Since when does Killzone 2 have realistic movement, moreso than Gears or Unreal?

I think he means the animations of the enemies like when they were/getting shot and dying.

 Don't count on it, games will look better as their tools and techniques improve.

The same way you can't say Killzone 2 is gonna be the greatest thing ever until it actually comes out, you can't say it won't be better than Halo.

There is a hope that if Killzone delivers then it will be a big hit, but it depends on how the end product comes out.

Just cause the last Killzone was average doesn't mean the next one will be average too.

Also, saying only Sony fans are hyped about this is preposterous. The game had more hype around it at E3 than Halo 3 did which was a total shocker to me.

Just go back to the E3 reporting and you'll see how positively the game was seen. The only people who have played it, had positive reviews all around.

Just as an easy example: go to neogaf.com, a big gaming forum and look for the Halo 3 E3 thread and the Killzone 2 E3 thread, one is more than double the other's size and this is a forum where any Halo stuff is extremely popular.

The difference between Killzone 2 and Haze is that the people who played Haze didn't think it was anything really special, while the people who played Killzone thought it was great.

The only thing I know about Haze is that it has 4 player co-op (Halo 3 does now too) and it looks good and it's a timed PS3 exclusive.

the importance was the idea of killzone 2 being amazing. it has done that. the reason for it be hyped is over for the ps3, now it just needs to be hyped for commercial success (it has a pretty large budget).

i think its got a good chance of being a great game. im playing the first one and it seems like its being marred by inexperience, namely level design and lack of innovation, and hardware, atmosphere wasnt there. dont know about liberation but it was supposed to be really really good. and with this gigantic budget and team it seems like kz2 should be what they want it to be.

I'll tell you why it is amazing. Did you see the game? That is why it is amazing. No tricks, no nothing, did you see how it played at E3?

(Interview with Cliff Bleszinski about Gears of War)

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157032

EGM: Graphically speaking, is there room to improve?

CB: I think there's more that we could squeeze out of the 360. You get used to the limitations and potential that this console has, and then you can really start exploring. I guarantee that, in the future, the technology of what we do here will squeeze every bit of coolness out of [the 360]. If there's a follow-up, it'll definitely look better than the first.

@CKMLB.  EXACTLY, you cant say that Killzone 2 will be better or worse than halo.  My point has been that of all the MAJOR PS3 titles, Killzone 2 is the least likely to meet the goal of being 'better' than halo 3.  The only true indicators we have are the first title and the trailers.  The first title has mediocre gameplay.  The trailers show good (though not singularly brilliant) graphics and very similar gameplay to the first title.  The problem appears to be that Sony were so adamant that this would be their best looking title that they forgot to make it their best playing title.  Once again, it may turn out to be brilliant, however it has a far greater chance of being mediocre gameplay-wise, especially when compared to other PS3and 360 exclusives and multi-platform titles.  My point has always been that this title doesnt deserve the hype and that this hype lies primarily in Sony fanboys buying Sony's PR.  Said fanboys should focus on the PS3's other great assets, FFXIII, Rachet and MGS4

I think you'd have more basis in fact in saying that Halo 3 is going to be better then Killzone 2 only because you have very little to go on besides previous titles.

I think Killzone 2 is so important because of the hype that was heaped opon Killzone 1 which turned out to be completly unjustified. It's their chance to make good on the promises of Killzone 1.

So far so good, but I reserve all final judgement until I get a playable demo or play it at a friends house. Or it gets hammered fairly universally. Good reviews mean nothing to me. Bad ones however tend to speak volumes.

Though I usually end up gettin the game anyway if I wanted it enough!

Killzone 2 matters b/c it's the first chance for Sony to justify the difference in price b/w the PS3 and 360, but, like stated above, it really does seem like only PS3 owners are getting hyped for this game, but I don't think that's because it's not great or anything, I think it's b/c:

a) It's another FPS in a sea of big FPS's realeasing soon
b) 360 owners have Halo, so labelling something a "Halo Killer" sounds like you're trying to copy an original, not do something new
c) Most Wii owners are more into gameplay mechanics, not graphics.
d) The developer has an unproven track record, which doesn't mean that the game won't be good, but when someone see's a "2" in the title and have never heard of or cared about the original, it makes it harder to get excited about the product.
e) If graphics end up being the only thing that sets this FPS apart from others, it doesn't just need to be better than the rest, but blow them out of the water. GoW got people excited, not because it was slightly better than anything out at the time, but because it was such a giant leap in graphics than anything else coming out then, if a game had come out a month earlier that looked almost as good as GoW, a lot of the hype would've been removed.

Personally, I think LittleBigPlanet is going to be the first real chance for the PS3 to set itself apart from the competition, because I think to really get people excited about the console, they need to show that they have types of games that you can't get anywhere else, instead of trying to one up their competitors.