polewbuddy.blogg.se

Here, however, all of that magic is killed after you get the flamethrower in the very first mission. World at War at least made you wait a few missions before letting you burn guys to a crisp and the anticipation was sweet. In fact, the only thing separating it from past PlayStation 2 Call of Duty titles is the addition of the flamethrower, but even that is somewhat ruined. Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts contains none of that innovation and excitement, delivering an experience that “by-the-book” is too nice of a term for. The sniper level in which you hide amongst dead bodies and time your shots with passing planes? Sure, it may have been a mix of Enemy at the Gates and the sniper level from Call of Duty 4, but it was still great, as was the ensuing chase after you’re discovered.

I mean “game” is right there in “gameplay.” Sadly it’s where Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts disappoints the most.Ĭall of Duty: World at War made the tired World War II setting work through innovation. Gameplay is, I think, the most crucial aspect of a game.

Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts, as you can tell from the title, is not just a PlayStation 2 port of World at War, but rather a companion piece.Ĭan UK-based developer Rebellion do what Treyarch did and breathe some life back into World War II? Gameplay in Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts (1 out of 5) I was understandably wary, but Treyarch managed to make World War II somewhat fun again. I didn’t know what to think when the Call of Duty franchise went back to World War II after the phenomenal Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

Prepare Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts