Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 29
  2. Negative: 0 out of 29
Buy On
  1. Jun 13, 2011
    70
    The[] ability to tear apart and repair the environments at will is a hook that keeps working, and when the campaign gives you plenty of stuff to tear apart it's easy to lose yourself to a primal need to destroy.
  2. Jun 6, 2011
    60
    Technically accomplished and mechanically sound. But unfortunately that's not enough in a world of Dead Spaces and Gears of Wars. Aside from marvelling at the odd collapsing building, there's little here to hold your attention for more than a few hours. It's not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination; it's just an entirely forgettable one.
  3. Jul 15, 2011
    65
    This could have been a seriously awesome game. Instead, we get a clone that blows its own legs off with a clichéd storyline that ignores the internal logic of it's own world.
  4. Jun 24, 2011
    60
    Short of an outstanding visual appeal, and with a rather poor level design and uninspired story, Red Faction Armageddon won't be able to raise itself above the TPS usual crowd. But despite its shortcomings, the appeal of destructibility and of a very playable action remains efficient enough to see through the solo campaign. Multiplayer may be fun a couple of hours, but it's very forgettable.
  5. CD-Action
    Jul 4, 2011
    65
    Armageddon lacks ideas that could help vary the experience. It's hard to tell the missions apart, because in almost every room and every tunnel you have to do the exact same things. The developer made a mistake of betting everything on just one feature – total destruction. [July 2011, p.60]
  6. Jul 7, 2011
    50
    Not even a demolition hullaballoo helps, when a concept and a central idea are missing. Red Faction Armageddon drilled into the depths of Mars more than it is healthy for a good shooter. Volition has created a shooter for one night that you will not remember the next morning when you wake up.
  7. Jun 23, 2011
    70
    If Red Faction: Armageddon isn't treated like it's going to revolutionize the gaming world, it won't disappoint. It's a solid third-person shooter, there are a bunch of cool weapons and nasty surprises down in those mines. At the same time, there is an immutable sense of repetition at play and things are pretty simplistic in the design department.
  8. PC Format
    Jun 13, 2011
    71
    Offers great weapons, a great destruction model...and not enough ways to have fun with them. [July 2011, p.94]
  9. PC PowerPlay
    Jun 9, 2011
    70
    Visually spectacular alien-blasting action; another fine port from Volition. [July 2011, p.60]
  10. Jul 26, 2011
    59
    Armageddon's visuals are borderline awful, but the primitive gameplay is what looks the worst.
  11. Jun 16, 2011
    70
    If it weren't for the endlessly brown, generically sci-fi and personality-deprived caves of Mars, Armageddon could be hugely enjoyable.
User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 279 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 49 out of 279
  1. 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 »
  2. 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 »
  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 »