The story is interesting enough and plenty deep, but I'll go on a limb and say that it's not going to even be in the top 10 best FPSes ever.

1) This is not true. PSN's numbers only include number of accounts, and many, many MANY people have 4, 5, 6+ accounts because they're free. We have no factual indication that that most PS3 users are connected to PSN.

2) That's nice in theory, but when people 'share a copy' and play split screen, they do it occasionally. Then, those friends you play with realize how fun it is, and in turn buy the game so they can play it online with you. Or often roommates/families have 1 PS3 and 1 Xbox and then play splitscreen on games together. Limiting this functionality merely makes people pop in games like Halo 3 when they have friends over, and cripples potential sales, as opposed to encouraging them.

@Zucas

I see a big difference between KZ2 and the Conduit:

KZ2 was born with a mission statement about _the game experience_. The whole CGI target render blunder made Sony a laughing stock, but once the dust is settled and the PR crap is cut, the process of starting with a vision and then trying to get there has merit. In this case the goal of a chaotic, action filled gritty battlefield with an immersive feel. The whole control/weight/motion blur design choices are in line with this mission statement, even though they can alienate some users.

That's why you will find that most people playing at least the demo will concede that the game has a very distinct identity. It's greyish and it's a FPS, but the experience of playing it transmits something. Maybe it's not your thing, but it does.

The Conduit was born from a mission statement about _tech_. Basically High Voltage started by developing an engine and lamenting that nobody was tapping enough into the Wii's hardware capabilities. Their very first video I know of is an engine tech demo (the one with the pool and the bronze armours) and for a long time it was very clear that The Conduit was born as a showcase for the engine. I might go as far as saying that they did not seem to be really interested that much into making a game out of it, it was just a necessary step.

Even their choice of making the controls and camera customizable like no other console game before, so lauded by many, doesn't entirely click with me. I think there's a point where customization goes beyond the "don't get in the way of the player, so that he/she can get the experience we meant" and treads into "we don't really know what it should play like, so let's sidestep all these tricky choices" territory.

As a PS3 and Wii owner I'm a lover of the Metroid Prime games despite their SD but evocative graphics. I love Killer 7 despite it being a messy jag-fest on my screen. I am not really that much into graphics for graphics' sake.

That's why I love playing KZ2 and I always appreciated they way it came along, whereas The Conduit (unless a first-hand experience will come as an epiphany) leaves me utterly cold.

... Not every game needs split-screen. Some games work better without it for some people. [I just can't imagine CoD4's campaign being as awesome as it was with the screen split in 2 or more]. I know it varies from person to person whether split-screen is a good thing in what ever game or not, but both these games haven't even gotten a chance to fully grace the presence of the common consumer [Killzone2 just hit EU yesterday... it's First region. Don't know when the Conduits coming].

As far as Killzone goes, most reviews didn't seem bummed about split-screen. I'm personally not worried.

Between system updates ( including Blu-Ray updates), games patches and DLC, it's really really hard to have a HD console not connected online...

My PS2 was never online, my PS3 is online daily ( and not even because I play multiplayer games everyday, just because of trophies, mail, even offline game having online features ( playing Mirror Edge right now and it gets time trial record online all the time..)...

.... o.k.

The only things that stopped the developers from putting split-screen in Killzone 2 are TIME, design, and the storyline (for co-op).  Their engine wasn't built wasn't designed for split-screen.  Remember Killzone 2's engine isn't pipelined across all the processors and only uses 60% of the CPU clock cycles AT THE MOST.

That's why framerate, for the most part, only dips more than 2fps when the game is saving your progress (normal behavior).  The only other time is the opening cinematic (no gameplay).

It's funny how people never really made a big stink about this when COD4 came out.

Lololololol. I played Killzone 2, and the framerate will drop much more than that, trust me!

Also, CoD4 wasn't exclusive, and was not pushing the hardware, so there wasn't such a big focus on how it played technically.

I hope you don't mind if I wait for a proper analysis of the framerate (like with the demo).  You come across as a person that hasn't played through Killzone 2, yet.  NO reviewer has said what you've said.  I'll leave the Killzone 2 part of the discussion at that.

COD4 was pushing one system, but not the other.  Remember 600p is not a PS3 centric resolution.  With the Z-buffer, etc in COD4, it's JUST enough room to fit into the X360's eDRAM (the only way 60fps is possible on the X360 at that resolution or higher).

Don't get me wrong, the game looks amazing, but if you say that there are never framerate drops on more than 2 FPS, then you either haven't played the game or you are blind. So far, it's only been a problem in the earlier levels that features bigger areas, more enemies and more action, but they are there.