Gettysburg: Armored Warfare is new title out on Steam today that was developed by Radioactive Software and published my Paradox Interactive. It is a real-time tactics game with the ability to take control of a specific unit on the battlefield and personally fight in the smaller engagements within a third-person view. The setting is an alternate history take on the Civil War, where futuristic weapons and vehicles from 2060 are brought back to change history. Sounds great, right?
Not entirely. The game, being a multiplayer-only title, has two game modes and four maps. The game modes are ‘Deathmatch’ and ‘Army Skirmish’; the former is much like Battlefield 3’s ‘Conquest’ mode with 64 players and third-person shooter gameplay, while the latter is a four player RTS skirmish. The maps are very large, each living up to the promise of 9 square kilometers. Sadly much of this space is unutilized because the five “capture points” (think Battlefield 3) are located in the center of the mini-map.
The ‘Deathmatch’ gametype offers more opportunity for fun and experimenting with different units. Those units range from standard foot soldiers to armored foot soldiers, even tanks to zeppelins. When a match begins you have to rush to find a unit to control for the rest of the round. In my experiences the zeppelins were taken first, followed by tanks, and finally soldiers. I managed to get in a tank for a few rounds, which handled well and provided for several fun moments against the opposing soldiers.
The soldier units play as mere cannon fodder and there isn’t much to do about it. There is no sprint, so getting to the capture points takes a while. It is extremely hard to hit anything and there is no cover to take. You can also switch to sniper, much like I did, and find that there is no first-person scope to look into in order to come close to hitting a target.
Aside from those problems there are a slew of more. The game feels clunky and every animation is flat out awkward. Here’s an example; if you run into a fence in a tank, it will stop you then disappear. Then you can continue on to wherever you were headed. Take an instance like that and apply it to the entire game, and it’s that type of straight up awful gameplay that you find yourself in the middle of.
The biggest problem this game has is the mountain-high stack of promises that were thrown about to gather interest. It was supposed to be a fluid free-to-play hybrid between real-time strategy and third-person shooter gameplay, and all of the previews I saw of the alpha and beta footage made it out to be just that. Except it isn’t fluid and I had to throw $10 into a pot of uncertainty.
The only redeeming value in this game is the sound design, at least in the sense that vehicles sound great and weapon fire is different. Aside from that and some vehicle handling, there isn’t much to praise in this title. As I write this review I wonder if I be so critical if it was free-to-play, but I would. With this year’s free-to-play titles, such as Tribes: Ascend and Blacklight: Retribution, garnering much attention and praise for their stunning quality, it is shocking that Gettysburg: Armored Warfare couldn’t afford to have even a sliver of that quality.
Honestly, there were moments when I had fun in Gettysburg: Armored Warfare and I really enjoyed the sound design. But those are two small things compared to all of the various complaints and issues the game boasts. The game design overall is extremely poor and will leave you wanting your money back if you purchase it. That’s the situation I find myself in now, so heed my warning and stay away from this title.
Gettysburg: Armored Warfare
Pros
- Sound Design
Cons
- Poor Game Design
Well I wish I had an account but it's bloody 4 in the morning and I feel very sleepy…
I guess if you had to call somebody who sees things as it is a douche, especially when said person paid for something worth way less than its cost, than I have no other option but to call you a jerk…
People expect far too much of a 10 dollar indie title, designed by ONE person. If you were expecting anything other than what it was, you deserve to be called a douche. Paradox, like EA, is known for rushing games out the door. It doesn't help that there was 1 dev. By the way, "Bad is bad" is a statement that simply ignores any possibility of an unforeseen factor- which makes you a prick.
I invite you and Herpaderp to read the manual from the game's website, more importantly page 13: (http://www.armoredwarfare.com/gallery/GettysburgArmoredWarfare_Manual.pdf)
One person didn't design this game by himself, because if he did then I would hope he would have the common sense not to promise as much as he did for this horrible title. Like how it was supposed to be free-to-play, as cited in my review.
Look for this game on my worst of 2012 list, that's the only recognition it deserves.
Great review, except for the fact that you gave it a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10. Games on my Android for 1$ are better than this piece of junk. Every1 keeps saying, “It was made by 1 person, chill out”. Um…so what? Bad is bad.
This is the part where someone tells you you’re a douche. Know what? I’ll do it.
You’re a douche.
Well I wish I had an account but it’s bloody 4 in the morning and I feel very sleepy…
I guess if you had to call somebody who sees things as it is a douche, especially when said person paid for something worth way less than its cost, than I have no other option but to call you a jerk…
People expect far too much of a 10 dollar indie title, designed by ONE person. If you were expecting anything other than what it was, you deserve to be called a douche. Paradox, like EA, is known for rushing games out the door. It doesn’t help that there was 1 dev. By the way, “Bad is bad” is a statement that simply ignores any possibility of an unforeseen factor- which makes you a prick.
I invite you and Herpaderp to read the manual from the game’s website, more importantly page 13:(http://www.armoredwarfare.com/gallery/GettysburgArmoredWarfare_Manual.pdf)
One person didn’t design this game by himself, because if he did then I would hope he would have the common sense not to promise as much as he did for this horrible title. Like how it was supposed to be free-to-play, as cited in my review.
Look for this game on my worst of 2012 list, that’s the only recognition it deserves.
Great review, except for the fact that you gave it a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10. Games on my Android for 1$ are better than this piece of junk. Every1 keeps saying, "It was made by 1 person, chill out". Um…so what? Bad is bad.
Great review, except for the fact that you gave it a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10. Games on my Android for 1$ are better than this piece of junk. Every1 keeps saying, “It was made by 1 person, chill out”. Um…so what? Bad is bad.
This is the part where someone tells you you’re a douche. Know what? I’ll do it.
You’re a douche.
Great review, except for the fact that you gave it a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10. Games on my Android for 1$ are better than this piece of junk. Every1 keeps saying, "It was made by 1 person, chill out". Um…so what? Bad is bad.
$10 Jackson, I hope it haunts you…
Think of the good it may have done!
$10 Jackson, I hope it haunts you…
Think of the good it may have done!
$10 Jackson, I hope it haunts you…
Think of the good it may have done!
$10 Jackson, I hope it haunts you…
Think of the good it may have done!