So, 5 very large very good looking Warhawk levels is under a gig, yet one level of Killzone 2 takes up twice that space.

Hmm, doesn't seem strange at all....

 Actually, it's around 3 gigs. The head guy for Warhawk talked about this in IGN's Beyond podcast. At least for the PSN version, it's under a gig (about 700-800 megs to be exact) and when you start the game up, it unpacks all the data and such and it's about 3 gigs while you're playing it. 

Also, the Killzone 2 level was 2 gigs, yes. If anybody has seen the gamespot video that it's another Killzone 2 thread today, they say that want seemless transition between the 'cut-scene' and gameplay.

And yes, their post processing and deferred rending stuff is pretty cool looking. In the gamespot video, the guy said that there were over 500 shadow casting lights in the area, and seeing all those lights all around was pretty cool. It was really cool when he turned off the post processing stuff and the smoke/clouds dissapeared and you could see more of the level.

Yeah , 720p is just to week for a game that is in development for so long . especially because it wants to be Sonys Halo killer :?

 its not weak when you look at the amount of crap happening on screen at once. 

I've seen the Halo beta, it looks like Halo 2 with better textures. I can understand how people are excited to play it, but it sure as hell isn't because the graphics are'nt all that great. If only in that area Killzone 2 pounds Halo 3. Remember, I am not saying Halo 3 sucks or will suck. But if whoever buys it does it because they're looking for the best graphics, even on the 360, they're going to be disappointed.

I am really not that big into FPS. And if I ever buy a FPS (which might be once every other year at best somtimes every 2 years or so before I pick up a new one) I think I would choose Halo 3.

When it comes to FPS I hardly ever play them but I do play the best of the best ususally and when I do I play them for years.

The reason why I say Halo 3 over Killzone 2 is because reguardless of what anyone says or thinks they will be compared and people like ME who hardly ever play FPS are going to look at these 2 games since they are the BIG FPS for the 360 and PS3. And honeslty Halo 3 is a lot easier on the eyes.

Killzone 2 looks a lot like  Resistance. I think the developers forgot that Green is a color.

Resistance does not look like Killzone 2....I have Resistance, and I've seen Killzone 2, I would have to say the graphics are almost twice as good on Killzone 2. If only because of the lighting effects. I have also seen Hlao 3, and in my opinion, Resistance beats it's ass graphically, not to speak of Killzone 2. I mean, compared to virtually any other FPS on 360 or PS3, Halo 3 looks like somebody went insane with watercolor legos. Everything is bright pink or bright green or bright blue, and from the look of the lighting on the beta, everything happens at high noon on the equator. That game seriously needs to tone down the brightness a bit. Just watching it hurts my eyes.

lol agreed, with just that part. I went to E3, I know for a fact it doesnt look like Resistance. It looks better then Gears on PC.

 Do you fully understand the concept of a BETA???? IF you'd seen the latest video of Halo 3 single player & multiplayer you wouldnt be criticising its graphics