I was planning on, like the majority of GameSpot members, talking about the Big Three's conferences in todays blog post. But I haven't managed to watch them all, only really getting to catch the highlights that the fella's over at Joystiq have an offer. So I'll slowly make my way through them over the next few days, and leave my impressions as I go. From what I've read so far, however, neither of them had any jaws hitting the floor. It was to be expected though. The conferences were always going to be software focused this year, with the majority of that software already been shown off to ridiculous lengths throughout the year.

But before I go any further into all the E3 craziness, let me get back on track for todays topic. Although what I'm going to talk about today is slightly redundant after the events that just occured a few hours ago, it has been something that's boggled my mind over the last couple of months with the lead up to E3. Plain and simple, it's Killzone 2.

Now I never experienced the original Killzone, which may make me as fortunate, but from what I hear it came out the gate to very lackluster reviews, with GameSpot themselves giving it somewhere in the high sixies. Now, how does a game that gets this sort of poor reception deserve such a high profile sequel is beyond me. Does the tag "Potential Halo Killer" really carry that much force in the video game industry?

So how does a game, that originates from a poorly recepted IP, manage to gather so much hype and attention? That's the question thats had me scratching my head. There are threads popping up all over the place on pre-E3 forums asking questions such as "Which game will be better? Halo3, Crysis or Killzone 2?". What has Killzone 2 done that it's managed to get it's self compared to such titles as Halo and Crysis? Both these games have proven themselves to have some sort of impressive feat, be it technical or gameplay, that puts them over and above other popular games. What has Killzone 2 done? It provided a prerendered CGI video clip that ended up just causing a daft amount of ridiculous. It offered nothing but that prerendered clip for 12 months, but still managed to draw a crazy amount of attention and hype that had it being compared to the previously mentioned deserving games. It simply baffles me.

Now like I said, this arguement was made completely redundant today with the release of actual in-game footage of Killzone 2 today. But with that aside, I still think it's a valid arguement considering the mass of attraction this game got with the runup to E3.

Oh, and Assassin Creed looks kickass. Ubisoft can have my babies any day of the week.