This is not really bad for a PS2 game, but when the PC and PS3 and Xbox360 versions exist ...

User Rating: 3 | Call of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts PS2
... you then begin to regard this as cheap rubbish.

COD:WaWFF is a much different game from the PC and other console versions, but it is a bad thing unfortunately. The only reason why I am glad it is so different is so that it would still be worth me getting the PC COD:WaW. This is one of those games that make you feel so glad that console games are available for rental.

The graphics are not as good as CoD3 on PS2, but they are still tolerable. I never really noticed any glitches so thats a good thing, but they still look horrible on character modelings. The gameplay however, is just way too cheap. It has gameplay which has even less feautres than CoD1, in my opinion.

There is a flame thrower, but only at the end of the game, and it is not even that good. You get guns with bayonets, but your guy still uses that old melee attack, with the rifle butt regardless. You mantle over objects, but only when you must. Enemies are easier to kill, but much too easier. The game is also totally linear. You even get invisible walls to keep you within boundaries and the area is often no wider than a footpath. WaW had a linear story, but at least some of the objectives were more open-ended and there was a large-scale battlefield in most missions.

The story is totally different and you just play as these typical english-speaking british and American. I enjoy it of course, but you don't even get to play as Russians in this game! It seemed a bit bias to me that it was done this way. I want to get a chance to play as different nations in WW2 games, instead of always playing as Americans, British. WaW on PC gave me that chance. Final Fronts did not.

You should only get this if you are a little kid, waiting a little while till you are a teenager so you can try WaW. Otherwise, upgrade your PC or buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 if you want the TRUE version.