To say Io Interactive's Kane & Lynch 2 looks distinctive would be an understatement. In fact, there are few games that look quite like it. Its action is depicted as if filmed with a handheld camera and posted on YouTube (at 720p resolution, naturally), complete with shake, visual noise, flares extending from bright light sources, and a tendency to break up into artefacted pieces as you get injured. The effects combine to create a remarkably effective sense of place and being right there in the action. In fact, it looks so credible that Io has pixelated nudity and headshot wounds.
We spoke with game director Karsten Lund about his game's break with the usual glossy Hollywood depiction of reality, its roots in Danish art film, and the dangers of depicting violence with hyper-real graphics.
Why did you employ this style of – what would you call it - realism?
Realism, believability - it has many names. The first goal was to create an intense and unique experience. I think that intensity comes in believing and immersing yourself. We wanted to come up with a new technique for achieving that, and if you want to come up with a new way of doing such a thing you have to look where other people aren't looking. So we decided to change our frame of reference, moving away from games and away from Hollywood, stuff like that.
At the same time we made some tests to play around with firstperson shooters and we walked around Copenhagen with a camera and some actors, and we filmed lots of streets, their buildings and lighting in daytime and night time. Once we caught all that footage we realised it was pretty cool by itself - it had a sort of visual signature that we really liked. We realised it looked just like amateurs making movies, which was what we were. And that opens up a whole new realm of believability that we wanted to go forward and work with.
Karsten Lund has been credited on many of Io's games, including Freedom Fighters, on which he was lead animator
Did it also tie in with the Kane and Lynch characters, in that they have a rough and ready approach to things?
Yes, that's part of it - it really relates to them. The whole genre and feeling of the game could hold it. It would look weird in a horse-riding game, but it really fits this particular franchise. We try to be right on the edge of what you can do, and I think the previous game did that. We try not to be afraid of taking a risk.
How did you apply this concept to the game itself?
We tried to make locations look and feel unlike your usual game. We try to keep this way of working in everything we do, that story, location, video, dialogue, characters and everything are pointing in the same direction. It's what makes everything gel and become more than the sum of its parts. We needed to be mindful of that all the time. For example, when we wanted to do a cutscene that looked like CCTV footage, we stopped and said no - never do that. Every scene in the game must look like handheld footage. Even when CCTV could 'work' for a scene where we it looked as if action was being watched, we decided against it. We want the same feel in everything we do, that's how we keep control of every aspect of the mechanics.
Did you ever find that achieving this believability put more pressure on the artists to create more credible places?
You could call it pressure or you could call it creative boundaries. I think it's important to have some sort of boundary to work creatively. Creativity is like a muscle that has to be flexed. You need something to work up against. Not that I'm saying it's easy to create artwork for games - it's not - but boundary conditions help the artists answer the question of what they should include and what they should leave out. It gave direction and meant there were different choices that needed to be made, and it was kind of liberating for them. I think they could go in one direction much further because the road ahead was clear.
We weren't just going for 'just do this or that as polished and photorealistic as you can'. We were going for a different kind of beautiful - or even ugly, if you like! It's not the beautiful parts of the city, but it's not ugly to look at. We're trying to do our own interpretation of what we experienced in Shanghai, instead of a one-to-one carbon copy. For instance, we went to one high-tech building where one elevator was out of order, but it was filled with cardboard and building material because it was being used as a storage room. It had a real contrast to the surrounding look and feel of the marble floors and so on, so we wanted to emphasise that. So though you might have a shining neon lit skyscraper, right next door there could be rubble or ruins that makes you feel like you're in the Second World War or something. It's about working with the contrasts.
Do you think that if you hadn't chosen Shanghai as inspiration, then the visual interest and stark contrasts would have been more difficult to achieve?
We definitely made it easier for ourselves by choosing Shanghai. We wanted to keep the storytelling local, and I think Shanghai was one of the most diverse places we could have chosen. All they have to do is ride around on a minibus and drop off at another location. Every cellphone is built in Shanghai due to its cheap technology. This occurs alongside broken ruins and charcoal tea kitchens - it totally fits the new genre and the whole style of the game we're creating. That really worked out for us.
Did you ever have any concerns about creating such a realistic style and then making a violent game with it?
I have to admit that I didn't think that it would work that well! I'm happy that it did, and I don't think you see too much or anything. You're probably going to think that when you see the full game it's a lot worse than what you've seen so far, but I think we are playing with people's imaginations, in that we're not showing them every single pixel of what's going on. The human mind is capable of much more than the game artist is able to depict. It's more like a cop show in that if someone gets shot in the head you don't need to see that in explicit detail.
But the problem with that is that you know that when something isn't shown in detail it's because it's so so awful, and the brain fills in the blanks. So that's probably worse! In that sense, I'm a little surprised by the way people take it - they might say 'that's too much' but there's actually less being shown than a game like God Of War where you're knee deep in blood. That game is cartoony so it's considered fine, but when you make it more realistic you get another reaction. But I don't think we're showing too much - it's in your mind! Nasty thoughts are working.
I do think there is a danger in showing too much. Take Hollywood - you're watching a movie like District 9 which is shot almost like a documentary in places, and you're left thinking 'is this real?' While it's part of the exposition, it also draws you into the world. We're not trying to go beyond any boundaries or make it nasty for the sake of it. We're telling a story.