Generally favorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 29
  2. Negative: 0 out of 29
  1. Jun 5, 2011
    Honestly if not for some minor complaints Red Faction Armageddon would be a damn near perfect game. As it is, this is a strong contender for best game of the year for its fantastic mix of intense action, fun character customization that changes how you play the game, great graphics and all around fantastic gameplay experience. Even the minor flaws are easily ignored and most will likely not even notice them, as wrapped up in the game as they will be.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 219 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 51 out of 81
  2. Negative: 18 out of 81
  1. Jun 10, 2011
    The game is more of what it isn't. It should be titled Red Faction: New Coke. What was wrong with original formula?

    Of all the reviews (if
    one should call them that) only a few even mention the fact that Armageddon does not have competitive multiplayer or real multiplayer. No death match, no SEIGE, none of the other competitive modes that made the game a blast. Seriously....would CoD without a multiplayer be so highly rated? If it were to happen, do you think 95 percent of "reviews" would forget to mention it?

    How sad that Red Faction Guerrilla is not just better, it's 100x better than Armageddon. If you like Red Faction series, you'll end up playing Guerrilla 10x more than Armageddon AFTER you finish playing Armageddon.

    Want revolutionary Multiplayer...especially Siege Mode? You'll have to pick up the 2 year old Guerrilla. There is NO real multiplayer (against other humans) in Armageddon. Sad, and it completely destroys Red Faction Armageddon. From 100's of hours of gameplay to 6-10. The idiots giving Armageddon a 95 or saying...dang near perfect with only minor complaints obviously have never played competitive multiplayer Siege mode, or they would indeed see a MAJOR FATAL flaw in Armageddon.

    They had a revolutionary idea in a game about a revolution. Instead they decided to ditch both competitive multiplayer and open world.

    When I saw the previews I said, oh great, looks like they are going to make it Gears of War on Mars, and poorly at that. Little did I know they were going to in addition to that, take away a multiplayer experience that was better than ANY CoD or Battlefield game (which are awesome fwiw) as well.

    This is a short, stripped down game, where the best parts were forgotten, and the ones that didn't matter, became center stage. Also, CoD has Single player, multiplayer, and horde mode. In Armageddon all you get is Single player, and horde, with an updated wrecking crew.

    So sad....because this game could have been great, but you take out the best parts of the previous game....while running the same (updated) engine, on the same consoles, and you have a major problem.

    If you're looking for hundreds of hours of game play, pick up Red Faction: Guerrilla. I just picked up a pc version (already had 360) for 5 bucks on steam. Guess which I've played more, Armageddon or Guerrilla since Armageddon came out? Guess what most Red Factions fans will be over time doing? Playing Guerrilla from this day forward more than Armageddon x10. That's a sign of a poorly designed game.

    Do yourself a favor, pick up RFG and play it's multiplayer, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

    The question is....why didn't Volition.

    I give a 3, because I subtracted -5 (being nice) for no multiplayer (sorry co-op is co-op, not real multiplayer...against other humans)

    That leave 5 out of 10 left. -1 for length of game
    -1 because it without all those things wasn't a 10. This really could of been a 2. Enjoy Armageddon for a couple of hours, and the pop in Guerrilla for some multiplayer. Shame on the idiot professional reviewers for forgetting how great, or that it even had, competitive multiplayer when scoring and reviewing Armageddon. Way to show you are worth more than a McDonald's fry man.
    Full Review »
  2. Aug 30, 2011
    Fun, but short. Awesome gameplay and new unlocks that change the tide of battle make up for the repetitive fights. Story wasn't the best but it wasn't the worst. I am a little disappointed that I payed $60 for a short and linear game, but if this game drops in price, you should snatch it. Definitely worth a few hours of your time. Full Review »
  3. Dec 20, 2012
    Armaggedon is by no means bad or unworthy of a player's time. However, your time could be better spent on a number of other games. It's a generic FPS; well executed but completely bland. Where the previous title laid forth some revolutionary physics, this one replaces sand box destruction with linear cave levels. The overall polish, as well as the shooting and alien mechanics are its strong points. The story is horrible like any red faction game to date but there were many high quality cut-scenes. Like many players I am divided about this game, which isn't bad enough to warrant bashing but isn't good enough to warrant praise. Full Review »