Screenshots & trailers
What players say
Why the number is what it is: aspect mentions counted across 318 sampled Steam reviews (275 positive / 43 negative), recent and most-helpful. Plain keyword counting, fully reproducible; nothing here is written by a machine.
What positive reviews talk about
- Multiplayer & servers10% mention it
- Story & writing8% mention it
What negative reviews complain about
- Multiplayer & servers30% mention it
- Bugs & crashes21% mention it
- Story & writing9% mention it
Satisfaction by hours played
Same score, different games: see how sentiment holds up the longer people play.
Under 5h
74%
92 reviews
5-15h
91%
97 reviews
15-40h
93%
58 reviews
40-100h
91%
34 reviews
100h+
92%
37 reviews
Review sentiment over time
Weekly positive-review rate (green) and review volume (bars). Dashed lines mark significant patches; the amber line is the start of the current scoring window. Hover the dots to see what drove a dip or a jump.
How this score was computed
The VGC Score is a weighted blend on a press-comparable 0-100 quality scale. Steam approval rates are first calibrated (95% positive on Steam ≈ 89.5 quality, since Steam approval skews high). Press and tracked creator reviews each count ~2x a player review and share one cap against player evidence (creator buy/skip calls pool into an approval rate, calibrated like Steam approval); all-time sentiment is capped and halved (it's context, not verdict); reviews of the current build carry the most weight when a fresh patch anchors the window; and a 'typical game' prior keeps small samples from pegging the scale. Because press reviews and Metacritic user aggregates describe the launch build, their weight decays as the game ages (3-year half-life after a 1-year grace). That's how a game that launched rough can outgrow its old reception once updates win players over. Reviews under 2h playtime (the refund window), non-Steam activations, and free copies are downweighted.
| Component | Positive | Quality (0-100) | Weight (pseudo-reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Press reviews (Metacritic) | – | 84 | 6 |
| Creator reviews (1 tracked) | – | 87 | 0 |
| All-time Steam reviews | 92% | 87 | 1000 |
| Metacritic user ratings | – | 84 | 12 |
| Post-patch Steam reviews (trust-weighted) | 93% | 88 | 69 |
| Calibration prior (typical game) | – | 72 | 50 |
Scoring window: last 30 days (no significant patch detected) · 197 reviews sampled · 185 total reviews in window · weighted 141 up / 10.1 down · computed 2h ago · full methodology →
Press & Creators reviews (82)
Individual verdicts from outlets we track: scored reviews first, most trusted outlets first among them. The small badge is each outlet's trust score: how well its scoring history aligns with players.
- 92
“Call of Duty: World at War was a surprisingly satisfying experience all around. Developer Treyarch really showed that they could be trusted with the keys to Dad’s car, and made a game that could be compared favorably to anything Infinity Ward has done.”
read full review ↗ - 90
“Any fan of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, is probably going to want to add Call of Duty: World at War to their collection.”
read full review ↗ - 90
- 75
“If all you’re looking for is more of the same, then Call of Duty: World at War is certainly a worthy addition to the franchise.”
read full review ↗ - 93
“I cannot emphasize enough how great this game truly is and how much respect I have for the team to make a game that not only impresses on a technical level, but somehow manages to make playing in this overdone war fun again.”
read full review ↗ - 75
“The multiplayer is as solid the series has seen yet and is capable of carrying the game, but it is disappointing to see the single player campaign waste so much potential.”
read full review ↗ - 88
“The multiplayer mode is very motivating: Using the splitscreen functionality, you can play the whole story together with up to three friends. Very exciting and funny, but WWII is already a little bit old-fashioned!”
read full review ↗ - 87
“If you don't care what era your action takes place in, then Call of Duty: World at War manages to be an exciting addition to the series.”
read full review ↗ - 75
“World at War is like watching a fireworks show that you’ve seen a few times before. You’re simply not wowed by the buildup, the grand finale, or any of it anymore. When - not if - the next sequel arrives, it’s going to have an upstream swim against an apathetic tide of familiarity.”
read full review ↗ - 80
“The addition of a robust and varied co-op option helps to mitigate the disappointment of the by-the-numbers traditional multiplayer modes. However, looking back to Kristan's review review of Call of Duty 3 you'll find the exact same complaints being raised two years ago. Corridor gameplay. Outdated features. Flaky AI. They're all still here, albeit masked by even more whiz-bang effects than ever before.”
read full review ↗ - 85
“World at War brings proven Call of Duty mechanics back to WWII with great success.”
read full review ↗ - 85
“It is a good World War II shooter that a lot of people are bound to enjoy, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I feel it doesn't have enough of its own identity to really win me over from continuing to play COD4.”
read full review ↗
ZTGD
Worth Playing
Eurogamer
GameSpot…and 70 more tracked reviews.
Patch history
No patch announcements found on Steam yet.