im avin troubles thinkin da same damn thin and its not like im gna be plyin this 1 shooter for the whole year like cod 4 cuz we all know what we're going to be playing in february K2!

World at War.

R2. cod waw is good but the multi player is too similar to cod4 yet overall weaker in the fun department.

I say Resistance 2. Because I'm Bias.

anyone who owns both games will definitely say R2

cod:WaW

Seems like the sales numbers would indicate PS3 owners prefer WaW by a solid margin.

R2

Both are great games, but completely different playstyles.

R2 is more run'n'gun. For me, besides the big bosses in the singleplayer, the scale and feeling of actually being in a large war wasn't that impressive. Even CoD1 almost does a better job at that. I honestly can't say I liked most of R2's campaign, but like many said it's not really the strength of the game.

The 60+ multiplayer is fun. The co-op can be awesome sometimes, but I personally hate some of the enemies you gotta fight in it - you often go up against certain enemies that have tons of hp.....they're often not too harmful, but you spend ages shooting at them. It kinda feels cheap and slows the action down abit. Even with almost 60 players, I had little to no lag most of the time. It wasn't as chaotic as I thought it'd be which is a good thing, but it still had tons of action - there's always alot more stuff going on compared to CoD5 due to it's higher player limit. The XP system means you'll always be gaining progress and unlocking stuff.

I personally prefer CoD5's campaign alot more. As always, the makers of the CoD really know how you make you feel like you're in a huge war. The added violence makes it feel a little more immersive, considering that the game is based on a real war. The campaign is short, but I wish it kept going on. Most of the music is really doesn't fit in the WW2 setting - that's probably my biggest issue with the game since you can do some amazing things with the right music.

When it comes to co-op, I imagine R2 having more replayability but that might change depending on taste. Cod5 has campaign co-op, which I already mentioned was short. The zombie mode can be fun though. When it comes to multiplayer, CoD5 has a much smaller player limit (16-18), though I prefer it over R2 since the smaller limit combined with the whole feel of the CoD series means that you can take on a more stealthy playstyle if that's what you prefer. Like I said, R2 is more of a run'n'gun game. My biggest issue with CoD5's splitscreen: I assumed that there'd be an option to unlock all weps....there actually isn't. You're forced to choose classes. When me and my friends went to play online after they went home, the leveling system felt abit cheap - they just bought the game, and I'm level 15 so I had access to more weps/equip/etc. The game could use a a little more features, but I was still a little surprised with all the options you can change for multiplayer.

Both are good games. I prefer CoD5 because it suits my playstyle abit more. Still though, CoD:UO on PC was the best online FPS experience I've ever had =/

COD. It's the choice FPS on PS3. My friends with PS3s pull all nighters to COD.