OMG. Leo-j back at it again. This is a ridiculous statement. This game is not in comparison with Crysis. Gears of War still looks just as good as Killzone 2 does now. Seriously man! 95% of you statements are complete BS. And you post SOOOOO much. 2100 of your 2200 posts are ludicrous. I mean, honestly, Killzone 2 looks fantastic, but it's not the end all or be all of game graphics.

 I will actually agree with Leo (even though I agree he needs to be perma-banned) the 360 cant handle the amount of stuff happening at once in Killzone 2 and being limited to 360 formatted DVD-9 only 3 alpha maps would be able to fit. The map shown is 2GBs large so if there is 20 maps the 360 would be screwed as there would need to be 40GB/7GB = 6 DVDs, thats not good at all and thats taking away maybe 2GB of 7.1 channel audio and the game engine. Even if some maps have some textures reused to cut down on file size on some maps the game still needs the 50GB Blu-ray disc. 

 Also this being the alpha version and the PC version of Gears looks worse then the PS3 version of UT3 (a game thats nearly complete) and Killzone 2 is in it's alpha form, the beta being shown at TGS, currently matches UT3 PS3, the beta will probably match UT3 PC. 

And of course its not the end all to be all but it is pushing fantasy realism to the next level.

 well they are the ones who made their engine so they might be able to figure a way to make their engine handle bigger textures. 

 Re disc space

In the E3 demo, you see those big things flying in the sky far in the distance? Or flying over the city with all those buildings. Thats why the first level uses 2gb. The way those far off building/details are stored on disc require a ton of space and is not compressed whatsoever.

Think about this; Warhawk looks nice, right? And all the maps are really big, right? Then why is Warhawk under a gig?

Ari Gold believes that Metal Gear Solid 4 > Killzone 2

Its not that simple. The texture fill rate is limited by the hardware, and the method of rendering inherintly limits the texture fill rate. The only way they could partically overcome this is to give everything near the player nice textures, and everything above/beyond invisible walls fairly low rez textures. The fact is, they knew about this limit when development started and either assumed textures wouldn't be high enough rez to make a difference this gen, or thought the advantages were worth it.

It's not as simple as flipping a switch.

As ive mentioned before, this game looks only marginally better than gears of war, and is coming out 18 months later with a higher budget and bigger development team. Common sense dictates that the extra time devs have had with the system since gears WOULD allow the game to run in an identical form on the 360. Its also become a well known fact that Sony and their associates are incapable of good compression. Motorstorm was meant to be 22gigabytes (yeah right) and HS is on a blu-ray disk but still only 6 hours long. Incidentally, PGR4 which people were claiming was milited by DVD9 is now coming with the geometry wars sequel also on disk. Kinda gives you an idea about Microsoft's compression capabilities next to Sony's. Worst case scenario, a single player campaign could simply be put across two disks.

As for pushing fantasy realism to the next level, a powerful PC running crysis (or any number of games for that matter) pawns the PS3 and the 360.

 theres only 5 of them, theres not even half the things going on screen when theres 32 warhawks in the air, there isnt a ton of buildings, there isnt a ton of enemies running, only like 2% of the buildings are destructable.