Ok sorry I stand corrected.

You continue to underestimate the ps3, you do know that ounce some game that looks better than anything on the 360 thus far(killzone2) is released on the ps3 those 360 owners are willing to pay for a ps3(this is how microsoft got into sony's ps2 owners, with gears of war an halo )

Bro are you serious? Well its your opinion and I respect that.

So the only games that will sell consoles are sequels of big games or a casual game? Gears of War, brand new game that moved 360s and is still the biggest game on the 360.

FF will move systems guaranteed because it's FF. MGS and Killzone 2(if it doesn't disappoint) will move systems because these are big games.

I asked this awhile ago, and got no real response. Yes, it's possible that KZ3 will simply have some tremendous polish and prove a great gaming experience, but that's not something that can really be demo'd in the brief bites we've gotten so far. There doesn't appear anything special about it, even the graphics (which, again, are fantastic, but what FPS doesn't look fantastic on a next gen system?). Think of games like Half Life or KOTOR, which, if all you had to judge were the preview snippets, really didn't offer much special. It wasn't until you actually played through them that you could appreciate what they were.

So, yeah, right now I say KZ2 is 40% graphics, 90% hype and wishful thinking.
This isn't to say that it won't be a great game when it comes out (or that it will be), but that without the pedigree of other titles (Halo3, Mass Effect, Mario Galaxy) or innovative gameplay ideas (Assassin's Creed, Little Big Planet), there is simply no justification for this much hype.

And whatabout all those PS2 fanboys? How many of them jumped to the XBox because it had better graphics?

The differences between the two systems is marginal, and very few gamers will be able to spot the minor technical enhancements of one over the other. Most of those who can are well informed tech heads who have already commited to one console or the other, or both.

Not to state the obvious, but before making any comparisons shouldn't we make sure H3 is actually good?

More resources, more hype, better graphics.

All I can say is, Phantom Menace.

Have you ever seen a game were your enemies actually react to being hit by a strong bullet and actually bleed to death on the ground, and move so realisticly, at the same time huge thunderstorms and allies fighting against the helghask and get killed by lighting, with destructable environtments, and tremendous AI that actually think of a way to hide and even shoot with without looking at you while still hiding, and taking cover as well. Up to this point there has been not even one FPS that can do all that I have mentioned or even half of it. If it wasnt for the cell, none of this would be possible. Imagine that and it was a pre alpha demo. Nobody in 2004 or even 05 when 360 released would think that a system can offer that stellar gameplay and triverse action. And still people doubt that what they saw was even real.

 I saw a gameplay vid on IGN.

 It almost put me to sleep.

 FPS is a genre that I've played to death. It takes something way more interesting than moderately improved graphics and animations to make me care about an FPS game. Battlefield 1942 did it with a wide range of weapon kits and vehicles, balancing combat between infanty and vehicles, non-linear map objectives, and a fun setting. Halo offered much the same thing on a different platform, adding in a fun single-player campaign and a more polished game than EA is capable of making. Half-life 2 had the physics engine which they loved to show off and the gravity gun gimmick which never got old.

 What does Killzone 2 have which is in any way unique? I've seen some people say story, but Bioshock looks like it has a far more interesting story and engaging atmosphere.