Metascore
22

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 6 Critics What's this?

User Score
2.3

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 41 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Gettysburg: Armored Warfare is a free-to-play first-person shooter/real-time strategy hybrid.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 6
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 6
  3. Negative: 6 out of 6
  1. Apr 13, 2012
    30
    Gettysburg: Armored Warfare is a busted online real-time strategy/third-person shooter hybrid that falters despite its cool premise.
  2. Apr 23, 2012
    25
    Paradox Interactive still cannot produce a decent third-party game (see also: Majesty 2, Sword of the Stars 2, Magicka).
  3. Mar 30, 2012
    20
    A year from now Gettysburg: Armored Warfare could and likely will be a totally different game. But right now this unfinished piece of software isn't worth any amount of money.
  4. Apr 14, 2012
    20
    We can't imagine that developers actually hate gamers, but after having played Gettysburg, we're starting to doubt that. It's ugly, not user-friendly and simply unfinished: these are just a few of the things that make this a horrible game.
  5. Apr 12, 2012
    20
    Gettysburg: Armored Warfare is a broken, bleeding mess. Do not buy this. Not even to laugh at it.
  6. May 11, 2012
    19
    Tremendously ambitious but agonisingly incomplete. Its battlefield is buggy and crude, and its RTS credibility is MIA. [June 2012, p.96]
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 20
  2. Negative: 15 out of 20
  1. Mar 28, 2012
    8
    I was hyped for this game, and I was disappointed by the graphics and animations. BUT, this is not a reason to dislike the game. The battles are intense and diverse, and rely on TACTICS rather than run and gun reliance. Having said that, the gunplay is actually very good and vehicles (despite some animation glitches) are vital to your success.

    There are many different units available for you to play as, and I personally have found Deathmatch mode to be highly entertaining. The rank and stat progression are nice, but don't buy this game if you're a unlock-whore, as there are no unlocks. The formula for fun is something that hasn't been seen in a game for quite a while, as the focus is upon gameplay rather than making the graphics as shiny as possible. I shall certainly be playing this game much, much more. Servers are always populated, and the potential mods that shall appear will far surpass £8 that I paid for it. Also, the dev(s) are always listening to users on their forums and there looks to be a LOT of fixs coming up in the future.

    Overall, you can't really do much better for a FUN game at £8. Just don't let your graphics expectations to over-ride the purpose of this game. Open your minds, gentlemen, to this blast from the past. (excuse the pun.)
    Expand
  2. Apr 4, 2012
    6
    This is not a blockbuster, even by indie standarts. But once the dev fixes the bugs and adds map editor, it will be pretty sweet game. Too bad that by buying this now, you pay the full price for an unfinished game, and when it will be patched, it will already be on a huge sale, so i suggest you wait until then. Expand
  3. Jun 19, 2013
    5
    Played this after being awake for about 30 hours during a lan-party, I haven't laughed so much in a long time. It's complete nothing seems to work as intended, but if you are drunk or extremely tired it can be really funny, for a few minutes. Expand
  4. Apr 10, 2012
    1
    I have made a metacritic account, and asked Steam for a refund upon playing Gettysburg: Armored Warfare.

    I am a huge fan of indie devs, and I
    uphold gameplay above all else. It is very rare that I would rate a game so poorly. Let's now get to the point:

    Graphics- Gettysburg has pretty graphics in the screenshots, but this is a horrible HORRIBLE HOOOORIBAH misconception. Units become a pixelated 2d piece of garbage within close proximity, and you watch them walk by like little cardboard images. You also have to instantly stop, and enter a very ugly and unnatural motion of hoping over random fences that litter the countryside for no good reason. It feels as if the pretty graphics were merely a ploy to actually make me believe this game was a finished product.

    Mechanics- The vehicles actually had me excited for a moment, especially when I saw there being artillery, zepplins, and boats...They are all diarreah. The zepplins drop a few black balls out of 2 of its sides, and it just looks anything but epic. Not only that, but ships basically do the same thing as well except they are in the ocean, whoop dee doo. Artillery is basically a tank that can't aim directly infront of it, shooting up at angles doesn't do you any good because you have no way to gauge where the shot is going if it the viewing distance is even high enough to see your projectiles. Movement feels unnatural, and slow...Not only that, but units undergo a random phase of becoming a ragdoll when killed, and the segway between moving unit and ragdoll is just laughable.

    Replayability- Considering you will die from how bad this game is, there is hardly any replayability. Yes you can go online and try not bursting out laughing from the horrible gameplay and wretched balance...I mean really, the cavalry is the most stupid thing I have ever seen in my life, they swing in one direction like idiots, and you have to be 1 inch infront of something to hit it. Atleast when they die, the body flops around unnaturally. Also, there is no fun campaign mode...It is all just this big mess of AGH!!!

    This game is an utter embarassment to the companies that have had technology associated with it. The only reason why this game has recieved a one, is because I don't want the people reading this to think it is someone over exaggerating and giving it a 0.

    If I honestly did not get a refund for this game, I would have thrown a coniption fit.
    Expand
  5. Apr 6, 2012
    1
    This is quite possibly the worst game I have ever played. The developer even said "you get what you pay for", well, I beg to differ. I didn't pay for a pre-alpha game (as this one appears to be). It claims to be a strategy game with many features virtually nonexistent, the worst animations I've ever seen, and the worst server-side lag I've ever seen. The developer keeps making excuses for the endless flaws; this is a game you do not want to buy. The concept was brilliant, but the design and development was very sloppy. 1/10 for the concept. Expand
  6. Jun 18, 2012
    0
    This is not a blockbuster, even by indie standarts. But once the dev fixes the bugs and adds map editor, it will be pretty sweet game. Too bad that by buying this now, you pay the full price for an unfinished game, and when it will be patched, it will already be on a huge sale, so i suggest you wait until then. Expand
  7. Mar 27, 2012
    0
    Okay. I was looking forward to this game, I wasn't hyped up mind you, but I thought it looked cool. I realized it was made by 1 person, I realized it was 9.99, I realized the graphics weren't great...but I was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY unprepared for how bad this game is.

    First, the graphics are fine, nice even. I even appreciate the steampunk vibe, pretty cool. The gameplay however? Awful. In DM you get a terrible over the shoulder view. The vehicles feel unresponsive and clunky, okay thats fine. Now try aiming, shooting, and moving...good luck. This game feels more like a computer science student's application demo to enter a Masters program.

    The weapons are inaccurate...not the 1860 weapons, the 2060 weapons. The sniper rifle? You can't hit a person 5 ft in front of you. In addition, the "game" if you can even call it a game, is riddled with glitchy bugs, clipping issues, and collision problems. All i expected and all i wanted was a fun little game, a fun little finished game, a fun little finished game that had a tiny amount of polish.

    As it stands, this game feels like rushed mod, or eeeeeearly alpha.
    Expand

See all 20 User Reviews