Hey guys,

I have played a little bit of 2 just not enough to have gotten the gist of the story, so how important do you think it is to have played through 2 for a good experience of 3? or do you think I will love just jumping into 3 anyway?

Well it technically does start directly after 2, but the story changes so dramatically that I don't think you need to have played the second one.

However both games are so similar gameplay wise that you may as well play 2 for fun anyway.

Just about everything except for the characters and story in Killzone 3 (and two) is great; or at least presented as great. All you have to know is that in the second game they're going after Visari, Rico kills him out of anger at the end, and everyone feels that that was detrimental towards their goals, so they're all mad at Rico. Then boom, you have Killzone 3. Killzone's story overall is grand, but within the games, there's not much excitement. I think it would be a shame not to play the second Killzone.  
 
If you're doing it for story, then you may just want to go into three though. By the way, when you play co-op (if you play co-op), the second player will be Natko, and awkwardly, he never makes an appearance in the entire Killzone 3 single player campaign, instead you get Jammer. It's understandable, since he may be doing other things as the events of KZ3, but it'll still feel weird.  I suggest you play both two and three, and then go on a wiki to read the other aspects of Killzone's premise.

yea I am a sucker for a good story in a game, especially a FPS, because other than look and sometimes feel all FPS's a relatively the same so I really if I think about it I really only do play them for the story...and look