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. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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

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