Anilrgowda

While there have been plenty of military conflicts in the history of mankind, why have game developers been so keen on driving the WWII FPS genre into the ground? Sure, there have been a few game set in the Vietnam War, but isn't it about time we stepped onto a new battlefield? If you've been wondering the same thing, you'll be happy to hear that someone's decided to do something about this lack of variety. Surprisingly, that "someone" is The History Channel. That's right, your father's favorite channel has entered the world of game development, and the first title that bears their seal of approval is Civil War: A Nation Divided. While developer Cauldron and publisher Activision have certainly created an interesting game, it's a disappointment in a number of major areas.

Perhaps it's not surprising that this first-person shooter is being published by the same company that brought us our most recent taste of WWII action, Call of Duty 3. Civil War is a lot like that series in a number of ways, the first being that you won't play as the same character from beginning to end. Instead, you'll take part in 12 of the war's major battles, split up evenly between the North and the South. Gameplay-wise, there's basically no difference between the Confederate and Union soldiers (well, aside from their accents). Each stage is prefaced by a video and voiceover that sounds like it belongs on, well, The History Channel, and while the presentation isn't great, it's certainly interesting to learn more about the battles that shaped our country.




For the most part, the action in Civil War is run-of-the-mill by first-person shooter standards. You'll make your way across the surprisingly linear battlefields (wait, I really can't walk through that sparse foliage?), taking out enemies and completing objectives. These range from sabotage to destroying buildings, although you'll only be given one at a time. It'll appear on your compass as a star (similar to the system in the Call of Duty games). There a bit of variety to the combat, although this is largely due to the fact that the weapons are historically accurate.

But Will, why does that matter? Well, since much of the war was fought with single-action weapons, you'll spend more time reloading your weapons than you will actually firing them. This means that you'll spend a good chunk of the rest of your time fighting your enemies up-close-and-personally. The game features a lot of melee combat, as you'll beat down your enemies with the butt of your rifle, impale them on your bayonet, or cut their throats with your Bowie knife. Unfortunately, as is the case in most first-person shooters, hand-to-hand combat feels
Civil War features a number of highly detailed weapons, each of which will make any Civil War buff's mouth water. You'll probably spend the majority of your time using the Colt rifle, mainly due to the fact that it's a repeater, so you won't need to reload every time. Of course, the big trade-off here is the fact that many of the single-shot rifles are more powerful, especially at close range. There are also powerful sniper rifles that are introduced during the Gettysburg level (dig that gold scope!), as well as a number of pistols. You'll surely find your favorites scattered about the battlefield, although there were actually a few moments in which I found myself totally ammo-less.

Ultimately, the game is hurt by the fact that it feels a lot more like a bargain title (alas, it isn't) than a fully-fleshed out game. There's no multiplayer at all, a surprise given the fact that nearly every first-person shooter out there features at least some form of deathmatch or something. The game's also pretty short, and most players will be finish all of it within 5 or 6 hours. Well, unless they get screwed by the lack of an autosave system, something that burned me a few times. Be sure to save often, folks, lest you have to restart the whole level every time you die.




While Civil War doesn't look awful (we were told that it uses a modified version of the Call of Duty 2 engine), it definitely doesn't look like it was created to take full advantage of the Xbox 360's processing power. There are some nice looking areas, and it features a pretty robust particle engine, but the character animations are severely lacking. The game sounds pretty good, particularly the BOOM! you'll hear when you fire some of the more powerful weapons. There seemed to be a little glitch when an NPC starts talking to you (you'll barely be able to hear them if you're not facing them), but overall the game sounds good. Oh, and the dialogue? Not so good.

After playing through the game, we couldn't help but wonder why Civil War: A Nation Divided wasn't released at a lower price point. The game features subpar graphics, no multiplayer mode, poor AI, and a fairly short single-player campaign. Our guess is that since every single Xbox 360-owning Civil War buff in the world will purchase a copy, everyone involved figured that they would pay full price. Although it's a nice departure from the stale WWII shooter genre, Civil War just isn't enough to keep your attention for long. Now the only question is when we're going to see a Revolutionary War shooter. I say bring it on, redcoats!






The emphasis on melee attacks is interesting, but this is a fairly run-of-the-mill FPS.






There are a few nice graphical touches, but this looks more like a port of a current-gen game.






Each weapon sounds unique, and the score is better than average. There are some audio glitches here and there.






With no multiplayer and a short single-player campaign, you probably won't feel a need to play this a second time.






The "old" weapons are pretty cool, but they can't mask the fact that this feels like an Xbox shooter.