User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 194 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 66 out of 194

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 4, 2013
    4
    Na prvi pogled odlično, međutim kako igra odmiče otkriva se sve više bugova.
    Pokušalo se sa raznovrsnosti misija, međutim nije se uspjelo.............
  2. Jul 4, 2012
    0
    How can you give TEN to this? I mean, plot is not so bad, gameplay is passable, but the game time is too short, and it only relies on endless try-retry sessions in almost impossible fights. I'm happy I only spent 2 euros for this, that's the money it is worth.
  3. Apr 18, 2012
    3
    A mediocre game with a few good moments. The poorly implemented "Games For Windows" is forced on you. This feels like a bad console port. If you want some unremarkable violence and can get it for under £3, then its ok.
  4. Apr 17, 2011
    1
    The characters in the game are interesting, and i feel like compleating the game, only to get the story, but i cant. The gameplay simply suck... It is really really bad. Not what you would expect.
Metascore
67

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 24
  2. Negative: 1 out of 24
  1. Though somewhat let down by its combat, Kane & Lynch is still well worth a play, even if it's just for the cinematic feel of the levels, the refreshingly different characters and the excellent multiplayer. [Christmas 2007, p.66]
  2. The right combination of gameplay elements and design decisions make Kane and Lynch easy to recommend to crime junkies and anyone who enjoys a little therapeutic videogame violence. A well-executed plot really makes the game, while the multiplayer additions add replay value and variety.
  3. Kane & Lynch is more "Freedom Fighters" than "Hitman", so it should appeal to action junkies looking for their next fix. [Dec 2007, p.67]