i think its more to do with the graphics and that KZ was ahead of its time, or shall i say on a console that could not handle it. but this time it is diff, so the hype is building up again, if this game is all what the original KZ should have been, then i will be happy

gameplay will be similar to cod4, but with the greatest ever graphics on a home console.

it looks phenominal indeed, and if they get the gameplay ala cod4 it will recieve good reviews this game will sell bucketloads. of course on metacritic fanboy reviewrs will pince this game down a peg or two.

What are the differences between a generic, and a great FPS? I see the word banded around a lot whenever FPS' are mentioned, even high quality ones, and i'd put a bet on the majority of people saying it being anti-FPS in the first place.

There's no question that Killzone 2 is a highly hyped game, and it probably won't reach the dizzy heights that have been generated by this fact, i.e. not the second coming of Christ that will deliver the PS3 dominance, but if it can reach COD4 levels of fun, i'll be more than happy with that.

The difference is in the quality of course... Number and awesomeness of weapons, weapon balance, map design, good online play, number/quality of online modes, graphics...

Killzone 2 has been more hyped than any game should be. I don't think it will live up to expectations, except on the graphical area.

There hasn't been that much KZ2 hype for quite some time due to the delay...

Sony/Guerilla aren't hyping KZ2 at all. A lot of fans hype it due to the graphics that have been shown so far.

When you show a CG trailer, passing it as in-game footage a few years before the game is done, I think that counts as hyping the game. The fans' reaction is just what they want.

They released a target render in 2005, in-game footage in 2007, and a playable demo in 2008.  Not including a handful of screenshots.  That doesn't exacly scream hype. 

When they released that fantastic target render, they passed it off as in-game footage. Later it became known that the real game was nowhere near that state (at least not yet), which means they were giving the wrong idea. IMO, when you're so eager to show a game that you show it a few years before it's released, you're hyping it too much. Doubly so when you deceive people about the footage's nature.

There was a lot of untapped potential in the first one, so on new hardware and with the AI outsourced etc I think it could be quite good actually.
Now, about comparing this to halo 3 hype; oh my God no, it is nowhere near that. Guerrilla Games have been rather quiet about it seeing as this is a follow up to a mediocre product (unlike Halo 3) and also after the E3 '05 sham that no one forgets and coinstantly remind them.
There won't be duffle bags, soda, toys of various kinds, a movie and a bunch of other things involved in the marketing of this (like Halo 3) so the hype will be big enough that the game gets some attention but small enough so as not to warrant a huge disappointment for the fans should the game not deliver their hopes.
I do find it a little funny and truly impressive, though, that GG managed to create visuals on par with the CG trailer in 2005. Anyone unable to give them any credit what so ever as devs at this point, regardless of past exploits, are truly blinded either by childishness or fanboyism.