"@Jayge

"You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about."

Cite just one example of one game from Valve that is comparable to Killzone 2. Yes, the silence.

Some people can do it, some can't. Are you still waiting for Half-Life episode 3 with a graphic quality from 2004?"

"And BTW, Gabe Newell should stay quiet. His company never produced anything that could ever come close to Killzone 2. I think his problem with the PS3 is a matter of competence, some have it, some don't. Some can do Killzone 2, some simply can't."

@get2sammyb

"Dude I think you're going a bit overboard here. I can't claim to be the biggest Valve or Half-Life fan but I appreciate that numerous (NUMEROUS) gamers cite Half-Life as one of the best defining FPS' (if not games) ever. They can't all be wrong.

That doesn't mean a universe can't exist where both Half Life and Killzone 2 are equally revered FPS'."

I disagree. This is too appeasing. There can only be one at a given time in terms of "the best" (singular). Several companies manage to make big successes, some times Id, some times Epic, etc. They set a new standard in terms of graphics and whatnot, that eventually will be surpassed, but they show it. Words alone aren't enough.

The question is since HL2 the graphics of those games haven't changed much. And at this point in time KZ2 is the best, by far.

Again with the graphics. I'm talking about finely balanced gameplay, attention to detail fleshing out an entire world, competitive and cooperative multiplayer which has stood the test of time, some of the most memorable set pieces and moments in video game history. In my eyes that trumps all the high res textures, lens flare and amount of particles flowing through the envirnoments.

I am anxiously awaiting Killzone 2 and hoping it'll surpass MGS4 as my fave game for my PS3 so don't take this as me hating on that game.
But it's really gonna have to dig deep to surpass what Valve has served us over the last couple of years. And for you to denigrate those games due to the OMG GRAFFYX shows you to have extremely shallow taste.

@TeflonBilly

I think we have different standard then. The only thing that Valve manage to make that pleases me is fun multiplayer. I have spent countless hours with Day of Defeat. The rest? No, no. Half-Life would be better if they actually managed to tell a story without mutilating it into several episodes that have no beginning and no closure. I seriously doubt they know how HL will end. The immersion and tension is also non-existent.

I remember in episode 2, when I was in that cave with those bugs, there was a big bug I had to kill, but it was scripted for it to attack me only after I crossed a certain point. Well, I could see it but it wouldn't move. Then I could shoot at it, but it wouldn't die, because the game designer wanted me to run outside of the cave. After I left the cave, the bug followed me and I killed it with about 4 or 5 shots.

Remember the flashlight in episode 1 and HL2. What fancy armor is that that runs out of battery in a matter of seconds? Seriously, the only thing Valve does awesomely is the multiplayer. For everything else there are plenty of companies doing a much better job.

Maybe the Source engine is too powerful to run on the PS3. This little underpowered hardware. ;) Joking. Haha.

"@TeflonBilly

I think we have different standard then. The only thing that Valve manage to make that pleases me is fun multiplayer. I have spent countless hours with Day of Defeat. The rest? No, no. Half-Life would be better if they actually managed to tell a story without mutilating it into several episodes that have no beginning and no closure. I seriously doubt they know how HL will end. The immersion and tension is also non-existent.

I remember in episode 2, when I was in that cave with those bugs, there was a big bug I had to kill, but it was scripted for it to attack me only after I crossed a certain point. Well, I could see it but it wouldn't move. Then I could shoot at it, but it wouldn't die, because the game designer wanted me to run outside of the cave. After I left the cave, the bug followed me and I killed it with about 4 or 5 shots.

Remember the flashlight in episode 1 and HL2. What fancy armor is that that runs out of battery in a matter of seconds? Seriously, the only thing Valve does awesomely is the multiplayer. For everything else there are plenty of companies doing a much better job.

"

"Epic with both Gears, Crytek with Crisys, the company that do the Call of Duty series, that other company that did Bioshock (which is not my favorite, but it is a good game), and now Guerrilla with KZ2. We could extend this list with other games FPS or not, but I used only the most famous ones, so you won't pick on one of them in order to invalid my argument."

It's easier to run away by labeling others. Some can do it, some can't. It is as simple as that. Guerrilla did it, Valve didn't do it.

"It's easier to run away by labeling others. Some can do it, some can't. It is as simple as that. Guerrilla did it, Valve didn't do it."

I agree.  The original Half-Life was truly ahead of its time.  It re-defined the FPS genre and the effects are still being appreciated today.  There are very few gamers worth their salt that would argue against the original's greatness.  In a similar vein, Counterstrike nearly single-handedly redfined class-based multiplayer.  Yes, that wasn't designed in-house, but it was using tools that Valve had provided.

Half-Life 2 was great, but admittedly, it was not the revolution that the first game was.  That said, the gravity gun and the physics-based gameplay were rather innovative at the time, and a lot of games (and I mean A LOT) have followed suit.

As for the graphics, yes, the Source engine is old, but that doesn't mean that the games will look bad.  The Source engine still does large open areas very well, and provides an excellent draw distance with very little pop-in and texture loading, even on the consoles.  The facial animation is a step above even modern engines which do terrain better (like the Crytek engine), and the water is still gorgeous, with excellent refraction and reflection.  I'm not sure if you played Episodes 1 or 2, but with the addition of HDR lightting effects, the engine is capable of producing some really great looking scenery.  Episode 2, in particular, was very easy on the eyes.

But, graphics are only one part of the puzzle.  It really boils down to gameplay.  In that regard, I cannot think of a single instance where Valve has failed to deliver.  Their games are very well paced, and throw a lot of variety at you.  I think you may just be bitter that Gabe Newell does not feel that the PS3 is worth their time, due to the programming hurdles and the smaller installed base in the US, where FPSs matter.  I'm also sure that after they saw how the Orange Box failed to run optimially on the PS3 that they were afraid to even allow somebody else to try to port anything else.

There is room in this world for more than one good shooter.  Will Killzone 2 be very good?  I am sure.  But, will it be something that we will still be talking about 11 years from now, like people still talk about the original Half-Life?  We'll see, but my gut tells me no... very few games will earn that venerable distinction.  The only ones that have made the cut Half-Life are Ocarina of Time, World of Warcraft, Halo (still don't understand why, but whatevs), Resident Evil 4, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Gran Turismo, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, and maybe God of War.  That's it... half a dozen games out of thousands released in the last decade.

I disagree. I played the first Half-Life because of the hype and it was a good game, but it was less than I expected. It was too much of a dungeon shooter, like Doom 1 and 2, with graphics comparable to Quake 2. I don't recall any surprises with the story back then. This was one of the games I didn't finish, because I got bored.

I liked more Half-Life 2, but again, the twisted way Valve tells the story is aggravating. They divide things into episodes, but don't keep it constant. So the story doesn't seem to have an end. If any episode had a closure, like any TV series, but added to the bigger story then it would be fine. But I really don't like the episode idea. I would rather see a complete game or several games whose releases were spaced by not longer than a couple of monhts.

The graphics are old, yes. But that's not the only department where other companies are exceding expections. The AI in Killzone is awesome, the Helghans are really aggressive, and if you stay in the same place for too long there is always a grenade coming. The gameplay is more realistic than other FPSes. The models look great and are very realistic. The deaths are a kind of ragdoll plus motion capture, because unlike HL2 where the enemies simply fall to the ground when their life bars get to 0, the enemies seems to feel the shots (a bit like CoD4).

There's no need to be political about it. Valve is behind, period. And Guerrilla is not the only company ahead of them, there are plenty of companies leading them, like Epic, Crytek, and others, which have released great games recently.

Thiago, are you really Kaz Hirai?  Because you sound about as delusional in your derisiveness as he does.

When did you play Half-Life?  If you played it in 2006, I can understand how you may not appreciate its greatness.  But, if you played it back in 1998 like I did, then you would see how groundbreaking it was compared to everything else out there at the time.  It did a fantastic job of pulling you into the world they had created, from the opening tram ride to the in-game cutscenes.  Games still emulate that design... NONE of that was commonplace before Half-Life.

As for your criticism that the episodes have no tension and no closure, maybe you should ratchet the difficulty level up past easy and really play the game.  Episode 2 in particular had plenty of tension, and a really devastating ending that has me thirsting for the third installment.  I suppose, though, that you'd level the same criticism against The Empire Strikes back, because it ends on a cliffhanger that's kind of a downer.

Your praise for Crysis only underscores the notion that you think that graphics are primarily what a "good" game stands on.  Crysis was pretty, but man, did it have some serious design and pacing problems... certainly a standout in that it required users to make hefty upgrades to their rigs, but I doubt that it is a game that will enter the pantheon of true classics.

Another thing that underscores that notion is your derision of Portal because of its reliance upon the Source engine.  There was nothing about  that game that was behind the times.  The game was ingenious in design, and was flat-out hilarious.  I had more fun with that game than many full retail games.  I still am compelled to play through it every few months, just because it is that good.

So, thiago, it really just seems that despite your fingerpointing, you seem to be the party-line fanboy.  What's making it increasingly difficult to debate with you is your obvious lack of knowledge and respect for the history of our glorious hobby.  Video games existed long before the current generation.  Maybe you're just too young to be expected to know your roots, son.

"Thiago, are you really Kaz Hirai?  Because you sound about as delusional in your derisiveness as he does.

When did you play Half-Life?  If you played it in 2006, I can understand how you may not appreciate its greatness.  But, if you played it back in 1998 like I did, then you would see how groundbreaking it was compared to everything else out there at the time.  It did a fantastic job of pulling you into the world they had created, from the opening tram ride to the in-game cutscenes.  Games still emulate that design... NONE of that was commonplace before Half-Life.

As for your criticism that the episodes have no tension and no closure, maybe you should ratchet the difficulty level up past easy and really play the game.  Episode 2 in particular had plenty of tension, and a really devastating ending that has me thirsting for the third installment.  I suppose, though, that you'd level the same criticism against The Empire Strikes back, because it ends on a cliffhanger that's kind of a downer.

Your praise for Crysis only underscores the notion that you think that graphics are primarily what a "good" game stands on.  Crysis was pretty, but man, did it have some serious design and pacing problems... certainly a standout in that it required users to make hefty upgrades to their rigs, but I doubt that it is a game that will enter the pantheon of true classics.

Another thing that underscores that notion is your derision of Portal because of its reliance upon the Source engine.  There was nothing about  that game that was behind the times.  The game was ingenious in design, and was flat-out hilarious.  I had more fun with that game than many full retail games.  I still am compelled to play through it every few months, just because it is that good.

So, thiago, it really just seems that despite your fingerpointing, you seem to be the party-line fanboy.  What's making it increasingly difficult to debate with you is your obvious lack of knowledge and respect for the history of our glorious hobby.  Video games existed long before the current generation.  Maybe you're just too young to be expected to know your roots, son."

I loved the BETA ... can't wait to get the game

Thiago is a pure simpleton who is simply impressed by shiny graphics.
Look at how he says that Killzone 2 is king of the hill because IT HAS THE UBER1337 GRAFFYX YO!
I bet he hasn't even played some of the games he mentioned only being concerned with the graphics.
His other halfway coherent point is about the AI, which most people have derided as being dumbasses and we've had several discusssions where everybody says that they'll probably play the game on hard difficulty because of the impression of them on the default  normal difficulty of the demo.
Spamming grenades, but then becoming completely confused and unable to fight back if a guy runs up for melee does not good AI make.
The marines in the original Half Life had better AI than them, though in all fairness, few enemies have matched them. I know nothing in HL2 did.

Seriously, I thought this could turn into a discussion about gameplay design, but he's obviously a pure graphics whore with a completely deluded sense of how games should be approached. Only one game can be the best at any given time? What kind of hogwash is that!?
He has no sense of proportion or history of games to be so boastful while wallowing in his ignorance.

Killzone is light years ahead of anything Half-Life is or was back in 1998. I played HL in 1999 I wasn't even as half as amazed as I am now. Killzone is truly innovative on many levels, not only graphics. Only by playing it you will know. Even the controls set a new standard in how FPSes play.

Valve is history, get over it. Let them release previous-gen games for the PC, we have the best of the true next-gen.

Only fanboys who can't rationally present their own ideas would be against it. From all you have written, all I see is pretentiousness, lack of coherence and some notion of entitlement. Nobody is granted anything unless they prove it by their own work, and, dude, Guerrilla has proven it many times over. It is a true leap over whatever else the competition is doing.History has been written.

Guerilla has never proven anything. The original Killzone was an utter disappointment.
Until this game comes out you can't call them anything more than a contender, not the king of the hill.
Valve being history. They're only sitting on some of the most anticipated titles ever in Portal 2, Counterstrike 2 and Half Life 2: Episode 3.
They're only having a huge userbase clamoring for additional content to Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead. They're only the propietors of the best digital distribution outlet ever.

You haven't rationally presented anything, but the graphics being amazing. They are, but I found faults in the demo they released which I addressed other places in this forum. Faults which nobody so far have deemed unreasonable. Hey, Half Life 2 isn't even my favorite game, but the flippant way you dismiss it because "it's old and doesn't have good graphics" marks of sheer stupidity from a rabid fanboy troll.

How exactly is Killzone 2 lightyears beyond the other shooters on the market, let alone Half Life 2, seriously. I want to do a point -countpoint to it.

The ball is in your court kiddo.

Thiago, I think you're just trying to be provocative.  Comparing a game with excellent graphics (a la Killzone 2) to a game that literally set the standards for in-engine storytelling, and squad-based enemy AI (the original Half-Life) is not a fair fight.  Bottom line is that Half-Life was revolutionary.  It fixed the problems of its contemporaries and set the stage for the next decade in FPS gaming, just like Super Mario 64 essentially defined 3D platforming in a way that is still relevant today.  Nothing in the Killzone demo or the reviews point to it being quite that revolutionary.

In terms of innovation, can you cite one or two CONCRETE examples of Killzone 2's innovation?  And, keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "polish" and "innovation."  I am looking for two of the "many levels" of innovation you're talking about, so it shouldn't be that hard for you, right?

As for the controls, we'll have to see once I've had a chance to spread the learning curve over the entire game.  I don't like having to crouch to stick to even full-size walls.  A "sticky" cover system would have been a little better in my opinion.  Also, I don't like clicking the right stick to toggle the aim down the sights... it makes it less simple to go between from-the-hip and down-the-sights aiming, compared to the now de facto standard of tying the aim to the left shoulder button.  That said, I can't necessarily blame the developers, since the triggers on the Dual Shock 3 lack a ridge to catch your fingers.  All in all, I found the aiming to be a bit too floaty, but as a previous post suggested, this is likely due to the fact that the sticks are looser on the DualShock, compared to the 360, which I am more adjusted to.

Thiago, Killzone 2 will be good.  It will be good enough that everyone who has a PS3 will probably want to play it.  I personally have it pre-ordered and will play it day one.  But, sorry to rain on your parade of one, but I highly doubt that Killzone 2 will prove to be the system seller you want it to be.  That is, I do not think it will drive hardware sales...  For that, I think we're going to have to wait until Gran Turismo 5 or God of War 2.  The Gran Turismo series may seem like the dark horse, until you realize that all of the prior games are in the top 40 all-time in sales.

The sense of weight and slower paced gameplay to FPS is one example of innovation. The game feels different than others. The cover mechanic in FPSes is another example innovation and it works well (without jumping to third person like some other games). The AI is very good, I really liked the fact that they don't stand somewhere waiting to be shot or just run at you. They hide, try to flank you, and make fun of you when you die. The physics are well done, and so are the deaths.

The gameplay of HL (as well as other shooters) seems more arcade-ish, less realistic after you play KZ.

Playing without a HUD is really cool, I tried and although it seems strange at first, you can get a clear idea of when your gun is running out of ammo just by the sound of it. So I guess no-HUD will become popular among many games, at least an option for those willing to try it.

The game is awesome, way beyond graphics. The excuse "it is just another FPS" don't really apply here.

Anyway, the gaming industry is a technological industry. Either you keep up or fall by the wayside. Apparently the fact that some companies have done a better job than some "divas" offends some here. There's no entitlement or special place where you can be safe from comparisons and competition. So far, Valve is history. I would respect them only if they put out something worthy, from a technological and innovative points of view, but until then.. Now it is Guerrilla time and they deserve it.

Just be realistic and not fanboy, please. Steam has nothing to do with it, because it not even a full step ahead in terms of digital distribution. It works like a DRM system, the games are region locked (some releases are restricted to some parts of the worlds only, and not Valve nor the developers of the games bother letting the users know why) and you are downloading the whole retail version of the games, not using streaming or some other technology that allow you to just play it like YouTube does.

I would rather wait and see how Id will do Quake Live, because if they use something like streaming and the game works a bit like YouTube (click and play), then THAT will set a new standard for games online.

Dude you need to stop comparing Killzone and Half Life. It's just... no. Half Life essentially paved the way for Killzone 2 to happen and, yes, I agree that the sense of weight and slow gunplay sets it apart from other shooters of this generation but you can't really compare it to Half Life which defined the conventions of Killzone.

It's almost like saying Panic At The Disco's "Nine In The Afternoon" is better produced than "Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band". Yes it's better produced, because one was recorded in the 60's and the other in 2008. The difference being "Nine In The Afternoon" couldn't have been written without The Beatles track before it. Y'see?

No one is disagreeing with you that Killzone 2 is going to be a great, great FPS. But it's not genre-defining.

Let's tackle your points then.

I've said in my experiences with the demo that I really liked the feel and weight of the weapons. As soon as you got used to the controls, they had very satisfying firing. However, this is not innovative or groundbreaking. Pick up a Rainbow Six game sometime.

The cover mechanic is innovative? Sure I'd call it nifty, but it's not a gigantic leap from just crouching behind something in anything from Black to Call Of Duty 4.

No, unless you've been to trade shows or gotten ahold of a review copy, then the AI is not good in the demo.
They're on par, if not worse than most other FPS's, but this is just from my experience with the demo. It'll probably be as satisfying as the gunplay when I play it on hard in the final copy cause I see much potential and have heard good things, but the Helghans proponent to get completely confused when you run up to melee them, scurrying back and forth between the two covers and their spamming of grenades is not exactly Seaman level of intelligence.

Playing without a HUD is not groundbreaking at all and sacrifices gameplay convenience for good looks, though graphics whore as you are I can see why you like it.

As for your assesment that the games industry is purely a technological industry, then you really come off as a dumbass. It's an entertainment industry.
This is why the Wii is the best selling console now. This is why the 3DO and Jaguar fell on the wayside. This is why the PC is still in it's steady decline as a viable exclusive platform for developers. Technological power does not trump good gameplay mechanics, great art design or good storytelling. Things I have no doubt Killzone 2 has, but which you blatantly disregard for the amount of particle effects flying off your hi-res textures.

And what the kind of kokkamamie service are you comparing to Steam? A youtube of games with constant streaming and not even a preload? I like the idea of Quake Live, but that would be feasible because it's optimized for that game specifically. Steam is the best solution offered so far and I have a sneaking suspicion you've never actually used it with your silly description of it. As for your DRM complaint, it's not like Steam is some kind of intrusive program eating away at your computer to protect one game. It's a nifty hub for your Steam games, but they still protect the developers game toa  certain, non objectionable way (Something they seem to sorely need with all the rampant pirating going on). The region lock issue is bad, I agree, but it was justa  few weeks ago when Valve issued a press release that they were gonna open as much of the region locks as possible because in their eyes alotta piraters are just regular-ass gamers who can't get access to the newest games before the region lock.

I feel like Dan Ayckroyd and you are Jane Curtin you ignorant slut

Teflon... First I wanna say that I've played the BETA and the DEMO

And to begin with, this DEMO is a small tease of what this game can do. I want to comment on the cover system

The Cover system in Killzone is way more fast paced than Rainbow Six, multiplayer in killzone is way to fast for Rainbow's system(ask anyone who saw my live stream of me playing it)
Black is so old i forgot what its like.
And CoD4 has no cover system, its just duck behind and shot behind something. Its also horrible because i person can crouch behind a small wall and you can only see the top of his helmet while on his screen he can see your whole body. I'm sorry but that is shit imo.

I'm not commenting on the AI cause yes in the DEMO it is pretty bad, i think its cause the DEMO is all preplanned to show off somethings.

I did not mention the cover system of Rainbow Six, I mentioned the weapons handling. And I'm not talking about the Vegas series. Proper Rainbow Six.
Don't mash together all my counterpoints since I was addressing each of his different points.

And the cover system is not a groundbreaking innovation. It's a cool variation of being able to crouch behind shit, but it's not as if it's the huge leap thiago is making it out to be. Hell, the way he talks about it you'd think it was the jump we had from Doom to Duke 3D in being able to look up and down.

Seriously, I haven't seen such reverence and premature ejaculation for an unreleased product like this since Halo 3

@TeflonBilly

Are you Valve's representative or something? I own over 20 games on Steam. Steam works similarly to a DRM system, because the games need it to run. And it is region locked, yes! I wanted to buy Assassin's Creed and I couldn't. The same thing for the GTAs. Last week I entered there and it seems they are selling it worldwide now, but I don't care anymore.

Come on, selling retail version of the game is good, but not good enough. That's why I am waiting to see how Quake Live turn out to be. It is an ingenious idea and, depending on how it is implemented, it has the potential of setting a new standard in terms of FPS, at least the online ones.

You twisted the concept of crouching to just standing behind something. It's not like that. In KZ the crouching works a bit like Gears of War, with the difference that you are in first person (and you don't jump to third person when crouch like in other games). That plus the weight of the weapons and the physics change the dynamic of the game, for better.

The HUD is enabled by default, but you can disable it. Some people like it. It gives a better immersion.

I love when fanboys try to disqualify the Wii as something lesser. The Wii is a success because it is technologically sound. Technology doesn't mean only the quantity of polygons you can do, but it means the whole product. The Wii offers something the other don't. Jaguar and other weren't the best products of their times, by far.

Not sure what demo are you referring to, but the AI in KZ is awesome. The most boring thing I can think in a FPS are the enemies that stand still in front of you while you are killing them (then it is just a matter of who has the bigger gun) or just run at you. The enemiers in KZ, hide, try to outflank you, throw grenades if you stay in the same place for too long, etc. I usually get bored pretty quickly with FPSes, and I can't finish most of them out of boredom, but I played the demo more than 10 times. Yes, it is that awesome.

One thing KZ has that no other game has is the impression of a warzone, chaotic, with lots of things happening around you. Maybe Call of Duty gets close, but it gives you another world in terms of immersion. Much better than a lonely guy with a crowbar shooting at static enemies, don't you think?

Get over it. Guerrilla did a great job. They deserve to be praised. Swallow your pride and let go. Maybe the next big game is for the 360, who knows. All I know is that now is Guerrilla time.

@get2sammyb

It is fair to compare because they are both the same genre. KZ is another level, something that Half-Life never was. All HL has of different is the story, which is not much of a point if you are into sci-fi geeky BS. Besides the story is told in a terrible, multilated way.

Especially from a company that hasn't put out anything that really proves their worth. Come on, there's no special place for divas away from competition and comparisons. Keep up or die. I think this "refusal to compare" is a bit of elitism, people that believe to have reached a certain status that can't be compared to mere mortals anymore.

KZ sets a new bar with its gameplay, looks, AI. That's it. Accept it, swallow your pride, let go. Eventually better games will be released, but now it is Guerrilla's time.

Wow, between Get2SammyyB and I, I don't think there's been more people talking about Killzone 2 on this board.
Especially not in as coherent positive of a light, yet we both find your reasoning to be asinine.

As for Steam's DRM, so far it's the best and least intrusive way of DRM on the popular market. Are you one of those "ALL GAMES SHOULD BE FREE!" guys?
Wow, you get your way with the region unlocking, but "Now you don't care"? How does that make it bad? Hell, that makes it even better than you previously thought, but now the point is moot since you don't care

I wasn't saying that crouching in COD4 equals cover in KZ2, but they aren't hugely different as if this is some new benchmark which you'll see in FPS from now on. It's a clever new mechanic, which I hope will stay indigenous to the KZ games.

Again, turning off the HUD is nothing new and making it a selling point is just another way of wanking over graphics.

I'm not dismissing the Wii at all, look at my list, I have a shit ton of Wii and VC games and I enjoy them immensly, the point I was tying to make is that it is no graphical powerhouse (And graphics really are the only tangible thing you're harping on about) yet is the most popular console out there and house what is in my opinion the best game this generation in Super Mario Galaxy. By mentioning the Jaguar and 3DO I was making the point that raw processing power and superior graphics do not better games make. Are you old enough to have been around that period?

Wow, you must be simpleminded, most people have conceded the glaringly underwhelming AI after all this hype, hence why people who actually want a challenge are gearing up to play it on a harder difficulty.

I'll agree that that the feel of chaos in the beginning of the demo where your dropship lands on Helghan is awesomely done, with chaos and bullets and explosions everywhere. I made a point of that in my demo impression. Stunningly immersive. But what happens after two minutes of that? You go fight in a half empty warehouse! I found those first two minutes to convey more havoc than I did at any other point in say the COD games and Gears Of War games, I'm just being cautious if they keep that level of intensity up throughout the campaign or if we'll meet something like the dreaded Library level.

By all accounts, Guerilla has done a fine job. Why would I swallow my pride? I'm happy to get some play out of my PS3.
However, the game does not seem perfect, I'll save my judgment of that until I get the game. You on the other hand have already fallen into some mouthfoaming, ecstatic trance being able to lord over others how much better this game you've yet to play properly is better than anything preceeded it and bacon combined. Have a look at that video posted, it's that kind of fanboy mentality which sickens me.

TeflonBilly, swallow your pride. Give credit where it is due. Move on. We must praise those who do good work, and now it is Guerrilla's time. They are the top of the top in terms of FPS now.

Apparently all companies are equal, but some are more equal than others. There's no other company more genre defining than Id. And everybody loves to crap on their heads whenever a new game comes out. They invented FPS, later introduced actual polygons to draw enemies in Quake, and later popularized internet gaming with the several Quake games. Id is synonym with genre defining. But do you see rabid fanboys defending that company?

Valve did nothing but the obvious. Half-Life, the original, had nothing besides a natural evolution in terms of games due to increased resources (CPU, disk space, RAM, graphics, etc). Steam is nothing but the same thing that is going on since 1994, when the internet became commercial. All kinds of services and commerce went on the internet and this is the next logical step.

All your arguments are logically and factually flawed.

The gameplay in Killzone sets it apart from the rest. Even if the graphics weren't great, the gameplay would be enough to put it in a category of its own. But the game is brilliant in every way, including the AI, which is very smart. The AI in KZ is different from most FPS, where enemies just stand in front of you. It makes things more interesting.

The bar has risen considerably. I am 28 years old, and I remember Jaguar and 3DO. No, they weren't good technological products. Your reason fails terribly when you can't conceive the idea that "technology" is much more than graphics. You treat both terms as synonyms, when in fact it is not. Therefore any conclusion you draw from there is false.

Killzone is the next step in terms of FPS.

You spent two weeks thinking up that and then PM me about how you destroyed me?

Of course I'm gonna give Guerilla their due if they deliver. And seeing as I've played the game for two days now, I can safely say they delivered.
http://www.giantbomb.com/killzone-2/61-20601/get2sammybs-super-awesome-killzone-2-hype-thread/35-226288/?page=7
You completely missed my point. I wouldn't give Guerilla the benefit of the doubt I give Valve since they completely screwed the pooch with the first Killzone.
Valve have yet to steer me wrong so I'll trust them to deliver, something they've done for a decade now.

Your argument about Id is pretty redundant. The Id who revolutionized it all is not the same Id we see today. I'm excited about Rage, but I'm still only cautiously excited since they haven't delivered in a long time.

Killzone 2 is an amazing and great game, but it's not bleeding fucking edge gameplaywise. I haven't played it online yet so it might blow me away there.
But so far the single player campaign is an excellent game which doesn't do anything revolutionary. It does some things different, but these are things which fit the game, but I hope won't become the FPS standard like it's cover system and the camera being in Sev's chest.

Did you play anything except the demo? Cause the AI in the demo was dogshit compared to the one in the real game.
You're expecting me to look into the future and know that. My criticism is from the demo version's AI.
It's good, but not miles ahead of the AI in ancient games like the first F.E.A.R. or Half Life 1.

The reason I mentioned the Jaguar and 3DO and use the term graphics is cause that seem to be the focal point to your excitement for the game.
Gameplaywise Killzone 2 does nothing that couldn't be done on the PC or 360 from a technological standpoint. It's not revolutionary. It's original. There's a difference.

I don't see you destroying my argument about how Steam is the best and least intrusive digital service around.
Hell, you're basically agreeing with me. Sure it was the next logical step, but Valve are the ones who actually took that step and didn't fall flat on their faces.
I share your high hopes about Quake Live, but we don't know if it works so well yet that you can say it's the end all, be all.

It seems you've used the last two weeks doing yoga or something to be less abrasive, so I can say I enjoy this discussion now.
As I've said in other threads, I love being proved wrong or at least being presented with a new perspective.
The crux of why I wasn't frothing at the mouth about Killzone 2 before I played it were three reasons. I'm not blinded by pretty graphics, Guerilla hadn't proved themselves yet in my eyes and the fact that I try my very best to not get caught up in the hype machine. I can trust a Miyamoto game cause he has almost always delivered in gameplay. I can trust a Suda51 game cause his style appeals to me greatly. I can trust a Takahashi game cause his brand of insanity breaks my brain. I can trust a Valve shooter cause they've been quality across the board. I could not trust Guerilla cause they dropped the ball in the first one so they had to prove themselves to me. I'm not giving them a free pass cause it's a pretty game for my PS3. And goshdarnit, it's a great game. But don't throw around words like revolutionary about it.
It will not be the defacto standard for FPS' since it's gameplay is crafted specifically for that game.
I can't picture Rage, Condemned 3, F.E.A.R. 3, Halo: ODST, Quake Live or whatever future FPS except Killzone 3 to use these mechanics.

This debate is dumb, Half-Life and Killzone 2 can't really be compared as they are not that similar to be compared but overall, its a matter of preference to which game you think is better. Its all down to opinion on this one.