Any time you hear something in the preview that says "It's hard to declare [Insert Game Here] an innovative success on a gameplay level" for a game with that large a budget, that is cause for concern.

Innovative features are things that are usually implemented early to mid development in a game. If in the future similar things are said about this game in the previews, it will not bode well for Killzone 2.

Still looks great nonetheless.

This game does look great, but my greatest skepticism has always come from the gameplay. It certainly doesnt look revolutionary and if its anything like the first one the game will be poor. "hard to declare it an innovative success on a gameplay level"???? After 130 devs and $40 million dollars, i'd be very worried about that. People will already have seen Crysis, which will take a lot of shine of K2's graphical impressiveness, so it needs to offer something that can compete with Halo on a gameplay level.

I think the innovative aspect of Killzone is the wether system. You saw in the trailers how the Hellgast have machines that control lightning, and they can supposedly control everything else. If the player can somehow control this to manipulate the battlefield, than it could be really interesting.

However, nothin has been show in the trailers and making this work in the game would be very, very difficult - especially since all the gameplay that has been shown off is in doors/cramped environments.

 the first one didnt really flop, it was an average game, just average, it made a profit I believe. 

It wont flop because its a sequal but not a direct sequal, its set in the same universe but you dont need to know the story of the first to know whats going on in the second.

Leo-j why even make this thread.

Evey killzone thread is full of this lacks innovation BS and doom and gloom form wii owners.

Gameinformer played the game(for those of you who say what about gameplay?) They said it plays like a AAA title.

 Very well hus, enlighten us, where is this game innovating?

And leo, what the magazine said is that this game LOOKS like a AAA title, they did not say that it PLAYS like a AAA title.  However, they did say that it lacks innovation

Well they played it for an hour, and they said it seems to be a AAA title. They said its the smoothest ps3 fps controls ever made on that system(it beat resistance O_O). Im really looking forward to this game, believe it or not if I were to choose between KH3 and this, KZ2 would take my money.

I think where K2 needs to be a success and to have legs is the gameplay, but then Sony have never said that this game will be enjoyable, they said it will look good. It will move huge numbers on the first and second weeks because of graphics and because it'll be the only exclusive fps on the console of any real quality, but if they dont fix the gameplay and actually give the game quality, it will die very quickly

So, your saying the gameplay currently sucks?Well, when you see "gameplay" videos do they look bad? I mean compared to haze(latest videos) kz2 is a god. Also I forgot to mention that gameinformer was playing in normal mode, the AI was fantastic.