No score yet - based on 2 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 2
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 2
  3. Negative: 1 out of 2
  1. The single-player campaign involves a riveting and emotional story, and the inclusion of co-op is fantastic. The game itself however is heavily weighted towards multiplayer, as was its predecessor.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 19 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 7
  2. Negative: 3 out of 7
  1. ChalexC
    Jan 7, 2009
    I love playing first person shooter games, but i felt robbed when i purchased this game. i basically bought it because it is displayed in metacritic that its up to 4 players, wrong information.... it is basically just ONE single player mode, the campaign, and that's pretty much it. I love call of duty's in general, this one isn't pretty bad either, if you're looking for a "good" shooter, this may be it, but you'll finish it in about 6 to 8 hours at most, and then forget it even exists. there is no much replay value. in conclusion, the campaign mode is fun as in every CoD, But the problem with this one is that i was hoping for co-op, online or offline multiplayer, etc... WHICH THIS GAME HAS NOT P.D. the gameplanet's review of this game is based in the same game but for next gen consoles, such as ps3 an 360, don't let it fool ya. Full Review »
  2. May 31, 2011
    Horrendous. Stupidly short (it's so short I didn't even realize the game was over when it ended), muddy graphics and frustrating controls all drive this game down.

    Also: no zombie mode! Why not, Activision? Was it too difficult to put in a co-op zombie mode on you're ridiculously bad PS2 port of World at War?

    PS2 users deserve much better than this.
    Full Review »
  3. Jun 11, 2013
    Well, I spent $2 on this game. Wasn't worth that, for sure. It's maybe 2 hours long, the voice acting and writing are both horrendous, and the graphics are sub-par for PS2 standards, even. Full Review »