Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 6 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 6
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 6
  3. Negative: 6 out of 6
  1. Apr 13, 2012
    Gettysburg: Armored Warfare is a busted online real-time strategy/third-person shooter hybrid that falters despite its cool premise.
  2. Apr 23, 2012
    Paradox Interactive still cannot produce a decent third-party game (see also: Majesty 2, Sword of the Stars 2, Magicka).
  3. Apr 14, 2012
    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.
  4. Apr 12, 2012
    Gettysburg: Armored Warfare is a broken, bleeding mess. Do not buy this. Not even to laugh at it.
  5. Mar 30, 2012
    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.
  6. May 11, 2012
    Tremendously ambitious but agonisingly incomplete. Its battlefield is buggy and crude, and its RTS credibility is MIA. [June 2012, p.96]
User Score

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 20
  2. Negative: 15 out of 20
  1. Mar 28, 2012
    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.)
    Full Review »
  2. Mar 27, 2012
    Good intentions... Bad Glitches. No spawn menu I found that clicking on units in my teams spawn was the only way to spawn. I really hope there are updates for this game i think it could be awesome even the 3rd person.. for those of you who hate third person stop playing gears of war... sorry had to say it to many people in the server trashing 3rd person and saying they where gonna play gears of war its 3rd person too. Full Review »
  3. Mar 30, 2012
    This game is rubbish. I consider myself a long time gamer. I have been around since the Commodor 64. Though it is rare that I see a game this bad. The game play is terrible, there is an abundance of glitches and quite frankly, the game is just plain boring. I'd recommend nobody support the publisher, or the developer by buying a copy of this. We honestly deserve better than this garbage. I am giving the game a 1. The only reason this game gets a 1 and not a 0 is that the game can actually be run. Horrible job and a large BOO to the person who developed this. Full Review »