User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 246 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 45 out of 246

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  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 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
    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.
    Expand
  2. Jul 12, 2011
    4
    /// If you're looking for a return to the single-player open-world gameplay and revolutionary vibe of Red Faction: Guerrilla, Armageddon will disappoint. The game is played on rails (sometimes literally), sending you from one shooting scene straight into another, using passably rendered FMV cut-scenes to fill in the gaps. Initially, these hands-off video portions work well, but there are/// If you're looking for a return to the single-player open-world gameplay and revolutionary vibe of Red Faction: Guerrilla, Armageddon will disappoint. The game is played on rails (sometimes literally), sending you from one shooting scene straight into another, using passably rendered FMV cut-scenes to fill in the gaps. Initially, these hands-off video portions work well, but there are several times in the mid and late game where the segues are disjointed from the action and the narrative seriously falters. By the end, the poor editing and lack of depth to the characters and story overall left me feeling that there was little point to the single player campaign.

    /// Even though GeoMod still lets you wreck the environment, this destructive potential only extends to structures and living things for the most part. The game takes you back beneath the surface of Mars, but there's no blasting away cave walls to find side passages or shortcuts in Armageddon. At least the Magnet Gun is a versatile tool and fun to play with, much like the tried and true remote charges in Guerrilla. RFG's Nano Forge is still around, now upgraded with a talking AI assistant and the ability to grant thinly-disguised magic abilities to Alec Mason's grandson Darius (the Impact ability, for example, is basically a Star Wars "Force push").

    /// Sadly, having hoped for another dozen hours or more in a sandbox, Armageddon turned out to be Star Wars: Rebel Assault II remade in the Red Faction setting with a sudden and unwarranted injection of aliens. Contrived story, little choice or excitement, and average action.
    Expand
  3. Oct 11, 2013
    4
    Yes this game is excellent, then why do I give it such a bad score? It is because of the massive disappointment that it brought. Red Faction: Guerrilla brought new meaning to a dead series, and this sequel unfortunately completely killed the series.
  4. Jun 10, 2011
    3
    RGA is quite a departure from RFG, swapping the open world setting for a cramped rail shooter environment the player is forced to follow a very linear path from start to finish. With RFG destroying the surrounding buildings was a joy and generally the best way forward but in RFA it can be a massive hindrance or lead directly to player death, the enemies infinitely respawn unless youRGA is quite a departure from RFG, swapping the open world setting for a cramped rail shooter environment the player is forced to follow a very linear path from start to finish. With RFG destroying the surrounding buildings was a joy and generally the best way forward but in RFA it can be a massive hindrance or lead directly to player death, the enemies infinitely respawn unless you destroy their spawn points (and did their best to annoy the hell out of me), all the while the player is pushed forward by a plot that isn't bad in theory but is extremely bad in execution (Character #2 gets 30 minutes of screen time before relationship with PC is developed, Character #2 dies 30 seconds later, Story carries on as before).

    RFA has played it safe in a gaming world dominated by FPS games, but the result is a soulless Frankensteins monster that would be entirely forgettable had I not paided full price for it.
    Expand
  5. Jun 7, 2011
    2
    Very disappointing game...Red Faction Guerrilla was much better in everything. Armageddon has a very poor gameplay, dull enemies, controversial level design. The only working aspect concerns world destructions but graphics is not that good and colours palette is awful. Moreover, dx10/11 is a broken feature. Characters are not charismatic, and the whole game isn't that fun. That's a shameVery disappointing game...Red Faction Guerrilla was much better in everything. Armageddon has a very poor gameplay, dull enemies, controversial level design. The only working aspect concerns world destructions but graphics is not that good and colours palette is awful. Moreover, dx10/11 is a broken feature. Characters are not charismatic, and the whole game isn't that fun. That's a shame for a game that could have been a masterpiece. Expand
  6. Jun 14, 2011
    3
    They have taken Red Faction: Guerrilla, attempted to return it to its linear roots, and ended up stripping out absolutely everything good about Guerrilla, the sense of freedom, and joy of destroying large buildings and tackling situations in any way you wanted, then they took out everything that was enjoyable in Red Faction 1, the engaging story, the destructible tunnels, the ability toThey have taken Red Faction: Guerrilla, attempted to return it to its linear roots, and ended up stripping out absolutely everything good about Guerrilla, the sense of freedom, and joy of destroying large buildings and tackling situations in any way you wanted, then they took out everything that was enjoyable in Red Faction 1, the engaging story, the destructible tunnels, the ability to have some choice about how to tackle a situation. The good graghics and a few neat toys like the magnet gun can't save this terrible sequel that feels like a sad attempt to make another Dead Space. Expand
  7. Apr 30, 2013
    4
    I guess if this game had nothing to live up to, no Red Faction: Guerrilla having paved the way with ecstatic anticipation, it would have earned double the score. You see, RFA is, indisputably, a pretty damned good looking game with a bucketload of potential which, I'm truly sorry to say, remains nothing more than that. The sad part is that the developers clearly went out of their way toI guess if this game had nothing to live up to, no Red Faction: Guerrilla having paved the way with ecstatic anticipation, it would have earned double the score. You see, RFA is, indisputably, a pretty damned good looking game with a bucketload of potential which, I'm truly sorry to say, remains nothing more than that. The sad part is that the developers clearly went out of their way to improve everything that made the previous game so entertaining and did a great job at that, but somewhere along the lines, someone made the terrible suggestion that the entire game be held pretty much strictly linear, oh, and while were at it, play it out in the murky depths of some bland, martian caverns. Every checkpoint you reach, you will become more and more frustrated with the complete lack of options to jerk around with your magnificent tools of destruction in an environment that physically feels wonderfully realistic, until you realize that it's not going to change. You're never going to have the fun you want in a great, open world or, for that matter, playing against your friends in competitive MP like in Guerrilla, because both those elements have, apparently, been excised right out of the franchise. The whole game feels like one big dud. Expand
  8. Sep 30, 2013
    3
    Whoever played Red FAction: Guerrilla then decided that, HEY you know all those cool destructo coq around physics combined with a big open landscape with a bunch of buildings that are just begging to be pounded till they cant stand up that make this game so fun to just dick around and enjoy? Well lets just still players in a tunnel with like one or two buildings and turn the game into aWhoever played Red FAction: Guerrilla then decided that, HEY you know all those cool destructo coq around physics combined with a big open landscape with a bunch of buildings that are just begging to be pounded till they cant stand up that make this game so fun to just dick around and enjoy? Well lets just still players in a tunnel with like one or two buildings and turn the game into a basic 3rd person shooter!!! I really and truely enjoyed Guerrilla, but Amegeddon takes away all the good parts of that and jsut leaves you with samey shooter wallpaste, boring and consistent. Expand
  9. Jun 10, 2011
    1
    First off, it's an obvious console port. They didn't even remove the auto-aiming "snap-to-target" features that console players have to have to do any good. Plus it starts up on console resolutions (720p) with a bunch of possible features turned off (over half) by default and no Advanced effects (aliasing). So first thing I did was to fix the resolutions, turn ON all of the eye candy, turnFirst off, it's an obvious console port. They didn't even remove the auto-aiming "snap-to-target" features that console players have to have to do any good. Plus it starts up on console resolutions (720p) with a bunch of possible features turned off (over half) by default and no Advanced effects (aliasing). So first thing I did was to fix the resolutions, turn ON all of the eye candy, turn OFF the auto-aiming, set difficulty to "Insane" & go.

    It plays perfectly smooth on my system with every video option maxed out. This game does have one advantage over others of this flavor in that it did allow me to remap keys to separate multi-function buttons. I.E. Space is both jump and dodge... Common console trick to do with them having only so many buttons to work with. However the PC version at least let me select one for jump and another for dodge. Kudos for that!

    Nothing from this game is anything new. Personally, I have no problem with linear games... Especially should-be FPS games (more on that next). You're instructed to take a hill, capture someone, etc. In some form, that's always going to be a bit linear. This one has no large areas and almost always forces you 'down the hallway'.

    Anyhow, this is third-person. I personally HATE third-person! It takes the total game immersion effect of "playing as the character" away from the player and turns it into a puppet trick instead. Plus makes aiming around the right side of stuff a chore (or left, depending on your point of view). Not to mention just blocking 30-40% of the screen real-estate with the back of some supposed hero's head and body... Wee... If you're going to make a shooter, make it a first-person for goodness sake... Red Faction started out that way... Come-on...

    As far as realism in the video department... Not even close. Overly vivid colors (neon this and that) all the items you're hunting for are glowing red or blue with a pip over them... etc. No skill involved, just run to the light... Unrealistic (almost cartoonish) looking environments in many cases.

    The AI, even on Insane, is extremely stupid. They stand there. Don't even try to take cover. Sometimes jump around randomly. They just happen to be really accurate (ish). So far it REALLY feels like a third person shooter made for beginners... And it never gets harder... You can maul most anything but the biggest with one hit. Magnet gun is fun but, why bother?

    Vehicles still auto-aim, even with snap-to-target disabled. I did not take haul damage on any vehicle. They are seriously overkill. Same for the suits. I kept waiting for the game to get harder but it never did. No challenge what-so-ever.

    The story itself is so-so... Interesting but not believable... So many "What?" items like: You start out with an item that lets you rebuild anything from walls to complex machines at will. But then something breaks? (I do not want to get specific but you'll know it when it happens) The writers weren't paying any attention.

    Other problems also include minor issues with positional audio (using a 5.1 setup for testing).

    My Score (0-5):
    - Replay-ability = 0
    - Graphics = 3
    - Game Immersion = 1
    - Audio = 3.5
    - Difficulty = 0
    - Entertainment = 1.5
    - Engine = 4
    - AI = 1
    - Control = 4
    - Story & Common Sense = 1.5

    Personally, IMHO, this game is not deserving of the "Red Faction" name. Not that all of the others were all that phenomenal either but... If this is the best modern gaming has to offer, we're all doomed to infinite boredom and games only challenging for a wee child. The engine almost earned a better score until it crashed (memory leak) in the climb to the lair level. Other than that it ran pretty well; for a console port. Multi-player options were mildly more entertaining... Only...

    Honestly, this game is a joke. I'm getting very close to my 40's and it's a sleeper for me. I can't imagine any gamer today having any difficulty what-so-ever on the "Insane" setting and just walking right through the whole story. I guess those console people who want achievement points only could rent it for extremely fast points (got almost all achievements on one play-through without even trying).

    My last word is I don't see how these so-called critics can rate something like this so highly... Technologically, it's old news. Story, it's weak. Challenge it's NOT. It does have so much potential but the end result was horribly compiled. Perhaps they will improve the AI in some DLC or something making it at least mildly challenging.

    I wish someone would make a real revolutionary new engine instead of writing stuff focused for nearing 8 year old computer tech (modern consoles). Consoles and their limited controls and capabilities are destroying real gaming.
    Expand
  10. Jul 28, 2013
    1
    Bad game, avoid this!
    The worst game i had bought at steam. The playing this game i dont have any feeling.
    Is like a game without reason, pointless... I dont know.
  11. Feb 16, 2012
    4
    A large part of what made red faction gorilla so fun was being able to roam around a world and take down whatever you saw. This game makes improvements to the destruction, and graphics engine and then makes absolutely zero use of those improvements. It get's one of the major draws of the original, and then makes it a corridor shooter. The reason gorilla did not have ground destruction wasA large part of what made red faction gorilla so fun was being able to roam around a world and take down whatever you saw. This game makes improvements to the destruction, and graphics engine and then makes absolutely zero use of those improvements. It get's one of the major draws of the original, and then makes it a corridor shooter. The reason gorilla did not have ground destruction was so that it could support the open world objects structures being destroyed instead. This removes a lot of the structures and do not bring back the ability to tunnel. They made this mistake with red faction 2, and they have done it again here. The developers don't seem to understand the appeal of their own games in this case. Red faction gorilla could get away with being generic - however since you are limited to corridors in this one, a good story could at least make it tolerable. However it's story is even more generic and dull the gorillas. Leaving nothing of value in the entire package, besides of optimization and framerate improvements. Which mean zero when the game itself is garbage. Expand
  12. Oct 18, 2011
    3
    This game is a perfect example of taking a creative, interesting, fun concept, and making it as boring and tedious as possible. If you are a fan, when you think of Red Faction, then first thing that should come to mind is the fantastic destruction physics the series is known for. It's hard not to be impressed the first time you see a towering structure come toppling down in a brilliantThis game is a perfect example of taking a creative, interesting, fun concept, and making it as boring and tedious as possible. If you are a fan, when you think of Red Faction, then first thing that should come to mind is the fantastic destruction physics the series is known for. It's hard not to be impressed the first time you see a towering structure come toppling down in a brilliant display wreckage, knowing that it was all because of your intervention, and not some silly orchestrated event triggered by being at the right place at the right time. Despite the criticism that I'm about to lay down, I will say that Armageddon does at least a few things very right. First, the weapons are a huge improvement over those found in Guerrilla, and the repair gun is now an integral tool in your arsenal instead of just a random pickup. By far my favorite toy of the bunch was the magnet gun. Shoot one magnet here, then attach the second somewhere else, then watch the carnage that ensues. This game reaches a level of epicness that few others can hope to achieve when you send a giant intimidating monster flying through wall after wall, letting the debris crush it into oblivion. That's what I call empowerment. However, that is where the fun stops. I'm not going to waste the time and energy it would take to list everything that I did not like about this game, so I'll just stick to the basics. Basically, all the fun bits of this game are far and few in between, and that's because 80% of the game is spent traversing caves shooting little hopping alien monsters. Nothing is more annoying than playing a game that uses obvious padding techniques. For example, all the aliens in this game, aside from the hulking large ones that are coincidentally bullet sponges, jump, jump, then jump, and for good measure, jump more. They are constantly moving out of your field of view to avoid your fire, while also annoyingly shooting you in the back with guns of their own. The damage done to the player by their shots is negligible (normal difficulty), which makes fighting the creatures more of a chore than anything else. Just as soon as you get good enough to clear areas of these vermin quickly though, out pops white colored reskinned versions that can not only go invisible, but also instantly teleport as soon as half of their health is down to ensure that you don't kill them too fast, or you might realize the game is incredibly short. Other lazy game design tactics are, but not limited to, spawning more enemies just as soon as you think you're done, spawning enemies directly behind you (not kidding), forcing you to kill everything in the area before you can move on, assigning arbitrary destruction targets, and also limiting how far you can sprint to just a few steps. I could forgive all of that if the game just had more of the things that I liked, but there are too many long stretches in the campaign where nothing interesting is happening. It also doesn't help that the story is so completely vapid and devoid of true character. Quickly, what is the main character's name? I have no idea, do you? What is the "love interest's" name? Again, I have no idea, and probably neither do you. Unfortunately everything is presented in such a background noise kind of way that I really did not care what happened. If I hadn't spent money on the game I wouldn't have finished it. Expand
  13. Oct 28, 2013
    4
    Another bad Red Faction game. If Guerrilla was bland and disappointing, Armageddon certainly delivers on the downward trend. Were the landscapes repetitive in Guerrilla? Get rid of free-roaming altogether. Was the AI bad in Guerrilla? Lets make enemies that can't hit you. Was Guerrilla too easy? Let's make you invincible. Was Guerrilla's physics engine bad? Let's scale it down so thatAnother bad Red Faction game. If Guerrilla was bland and disappointing, Armageddon certainly delivers on the downward trend. Were the landscapes repetitive in Guerrilla? Get rid of free-roaming altogether. Was the AI bad in Guerrilla? Lets make enemies that can't hit you. Was Guerrilla too easy? Let's make you invincible. Was Guerrilla's physics engine bad? Let's scale it down so that damage is even worse and less realistic.

    Admittedly, some of the touted features sound cool; exploring an underground world, piloting huge machines. But who has the patience to wade through all of those enemies who can't hit anything, or to listen to the horrible storyline progression?

    The Ruin mode is sad, disappointing small, and restrictive, but at least they give you a 'freeplay' mode this time.

    Infestation has you running around, hunting monsters which can't kill you unless they hit you with an explosive.

    The best thing about the game I've seen so far is the Magnet gun. Everything else seems like a step down from a step down from a step down. If only they'd put some effort into a RF game instead of blowing all the budget on advertising.
    Expand
  14. Jan 3, 2013
    2
    Short (10 hours tops) campaign, no multiplayer (co-op only; this is a huge minus because all RF games have had MP), a ridiculously bad storyline, and has very little to do with previous RF games. I had to force myself to beat this because I wanted to see just how much worse the game could get. I loved the previous RF games and this is a real disgrace to the series. Yes, there are uniqueShort (10 hours tops) campaign, no multiplayer (co-op only; this is a huge minus because all RF games have had MP), a ridiculously bad storyline, and has very little to do with previous RF games. I had to force myself to beat this because I wanted to see just how much worse the game could get. I loved the previous RF games and this is a real disgrace to the series. Yes, there are unique weapons and the destruction is still fantastic, but the whole game is a funneled corridor third person shooter and couldn't be blander if it tried. Obvious console port that is a disgrace to the series and huge step down from Guerrilla. Expand
  15. Apr 17, 2013
    2
    What a confusing mess. The story is confusing, the gameplay is linear. It was hard to pull myself to play this game and people should not do that. Don't ever force yourself to play a game. If the game is good from the get go it would have been better, but it flopped, right at the beginning.
  16. Nov 19, 2013
    4
    Single Player/Multi Player (0/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (2/2) Visuals/Story (1/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is
    Single Player/Multi Player (0/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (1/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (0/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (1/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
  17. Dec 4, 2013
    2
    Okay to start back to linear is regress and story line sucks so that isn't an excuse. The graphics are meh. So again no excuse. This game is rinse and repeat over and over. Wish I could get a refund for this game. Even buying this in a bundle with all red faction games for 30$... I already own RF:G but steam sucks and wont take the retail license, so had to buy it again to get it toOkay to start back to linear is regress and story line sucks so that isn't an excuse. The graphics are meh. So again no excuse. This game is rinse and repeat over and over. Wish I could get a refund for this game. Even buying this in a bundle with all red faction games for 30$... I already own RF:G but steam sucks and wont take the retail license, so had to buy it again to get it to install correctly on new rig. Definitely nto worth the money until under 5$. Man they were making good game play experience progress all the way p to RF:G. Then this garbage. Linear is for junk systems. In short they are saying console is junk and fools that buy them piss away their money on junk. It should not have been ported to PC it isn't worthy of being a PC title. Maybe a cell phone title or eve psp original but not PC. Expand
  18. Dec 25, 2014
    0
    Completely linear storyline. Just save the money and watch the gameplay on Youtube because that is what you are paying for. This game is like Dead Space without any of the fun. The only reason these reviews are so positive is they are clearly fake users. If someone has just 1 review and it is calling this game a 9 then they are full of crap.
  19. Apr 18, 2015
    2
    Bought it for virtually nothing on a Steam sale and I STILL feel ripped off. This game is cack. Not as compelling as Mass Effect, not as dynamic as Just Cause. It's just a generic, linear, third person console-ported piece of crap. Save your money.
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. Nov 1, 2011
    80
    Red Faction: Armageddon to me is a good B movie.
  2. 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]
  3. Jul 26, 2011
    59
    Armageddon's visuals are borderline awful, but the primitive gameplay is what looks the worst.