What should I say?  That you're right and it turns out that I didn't really find Killzone fun or interesting now that I think about it?  That I detached the backstory from the game and played it with an empty mind?  That I didn't like the political backdrop provided by the glimpse into the power struggles inside the Helghast command?  Sorry, but I did.  I like the atmosphere and aesthetics of the game.

As for Gears of War, I'm not going to say if the story is good or bad--I haven't played it enough and I don't really care for the TPS genre--but the plot you described is straight Lord of the Rings and pretty standard for the fantasy genre.

Got the frist one found it rather boring after an hour or so, so never bothered with the second.

Didn't hate it just found it MEH.

So what are you saying then. Do you like the atmosphere and aesthetics of the game? Do you like how the political backdrop is present now and then and how it affects the answers your character and the two army's make? Or do you like the actual plot which is revealed in the games directly? Or all of it?

Like I said you like Killzone in the way I like Metroid Prime, and I'm not trying to change your mind. I even agreed with you about the political backdrop, but can I ask you this, do you find that the plot that unfolds in the games directly to be complex and original or does the game rely too much on the political backdrop to set the tone.

Comparing this to Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime has the interesting back story, and you're constantly reminded about it when you read the Lores. So yes there is a big influence from the back story. However the game itself is also so isolated, so purpose base. You really feel alone playing the game, and that's why the game itself also is interesting to play. However the plot in the game itself is pretty dependant on the back history, and really requires you to read the lores (hence I think you view Killzone in the way I view Metroid Prime).

I think you can easily play Metroid Prime for the sheer originality of the gameplay, the tone/atmosphere, and the quality of the boss encounters, etc without a giving a damn about the story. In the same way I think you can easily play Killzone as a mindless, and very brutal shooter, without much of a care for the plot. However IMO when you ignore the plot in Metroid, you still have a very original game (FPA!), but when you remove the plot in Killzone, it's very a generic game

As for Gears of War, it's a sci-fi shooter which has a plot similar to a fantasy genre? I never got into Lord of the Rings. Anyway Gears isn't particularly unique, but they do a good job of involving you with the back story, and I thought it was pretty good. I also think they do set a good atmosphere in these games, remember the Mad World Commercial for Gears of War 1? The game kinda plays like that, you really do get that feeling of desperation. I always thought that most Killzone fans would be Gears fans if they had a 360 because of the sheer brutality of the two franchises.

I haven't played InFamous 2 yet, but you're giving me something to really look forward too.

Good read, but honestly most people won't read a post like that. I never was really into hack and slash, so I didn't really see how each of these games ripped off an earlier iteration, but it's interesting to see that every Castlevania: Lord of Shadow fan I meet has play God of War and disliked it. I wish God of War fans would play other hack and slash games.

To me, I like Devil May Cry 3 because of how damn funny and interesting they make Dante. He feels like a real bad ass and is a damn near perfect anti-hero. Vanquish isn't Hack and Slash, but kinda is, and I love how damn intense that game is. God of War, I just never understood, and it sells so much better then the competition. Do people just like violence, or violent exclusivity? (God of War and Killzone are the most violent games in their respective genre).

Dragon Valor looks awesome.

As for Killzone, I don't agree with you, but I understand your dislike about Call of Duty. When Modern Warfare 1 released it was awesome. Levels were well plans, objects you could shoot through were obvious (sheet metal yes, concrete no) and it really felt like an evolution of FPS's. Now however it's just a camping and killstreak fest, people play the game enough to know exactly where most newbs will be and the best angles to kill them. It's really no fun since they mix in all the veterans with the newbs. I wish this matched you by rank, like in Halo.

When I played Killzone online, it felt a lot like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, but with a lot of small nooks and crannies where people can hide and camp. I mean in Blood something, I often see people hide under the staircase in the middle, or on a balcony in view of that narrow alley and they get a few camp kills and move to a different area. In CoD I feel it's a lot harder to do this, and because the multiplayer is so fast pace, and the maps are so large, it at least doesn't make sense to camp a small location. Other Killzone maps are worse (like that big open one with the engine in the middle).

I played infamous because it was awesome, plain and simple. The franchise needs to be bundled with the PS4 and after that I should do fine in a new gen.

The problem is that the first game was given away as a free title for the PSN outage and how  it was such a poor game that many haven't gave Infamous 2 a chance.  It's like playing the original Lufia and then going into Lufia 2 with no other expectation except a game marginally better than the first one and being blown away by how much better it actually is.

The first and second Uncharted have the exact same gameplay, yet the first Uncharted is only good, where as the second one is amazing.  How they created the layout of the world and how many enemies you fight, where you fight them, the set pieces throughout the game, etc, is why the second one is so good compared to the first.  The third game went a bit overboard on the set pieces and a lot of people didn't like that, but still a lot better than the first one, although I myself prefer the third.

These are two examples that are comparable to the upgrade from Infamous to Infamous 2.  It's not really one or the other exactly.  Just examples of differences that has the developers start with a game that's only sub par, Lufia, or fairly good, Uncharted, and then the sequel is amazing.  The Infamous series is the same. 

One thing, I did only use Dragon Valor as an example because a lot of the attacks that are done in DMC are literally pulled from Dragon Valor it looks like.  The games gameplay isn't stylish action and isn't combo oriented like DMC.  Dragon Valor does have attack combos in it and such but you really can't link them together like in DMC.  The game is an action/adventure game in the similar style as Zelda, Illusion of Gaia, etc.  It's only decent and not nearly as good as those though.  Just wanted to reply as didn't want to accidently lead you on that the game is much more than what it actually is, especially if you go and buy it off Ebay or something and are then disappointed.

I literally just finished Infamous a couple of days ago and enjoyed it a ton. I have to admit I previously under appreciated the game. I got it for free on the PSN hack thing and it stayed on my PS3 unplaced for almost 2 years. Decided to finally start playing it 3 weeks ago and blew through. Really good game. Very excited to pick the second one.

As for God of War, I've played 1+2 on the PS2 and recently picked up the GoW Saga. I don't usually like hack and slash games but God of War just plays really well for people like me. It's difficult and requires some strategy but no really crazy memorization of combos. It has some decent puzzles, awesome huge set pieces, and great story. I also enjoy Greek mythology a lot so it makes the game more interesting even if the mythology is butchered a little.

As for Killzone I like it enough. More than CoD but probably not as much as Halo. I played the campaign on 2 and a little on 3. They're good shooters and the cover mechanics make it at least different then other shooters in the market. What I like the best is how engrossing the game is with a good TV and surround system. It's just so loud and crazy. Ill eventually finish up 3 one of these days.

IPs that could go one per gen for Sony that I like
LBP
Gran Turismo
Killzone (the story is kind of running thin for me. SPOILERS but Helghan is destroyed and the best villains are dead Visari and Radik and this game should be Sony's big MP shooter so refine that for the gen and have big DLC for the one game)

Now this is not to say I wouldn't be ecstatic to have more than 1 of these per gen, but do it Nintendo style and keep them at the forefront and selling well the whole gen. This makes them more profitable and frees up the studios that normally do them to work on something else.

LBP and GT are probably the only ones I can make a strong argument for. I just plain am not as much into KZ SP other than 2 which was great, but like I said it had the best villains by far.

God of War and Infamous I like 2 per gen like we got this gen.

Uncharted I could have done with 2 but 3 wasn't really stretching it.

Ratchet I hope we get a really solid, traditional one like ACiT this gen instead of like the last 2. 5 was way too many this gen and that's coming from someone who counts Ratchet games as his favorite franchise of all time.

QD always makes new IPs.

Resistance could use a couple more since we still haven't even seen the real Chimera and the story in 3 was my favorite SP FPS of all time.

Jak and Daxter should come back with an installment or 2.

Also sony should buy back Crash and either have a downloaded title or a Sly 4 thing where it costs less so they sell it for $40. That game sold enough back in the day that if they advertised it right (big if for Sony) they could get a lot of old school fans back on board and sell a couple million if it was as good as 3.

I believe Devil May Cry 1 is substantially over tracked on this site. Cacpom have reported shipped numbers of the title less than DMC4, which they remarked was the largest shipped of any DMC game according to their reports a few years ago.

I never cared for Infamous. Outside of the story, I think the game is mediocre/slightly above average. It has a lot of potential but quickly devolves into a standard 3rd person shooter. For me, it really needs a more robust melee system. Killzone is alright. It has a lot of "wow" moments and some modestly original gameplay (for a shooter), but they are not games I will be replaying years from now.

I think the GoW series is brilliant, although I didn't particularly enjoy Ascension. I personally think they need to move on with the franchise and completely update the combat system (like the jump from DMC1 to DMC3) or release a new IP.

It always seems strange when I see people compare GoW to DMC. They are completely different games with vastly different styles, gameplay mechanics, adventure elements, etc.....just for reference, DMC3 is my favorite game of all time.