Steve Blum plays a character named Mason so I'm just gonna go on a whim and say Dempsey is Alex Mason's father. I will not elaborate further
Maneiro, gostava das fases e do jogo ser contra as tropas imperiais japonesas e não mais focados nos nazi, a última missão lembro de curtir muito na época mas já faz bastante tempo
avaliando com metade da nota pois apenas lembro de ter jogado, mas sinceramente não me lembro de nada da gameplay ou história
It's fine. Honestly, every CoD game except Black Ops 1 blends in for me, so whether this is better or worse than the real thing, I really don't know, or care
If you ever think vanguard is the worst call of duty then boot this up, final fronts makes vanguard look like Black ops 2.
A very mediocre throwaway spinoff to serve as one final cash-in for the aging PS2 before the series moved-on for good.
A game I played in desperation back in 2011 because my parents wouldn't buy me a PS3, so I had to deal with a PS2 (poor me). If only I had have done some research and realised that the PS2 literally had one of the best game libraries out there, and maybe actually played one of those great games...but no, I played Call of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts.
I really don't have much to say about this game, I'm mainly just baffled that it exists. Why port a whole new COD game rather than just putting regular WaW on the PS2? Why make a game with ONLY single player campaign, absolutely no multiplayer capabilities at all, and cut it at 13 missions? Why the addition of a British Campaign (as well as an American European Campaign) yet the complete exclusion of a Russian Campaign? Just so many questions. This game is like late 2000s mobile games, there's nothing explicitly wrong with it, there's just no reason for it to exist.
In terms of quality though, I'd have to say this game is pretty much exactly the same as Big Red One, fun little harmless romp.
In terms of quality though, I'd have to say this game is pretty much exactly the same as Big Red One, fun little harmless romp.
zerei esse no odio, tinha memorias de nostalgia com ele, soq e um jogo bem repetitivo, cheio de bugs na segunda campanha(por mais q seja a melhor dentre as 4)
you can hear miller speak, that's like the only positive of this game
This review contains spoilers
This is the worst Call of Duty game from the pre-repetitive era.
The Story shows American and British soldiers fighting in the Pacific, and Europe during World War 2. Which would be an alright idea for a side game to the franchise if it was engaging, but it's not "due to the game barely having a unimpressive direction, the other factors in the game".
The best thing in the game is the World War 2 footage at the beginning of each level. Even the best moments are either default, or done better in the main game.
The Characters are either bland, forgetable, or taken from the main game, I know nothing about all the new cast. although they do show the people you play as, talk during the cutscenes, Sharpe was good, but Gibson isn't memorable, and Miller was done better in the main game.
The Graphics are awful, even the former side games in the franchise looked less pixelated than this, it is borderline Nintendo DS quality.
The Gameplay has you first person shooting Axis soldiers from real World War 2 battles. This sounds like fun, but a lot of the levels don't offer much variety is tasks, the AI for both sides suck, wether it's pushing you aside, or even soldiers on both sides being next to eachother, but they fail to kill eachother in that moment. You get killed for attacking targets that the leader doesn't tell you to attack yet "despite other games letting you do that anyway", there are no quotes after death, I also noticed that when Roebuck tells his troops to give a guy trying to stop the Japanese on his own support through supressive fire, there are no bullets coming from your squad's direction, and the thing that will tick most players off is that there is NO MULTIPLAYER, despite even the other side games having it.
The Music is very good, but the only tracks I could find were the main music, which is nothing special, and the ones that play in the cutscenes. There were no tracks I could find during the missions, and that shows how little work was used for this game.
Call of Duty: Final Fronts doesn't deserve to be associated with World at War.
The Story shows American and British soldiers fighting in the Pacific, and Europe during World War 2. Which would be an alright idea for a side game to the franchise if it was engaging, but it's not "due to the game barely having a unimpressive direction, the other factors in the game".
The best thing in the game is the World War 2 footage at the beginning of each level. Even the best moments are either default, or done better in the main game.
The Characters are either bland, forgetable, or taken from the main game, I know nothing about all the new cast. although they do show the people you play as, talk during the cutscenes, Sharpe was good, but Gibson isn't memorable, and Miller was done better in the main game.
The Graphics are awful, even the former side games in the franchise looked less pixelated than this, it is borderline Nintendo DS quality.
The Gameplay has you first person shooting Axis soldiers from real World War 2 battles. This sounds like fun, but a lot of the levels don't offer much variety is tasks, the AI for both sides suck, wether it's pushing you aside, or even soldiers on both sides being next to eachother, but they fail to kill eachother in that moment. You get killed for attacking targets that the leader doesn't tell you to attack yet "despite other games letting you do that anyway", there are no quotes after death, I also noticed that when Roebuck tells his troops to give a guy trying to stop the Japanese on his own support through supressive fire, there are no bullets coming from your squad's direction, and the thing that will tick most players off is that there is NO MULTIPLAYER, despite even the other side games having it.
The Music is very good, but the only tracks I could find were the main music, which is nothing special, and the ones that play in the cutscenes. There were no tracks I could find during the missions, and that shows how little work was used for this game.
Call of Duty: Final Fronts doesn't deserve to be associated with World at War.
Zerei boa parte dos call of duty com meu pai, não tenho opnião separada desses jogos mais antigos da epoca, porque eu zerei a maioria com literais 9 anos, eu nasci em 2003, então tipo, muito zika mas não tenho opnião para separar eles entre sí, agora os mais novos do MW1 (vulgo COd 4) pra frente eu ja consigo opinar melhor.
Vou copiar e colar esse pra todos os jogos que eu sinto a mesma coisa, uma nostalgia que não consigo definir direito.
Vou copiar e colar esse pra todos os jogos que eu sinto a mesma coisa, uma nostalgia que não consigo definir direito.
Eu zerei quando era muito criança, então as lembranças que eu tenho são bem vagas. Mas eu me divertia, então não acho que seja tão horrível assim.
Final Fronts is a game that purposefully tries to be a lesser version of a different game, a downgrade of World at War, and at that it succeeds. It is excellent at being bad. A true overachiever.
While Call of Duty, as a series, always tries to be on the frontier, trying to be the most beautiful and graphically advanced game among its peers, Final Fronts, on the other hand, is probably the only game in the series that puts very strict limitations on itself.
With a different set of mission than the game it is based on (although this released a day prior, ironically) I got tricked into trying it out. Anyone reading this, on the other hand, shouldn't bother. The little amount of new content is more of the exact same tasks from all the previous WW2 titles, and it feels even more mind-numbing and, occasionally, looks about as good as Roads to Victory. Think about it: it feels like the PSP title on the PS2. Don't forget this was released 2 years after Call of Duty 3, which was also released on the platform.
The enemies do not react to shots until they are dead. You pop three shots into someone's body and they don't flinch for a second. The guns feel more plastic than ever because of this, and the sound design and mixing is the worst it's ever been. The whole game feels plastic—an antithesis to the real World at War. There's also the fact that, at random, if an enemy hits a headshot on you, you die in one shot, and you can't even tell from where. This did not happen too often, but when it did, it was the most annoyed I've felt playing these games.
There some okay shooting segments, some funny accents, the entire British campaign is basically a joke about having a soldier called "Sharp" becoming a sniper and it ends on his allies calling him a "sharpshooter." This doesn't really matter to me, however, as this title annoys me not only because of the aforementioned reasons, but also because it feels like an undelivered promise, a purposeful step backwards and, unfortunately, a game that simply should not exist.
(Well, it's also the worst FPS I've ever played up to this point, but, the other reasons make for a better review ending)
While Call of Duty, as a series, always tries to be on the frontier, trying to be the most beautiful and graphically advanced game among its peers, Final Fronts, on the other hand, is probably the only game in the series that puts very strict limitations on itself.
With a different set of mission than the game it is based on (although this released a day prior, ironically) I got tricked into trying it out. Anyone reading this, on the other hand, shouldn't bother. The little amount of new content is more of the exact same tasks from all the previous WW2 titles, and it feels even more mind-numbing and, occasionally, looks about as good as Roads to Victory. Think about it: it feels like the PSP title on the PS2. Don't forget this was released 2 years after Call of Duty 3, which was also released on the platform.
The enemies do not react to shots until they are dead. You pop three shots into someone's body and they don't flinch for a second. The guns feel more plastic than ever because of this, and the sound design and mixing is the worst it's ever been. The whole game feels plastic—an antithesis to the real World at War. There's also the fact that, at random, if an enemy hits a headshot on you, you die in one shot, and you can't even tell from where. This did not happen too often, but when it did, it was the most annoyed I've felt playing these games.
There some okay shooting segments, some funny accents, the entire British campaign is basically a joke about having a soldier called "Sharp" becoming a sniper and it ends on his allies calling him a "sharpshooter." This doesn't really matter to me, however, as this title annoys me not only because of the aforementioned reasons, but also because it feels like an undelivered promise, a purposeful step backwards and, unfortunately, a game that simply should not exist.
(Well, it's also the worst FPS I've ever played up to this point, but, the other reasons make for a better review ending)
I have played this game and it wasn't bad but... I wish i got regular WaW instead...