I'm pretty sure I own it through share play but I'm more wondering how different it really is.
Like regarding the monster/gear variety, gameplay differences, story. I don't think I'd want to just play the same thing if the only major difference is the maps/graphics quality (although I do love spending a lot of time admiring environments)
I mean you still fight monsters and collect loot to craft weapons and armours, the core is always the same, it's the sum of small things that differentiate the titles.
World is less arcadey, animations are more heavy and you have to commit a bit more, there is more focus on finding tracks before finding the actual monster, you are kinda forced to explore the maps instead of jist running around to your next objective with the sakret.
Too many small differences to make a list honestly, with my shit memory i would probably forget half of them.
It's hard to answer about the cast of monsters, even if i think that wilds has more variety, the fights are way easier, last way less so they are not as memorable to me.
Weapons are probably better in wilds, both aesthetic and moves but i would lie if i said that some of the moves in worlds weren't better or felt better.
The switch axe in iceborne finally found a reason to exist because it had much better breaking parts and stun potential so the axe part was a viable playstyle, in rise you could use the elemental effects of sword in axe mode, but on wilds they returned to sword being the bread and butter of the weapon and axe barely having a use other than charging sword form.
Focus mode on greatsword is kinda of a cheat, the essence of the weapon was big damage with the risk of whiffing but now with the focus mode you can aim and never miss if the monster is still close.
Bow is super overtuned and i'm hearing similar stuff for like half the weapons in wilds.
Monsters and weapons are too much of a complicated matter to have a definitive answer, some people still think 4u is the best mh game, so not world or wilds but an even older title.
