Call of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts

 PlayStation 2
User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 52 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 52
  2. Mixed: 17 out of 52
  3. Negative: 12 out of 52
Buy Now
Buy on

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
view
per page
  1. 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 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 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.… Expand
  2. MAINEiac4434
    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.
  3. 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 boring at first but then it gets bettr
  4. 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 multiplayer as I don't do any multiplayer gameplay on ps2.
  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 solid, but no co-op campaign or for that matter even one vs. one mode totally ruined the game for me
  6. Le_Shorte
    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.
  7. eva3si0n
    Jan 24, 2021
    5
    Call of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts is a spin-off to the original World at War. Strange spin-off, because part of the missions intersects with the original. I don't know why I tried it in 2020 on PS2, but after World at War on PS3 it was interesting to look at Final Fronts. Well, graphically, the game does not look bad given the performance of the PS2. But everything else is soCall of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts is a spin-off to the original World at War. Strange spin-off, because part of the missions intersects with the original. I don't know why I tried it in 2020 on PS2, but after World at War on PS3 it was interesting to look at Final Fronts. Well, graphically, the game does not look bad given the performance of the PS2. But everything else is so terrible that I want to recognize the fact: this part is the worst in the COD series. The dumbest AI at the NPC I've seen. The soundtrack taken from the original looks strange, given that it was taken mainly from the Soviet company. Boring mission at the Tijoacean Company. Absence of the Soviet company. Of the good, I can only note good company for the British. Otherwise, a completely passing project.… Expand
  8. CianoJoga28
    Jan 22, 2022
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Eu gosto da série de jogos call of duty, mais essa versão me decepcionou um pouco, a inteligência artificial dos botsé péssima! Os inimigos quando eles te rifles de precisão, em vez deles atirarem de longe eles saem correndo até você pra fazer combate corporal usando a arma! Tipo quê? E o jogo é muito curto, só tem 4 capítulos!!! Tirando isso eu gostei do jogo.… Expand
  9. Cubixreviews
    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.
  10. XxNightvHawkxX
    Oct 8, 2016
    8
    Good, not great. Graphics may be lackluster and the game may lack a multiplayer, but the single player is pretty fun. Game is completely different from the other versions of World At War and features Cod 3- like gameplay, but it's a short yet enjoyable ride.
  11. emlugo123
    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.
  12. homer4president
    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
  13. Basquilly
    Mar 14, 2016
    8
    Doesn't do much that previous CoD games haven't done already, but does improve upon the poor AI and gameplay of CoD 3 and gets additional points for the more interesting setting, but that's a matter of personal preference.
  14. LuanGamer
    Jun 17, 2015
    3
    Essa versão do ps2 é um lixo , a historia é ok , falta do multiplayer , e graficos lixo , e esses controles vacilou bonito em Treyarch , pelo menos a versão do x360 não é assim -_-
  15. J0e
    Jan 15, 2016
    0
    This game has bad characters that were cool before and a bad story everything is bad. Overall this game is so bad do not buy it just do not waste your own money like I did.
  16. SrPepe
    Oct 30, 2017
    6
    Este Call of Duty pasa sin pena ni gloria, se nota que fue desarrollado por Activision exclusivamente para vender en la PlayStation 2 y ya, para eso no lo hubieran sacado.
  17. mr-NachoMen
    Sep 9, 2019
    7
    Call of Duty: world at war - final fronts was the 4th and final game in the series to be released on the PS2, and aside of it's treyarch counterpart, this game is not a port but a stand alone game of it's own that tells it's own story with different characters, setting and missions.
    Visually it is not a gorgeous or well detail game, as it is using the ps2 hardware, but, it's at the same    Call of Duty: world at war - final fronts was the 4th and final game in the series to be released on the PS2, and aside of it's treyarch counterpart, this game is not a port but a stand alone game of it's own that tells it's own story with different characters, setting and missions.
    Visually it is not a gorgeous or well detail game, as it is using the ps2 hardware, but, it's at the same time amazing what Rebellion software could archive technical with this title, it has the most detail as possible that the hardware could allow as well some well executed and intense battle sequence, i could say this almost put the ps2 to it's limits. the maps are well structure and that's a good point.
    The story is different from the ps3, pc and xbox 360 versions, and it's narrated by it's protagonist showing images and real footage from the war, the game has 3 campaigns, the Americans fighting in the pacific, and in Europe against Nazi Germany and the British fighting against Nazi Germany... bad thing is that no Russian campaign was added here.
    Now moving to the negative part... as known, call of duty during the release of modern warfare became more a fast paced game with constant reflexes from the player, this game in comparison is more slow paced, by the fact that it is an fps on the ps2 (and fps were not that great on the ps2), camera movement is slow, even if you set the sensibility to high, the camera still slow, reloading is slow, aiming is slow, shooting is slow. The whole experience is ruined by it's controls.
    At the end, this is not a bad entry in the series, it is pretty enjoyable, unfortunately... it became extremely under appreciated and forgotten by it's major next gen console version.    … Expand
  18. Rens110505
    May 19, 2020
    7
    the campaign was pretty good, i had a good time playing trugh it and i completed it on regular. i liked that it had a japanese part in it just like the treyarch version of world at war. the multiplayer was missing in this version but nowadays the ps2 servers are down anyway except for a few costom one's. it also didn't have a nazi zombies mode but it was more like a test mode by treyarchthe campaign was pretty good, i had a good time playing trugh it and i completed it on regular. i liked that it had a japanese part in it just like the treyarch version of world at war. the multiplayer was missing in this version but nowadays the ps2 servers are down anyway except for a few costom one's. it also didn't have a nazi zombies mode but it was more like a test mode by treyarch so i don't really hate them for not including it. it has the nowadays normal control's compared to the other ps2 game's, it also has some good graphic's but might be worse then Call of duty big red one. in the end i had a good time playing trugh the campaign wich had some orignal ideas but the missing multiplayer is a down side.… Expand
  19. SupahGualtah
    Jun 4, 2020
    3
    dont get this i was young and thought this would be basically the same as the x360 vers but with **** graph. awful game

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
tbd

No score yet - based on 2 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 2
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 2
  3. Negative: 1 out of 2
  1. Gameplanet
    90
    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.
    Read full review
  2. IGN
    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.
    Read full review