Big budget does not mean it will turn out well. There is a nice list of games this generation that have spent a ton of money and have not been able to make it back so far. The list will grow longer before it gets any shorter, and I am going to bet that Killzone 2 will join that list based on the series past.

I think that KZ2 can be a killer app. Especially after seeing the E3 07 realtime demo and how good it looked (Not as good as the CGi E3 05 demo but...), if they can make a game that looks that good, there has to be some gameplay to be found in there. Also, I'm hoping for a Halo 3 effect of having a game hyped to death, be good, but not really that great.

What's so great about an unproven studio developing Sony-exclusive games with a huge number of developers and a ridiculous budget?
1) It`s different studio now.
2) Huge number of developers - so it`s a bad thing?
3) Ridiculous budget - again bad thing?

Guerrilla Games has not yet shown themselves to be anything but a great producer for the hype factory.
1) Killzone: Liberation
IGN - 9.0
Gamespot - 8.3
Avg Ratio: 80%
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/931635.asp
80% - GOOD game, without 3 yeas of development, without 135 developers, without 41$ mln. budget.

The first Killzone is evidence of this; many called it a "Halo-killer" long before release, but the end result was mediocre.
The first Killzone was developed by different team.
Sony added around 100 developers to Guerrilla Games for Killzone 2 Project.

Your too excited about th budget. Spiderman 3 and Superman were each $250 million. Oh and the greatest movie of all, Godzilla was $200 million. Dont get too excited about the budget. And I believe Lair costed a pretty penny also

@eugene:

1) And spiderman 3 made A LOT OF MONEY. If movie would suck, people wouldn`t left SO MUCH money.
2) And Lair had problems only with controls + some framerate drops, because it was released too early.
KZ2 will be released, when it`s ready, when it will be polished. The end.
KZ2 is NAME of PS3, and Sony knows that, and they just CAN`T SHIT on their NAME/BRAND. That`s why, gameplay of KZ2 was showed only in 2007 on E3 2k7, when they had WHAT to SHOW.

Have FUN - http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q28/nurayi/664vgcp.gif =)
Not CINEMATIC and not GREAT? Then you should FORGET THIS GAME.

I'm not saying that more developers or a high budget are a negative, just that they have no true relevance to the end quality of the product. Adding more developers does not make the studio different, it just makes it bigger. The lead devs are probably the exact same folks. And Killzone: Liberation may have been a fine game, but was not a first-person shooter; thus, this does not contribute evidence to their ability to produce a high-quality title in this particular genre.

To clarify, the game has every chance to be good, and I would honestly rather see it turn out well than the alternative. I always liked the concept art of the titles, and I hope they can turn it into something worthwhile. All I'm saying is that throwing more and more people and money at a project does not guarantee success, which has been proven over and over in every industry. I can't get excited about a game just because it has the highest budget or the biggest team. The game itself is what matters.

Killzone, (PS2, 2004)
Shellshock: Nam '67, (PS2, XBox, PC, 2004)

In December 2005, Sony announced that it acquired Guerrilla Games which will continue making games exclusively on PlayStation game consoles.

Killzone: Liberation, (PSP, 2006).

Why it is so HARD to create GREAT FPS with big number of developers and with BIG budget?

I'm saying is that throwing more and more people and money at a project does not guarantee success,
So, you assume, that with more developes and much more budget, they won`t make KZ2 better then KZ, but conversely worse?

Again, if THIS - http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q28/nurayi/664vgcp.gif not convincing you, then you just should FORGET existence of this game and just IGNORE any topics about it.

It may become worse, sometimes over ambition kills the project. Thats what Bungie said of Halo 2. Thats why it had a bad cliff hanger ending. Sometimes over ambition is bad because reality hits and what seemed like a good idea really wasnt. About the movies making money, gamers are more finicky than the movie going public. A movie is $8-$10. A game is $60-$70. A high budget fluke of a game wont sell well. Im not saying its gonna suck, Im just saying your placing your bets on the wrong places on why it will be great lie budget, team size, etc. Valve is famous for their small teams as well as Lion head but they bring out great games even if it takes forever.

@CrazzyMan:

Geez, quit being so defensive. I didn't say the big budget and team would make it worse, but that it DOESN'T GUARANTEE SUCCESS. That's all. If you noticed, I said that I would much prefer the game to be good than the alternative.

As for the animated .gif, are you familiar with the phrase "bullshot"? I've seen more games than I'd care to count look super-amazing a year before their release, but end up looking significantly worse upon hitting the market. I know I am not alone in this, either.

$41 million? I knew KZ2 was getting expensive, but I didn't think it was already more expensive than Halo 3 (which allegedly cost $30M in development plus $30M in marketing and bonuses)...