WOW, it looks much much much better.

^
Yep they are all definitely eating crow now.

As the graphic fanatic that I am ... all i can say is ... WOWWWWW!!!
Game has definitely impressed me and will definitely be a day1 buy for me ... seriously cannot wait at all =D

The SPEs are still so underutilized. R2 looks amazing but there is so much more insomniac can do. The next R&C and R3 will so take things to another level.

I just saw it on HD (I was watching it on SD earlier), it looks better, but I am still disappointed. I really hope they fix those pop in textures, and that they still have alot of time to polish it, because it's not blowing me away like I had hoped (graphically). Gameplay still looks good, so thats good since thats main important thing. Still 1st day buy for me tho.

Alright, explain to me. What is all this "eating crow" business. Who said something bad about the game that wasn't true, and why would they have been proven wrong?

I just can't remember anyone saying this game was going to suck, lol, or that the graphics would be bad. It's as I expected, this game will probably fall somewhere in the low to mid 90's on gamerankings.

The game I could eat crow about is Killzone 2, which I've said probably isn't going to be AAA, despite good graphics. I could be easily proven wrong about that, but with R2, has anyone been flaming that game? If so, who?

R1 was only above average, but everyone knows that R2 is gonna rock ass, after E3. It's common knowledge.

All this wide-eyed faux entheuiasm on this post disgusts me, btw. The game goes for crow eaters that goes for PS3 fanboys. It's like half of you are finally realizing that R2 is AAA. It's been assumed for quite a while, fyi.

I'm getting sick of pointing out these inconsistancies. I think I've just grown cynical.

As for the Gears 2 verses R2 argument, sales and reviews will settle that pointless discussion. Don't try to marginalize either category because it goes against your interest. The argument isn't "which game is better" afterall, since I largely think that ToV was better than Gears 1(and I'd be right, in my own opinion). It's "which game is more significant." My answer, "We'll see."

Well, I actually thought the graphics and gameplay looked pretty good. I'd imagine this game will rank in the lower 90s average review score, from what I've seen, and be a competitor for big AAA exclusives.

Dude, seriously?  The game looks absolutely fantastic, and the reason people are celebrating is for the naysayers.  People saw the E3 footage and remarked on how it looked boring, mundane, and uninspired.  People saw the Chicago gameplay and laughed at how the textures, graphics, and gameplay looked silly.  Let them have their fun.  This is truly a gem in the making.  This has more features than Halo, more innovation than the first title, and has gameplay elements that are completely unseen in console shooters. 

GTFO

Oh, yea no doubt about it. I'm not sure if it's cuz I got my hopes up too high for this game graphically after seeing how good Ratchet and Clank Future looked like and hearing Price say that they were taking it to the next level, or that I expected too much out of them, I have no clue. I knew that it wasn't going to look nearly as good as Killzone 2, but I thought it would have looked better. I found some very noticeable pop in textures that hopefully get fixed, along with more polish. *shrugs* Oh well, this game is still going to be awesome and a "AAA" game (if not, then in my eyes it will atleast).

WHOA WHOA WHOA! Somebody put a Cam picture...in a gaming forums?!? Wow, this is a first. I would have thought that gamers (that listen to rap) would ridicule Cam'ron for his "Nursery rhymes" and "making up of words". Hopefully ur not just using that picture to get a point across....are you!?!

OP updated.