| | |  | All Games | Home » » » History Channel: Civil War: A Nation Divided | | | | | | | Description: | | Fight as a Confederate or Union soldier in 12 of America's most legendary battles including Gettysburg, Bull Run and Antietam! | | | Features: | |
• Single Player
| | | Product Details: | | | Product Length:
| 7.5 inches | | Product Width:
| 5.5 inches | | Product Height:
| 0.75 inches | | Product Weight:
| 0.2 pounds | | Package Length:
| 7.5 inches | | Package Width:
| 5.3 inches | | Package Height:
| 0.6 inches | | Package Weight:
| 0.2 pounds | | Release Date:
| December 14, 2007 | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 34 reviews |
| | | Game Information: | | | Platform:
| PlayStation2 | | Media:
| Video Game | | Item Quantity:
| 1 |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 34 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
40 of 41 found the following review helpful:
 A Huge Let DownNov 30, 2006
By The Sad Bard
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.
34 of 38 found the following review helpful:
 A mediocre attemptFeb 28, 2007
By James Hiller
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.
32 of 36 found the following review helpful:
Huge Disappointment...Dec 06, 2006
By K. Collins
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...)
10 of 11 found the following review helpful:
Am I missing something with this game?May 25, 2007
By C. M. Nakashian
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.
8 of 9 found the following review helpful:
this is a game to rent NOT to buyJan 20, 2007
By BAW
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.
See all 34 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
