Abandon History: Gettysburg: Armored Warfare Is Out

By John Walker on March 28th, 2012 at 12:30 pm.

This is your great grandfather.

I’m all about hybrids. When I’m not in Castle Shotgun’s basement laboratories, attempting to breed rabbits with dragons, I love to investigate games that plunder from multiple genres. But by crikey, I’m daunted by the prospect of a third-person shooter crossed with a real-time strategy. That’s the nature of Gettysburg: Armored Warfare, the latest from Paradox that’s just gone on sale. Fortunately braver men than I, like Jim “Brave” Rossignol, have taken a detailed look at it in the past. And now you can buy it.

It costs a weeny $10/£8 (that’s not right, is it – that should be closer to £6) from all over the place, including Steam, GamersGate, and so on.

64 player battles, in a ludicrous alternative version of the American Civil War, with futuristic weapons and RTS themes – it’s certainly novel! One you’re going to be checking out?

__________________

« | »

, .

38 Comments »

  1. Neurotic says:

    Being a big fan of Rise & Fall, I shall definitely be enquiring within.

  2. RakeShark says:

    Not a bad rendition of Ghostriders. But I think Toy Soldier’s rendition was the best:
    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/09/tower-defense-game-toy-soldiers/

  3. birds says:

    sadly this game is very very bad :(

    • frightlever says:

      If it’s so bad then how come two or three people having been making multiple posts about how much fun it is on the Steam and Paradox forums? Huh? Doesn’t make sense.

      Also, pretty much multi-player only it should be noted. There IS a single player offline training mode but it’s not intended to be the focus of the game.

      • birds says:

        It might be that people having fun with it. you can also have fun throwing rocks.

        But that doesnt change the fact, that it is a bad game ;)

      • Unaco says:

        “If it’s so bad then how come two or three people having been making multiple posts about how much fun it is on the Steam and Paradox forums?”

        Because those 2 or 3 people are from the “marketing” team for the game? Or they feel the need to justify their purchase, and by writing the posts they are trying to convince themselves that it’s not a bad game? What about the people making multiple posts about how bad and broken the game is?

        There were several posts advertising the game, and how great it is, on the forums here, all started by the same individual. They really didn’t go well (hence the air quotes round “marketing”).

        • kurtensen says:

          I’m one of those “two or three prople from the marketing of the game and/or trying to convince themselves that the game is good”. Sadly, I’m neither of those. Sorry to burst your conspiracy theory, but some of us are actually having a good time with this game.
          Sure, it’s been released in a not very optimal state, and probly it would be better to label it as beta or something, but hey, at least I can play it and have some fun, which is something that products like Red Orchestra 2 and RAGE couldn’t manage to do at launch…including actually the “play it” part.

          So yeah, I should start contacting Paradox’s marketing department or something, in case they’re looking for personnel. And Starbreeze, I liked Syndicate.

          • Unaco says:

            Notice the ?’s in my post. I was positing a counter to Frightlever’s claim that the game is not bad, and cannot be bad, because 2 or 3 people have posted threads saying they had fun. It was an alternative interpretation of the situation, intended to show that the claim that the game can’t be bad, because a small number of people have posted saying it’s fun, is just as valid as the ‘marketing spam’ interpretation.

            Just to be clear, I find both claims/interpretations equally unlikely.

          • G-Lord says:

            Same here, I also belong to this group. I agree that the game lacks a lot of polish but it is a chaotic blast and the guy behind the game (Danny Green) gladly takes advice for improvement in the forums. The game seems to be perfect to just jump into a match from time to time without the need to stay competitive.

      • Palodin says:

        The games unfinished at best but I think theres potential there. The concept is interesting (If already done in some manner by Darkest of Days) and I admit I had fun running around with a chaingun. Personally I’m going to wait for him to patch it up, theres just far too many issues at the moment. If it’d been released as a Beta of some form then it might’ve been better received.

        The developer doesn’t really help himself either, he keeps parroting that this is a one man prject and how many polished 3D games do you get for that price? Fact is if he couldn’t deliver he shouldn’t have gone for something so ambitious in the first place.

        Certainly not the WORST American civil war game I’ve ever played though, nooo. That honour goes to the Gods & Generals game.

  4. Grape says:

    Having played a couple of matches, I can say that it’s… not amazing.

  5. CKScientist says:

    I wouldn’t like to be the guy on the horse with the rifle when there are tanks and crazy minigunners everywhere.

  6. Unaco says:

    Should probably be some warning given* that the game is not in the greatest of states at release. Probably the worst problem (for a multiplayer focussed game) seems to be some pretty fatal connection issues, and general client/server buggyness and lag. Also some ‘missing features’, such as option to rebind keys, or to change mouse sensitivity. Someone whose purchased and played could probably be more enlightening.

    * I haven’t purchased or played the game, just spoken to a bunch of people that have, and checked on the Steam and Paradox forums.

  7. Colthor says:

    “(that’s not right, is it – that should be closer to £6)”

    VAT; US prices exclude tax. Take that into account – hardly anybody making regional price comparisons ever does – and it’d be ~£7.54, so it’s only about 45p (6%) more expensive here.

    Probably just because it’s rounded up to the nearest .99.

    • sneetch says:

      Not to mention the fact that currency prices fluctuate; some people seem to assume that the price was set when the game was released (or when they encounter it) rather than months beforehand when such things were negotiated and agreed.

  8. Dana says:

    limp biscuit is going to release WTF is, today. And he says its rubbish.

    • HoosTrax says:

      “limp biscuit is going to release WTF is, today. And he says its rubbish.”

      Fred Durst is in the video game critique business now, is he?

      • Dozer says:

        Keep rollin, rollin, rollin, rollin…

        Perhaps one of the game’s coders could post snippets of source code (anonymously) to The Daily WTF.

        The game’s not any good unless there’s a statement:
        enum Bool {True, False, File_Not_Found};
        in there somewhere.

        edit: Jim’s article says the game was made by a sole programmer. Never mind then. He’s hardly going to post his own WTF-code…

  9. Gap Gen says:

    If people aren’t liking this, I hear tell Scourge of War: Gettysburg’s couriers are working in multiplayer now (in the latest beta patch).

    In any case, something that would force me to buy this would be if the future soldiers start popping out of existence because they’ve just killed their own grandfather.

  10. wodin says:

    @ Gap Gen Scourge of War is a totally different genre however I damn fine wargame. Just my interest in the ACW is pretty much zero. If a Napoleon game was made using the engine I’d go for it though.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Oh yeah, no doubt. I just like plugging it at any possible opportunity. I think I prefer it to Total War; I’ve learned to appreciate the leisurely pace of the battles to the frantic clashes in Total War that take about a minute to swing one way or the other sometimes. Plus the courier and command tree system works really well. But sure, all entirely different takes on the subject of fighting with history dudes on a heightmap.

  11. JerreyRough says:

    I think I’m going to wait on this one. Watched TB’s video and I agree with him. I absolutely love alternate history like this, but the game needs to be far less buggy on release for me to purchase. I think it would have been better to not create a new engine from the bottom up; adapt an existing engine would save way, way more time and be less buggy (Unity 3D would be perfect).

    Heh. I bet if it wasn’t as buggy they’d have at least ten thousand more purchases.

    • JerreyRough says:

      I think he’ll keep supporting G:AW very well with patches though, so I bought it anyway. It might need some patches to fix the major issues some have, but its a good game underneath. And I’m really don’t want myself to have double standards since I’ve backed kickstarter projects.

  12. Torticoli says:

    The game doesn’t work, as demonstrated here by TotalBiscuit : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3VaSl5jhPA&feature=g-user-u

    It’s obviously not finished, don’t buy it.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      yes let’s all follow the gospel of entire biscuits.

      this game is akin to the very early releases of mount and blade. rough as shit, but amazingly fun to play if you’re not a twat.

      • derbefrier says:

        some people may be able to put up with an incomplete game, most wont and will be annoyed to find out its incomplete after spending money on it. it may very well be fun but with the issues that i have seen reported it seem obvious it wasn’t ready for a steam release.

        the game sounds interesting but i will wait until a free weekend or a demo comes out seems like a pretty risky purchase at the moment.

  13. Jubaal says:

    Sadly I have to agree with many people here to say that the game is just not complete and should not have been released yet. It is more like an Alpha than anything. There are no options to change key bindings, no reverse mouse (game killer for me), no ability to host your own games, inability to leave some games without shutting the whole game down etc.

    I’d strongly suggest people wait a few weeks for the game to be patched then try it. It should never have been released int his state to be honest.

  14. Javier-de-Ass says:

    Hahaha. What is paradox not giving a shit anymore at all about releasing games that don’t even remotely work. It’s like actually the reason they’ve used to make all their games steam only now as well, because it means it’s less stuff for them to bother with on the back-end. It probably works, ship it. People will buy it anyway, because it’s on steam, and there are no refunds. They’ve become extremely lazy, and it’s offensive.

  15. bit_crusherrr says:

    Buyers remorse.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>