Customer Reviews

History Channel: Civil War: A Nation Divided

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Like so many other gamers, I was looking forward to a really intense first person shooter set in the Civil War (kind of like a Civil War "Call of Duty"). Well, this game is very short. I zipped through most of the missions in a few minutes. What is so heartbreaking about this game is that you could see all the potential it had squandered. Most of the battles are not really battles, but you on a mission (by yourself) to do something silly like sneak into a tent, or deliver a message to an officer. Many times I found myself under a lot of enemy fire only to look around and think, "where's the rest of the army? Why am I out here all alone?" The battles themselves are short, and I kept thinking, "okay, this is part one of the battle, and now that it's done, I'll move on to the second part of the battle." Uh, no. Once you complete the mission, the battle's over and you move on. The enemy A.I. is botched so that they just run at you in the same pattern over and over, and who knew there were so many Gaitlin guns in use by the Confederacy in 1862? Overall, a disappointment. I really wanted to like this game, and there are a few glimmers of thrills. I enjoyed Chattanooga and moving up the mountain, but the battle of Shiloh (if you could call it that) was terrible (it's just you sneaking about the camp before the battle even starts to sabotage a balloon? Come on! Put me in the middle of the Hornet's Nest, stick me behind the stone wall at Fredericksburg, let me at least blow up some railroad tracks or something!) I don't understand why the History Channel would put their mark on something like this.

I'm a big Civil War buff, and love learning and teaching about the conflict. For years, I've longed for a game that brings the battles and traumas of life during the war to life. When I found out, by a television commercial, that the History Channel helped to created "Civil War: A Nation Divided", I didn't not hesistate or wait to purchase one. After playing it for a few days, I wished I had waited, or at least read the reviews of the game. Overall, it was disappointing.

The game allows you to play both as a Reb and a Yank, each in about six to seven battles. You are a first person shooter, and are given little tasks to complete as you move through the battle. the tasks are not at all challenging, and it's quite easy to complete them or find out what you have to do. All the time, the opposing army is taking shots at you. I found each level would take me about 10 minutes to get through, and most of them it only took one time. I played at the "normal" level, but could increase it to "hard".

The graphics were okay, and the different battles scenes seemed unique to the area in which I was fighting. Often you have cannon burst or bullets fliyng over you, while the sound of the battle is all around. However, the ease with which you can make it through the game is not at all challenging. Plus, you are basically stuck on a certain course when you get started, and are not allowed to roam around the land very much.

I know there are a ton of really good WWII games that allow you a sense of freedom, and challenge. I would rather have less than a history lesson, and more action. While the intention for this game was good, the result was slipshod at best.

Simply put, it ain't worth the $40,00.

I have been waiting for a 1st-person shooter Civil War game since North & South for the NES came out...who knows why it took so long? Who knows why they made this so poorly? And historically accurate? I think not. The game itself is not THAT bad. I do enjoy playing it, but expected SOOOO much more. I want a game like Star Wars Battlefront but with Civil War soldiers and bigger battlefields. This is like a very short version of Call of Duty with worse graphics. VERY linear, I think that is its fatal flaw...I hope somebody reads these things and makes a better Civil War game instead of another WWII game. I was looking forward to Shiloh, but they turned it into a stealth mission instead of the wooded bloodbath that it was...I was looking forward to Burnside's bridge at Antietam, but it's only a footnote in a disappointing level. I was looking forward to Fredericksburg (either defending the wall or fighting my way up the heights), but alas none of that was there. WHY? I didn't pay much for it so $ isn't the issue...it's just a mediocre game.

The only pluses....I found the computer AI to be decent...The atmosphere is good with the ambient sounds and things (unfortunately this is all but killed by the linear gameplay and disappointing level design), and lastly, the HOPE that someone takes this game and improves it to the level of Call of Duty and other 1st person shooters.. PLEASE! Unless you are a Civil War buff like me or need a 1st person shooter other than WWII, you probably won't like this game (and if you are a Civil War buff, like me, you're sure to be disappointed...)

I guess I was confused when I bought this, but based on the description, shouldn't there be some kind of campaign mode? So far, and I admit I haven't played through all of the battles, it seems like a poorly-done, overly-simplified, super-easy, first-person-shooter with an extremely rigid linear play-through capacity.

It says that you command full complements of troops of varying types across the battlefields. Um...where is that exactly? From the description I was expecting an advanced version of Star Wars Battlefront series. You know, a campaign game from each side, then an opportunity to fight whichever battles you wanted from different perspectives. I guess that would have taken more than the 37 minutes that they spent programming this though...

On the plus side, for what it is (not much), it does provide some small amount of amusement.

i am really in to the civil war. When i bought this game i thought it would be fun. i was mistaken, the game only has 12 missions none of which are easy, its like pulling teeth. The game doesn't save itself so if you forget for some reason your out of luck. Another thing is you only get to play one side of the battle. this is a game to rent NOT to buy.

I have been anxiously awaiting a game about the Civil War for years and finally when it came out I ordered it right away and was so excited about it!
I got it today and beat it within a couple of hours on easy level. There are 6 battles for the North and 6 battles for the South. I was and am very disappointed. I bought the game GUN and have played it over and over and over. I wanted to quit this game after the first mission but thought maybe it would get better as I went on, not the case. I paid $40. for the game and wish I could get my money back. I strongly discourage buying this mediocre game of low grade graphics and unintense battle sequences.

Being a Civil War reenactor, I was skeptical this game would be accurate but was pleasantly surprised. While it's not down to the last detail accurate, it's close enough. You get to use several different period weapons and the scenerios are fun and challenging. It's great!

It is quite refreshing that the video game market has finally decided to include our American Civil War. Yet, as a 'first person shooter' this game ranks only marginally against any other. Because of that, only Civil War enthusiasts will probably purchase this game, while the rest of the market will be simply disappointed. This, therefore, only leaves us so-called "history buffs" to enjoy the game. Unfortunately, this game did not live up to my expectations. I, wrongly, assumed that the History Channel would only allow it's name on historically accurate/detailed media. For example, the game will tell you that Gettysburg saw 50+ thousand dead. That is simply inaccurate. This number also includes wounded and missing. Now, I understand that it's silly to pick apart a video game as though it were the Zapruder film. However, it seems, to me anyway, that it is only fair to represent actual events in our nation's history as accurately as possible. This is especially important because this particular media is enjoyed primarily by the youth. Youth that, for various reasons, do not fully understand the history of our nation. I am, therefore, asking the producers (and the History Channel)of this game that they consider putting out another game that will more honestly entertain as well as educate. There are so many exciting, while tragic, episodes and battles of our American Civil War that, if produced, I'm sure could become a best-selling video game. What's more, we could educate the youth of our nation's most terrible struggle without them even knowing it!!! [...]. Joe.

Good game for my son, it was number one on his Christmas List. Unfortunately, he and two of his friends that also got this game have already beaten it. The graphics are great and the historical accuracy is unquestionable. Overall, a really nice addition to his Civil War collection.

My brother originally brought this game. He's a college student who enjoys playing video games and has a side interest in American battles. He purchased CIVIL WAR: A NATION DIVIDED soon after it came out. He played it through and when asked afterwards about it, said the game was "just okay". I, too, enjoy playing video games from time to time and I am an amateur history buff, but I don't have as much time on my hands so I didn't get around playing CIVIL WAR: A NATION DIVIDED until recently (about a year after it came out).

The game is a first person shooter game. There are twelve different battles that you can fight in, six that you fight in as a Union soldier and six that you fight in as a Johnny Reb. Only one of the battles is available to play at the start; you unlock more battles once you "win" a battle. I use the term "win" rather lightly because there isn't much winning going on. On each of the levels you are given specific missions to complete. The visuals of the game are quite impressive and the sounds of gunfire, shouting, and sometimes cannons roaring give the impression of being in the heat of the action. However, usually your character isn't. Instead your character is set on a linear course to complete the various objectives. Sometimes a random shooter from the sidelines will fire upon you, but other than that the only fighting you encounter are the pawn-like soldiers that stand upon the trail as you attempt to complete your objectives. I was really disappointed by this. I had hoped, from the description of the box (which includes pictures that turn out to be nothing but still shots from scenes you don't fight in) and advertisements about the game on the History Channel (which was a co-creator of the game) that when you play CIVIL WAR: A NATION DIVIDED you would be involved in massive battles or at least would have the opportunity to direct the movement of troops or something. The only exploring off the beaten path that your character gets to do is find an the occasional alcove or hidden alley.

From a historical perspective, CIVIL WAR: A NATION DIVIDED does have some value. Before each battle a narrator explains why the battle came about and after each battle he explains the aftermath of each conflict. Depending on versions of the game, there are some discrepancies (for instance I know that on some versions it says that 50,000 men were killed at Gettysburg, but on the version I played it said 50,000 casualties). I also know that there's also an issue with the visuals and the overall set up of the battle, for instance the battle of Shiloh is terrible and except for the brown and blue uniforms has no distinction in it being a Civil War battle at all. Despite these inaccuracies, I still believe the game has some educational value because children--through teens are the ones that will probably be the people most likely to play the game and there's just enough interest here that might incite in them a desire to learn more about American history, especially the Civil War.

As far as games go, CIVIL WAR: A NATION DIVIDED is just a typical first-person shooter video game. In regards to educational games, it does have some flaws, but there just might be enough here to interest in kids about the Civil War that they'll do more research on their own. Recommended for kids through teenagers. If you're a Civil War buff you might also enjoy the game, but you might be disappointed in how limited the game is or upset by the flaws.