Crossing my finger !! .. Hopefully it will be a fun game to play !

I do have a strange feeling that this game will be like Genji on steroid .. also I got a not so good impression on the camera tracking capabilities in the bazooka session, seems that still enemies can pop up from behind the camera and attach you when you less expect it.

So I guess this will be an excellent game sas long as fun factor and camera view work fine (We know graphic and animations will be great .. but is not enought).

Peace

Forgot to post the link ...

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3160584

Ok .. I got my 1 year XBOX live subscription mostly to play R6 Vegas on 360 (..and to play GoW, but the multi-player is really disappointing compared to R6). And I noticed that voice chat has never been that Christal clear. Now reading the IGN review of R6 Vegas for PS3 I see .. "Thankfully the voice functionality is remarkably clear, with all the chat noticeably less crunchy than that heard on the 360 version.", so are we at the point that a FREE service is actually performing better then one for which I have to pay a monthly fee ??? What is wrong here? .. is someone coming out with a patch to make voice chat a little better on 360 as well ?

Has anybody experienced any troubles with voice chat on LIVE ?

Thanks.

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2007/06/08/killzone-devs-say-well-shut-up-the-critics/

Ever since that over-ambitious trailer from E3 2005, the fellows in charge of Killzone have had to dodge tomatoes from everyone in the universe, it seems. Surely, no game could look that good, could it? Guerrila Games has issued a pretty telling statement regarding their showing of Killzone 2 at this year's E3: "hopefully it will all go brilliantly and we'll shut up even some of the most ardent critics." Well, that and their inner voice telling them "OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" So says Sebastian Downie.

We can't even imagine what they'll have to say at E3. It's going to be very difficult to satisfy fans and critics alike because they can't get over the fact that the graphics in the game can't possibly match that shown in the 2005 video, which served more as a tech demo than a hint at a game, like Final Fantasy VII. At least, not gameplay. What we were told to expect, however, was the announcement of online capabilities and some kind of public beta coming later this year. We'll see these guys at E3!

Interesting comment of that thread:

The problem with using prerendered trailers, is the audience not know what the PURPOSE of showing the trailer was. They think that because they see moving stuff on a big screen at E3, that the developer is claiming the game will look just like that....

They show a prerendered trailer because the game isn't even that far in development, and they want the audience to see what kind of game they should expect- not how the game will look. These guys wanted you to know that you're going to be making WWII type beach landings, dealing with attacks from all sides, commanding your squad, and taking out vehicles. They wanted to convey that the game is going to be fast paced action with chaos all around.

Now, the AUDIENCE thought that it was showing what the game would look like. Then, on top of that, the developers mentioned that in-game assets(ie: textures, models, sounds, etc.) were used in some areas of the trailer- even further convincing the gamers out there that these guys want us to believe that this is what the game will look like, when in fact it was only a representation of what they were aiming to recreate as far as concept and playbility is concerned: not the visuals.

And no, not even a disclaimer at the beginning would have nipped this whole situation at the bud. It seems like every trailer out there has those disclaimers but everyone wants to keep ignoring them.