to join the CVG community. Not a member yet? Join now!

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days

We talk to Kim Kroch about breaking the multiplayer mould

Kane and Lynch didn't exactly set the world on fire, and many people are probably wondering if shaky cam styling is enough to make the sequel do any better.

One way in which Kane and Lynch does bring something new to the table, however, is in its multiplayer modes. You won't find a deathmatch option anywhere and that's something IO Interactive game director Kim Krogh is particularly proud of.

We talked to Krogh about moving on from Kane and Lynch 1, refreshing the multiplayer market and violence in general. We like violence.

After Kane and Lynch what was the feeling amongst the development staff, and what made you want to go for a second?


That was two large questions all in one!

You can split them. Two answers is fine.

I think we all felt that we had a very different game going on, we had very different characters we had a different take on a shooter. We knew there was a lot of stuff we had to improve on and we took all the critique we could collect and looked at it and took it very seriously.

At the same time we felt there was a part of the story we hadn't even gotten into yet and that was Lynch's story, so we definitely wanted to continue working on the game and telling his story.

We felt that we had the opposite story almost still to tell. We evolved the style and feeling of the game around that and at the same time we knew there was a lot of stuff we had to improve. I think we definitely did improve all of the critique points.

The main talking point of the sequel is the whole Youtube styling and that's been carried over to the multiplayer as well. Is it to the same extent as the single player? Were there any problems with that in multiplayer or was the transition a smooth one?

The transition didn't go smoothly no. Multiplayer is a bit different. You don't want areas that are too dark, you don't want the camera to move too much. You don't want any interference at all when you're playing multiplayer.

So right from the beginning we did a ton of user tests, we brought in new testers every second week and we looked at the core areas from the beginning making sure that the camera was never in your way. We didn't want that in the single player either so our mantra in the team was, "If it works in multiplayer, it works."

So we had that as a main goal: "It needs to work in multiplayer". We cannot allow the camera to get in your way but we move the camera whenever you move. Whenever you do something we do something with the camera. When you aim we don't do anything with the camera, we don't want to interfere with your game play. The visceral style has been through a lot of iterations to get it right.


So multiplayer was the priority?

No the whole game was a priority but the saying was, "If it works in multiplayer it works."

Multiplayer's becoming more and more important to people. Do you think a game needs a good multiplayer mode to be successful these days?

Not necessarily but yes I think it's getting more and more important. But I do also see games putting out a multiplayer just to have it and I think that will definitely change, it is changing and it will change even more.

I think we have to grow up with the multiplayer and provide new experiences. That was at least my goal with this from the beginning - to not do a deathmatch. I knew I had to do more game modes for this game but I didn't want to go to the classics. I wanted to build on the core and give players new experiences.

  1 2