Having just seen the recent Killzone 2 review, I think it looks really good. And If I had a PS3, I'd definately buy it. The only exception I have to the game - and the FPS genre in general - is the idea that FPSs nowadays can rest on their technical laurels without bringing anything else to the mix. It appears that I'm not the only one who thinks this, although the majority of reviews seem to have been very positive over Killzone 2.

Call of Duty 4 raised the bar so high in this area that I almost feel sorry for other developers. But the fact is this though: the bar has been raised, and I think FPSs need to step up and start reaching for it. Or at least they must make some attempt at doing something different.

On the other hand, we have something like Quake Live: a game I'm personally having a lot of fun with. I think it drew around 20,000 players when the beta first opened, so this kind 'pure' gameplay must have more than a little popularity attached to it. This provides somewhat of a paradox for me considering what I just said in the preceeding paragraph, and this suggests to me that the issue is far from clean-cut.

My question I submit to you is this: is it enough anymore that a first-person shooter excel on a sheer technical level? Have we reached the stage where if a game has good graphics, level design, weapon selection and shooting mechanics, it can only be considered just above average because it lacks a good story?