I don't understand why we're even comparing the E3 2005 trailer to the 2007 trailer - all that matters is whether people will buy it when they see it in the store, and if it will make them buy a PS3. Are the explosions as good as the 2005 CGI trailer - no, obviously not. Some of the lighting is better than the trailer, like the shadow as the soldier jumps over the railing. The weapons models are more detailed. Some of the lighting is obviously pre-baked, and doesn't respond to dynamic lighting.
But really, so what? Let's say that on every technical point, some other game is better then it (the perennial favorites seem to be CoD4, Halo 3 ... gee, I wonder why). It doesn't change what will happen when people walking into the store see it in the demo kiosks. What people on this board think has nearly no effect on what people will buy. This is all tempest in a tea cup.
If you think KZ2 is absolutely fantastic, great, sit back, wait, buy. It you think it's a dog, great, sit back, watch it tank. No need to ruin a thread with subjective comments. It doesn't matter - it really doesn't. Everyone with eyes can see the game for what it is.
Discussing technical points (shadows are not cast from that hallway lamp, hmm, I wonder how many dynamic lights the engine can handle) is great, the point of B3D. Making subjective comments (game X looks better/worse!) are completely pointless.
