Mmm, yo diría que no. La historia es bastante cliché y no hay giros importantes. Puedes jugar a Shank 2 sin problemas.
I was sold on the original Shank in about 30 seconds; from seeing the main character linking combos, moving like an acrobat, and grinning in his half-cute/half-sadistically violent yet incredibly clean art style. As long as the developers didn't mess anything big up, the game was going to be fun. And they didn't, and it was.
Having just finished Shank 2, going back to the original feels like playing a prototype of the same game -- it's a bit slower, a few of the buttons are mapped differently, and the art is less detailed, but it's essentially the same thing. To a certain degree, that's expected -- such a comparison would be true for many titles after their sequels release. But in Shank's case the similarities stand out because it feels like the developers took another chance to get things right instead of moving on to big new ideas -- in an attempt to make a better version of the same game. And they did, and it is.
The flipside of that, of course, is that Shank 2 doesn't take a lot of risks or offer a lot of surprises. I suppose it depends how you look at it.
Some would say adding a Survival mode, where two players fend off enemy waves for as long as they can last, feels like something new (at least for Shank). I say it feels like a fixed version of the original's co-op campaign, with the camera permanently zoomed out and tiered platforms so players don't crowd each other.
Some would say adding a new female playable character, who you control for a short portion of the campaign, feels like something new. I say it's one way the developers fixed the original's repetition problem.
Some would say having an original story feels like something new, or at least something that gets the game out of "remake" territory. I say Shank's stories are mostly about wrapping one-liners in pretty artwork, so they don't resonate and feel pretty identical game-to-game.
Wherever you fall on the polish vs. innovation debate, all the polish put into Shank 2 worked wonders. The most noticeable difference is that the controls feel lighter and smoother -- you move more quickly, the developers replaced the block/parry button with an evade roll that keeps you in motion more often and less bogged down by enemies, and your attack animations don't last as long as they used to either. I also love how the combat is challenging in groups, but then easy one-on-one -- providing a nice breather for you to show off on the last enemy in any given room.
Initially I was worried because the developers put evading on the right analog stick ("God of War-style") instead of one of the triggers or bumpers ("Bayonetta-style") so you have to move your thumb from the face buttons to the analog stick every time you want to dodge, but as I played I realized this makes a bigger difference in a 3D game where precision on the analog stick matters a lot more, so it's not a huge issue in a 2D game here.
If you look hard you can find minor things to pick apart -- like how Shank 2 sets you up as this crazy-stylish killing machine who can blend melee combos into gunshots then catch enemies in midair and pound them into the ground, but who can't reach two pixels above his head to attack while jumping or grab a turret without standing in the exact proper position.
But really, the combat and visuals -- which are what Shank has always been about -- have taken big steps forward to the point that I'm not sure the original Shank even needs to exist at this point. Except for historical value, perhaps.
una ventaja de la wiki 
. ![[chulito]](/images/smilies/nuevos/sonrisa_ani2.gif "risa con gafas")
No me importa mucho pero podrían avisar. Me cago en la leche, Merche. 
![[oki]](/images/smilies/net_thumbsup.gif "Ok!")
