User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 21 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 21
  2. Negative: 7 out of 21

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 25, 2015
    4
    Sadly, Final Fronts doesn't do nearly enough to distinguish itself from older Call of Duty games, and hardly bears any resemblance at all to the other versions of World at War. Any of the gameplay innovations to come into the series from last year's Call of Duty 4 and the other versions of World at War are absent here, leaving this PS2 version playing more like an expansion pack to the PS2Sadly, Final Fronts doesn't do nearly enough to distinguish itself from older Call of Duty games, and hardly bears any resemblance at all to the other versions of World at War. Any of the gameplay innovations to come into the series from last year's Call of Duty 4 and the other versions of World at War are absent here, leaving this PS2 version playing more like an expansion pack to the PS2 versions of Call of Duty 2 and 3. Combine that with the muddy graphics engine and some just plain brain-dead enemy AI, and Final Fronts just ends up being a complete bore. Expand
  2. Feb 23, 2015
    6
    Completely different game from the PS3/360/PC versions. There are only a few good moments in this game, gunplay is OKAY, graphics are okay coming from the PS2.
  3. Jun 11, 2013
    0
    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.
  4. May 16, 2012
    5
    It is fun for some moments, but the poor graphics and the bad controls does make this game mediocre. You hardly see an enemy , because the graphics are awful, and the controls are a big mess. The story is OK. Playing this game is like playing the classic Call of Duty, but in worse version.
  5. May 31, 2011
    3
    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.
  6. May 31, 2011
    0
    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.
Metascore
tbd

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.
  2. 45
    A lack of online multiplayer or co-op and an overpowering sense that you've done all this before -- multiple times, in fact -- dilutes any of the impact that Final Fronts could have had.