let's try an put some _hard facts_ in, will we?

1) "...demo did have some slowdowns... could end up being worse in some parts, as developers usually want to demo/beta the best looking and most stable parts of the game..."

First fact: the demo is simply the very first two combat areas of the game, does not sound cherry-picked to demonstrate anything misleading to me. It even involves a very busy in-engine curscene of the landing, that is probably very good looking but one of the choking points for framerate.

Second fact: objective framerate measurement of the demo  (Digital Foundry) where you say you experienced "slowdowns" show a quite steady framerate of 30fps during the action, I saw a few oscillations to 28 dipping at worst into 26fps for maybe a fourth of a second during the bridge explosion. Lower values only during the landing cutscene.

And while I was not in the beta, the very reason of having a beta is to _find issues_ thus I very much doubt they tried to give a skewed image of the game, that does not make any sense. I'm ready to bet that they tested maps of different scales and up to the max number of 32 players in warzone mode to intercept the issues, just ask anyone who played the beta.

2) "If I wanted to get into issues that everyone knows about and GG even confirmed was the input lag, there's even a thread on the official sony forums by them that said they are aware of the issue but the final game doesn't have it, while people that have gotten the game early by some shops breaking streetdate, they say the issue is still there in the final game."

Please quote for that? Because I read the official forum and the facts I can find there are:

a) the demo comes out, some people finds the controls "laggy" and unresponsive. They voice their opinion on the official GG forums

b) the official response is to check the settings on the TV, alter the sensitivity in the game optiona, check the wireless connection, and most probably get used to the control feel. They also state, of course, that they would "look into it" since so many people talk of "control lag" without detailing it or their setup

c) videos come out trying to demonstrate "input lag" when firing and when flicking the right analog. Too bad that the measured lag when firing in the video is 6-8/60th of a second: same firing input lag as Halo3 as measured by Gamasutra (I posted the links once yet), less than the one in GTAIV and other games. As to the right analog flicking I tried it myself, as many other people on the forum, and what someone called "lag" is simply recognized by the majority as the combination of small movements at the border of the dead zone plus the very slow acceleration ( the "weighty" feeling by design)

d) after a while the official response on the forum is always that the game works as expected, that the control feel is accelerated by design and that if factual evidence can be demonstrated of real lag they'll of course try to fix it

e) the consensus is that there is no real issue and that the final game behaves as per spec

f) someone reports this as "they fixed it in the final build"

g) some of those who had issues with the controls in the demo and have access to a final version still have the same issues and report this as "the fix does not work, the lag is still there"

These are the facts as I could find from the official GG forum threads... if you have an official statement of the devs stating differently just point me to it. If not, you're just repeating hearsay and that does not help an objective discussion.

PS: I'm pretty sure that will be occasional slowdowns during the course of the SP campaign, what with big set-pieces and all. I'm eager to see Digital Foundry's in-depth analysis on the engine's performance and technology. But in over 60 reviews I have not found a complaint about the framerate even from the most critical reviewers, thus I assume they're negligible gameplay-wise.

Edit: added the post scriptum

 Which games would those be ?

Gears 2 drop bellow 20 fps at some point.

Today I had CoD:WaW drop me to bellow 10 fps for a few seconds...

I second this.

This doesn't quite qualify as a console war thread, it's being compared to CoD4, not Halo 3.

At least you are not denying you hate ps3, that would be silly.

OT: so they sucks now uh? even if it does drops to 20 for a few second is still the best looking console game on the market  until uncharted 2 comes out

@CGI

Squilliam likes to think Killzone 2 is going to be bad that way he gets completely blown away when he pops the game in.

Although when it comes to online he will in fact "be blown away" due to the incredible lag I heard he gets due to his internet connection.

He is still picking up the game, he is just preventing disappointment. I think he picked up the tin case, and that makes me jealous.

The same site proves COD4 on the X360 goes down to 40 fps and GeoW 2 down to 24 fps. Let's have an analysis, shall we?

Killzone 2 render in native 1920x1080 interlaced which means half of the frames are displayed at one second, and the other half in the following one.

1920x1080x(20/2) = 20.73 megapixels/sec on KZ2 worst slowdonws.
1024x600x40 = 24.57 megapixels/sec on COD4 worst slowdowns.
1280x720x24 = 22.11 megapixels/sec on GeoW worst slowdows (could actually be 11.06 MP since the screen tearing may be a signal of changing from progressive to interlaced on an attempt to keep the framerate stable).

Personally I think the graphical improvements on KZ2 made up for the framerate drops when loading new areas.

Even with lag I say he still blasts you away online.

I cannot wait to crush and destroy the manly people foolish enough to go up against me! :](PS i will probably suck for the first few months lol)