I've only played the single player campaigns from both games, but I must say, I think World at War has a much better campaign.
The things that people seem to like about the R2 campaign are really kinda like, well...wallpaper.
It reminds me alot of Prey. It's a really good game, with a nice gimmick, but it really isn't anything we haven't seen before.
The famous "sense of scale" is nothing more than wallpaper that you can't affect. These amazing vistas will be in the backgrounds of levels, but they aren't interactive. They are just background. The levels themselves are kinda closed off, surprisingly, and there is a lot of "hallway" gameplay.
Seems like the "cool Rachet guns in a realistic game" thing was alright, but new guns don't really make a game significantly better, imo.
Now, on the other hand, WaW is basically CoD4 with WWII and Japanese. It's not quite as good as CoD4, but it shines enough gameplay from the game, that it manages to be a fun and immersive shooting experience, which is, in my mind, no doubt a step up from the antiquated gameplay in R2, which was gussied up by cool backgrounds, and non-interactive environments.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
