Call of Duty: World at War – Final Fronts

From Crappy Games Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Call of Duty: World at War – Final Fronts
Call of duty world at war final.jpg
Why has it got the "Greatest Hits" if the PS2 version is crappy?
Genre: First-person Shooter
Platforms: PlayStation 2
Release Date: November 10, 2008
Game Engine: Asura
Developer: Rebellion Developments
Publisher: Activision
Franchise: Call of Duty
Previous Game: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Next Game: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Call of Duty: World at War – Final Fronts is the PlayStation 2 counterpart to Call of Duty: World at War which was released on seventh generation consoles and PC. It was developed by Rebellion Developments (who made the Sniper Elite series, Aliens vs. Predator games, as well as Rogue Warrior) and published by Activision. It's a completely separate game from World at War.

This page will explain why the counterpart is inferior to the ports of the original World At War.

Why It Sucks

  1. Short, by-the-numbers campaign.
  2. Weak gunplay.
  3. All blood and gore (which greatly helped in setting the dark and gritty WW2 tone) is gone.
  4. No multiplayer of any kind.
  5. Braindead AI.
  6. Incredibly easy.
  7. Damage taken can be inconsistent at times.
  8. Mediocre graphics, especially by 2008 standards. Even the Wii port looked better than this.
  9. Frame-rate frequently chugs; a flaw shared with other PS2 Call of Duty games.
  10. Uninspired audio.
  11. No Zombies mode, let alone a Soviet campaign.

Redeeming Qualities

  1. Despite lacking Soviet campaign, it features a campaign set in Western Europe that the original version of the game lacked.
  2. The Marine Raiders including Roebuck still had their voice actors.
  3. Still included some parts of the epic soundtrack from the PS3/360 versions.




Collin from DOAWK

4 months ago
Score 0
I'm planning to get this lol

You are not allowed to post comments.