(PS3; $59.99; Rated M for Blood/Gore/Intense Violence/Strong Language; www.killzone.com)
'Killzone,' which was supposed to be the PlayStation's answer to the Xbox's 'Halo,' put up a pretty good firefight when it was initially released, but it ultimately ran out of ammo and got taken down by critics and fans for being mediocre and easily-forgettable.
In an attempt to make things more memorable, Sony released "footage" of 'Killzone 2' when it made the announcement of the PS3. Along with touting the incredible hardware of the system at E3 2005, Sony showed clips from upcoming games, including 'Killzone 2' that looked more amazing than anything anyone had seen in a video game. The intensity of the firefights, the detail in the faces- it all seemed too good to be true.
And it was, because none of the footage on that reel came from an actual game.
Instead, Sony hired computer animators to make mock-ups of what Sony wanted the games to look like. None of the footage shown was real, although Sony passed it off as being so. Later, Sony would admit that the reel was "target rendered" and, although not actual game footage, showed what the PS3 was graphically capable of in terms of a video game.
That set expectations for 'Killzone 2' astronomically high, put enormous pressure on developer Guerrilla Games, and most assumed that the final product of 'Killzone 2' would fall far short of that "target render."
Granted, 'Killzone 2' was delayed over and over again, and development has taken over four years, but 'Killzone 2' is finally released. Can it compare to that notorious preview, or give the Xbox's shooters "Halo" and "Gears of War" a run for its money?
