User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 52 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 52
  2. Negative: 18 out of 52

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. Aug 10, 2014
    4
    I can't complain too loudly since I got this game on sale from Steam. It provided me with a few hours of so-so FPS fun. I finally chucked the game in frustration since I had to replay the same level one too many times. That is, after finishing a level and exiting the game, this silly game takes me back to this same completed level the next time I open the game. The save progress isI can't complain too loudly since I got this game on sale from Steam. It provided me with a few hours of so-so FPS fun. I finally chucked the game in frustration since I had to replay the same level one too many times. That is, after finishing a level and exiting the game, this silly game takes me back to this same completed level the next time I open the game. The save progress is non-existent. Didn't the programmers test their work? Little wonder the RF franchise didn't survive. Expand
  2. 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 (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 4This 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. Expand
  3. Feb 23, 2012
    1
    This game is terrible. The game is short. The maps are obtuse. The plot is generic and stupid. The enemies are either bullet sponges OR they are hidden around every corner and hit you almost immediately after you see them. The worst part of this game is how unsatisfying the guns are. I play FPS games to shoot things, and the shooting in this game is AWFUL.
  4. Jan 3, 2015
    1
    This game is utterly crap. It even succeeded in having a worse game play and graphics compared to its older predeccesor from 2001. There are only a couple of really bad fps and this one is on that list.
  5. Dec 28, 2014
    0
    Utter tripe, by today's standards and back then too. Everything looks like a burn victim, the acceleration on my mouse meant I couldn't aim properly, the cross-hair is too big. The list goes on, steer clear of this garbage.
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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.