User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 20 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 20
  2. Negative: 6 out of 20

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. Feb 23, 2015
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. May 16, 2012
    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.
  4. 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.

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.