or suddenly sprout pigs' heads - while Kane will continue to see the world as it really is.

The splitscreen works fine but Kane & Lynch seems ideally suited to an online co-op mode - so why isn't there one? According to an Eidos representative, it's down to the high technical level of the single player game and the fact that so much is always happening on screen; there are more than 1000 NPCs running around some areas, for example. "That wouldn't work on co-op over the Internet because you'd have to track where each of these 1000 people were, where every bullet was," the rep explains. "It just wouldn't look great."
The question is whether Fragile Alliance is good enough to make up for the lack of an online co-op mode, and the answer could well be yes. It's certainly full of original ideas and interesting dynamics, and it certainly causes people to swear a lot. Having only had the chance to play one map it's hard to make a definitive call at this point, but good on IO for trying to do something different here, and it will be very interesting to see how well it succeeds.
You may also like...
-
Why Can't Games Do Sex?
-
Dear Esther Review
-
UFC Undisputed 3 Review
-
Girl Vader stars in Kinect Star Wars trailer
-
Assassin's Creed 3, Splinter Cell: Retribution coming this year?
-
Metal Gear Online to be switched off in June
-
Mojang won't sue FortressCraft dev, "bored" by Minecraft clones
-
Total War: Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai gameplay
-
Will there be a PS3 version of The Witcher 2?
-
If I Were in a Sealed Room With a Girl, I'd Probably XXX trailer
-
Motorola Xoom 2 Tablet Reviews
-
Eurogamer.net Podcast #100: Ellie returns! And we filmed it!
-
App of the Day: Candy Train
-
PlayStation Vita trailer launches new Sony campaign
-
Remedy discusses Alan Wake 2
-
Darksiders 2 release date announced
-
Only Modern Warfare 3 made more money than Skyrim in 2011
-
Happy Action Theater Review
-
Mass Effect 3 teaser trailer invades Earth
-
Resistance: Burning Skies PS Vita release date
-
Wii RPG Pandora's Tower release date
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
Project Draco's final name is Crimson Dragon
-
Skullgirls trailer features Nurse Valentine
-
Infinity Blade's Chair: "we're in the golden age of gaming"









Comments (36) Latest comment 4 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Also, no online co-op? Boo, and indeed, hiss. Very disappointing.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
/sigh.
As supposed to what exactly? The traditional hero? The quite, brooding, troubled hero? The scarred hero with the "untapped potential" (that will get maximised during game time)? The silent but deadly hero who doesn't talk much, but kills more? The gruff, hard-talking hero? The witty, mouthy, in-your-face one?
As King Solomon once said, "There's nothing new under the sun".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I intentionally don't know much about the game and have avoided the preview, but from the little I know, it's a fairly "realistic" heist setting in the style of Heat - which is pretty much unique, and about bloody time someone did it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I wasn't making a comment about originality I'm really not sure how you read it that way.
@UncleLou
Come to think it, you are spot on. I really can't think of another game that has tried something like that.
/complaint retracted
Comment below viewing threshold Show
That's disappointing, as it's the version I'll most likely go for.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Which is all to the good, as fellow-tasering and subsequent magnum bullets to the face are part and parcel of SWAT 4 co-op.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
As for the possibility of playing with people I don't know... I don't mind competing against complete strangers but, in all honesty, the only time I've fired up Crackdown and played with someone I didn't know... it was an extremely bizarre and unsettling experience.
Firstly, I was a bit embarrassed, like it was some kind of awkward blind date and just sat in hesitant silence waiting for him to initiate things.
Secondly, he was French.
Thirdly, the first thing he said was, "Are you rubbing your balls?"
Split screen all the way.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The problem for me and my friends the characters often a with is that the only two choices of leading character in most western-produced games today is either some bad guy, but at least with some backstory, or a soldier with no personality at all (except the ability to deliver one-liners that sounds like they belong in some bad 80's action-movie).
If the gameplay is good enough I can usually manage to play through a game with uniteresting or unsympathic characters, but the friends I play co-op with absolutly refuses to play games with the typical macho-characters (Gears of war, Halo for example). So for the moment we are stuck with playing Ghost Recon and Rainbow 6 since the characters doesn't say anything in co-op.
In my opinion asian action-games usually have much better characters , but they very seldom have co-op in their games.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If that's true, it's a total deal breaker. No chance for tension, strategy, alliances or betrayal. And how much time will you get as a cop? 30 seconds? O_o
Will be way too frantic.
Should be either selectable, or as long as it takes, even at the risk of some folks sitting out for a while (hey, you got two lives!).
A game with complex bank vaults needing teamwork to break into, before an inevitable alarm trip summons the cops and a shootout escape would be great. Would mean you had options of needing to keep people alive for keys or needing a given number of people, or if they had specific skills. Or shooting the muppet who tripped the alarm. Or deliberately tripping the alarm to trap people. Ah well.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
No, it's not. You could do exactly that in the Conflict: games. It's not new.
And that excuse for no co-op is bullshit. RealtimeWorlds did it on Crackdown and they'll do it again on APB.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"200 seconds per game? 3 and a half minutes??? If that's true, it's a total deal breaker...."
I read in another hands on preview, that the host of the game should be able to set the time limit for the mission, between 3 to 7 minutes. I don't know if this changes things for you.
Anyways looks very promising game IMO. Only problem is that (if I'm not mistaken) the release date is very close to that of Mass Effect.
If this is the case I probably will go for the later first...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It... doesn't sound that interesting.
Fragile Alliance, however, does. Real shame about the lack of online co-op, though.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
omg
police, police.... to!?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It's not an excuse for no online co-op but simply the truth. Your comparison with Crackdown is poor at best because the latter was not a good game and is nothing like K&L at all. RTW is not 5 minutes from my house but I can still admit when they churn out a substandard title.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Well whoop-de-do for you for living near RTW. So did I when I used to work for them.
If you actually read my comment, I never said Crackdown was any good or made a comparison with it to K&L at all, I just pointed out that it overcame the limitations of lots of NPC's and bullets all synchronised across Xbox live. Which IO are saying they can't do.
My dig at the weapon sharing was more aimed at the reviewer as it's nothing new or particularly interesting, so I see no reason why he mentions it as being so.
I actually have great respect for IO as Hitman 1+2 were awesome games, as was Freedom Fighters. However, Hitman started to slip after Silent Assasin and the latest one (the one you love I believe) was unfortunatly an incomplete last gen title.
My guess with K&L is that IO could have put the co-op in but they have run out of time from the publisher. Or they just never planned it at all, which is fair enough as I don't see any reason why co-op is a must have if the single player is good, but now people are asking they are coming up with excuses
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Couldn't disagree more - Blood Money was - by far - the best Hitman game yet for me. They managed to keep up the brilliant level/puzzle design that the other Hitman games only had at best half of the time throughout the whole game, always giving the player a ton of alternatives how to approach a level, while the older games often forced you to find the one, obscure solution (unless you wanted to take the Rambo-approach). I always had a love/hate relationship with the Hitman series because the games were half brilliant, half average, but they managed to almost completely eradicate the flaws of the earlier games in BM.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Crackdown never really had that many enemies on screen at once. Under 100 pretty consistently. The article talks of up to 1000.
Crackdown was also a great game. You lot are mental
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Anyway there are all sorts of optimisations you can apply to having that many NPC's on screen, the one's in the distance can be pretty much ignored as they don't really affect you, so you can give them nearly zero AI time on the CPU. Also, as computers are deterministic, if you syncronise up your two consoles before you start they will both generate the same sequence of random numbers and hence both scenarios will play out exactly the same anyway.
Do you think when you're playing an RTS game with hundreds of units all over the place all firing thousands of bullets that each bullet location is sent to the other player every frame? No. They are syncronised at the start so both produce the same results.
Blood Money wasn't crap, but it was just an Xbox game with high res textures and a bit of normal mapping. Some of the level design was really good, they just didn't polish it at all.
Comment below viewing threshold Show