Red Faction: Armageddon PC

Metascore
75

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
    95
    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.
  2. Jun 16, 2011
    84
    If you like to blow stuff up, RF:A is certainly worth your while. It simply knows what it's good at and delivers that without any aggravating flaws. Just don't expect it to be anything more than a "MichaelBay-esce" action-orgy. Because despite its quite interesting story, at its heart, it still nothing more, then an action-packaged homage to everything destructive... which is a good thing.
  3. May 18, 2011
    84
    RFA is basically one great moment--destroying buildings with a powerful weapon--repeated for a whole game. [July 2011, p.58]
  4. Jun 3, 2011
    83
    It may not look as nice as Crysis 2, but at least there's a hero to identify with with an interesting story. If you like action without the usual war scenarios, get to Mars.
  5. 83
    Abandoning the open, yet often empty-feeling world of its predecessor, Armageddon delivers a much more streamlined experience. Though its story fails to excite, the use of the innovative magnet gun and the ensuing chaos of destruction is enough to inspire awe. The engaging combat mechanics compensate for some minor flaws in the level design.
  6. Jun 1, 2011
    83
    That inherent, unapologetic, child-like fun is still present in Armageddon.
  7. Jun 27, 2011
    81
    I really did enjoy the game, but I can't help but wonder what it would have been like if Volition didn't have to make sacrifices for the sake of the console versions.
  8. Nov 1, 2011
    80
    Red Faction: Armageddon to me is a good B movie.
  9. 80
    It was worth sacrificing free-form play for a linear story driven shooter. Armageddon is different than other pieces of the Red Faction series but it still brings all the fun of "mass" destruction. [July 2011]
  10. Jul 21, 2011
    80
    You can still blow up pretty much everything, but there's little sense in it. Red Faction: Armageddon is not about destruction anymore. It's simply the most exciting third-person shooter this summer has to offer. [August 2011, p.91]
  11. Jul 12, 2011
    80
    Red Faction: Armageddon offers a new destruction-engine, cool weapons and some entertaining missions.
  12. Jul 6, 2011
    80
    These faults aside, Armageddon takes the core elements that attracted all of us to the series in the first place and combines them to create a solid game that series fans can't afford to miss.
  13. Jun 17, 2011
    80
    I like Red Faction: Armageddon as much, as I like Guerilla. Both of them love to destroy everything in sight, even though they are really different games. I think that people who like previous installments of the series will definitely feel at home and should have lots of fun. Lack of an open world is compensated by a well compacted and explosive gameplay. Destruction is really absorbing and a well balanced introduction of novelties keeps the game fresh. It's a pity there is no real multiplayer but it's still a good deal for your money.
  14. Jun 6, 2011
    80
    You can tell a lot of effort has been put into the GeoMod technology, and making sure everything is as polished as it can be. This has to be one of the most technically sound releases we've played in a long while, and it's draw backs mainly come from the content itself, and not the design.
  15. Jun 1, 2011
    80
    Although too linear and unrelated with the previous Red Faction: Guerrilla Games, it is a fun, intense and frantic game which is sometimes espectacular, with a great physics engine that allows dynamical destruction of the environments, although the game not always makes the most of it.
  16. 78
    The design ideas are great, but the implementation resulted into a lackluster story and boring missions in limited levels, coupled with intense, but ultimately boring fights. There's loads of adrenaline, but no consistency to maintain the motivation level up, an aspect partially visible in the multiplayer too. But even so, for a serious chunk of mayhem and destruction, the end of the world has really come to Mars.
  17. Jun 2, 2011
    78
    Red Faction: Armageddon kills freedom in the name of action and brings back the serie into the dark and menacing caves of Mars. The result is an action title full of potential but punished by a poor level design.
  18. 76
    This is a well-polished ten-hour campaign, but it loses all of the things that made Guerrilla special in favor of a generic action experience. Also, there's no competitive multiplayer.
User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 256 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 89
  2. Negative: 20 out of 89
  1. Jun 10, 2011
    3
    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
    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
    8
    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 butFun, 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
    6
    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 aArmaggedon 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 »