User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 133 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 10 out of 133

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. Jan 13, 2013
    wow this is a horrible game. a good story can't make up for some of the worst controls on an fps or stupid AI that will run out and get shot, or how the guns just dont seem to shoot where you aim them. come on cod4 was before this and it looks better and plays better. if you want a wwII game get something else anything, a bag of hot sick will do but save your coin for anything else
  2. Jun 17, 2013
    This title was pretty awful my FPS standards, it should be categorized as a strategy title. Gearbox was attempting to bridge so many concepts from other genres such a covering from third-person shooters, squad commanding, and FPS that the entire package just comes across as a mess.

    Poor frame rates and visuals that wouldn't have cut it in 2008 It plays and feels like a second tier
    game from the early 2000's. Avoid. Expand

Generally favorable reviews - based on 65 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 65
  2. Negative: 0 out of 65
  1. To continually repackage the same hackneyed take on real pain, real suffering, and real people in the mane of entertainment is a sure road to exploitation. [Nov 2008, p.112]
  2. The game offers so much, from an engaging emotional story to showing the brutal face of war. Easily one of the best WWII based shooters.
  3. Gearbox has made a game that is stable and complete, if hugely unrefined in places, with an under-exploited but sound core of tactical squad combat. [Nov 2008, p.93]