Red Faction II PC

Metascore
64

Mixed or average reviews - based on 10 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 10
  2. Negative: 2 out of 10
Buy On
  1. 74
    Fun, certainly, but single-player is a bit too linear and bit too short, even if the combat is engaging, well-thought out, and generally intense.
  2. PC Gamer
    72
    An above-average time-killer for stupid-shooter fans who won't miss multiplay. [July 2003, p.70]
  3. A good game that could have been a great FPS title for the PC if just a little effort had gone into porting this over from the consoles.
  4. It’s too short, too flat, and too plain.
  5. A pretty good shooter overall, offering up a short but sweet single-player campaign and a decent botmatch mode for a little extra lasting value.
  6. For those of you who are online multiplayer fans though, an offline botmatch may just be seen as unacceptable … and that’s what you get with RFII. That’s a shame since the first one was fantastic.
  7. Short is never good, no matter which context you put it in. And this game is short. It's penis-envy short. It's the shortest single-player FPS game I've ever played. A four hour gameplay experience for a retail product is like a 20 second sexual intercourse. It just doesn't feel right, and you feel cheated.
User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 61 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 22
  2. Negative: 12 out of 22
  1. Ben
    Aug 9, 2009
    0
    Blew through it in 3 hours, visually poor and lacking any substance whatsoever. Loads of weapons but the game was so quick I didn't use Blew through it in 3 hours, visually poor and lacking any substance whatsoever. Loads of weapons but the game was so quick I didn't use half of em. The story is horrible and has no link to the original characters and barely mentions the Red Faction (which is now a political group or something). Do not buy this game. Full Review »
  2. Sep 13, 2013
    5
    A solid action shooter but really does not stand out from similar games of the era.
    Was relatively popular due to the success of the original
    A solid action shooter but really does not stand out from similar games of the era.
    Was relatively popular due to the success of the original but really did not stick to its roots and a was a blatant cash in from publishers.

    No real link between this and the first, borrowing name only and you won't miss a great deal if you do not play this. Still provides some easy fast paced action.
    Full Review »
  3. Jan 22, 2013
    2
    This game should not exist even logically. But logic aside, there's just nothing new, they just enhanced destruction physics a bit (andThis game should not exist even logically. But logic aside, there's just nothing new, they just enhanced destruction physics a bit (and there's not much different) and added Jason Statehem (is that right?). Rushed story with not really polished gameplay equals - unworthy of it's first game sequel that must be avoided by any FPS or Sci-fi fans. Seriously, i passed through it, like after 4 hours, A.I. is broken and it's hard to die even if you'll try to, It's one of the first games, that used regeneration and you're just invincible there. Full Review »