Talk:Kane & Lynch: Dead Men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kane & Lynch: Dead Men article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Son's Name

In one part of the article (Under Kane) Kane's son's name is given as Stephen. Under Jenny his name is given as Timothy. Neither name is referenced. Is the son's name known? If so, why do we not have this corrected and referenced? If not, why are we making things up? 151.213.117.113 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GameSpot Controversy

I'd like to mention that while the reasons for the firing of Gerstmann may be unconfirmed, the effect it has had on the industry is tangible. The GameSpot review has certainly caused people to question the validity of online reviews and the review for this game caused that. I think at least a link should be provided instead of ignoring the issue completely in the article. 66.42.141.5 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Dan

[edit] Lynch

Does he have hair or is he bald?--EveryDayJoe45 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) they both have hair one has long and the other has short

Kane has hair but he's missing a lot on top. The photo I think you're reffering to is the original promo shot of the duo (where they're surroundfed by falling money). Lynch has a lot less hair than later designs (the back of his head is obscured to tell by how much) and he's of a heavier build compared to his final design. Kane is much older and thinner on top too. I'm guessing IO made them both younger by about 10 years for some demographic reason after this picture was released. Kimdealslover 18:38, 21 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimdealslover (talk • contribs)

[edit] Possible Release Date?

On steam on upcoming games it's listed as 'October 2007' which is assumed that you can buy it over the internet. I'd put it on the main details but since it's a digital purchase, I don't know the exact date or if it's even before that. Still, a point to consider. 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Dusk Till Dawn?

Does anyone else see parallels to the main characters in the film From Dusk Till Dawn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.121.65 (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly. They're entirely too different. Even the subject matter is totally different; One's a vampire survival whilst the other is to get money back. 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Trouble

"In the IO video game Hitman: Blood Money, one of the after mission newspapers mentions Kane and Lynch, though their names are different." Explain this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.26.193 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After completing 'Death of a Showman' and 'A House of Cards', on the front page of the newspaper is an article about 'two death row inmates' who escape their prison transport. They're called Adam Marcus and 'Mr. Little' in the articles and are described as 'a notorious mercenary, rumoured to be a member of "The 7"' and 'an unstable and heavily-medicated psychopath', respectively. Hope that clarifies everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.154.44 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And Adam Marcus is apperently Kanes real name, as evidenced by the dossiers on the official homepage.DannyBoy2k 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Are Kane and Lynch talking about the Hitman game in the trailer? They're talking about STEALING CARS and enjoying the LAST THREE GAMES and how Lynch can't wait for the NEXT ONE. I think it's more likely they're talking about Grand Theft Auto 4 (Stealing cars, next one, etc..), and the previous three (GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas?).24.86.144.101 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it really relevant? That trailer is most likely not canon, since the voice of Lynch is NOT Michael Ironside.DannyBoy2k 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, the voice of Lynch is not Michael Ironside. The voice actors are all listed in the manual and he is not there. 66.28.71.162 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Trivia Trouble

In the trivia section, there is this: "This is yet more evidence that SCI/Eidos's games are being adversely affected as they have one eye on the prospect of a future movie franchise." That's not impartial... --AndyboyH 08:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] keifer sutherland?

it says that sutherland is the voice of Lynch, where exactly was this information aquired? I'm pretty sure that he isn't the voice actor, this needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofattendance (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online Multiplayer

The November 2007 issue of Game Informer magazine, page 116, discusses online game play.YakoHako 15:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Online Co-op

I don't believe the part about online co-op being dropped "at the last minute" is accurate, I recall that they've been saying it would be offline only since last year. Unless there is a source or a consensus I'm not aware of, this claim should be removed. 66.28.71.162 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fragile Alliance Maps

Please do not remove without further discussion. The section is purely a description of gameplay and content, containing no editorial information. There is no "strategy" to be found in the section. Such descriptions may exist in strategy guides but certainly would not be exclusive. I am not aware of any embargo against such descriptive information. 66.28.71.162 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and discussions thereof. Lists of levels are generally not included because they have no value to the reader who may never play the game. --MASEM 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Sketchy and randomly enforced guidelines at best, but sure, let's have less information. End of my part of the discussion, do what you will. 66.28.71.162 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming vandalism...

I predict vandalism to this page in the coming days, if you don't know why I predict this then just go over to Gamespot and its page right now and you'll see what I mean. If it starts up here I would lock this article for protection, many internet users like to think they're cool or important when they're just abusing wiki. Just a heads up. Stabby Joe 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt to mention the link though. But keep it vague enough that it's clear the article isn't saying which way it went, but merely that Eidos and Gamespot are involved in a controversy over the review. 71.17.158.178 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether the controversy is mentioned or not. All I'm CLEARLY saying is I can see (and have seen) more vandalism in which this article needs to be protected against... which is now has. Stabby Joe 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no mention of Gamespot's review?

Regardless of any controversies, Gamespot is usually listed in the "Reception" section of most video game articles. The lack of mentioning Gamespot's review could be misinterpreted as POV, especially towards those familiar with the controversy. ShadowUltra 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The review can be mentioned as part of the critical reception - but the Gerstmann controversy issue should not be mentioned since its been (only) stated that the review has nothing to do with the firing. However, it is not necessary to include a Gamespot review in every video game article - only if it adds sufficient critical responses beyond what is already provided - lacking Gamespot's review really isn't a POV issue as long as more than one review is quoted. --MASEM 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you fire Gerstmann? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.2.37 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Gerstmann controversy should be here. It is directly linked to this game and hiding it from people is unjust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakeasyfreespeaker (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's firing should not be mentioned in this article. It has to do more with Eidos advertising rather than the game.-- Coasttocoast 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be, this should be a shining beacon of firing over editorial opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.214.234 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the primary reason why such should not be YET added is due to the fact that there has not yet been any confirmation of Eidos's involvement in this. Second, the article is about the game itself, not about editorial opinion, not about the publisher, and not about the relationship between a publisher and a media. If you really want to mention this event, go to the Gamespot article in which is currently locked due to the fact that there is no clear confirmation. However, even if there is news that confirms any rumors, only a small mention should be noted, not a paragraph or sub-section (that would go to Gamespot's article). --BirdKr 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's important, add it. Just like Manhunt 2, this game needs its story told. Doshindude 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur with BirdKr. This is an encyclopedia not a rumor mill. It isn't going to seriously hurt this article by waiting a week or two for the events to play out and the information to become reliable. Cheers.--Burzum 05:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreement here too. Again, right now the most official word, from CNET (owner of Gamespot) has stated they don't fire employees for giving bad reviews, so there's no confirmed connection between this game and his firing - only wild speculation. --MASEM 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The fictional backround of the characters in the game is the epitome of trivia, the Gerstmann controversy on the other hand is the epitome of notability. I am disgusted to see paragraph after paragraph on the former and no mention of the latter. In fact, the only reason the game is notable at all is specifically because of the Gerstmann controversy and it does a diservice to the readers of wikipedia to exclude any mention of it. Simply mention the controvery is speculation, and once discredited from a reliable source update the information about the controvery as discredited. Regardless of the unconfirmed status of the information that the Gerstmann stories are based on, the controversy is very real and is getting media attention, and more importantly it's all rooted in the release of this game.Windkin 08:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The whole controversy has been widely reported. It's the only reason I have actually heard of the game. It should be mentioned as the game is an inseperable part of the story. Clearly it needs to be put into context however. 77.100.107.56 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
yup i wouldn't have heard of this game without the controversy over the firing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.171.147 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. This is an encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be updated immediately, but when it is updated it has to be correct. There is no need to publish a lot of speculation when we can simply wait a couple of days and see if it all clears up. Do not start an edit war on this due to an unnecessary sense of urgency.--Burzum 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't too clear. I don't care if there's no mention of Gerstmann. I was just wondering why the sentence "Gamespot gave the game a 6.0" can't be put in. There's no mention of Gerstmann, no mention of controversy, just the score a major website gave the game. ShadowUltra 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted, sorry for any misunderstandings. There is now a mention of Gamespot's score of the game along with a mention of the controversy. Once the article of Gamespot is unlocked with the controversy written, I will add a link that will direct to such section.--BirdKr 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to add GS without mention or indication of that controversy then do the following: list it in th emiddle of reception, don't say the score is low and add something major that was said about a certain aspect of the game. This formular is what improves articles. I've done so and all that needs to be done is citations. Stabby Joe 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's also something else 'bout Gamespot's review that should be mentionned: The fact that it went through significant edits after Jeff got fired. Pikawil (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caught lying about review scores?

Should a mention of this controversy be noted here? http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/kane--lynch-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php Between the Gerstmann firing and now this, I do feel that at least some mention should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.142.148 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Perhaps a "controversy" section might be added? Also, I separated this comment from the Gamespot controversy, since it is technically a separate issue. MatttK 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added a section for this trying to keep it unbiased. This may be non-notable, however. --MASEM 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is worth noting. There's a fairly large controversy and backlash over the game. I don't doubt that in 5 years, the controversy will be the only thing the game is remembered for. You can find another original post about the fabricated scores: http://www.gamebump.com/go/official_kane_and_lynch_website_lies_about_its_scores --hack 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a total non-issue. Those stars have been there since forever, and have never meant anything until recently when various sources decried it as a score indicator. I remember PC Zone getting pissed off at Daikatana, because they included an outdated quote on the box art when in reality, they trashed the game. It might be Eidos again, but let's keep this in context, this is an absolute non-issue. - hahnchen 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
One person can decide what's an issue now? There are many people upset by this, and I dont see how "those stars have been there since forever" is an excuse, and I doubt that "recently various sources decried it as a score indicator," when you put five stars next to a favorable quote, what are people supposed to think? That the stars are just there for looks, and there happens to be five of them? It's clearly an attempt at manipulation, a lot of people called them on it, and they changed it. It's an event, so it may be worth noting. Your simple dismissal of it doesn't reflect the world at large. -01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) --Asriel (talk)
I totally agree. It was clearly a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Perhaps it was only noticed because of the other ongoing controversy but I would still say that it is worth mentioning, given the other Gamespot issues. I would say the controversy section should be expanded (keeping the info that is there already) to include the Gamespot info once the dust has settled and we have a better idea of what exactly has happened. MatttK (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The world at large still believes that Gerstmann was fired for the K&L review and not just for being incompetent. You think this article should reflect that? Given that every sourced statement says he wasn't, and Gerstmann's silence on this? If he was fired for the K&L review, if he was pressed on to inflate scores, then the statements GameSpot have released since then have been libel. It's in Gerstmann's interest to fight that, he hasn't. GameBump, given their most recent K&L article, still believe that putting preview quotes on the website is some sort of crime against humanity. They seem to forget that it's done by every published on pretty much every game. Not all events are worth noting, this trivial issue, isn't. - hahnchen 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Since we are talking about the "Critical reception" section of the article, it is completely relevant what people think. Years from now, all people will remember about this mediocre game is that there was a huge controversy around it. I think the article should include the details of the controversy, regardless of the outcome. MatttK (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue - given the coverage it's getting it plainly warrants coverage. Likewise [1] MrZaiustalk 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Gamespot's Discussion Page to learn why some of us have reservations of mentioning this. In a nutshell, since it's an unconfirmed rumor that is not notable by itself, the incident does not warrant a mention. People get outraged all the time, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to note it: Wikipedia is not a new media, but an encyclopedia--BirdKr (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. I agree that "unconfirmed rumors" typically shouldn't be included on Wikipedia, but it's a fact that the Kane and Lynch website posted clearly deceitful "scores". This is separate from the Gamespot issues, which probably shouldn't be included in this article at this time. TheUncleBob (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
We must consider that the stars may have been decorative only. Unless Eidos themselves admit that they aren't decorative, we must do no harm. Will (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what the creator of the website may or may not have intended (reminder, the website may not have been created by Eidos, but by an outside advertising agency), it's clearly a *fact* that the design of the page was misleading. We may not be able to comment on the motives behind the misleading five-star decorations, but we can comment on the fact that advertising approved by Eidos included "5-star" graphics along side quotes from gaming websites that did not give the game a "5-Star" review. There is nothing untruthful about such a statement. TheUncleBob (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Decorative only?" Excuse me, what? Even if that was the case (and it isn't), it would be so misleading and unusual that it would be worth a mention. Whether Eidos admits that they attempted to mislead consumers is completely irrelevant. If they do so, well, no problem, but even if they don't (and why would they?), not mentioning the fact that their website was grossly misleading and that a game reviewer who criticized the game on an influential gaming website that Eidos heavily advertised on got fired is a serious disservice to anyone trying to read about the game. These incidents can and should be covered in an NPOV manner, obviously, but not even mentioning that such controversy exists isn't going to make a good encyclopedia article, but an inherently biased one that doesn't even attempt to be comprehensive. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone please...

Hi, could someone please clarify who is Kane and who is Lynch in the image? Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kane is the one with the patch on his nose (hes the traitor) and Lynch is the one with the glasses (hes the medicated phsychopath). --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What, no Jeff Gertsmann mention?

In the user review page of Gamespot the game is recieving historical bad reviews in protest for Gerstmann firing; a whooping 74% Abysmal rating, that is, a rating of 1/10 for a game that is brand new [2], while sites like SomethingAwful have already wrote about it [3], not to mention the blog/forum activity this news been having (and of course online computer pages [4], [5], [6]). So with all that in mind, why is it that the only 2 sites on the internet that refuse to talk about it are Gamespot and Wikipedia?, to my knoledge wikipedia doesnt have to answer to advertisers, yet for some reasson because of a handful of misguided wikipedians who believe the controversy doesnt belong here (i havent heard a single good reasson for it), the issue is not even mentioned, almost as if it never happened, yet the controversy could not exist without Gamespots controversial review of the game, which strangely (but hilariously) was also censored here at one point.200.83.56.253 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia must be based on verifiable information; the only verification that has been stated about the game relative to the incident is that both CNET and Gamespot have stated that the review was not the reason for the firing. Since any other information is speculation, it is not appropriate to mention it relative to this game. There are more details at Jeff Gerstmann on this, but for the most part, there is nothing that can be added to this article relating to that that is verifiable and not original research. --MASEM 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt really matter if the events indeed happened that way, or if it was in fact because of the review in question (Gertsmann has stated that it was because of a review that he cant discuss about), because in all honesty this whole case is about anything BUT that, the fact is that you have hundreds of gamers out there already blaming Eidos and taking it out on Kane & Lynch within the same Gamespot page, now thats a fact that will have to be adressed in time, when the fan response grows big enough to inflict upon the game sales or who knows what else. What is verifiable so far is the huge repercution that the case has had (the enormous Abysmal ratings on gamespot, and the ridiculous amount of bad reviews the site has been deleting all day long) is already out there and gamers are already linking it to the game.200.83.56.253 (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
--------------
It's is a VERIFIABLE fact that there is a huge controversy caused by the gamespot review of THIS game. The controversy itself does not mention a major section in this game's page, but it's gamespot review clearly does warrant a mention, and if the review is being mentioned then a quick historical note regarding the controversy's existence fits right in. The controversy itself is a MAJOR story and issue in the Gaming Industry with wide and in-depth (Gaming Industry) media coverage.
It is impossible without travelling back in time or obtaining access to corporate secrets to conclude with 100% certainty what the absolute facts are. To remain neutral, we must simply state both sides of the controversy and provide relevant references. This has been done and should remain as it currently is. CraigWyllie (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If it would be a theory by an editor of wikipedia, it wouldn't belong here, but there allready is a kind of "Gerstenmann-afair" in the corresponding media now and that has to be mentioned as has to be allowed to mention. 91.64.121.93 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to satisfy those that want it, I feel that it is fair to mention as a footnote about Gerstmann with pointing to the Gerstmann article to provide more details. K&L the game has very little to do with the issue and thus should not be given any significant detail in the text. --MASEM 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Fighters?

I've (again, after someone removed it) added a fact tag to the Freedom Fighters reference, freedom fighters is a common phrase and unless someone can some up with a reference of it being a reference to their previous game, it shouldn't be there as it's probably original research. Rehevkor (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The symbol on Kane's wrist

The symbol on Kane's wrist is NOT the ICA symbol from Hitman, it is the symbol of The 7. Could someone remove the trivia saying that the symbol is the one from Hitman. Thanks

[edit] voice actor for Lynch?

I already know that Kane is voiced by Brian Bloom but I don't know who voices Lynch. If somebody knows, please tell me!

Look for it somewhere else. Wikipedia isn't a forum, which is asserted by the top template. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Klyptyzm, I'm sorry I just wanted to know who it was so we could add it to the article. I also want to know if someone could add that Kane was voiced by Brian Bloom please. --69.124.58.112 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameSpot incident - Act II - other sites

The is no need to elaborate about the subject too much, I agree, but just pushing it into the ref is too little. Several sites and communities has rebelled because of this story. The thing is, it's not just about GameSpot, but very much against the game itself, as can be seen in this far to extreme site in which they actualy burn(!) the game[7]. If this not worth mentioning, then what is? Tsar User 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a highly opinionated self-published site. For comparison, the site "paypalsucks.com" isn't mentioned in the article Paypal, only what happened to SA. Will (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't realy fight the 'sps', except by saying - it ain't me and I don't know these guys (and frankly think they have a bit too much time on their hands). The thing is, I see it a part of the critical acclaim (or lack of it) for the game. The site itself is indeed opinionated - that's realy the point. Now, it dosen't matter to me whether or not this particular site is actualy mentioned (though I do think it serves a good example for the ref.), but why not the text? It dosen't matter for the text if the editor was fired because of this or not, but it did cause several shock waves which did rebounded and have an actual affect on the game. Tsar User 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it isn't your site; I'm just saying, we should really only use reliable sources; in terms of reviews and criticism, sites like IGN and Gamespot. With regards to Gerstmann's firing, Kane & Lynch and Eidos had nothing to do with it. We should limit that to the articles of Gerstmann and Gamespot. Will (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I agree there's two problems with this: the first that the controversy (or what little there is of it now) is confirmed to be only between Gerstmann and Gamespot; K&L is not the proper place to do into details, though as I note, I think a footnote to K&L is appropriate. The other aspect is that if K&L are getting terrible reviews post-Gerstmanngate, then there needs to be reliable sources to talk about that. A site called "kaneandlynchsucks.com" by name alone is likely not reliable and reviewing the content certainly confirms that. If there was more reliable coverage of this, then it could be added, but I haven't seen any (in fact, I think Gerstmanngate is no longer a major issue any more). --MASEM 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Gerstmanngate might have dwindle down, I don't realy know nor care, and yet I do see the critical phenomenon which seeded anti-K&L sites is worth mentioning, not withstanding the truth about Gerstman's firing - it has nothing to do with it. As said before, the kaneandlynchsucks.com is just one, highly extreme manifastation of this, and was brought as example. Other examples were already linked to in the above posts re Gerstmanngate. While of course established sites as GameSpot and so on should get a higher regard than amamateur sites, but if there are many of the latter - that should be here as well. 83.130.247.58 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A string a user-created websites based on an event would follow the same reasoning why we require a high level of notability for internet memes. If we went by a low standard, any web-site with a concerted fanbase could likely orchestrate an approach to get a very non-notable topic onto Wikipedia by having users create the buzz around it. Whether in jest or in serious anger over something, it needs more than just the large existance of such sites to be worth mention. --MASEM 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The reliability of these sites is in serious question, trying to state it is notable ("which seeded anti-K&L sites") due to the number of these sites is original research, and even though they exist, we have to consider Wikipedia:Undue_weight.--BirdKr (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't a forum but I have to say this is an extremely great game and should get way more recognition. By the way, can someone add that Kane is voiced by Brian Bloom. == --69.124.58.112 (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameTrailers

Why is their obviously bought score of "9.0/10" in this article? 212.147.119.42 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First off its 8.0 not 9.0 and that alone already exposes the already obvious fact you're a troll. Game Trailers is a respectable well known source. Such theories and opinions of yours areinvalid here. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lynch looks like Sam Fisher

Is it just me, or Lynch's face is almost exactly like that of Sam Fisher from the Splinter Cell series? Just compare Fisher's look from Double Agent and a bald Lynch. I personally think that Lynch's face was modelled after Sam's. 86.121.44.122 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just you. :P SplinterCell37 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need Images

No seiriously, I wasn't sure who was who for a short time. Don't just tell me who's who, I'm pretty sure others are curious, and this is an atricle which I feel needs appropiate imagery, if not just one picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.168.202 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Eidos' terms and conditions prohibit distribution of their content. If anyone can find something else, I'm all for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SplinterCell37 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)