The anger really wasn't necessary.

I realize most reviews have been incredibly nit-picky, and I get the feeling the game should've scored higher than it did (for example, the numerous complaints about the game "not doing anything new" or "not bringing the genre forward" while Black Ops got a pass on this).  I even said the game sounds "incredible on numerous fronts."

And in reality, most of the issues I mentioned (particularly those related to cutscenes) are pretty minor, and my point was that just a little extra polish would've fixed these right up, possibly propelling the game from Killzone 2's "really really good" status to Uncharted 2's " hands down game of the year" status.

As for the points I bolded and underlined:

1.  This is factually incorrrect.  The removal of features like the clan betting system and proximity chat in multiplayer attest to this.  There's also the fact they have to patch in custom games after release.

2.  Both Uncharted 2 and Resistance 2 had online co-op.  It may not have been story co-op, but that's entirely unrelated the decision to include online co-op.  Killzone 3 has co-op, and there's absolutely no reason it shouldn't offer that same co-op experience online as well as offline aside from the game's development time.

3. I've seen many people claim that there are certain sections of the game that were told via cutscene that would've been better told via gameplay, much like Half-life 2 often conveys major plot points directly via gameplay.  What's hard to understand about this? 

Imagine if you had watched the Poseidon fight in God of War III instead of participating via QTE.  Similar situation.

Well im sure there would be none of those bullet points if they had better focus. Other developers have been able to release bigger/better games in 24 months it is just a question of where they prioritise their time.

I can't think of any other examples where that is really the case.  The only franchises I can think of that haven't been mentioned yet and that may apply are Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed, but the former barely deviates from the formula set by Modern Warfare with each sequel, and there are four different development studios working on the franchise, while the latter has a team of over 450 people working on it.  Or at least that's how many worked on Assassin's Creed II.

Uncharted 2 is the only game I can think of that really pulls off a lot more than what GG did with Killzone 3 over a comparable 24 month time frame, but even then Naughty Dog put almost all of their work into the singleplayer experience.  The multiplayer only has the most basic of feature sets, relying instead on the franchise's unique mix of TPS and platforming gameplay to stand out.

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding me here.  I'm not trying to say the game won't be that good, or that reviews are all spot on with their knocks about the story (lol CoD) or anything of the sort.  I think the game will be damn good.

However, I think that extra development time is what would've been needed to make it the next Uncharted 2, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed II, or Halo: Reach.

Only two of those games managed such quality within two years, and in one case, the game was made by one of the absolute best developers in the industry, while in the other case over 450 people were working on it.

I think the game would've benefited from more development time, and more importantly I think it deserves that extra time.

I'm sorry if I came off like that I wasn't being angry, I just use strong words like dam and holy shit to get my point across. I type these things fast and give them a quick read over. I should stop doing that really.

1:Well if you remember as far back as the KZ2 release the clan features were patched into the game a few weeks after the game released. You could create a clan and put on a tag but the other features wern't there yet. During the first closed beta before plus members got in Devs told us custom matches were removed to stop the boosters and cheaters. It was only after everyone wanted the feature back that they decided to give us it again. Its these reason why developers beta test there games.

2: Well if you think about it KZ3 does have its own type of Online co op in the form of Operations. Its not against AI opponents but the game mode is sort of story based and it does involve a lot of teamwork to succeed in capturing the objectives. I'm guessing developers find online campaign co op hard to code because only a few games have shipped with the feature. Uncharted and Resistances co op is differant because each level is only 20-30 minutes long and theres only a few maps to play co op on in each. UC2 has 3 maps I think and R2 had 6 I think.

3: Right I get you now. Well thank god they never implemented QTEs into KZ3 because I have always hated them in video games and I can't even count the amount of joypads I broke all thanks to QTEs in gaming. I will have to wait until I play the full game before I know what they mean but so far the demos cutscenes were fine. 

People need to remember that Sony always improves on there titles after they release. I even think they hold back on some features just so they can add them later on to bring back absent players and make themselfs look good.

To be fair though, a lot of the issues you raised in your first post are unlikely to have benefitted from extra dev time. The cut-scene transition and cut-scenes where the player feels they should have control (like in Half-Life 2) were design decisions (typically made fairly early in development). I don't think they'd have benefitted at all from extra time. I often had the same complaints when playing Killzone 2, but they may not have wanted to change the system for Killzone 3.

I think the game will be great and a definite improvement over KZ2 (based on the demo), but I doubt time would have made a huge difference.

All I know is that that Kevin Butler commercial made K3 look so hot that I masturbated to it.  I may pick it up regardless.

Lack of online co op is a bigger issue than anything else. In this day and age it'll kill their sales, especially with word of mouth destroying it. It's in GG and Sony's best interest to have a co op patch within 30 days of launch so they can at least avoid long term bad word of mouth and get some sales.

I highly doubt it. All KZ2 players hated KZ3 beta, lack of online co op on a FPS 2011 is really stupid and no one is going to want to buy a gimped product. That's the cold, hard truth. The demo also left a lot to be desired and to put the last nail in the coffin, a major AAA FPS from none other than Epic Games is coming out on the same day.

Even without online co-op, it still has both online and offline multiplayer in some form, which is a significant change from Killzone 2.

I have little doubt this game will sell more than its predecessor when all is said and done.