Call of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts Image
Metascore
  1. First Review
  2. Second Review
  3. Third Review
  4. Fourth Review

No score yet - based on 2 Critics Awaiting 2 more reviews What's this?

User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 19 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Developed exclusively for the PlayStation 2 computer entertainment system, this game offers a companion experience to Call of Duty: World at War, featuring its own unique set of missions, engagements and challenges that are set within the Pacific and European campaigns through many of theDeveloped exclusively for the PlayStation 2 computer entertainment system, this game offers a companion experience to Call of Duty: World at War, featuring its own unique set of missions, engagements and challenges that are set within the Pacific and European campaigns through many of the pivotal battles that led to the end of the world's greatest war. Expand
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.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 7
  2. Negative: 3 out of 7
  1. MatthewD
    Jul 30, 2009
    10
    an outstanding game for ps2 big improvement from previous cods, bit disappointed about not having nazi zombies but don't care about no an outstanding game for ps2 big improvement from previous cods, bit disappointed about not having nazi zombies but don't care about no multiplayer as I don't do any multiplayer gameplay on ps2. Expand
  2. shailinderm
    Nov 6, 2009
    9
    i give this game a 9 because it is not so hard unlike resident evil 4.you should realy buy this game if you like easy shooting games.its i give this game a 9 because it is not so hard unlike resident evil 4.you should realy buy this game if you like easy shooting games.its boring at first but then it gets bettr Expand
  3. 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 theIt 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. Expand
  4. ChalexC
    Jan 7, 2009
    5
    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 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. Collapse
  5. ChrisF
    Aug 29, 2009
    4
    I bought this game thinking it would be as good as other wartime games such as blackhawk down, but it is not even close. The graphics are I bought this game thinking it would be as good as other wartime games such as blackhawk down, but it is not even close. The graphics are solid, but no co-op campaign or for that matter even one vs. one mode totally ruined the game for me Expand
  6. 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 allHorrendous. 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.
    Expand
  7. 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 theWell, 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. Expand