Talk:Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Game engine

Like in most Wikipedia articles about games, some additional info about the engine in the infobox would be preferred, if such information is available. - 83.108.194.103 (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the engine , This has been confirmed that it uses there in-house engine 'Glacier Engine'. Probably a highly modified version of the Kane & Lynch build of it. 99.185.54.172 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

I have the reference to the IGN 7/10 review here. WhiplashInferno (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second too with the Giant Bomb review by Jeff Gerstmann. [1] I would also want to expand the reception section with quotes. The Phantomnaut (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've lowered the protection to semi. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

This section needs major cleanup. Adding all of these scores (especially from non-notable sites) with their scores are messy looking.The Phantomnaut (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC) someone should drop the whole Yahtzee review as his reviews are meant to be rather negative anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.219.145 (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC) - So if a reviewer is known for having a bad temper it no longer counts as a review? An odd concept. You cant pretend someone is not culturally relevant because they are grumpy. Besides, he points out precisely what he dislikes about the game.[reply]

90's

The article says the game takes place in the 90's, but no refrence is made to the date in game, so I suggest deleting the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.107.60 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A whole section dedicated to Ben Croshaws Opinion?

I deleted a section of Reception that consisted entirely of Yahtzee's review of K&L2, because he's not the only person who reviews video games on the Internet, and the it isn't exactly indicative of public reception to the game on the whole --Ryushi (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryushi (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be mentioned. Maybe not an entire section but he very clearly hated it and it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.202.203 (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"mixed reviews"

Under "Reception" the game was said to receive "mixed reviews". However it then only lists what seem to be very negative reviews. It does not mention anyone saying anything good about it. Elsewhere too it seems to be considered a bad game. I think it would be safe to change this to "negative reviews" or "mostly negative reviews" if someone can find a positive review of the game. It seems to recieve around 60% or 3/5 which although it doesn't sound that bad but is very low in when compared with any other releases recently reviewed by the same websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.27.189 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160215213905/http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/view/reviews2/98037-Kane-Lynch-2-Dog-Days-Review to http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/view/reviews2/98037-Kane-Lynch-2-Dog-Days-Review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]