whats the big reason games suck.

 not enough time for dvelopment and not enough money to do what needs to be done.   

Ps2 kilzone was a development mess, Killzone Liberation got 9/10 from ign and 8.3 from gamespot just how is that not nailing it. 

Resident Evil 4 brought to a life a new way of putting the camera and added a lot of suspense in just the camera placement. Gears of War improved on that and added a great cover system. Half-Life 2 went beyond just running and shooting things by adding varied gameplay ideas and physics puzzles. Halo brought good controls to a console FPS. Brothers in Arms built their game on top of actual history and the maps are incredibly accurate.

Games like Resistance, Quake 4, and Daikatana are games where you just run around and shoot stuff and simply try to be successful by being an FPS. Those other games tried to do something different and did so much more than a completely mediocre game like Resistance.

As for Killzone 2, Guerrilla (note Guerrilla not gorilla) may or may not do good with it, I haven't payed a lot of attention to the game. I know Killzone 1 was pretty bad and them trying to pass pre-rendered movies off as actual gameplay doesn't help things, but who knows, they could make something decent.

And the Daikatana example is an absolutely perfect example. It cost a crapload of money, was a development nightmare, was very hyped, and turned out to be a terrible game that was nothing like it was hyped to be. Even calling that game mediocre is a mistake.

-edit-

And let me just applaud you on the incredible comeback there.  I'm not sure if I'm going to recover from that one.

 Those are two things that can kill games but there are definately more than that.  A bad design is one thing.  Making a game pretty before making it fun it a terrible way to make a game.  I have no clue how things are organized there but if they aren't on top of things, things just keep going downhill.  Feature creep kills any game. 

The list of things that hurt games is more than a mile long.

If you truly think FPS games are supposed to be all generic run-and-shoot games, and that a lot of developers + a lot of money guarantees a good game, then I'm sure you'll be very satisfied with Killzone 2.

Killzone was for the most part designed to be a Halo Killer and no matter what they do it will always be held to the standard of Halo, even if the games looks fathoms better than Halo, even if it plays better, it lacks the name recognition and appeal to compete with Halo or take its place. No matter what the Killzone franchise does, it will always be measured next to Halo, not gagued as a unique game. Killzone 2 could be a great game, but it will probably just be another brief boost in PS3 interest before dying down again. No one I know was terribly impressed with the first game, why they should be excited about the second (outside of justifying the purchase of a PS3) is beyond my grasp. I guess any exclusive for the PS3 is worth getting excited about though and it would be foolhearty to dismiss such a title regardless the fact.

The previous games according to reviews had technical difficulties, the hefty criticism regarding framerate issue can easily be addressed on the much more powerful PS3.

For the PS3 game they have an enormous bugdet and an enormous group of talented developers. Give Killzone PS3 a chance, it's my most highly anticipated PS3 game together with Ratchet and Clank Future.

Hopefully the framerate drops PS3 games tend to encounter doesn't plague this game as well. I hope its just programming that is the issue and not the Console's ceiling of processing power that is at fault here.

 what frame rate drops, you probably thinking of the crap ubisoft ports.

 Maybe the ones in the Lair trailer? I dont know really, I havent looked at that many PS3 trailers - the Lair one did have some issues when the dragon was flying through a fireball though.

 a beta build having issues, really.