Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Red Faction: Armageddon Video Review (Xbox 360)

  • 27,330 Views
  • Posted Jun 1, 2011

Red Faction: Armageddon magnetizes Chris Watters in this video review.

Flash Player 10 is required to watch this video.

Upload Your Own Videos

Watch cool and crazy videos from GameSpot users just like you, and vote for your favorites! Subscribers and users level 10 and higher get to upload their own.

Please enter your date of birth to download this video.

By clicking "Enter", you agree to GameSpot's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Use these links to add the GameSpot player to another site (html) or your GameSpot blog (bbcode).

  • BBCODE:

  • 640PX WIDE:

  • 480PX WIDE:

close [x]

171 Comments

  • Ionyk

    Posted Jun 4, 2011 2:26 am PT

    Hope that game will not have astronomic system requirements for pc like the witcher 2:-s

  • Brokenhope69

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 11:48 pm PT

    Played the demo yesterday and it was awsome. I did not want it to end. I was excited for this but now I want it a NOW!!!

  • david60639

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 10:43 pm PT

    Red Faction: Magnet Gun.

  • SavoyPrime

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 9:18 pm PT

    Sounds like Chris reviewed the magnet gun instead of the rest of the game. XD

  • Egotte

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 9:05 pm PT

    @jmc88888

    Relax dude! Your brain is gonna explode! It's not a freakin' requirement for a game to have multiplayer. Get over yourself.

  • Egotte

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 9:03 pm PT

    Screw Infamous; June 7th is RED FACTION TUESDAY!

  • BlackDevil99

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 8:35 pm PT

    anybody else see the pony?

  • Goku1213

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 7:59 pm PT

    looks quite good. The Red Faction games have yet to disappoint me

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 7:45 pm PT

    Always question authority, don't let people tell you to shut your tough questions down because it's 'griping'. That's how this great country, has descended so much. Because we're afraid to tell the truth, because we don't want to be labeled something that means nothing....a griper...a complainer...an armchair qb. Nope, that's why this economy is about to drop off the cliff, because everyone looked the other way. RFA is a shell of RFG and it ain't even close. Biggest dropoff EVER between a same generation sequel.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 7:45 pm PT

    By virtue of dropping multiplayer RFA innovation dropped to at least 20 from 100. Now why would any developer make a decision to take such a huge leap backwards? RFG's multiplayer had nothing to do with the single player, and it doesn't need to. It can be separate. If linked in great, but if not that's fine too. I'm not griping over some little thing, I'm saying what they did was a travesty, because they gave up a clear advantage in a space no one else occupies, and is the sort of advantage game developers kill for. Most can never achieve something so unique. Volition/THQ just tossed what others would kill for in the trash like it was nothing. Not everyone will be affected, but most will. Seeing how you have to review the whole game, it should be in the review, given how it is a sequel, using the same tech, on the same console/pc directx version. It's just wrong to say, they didn't have to...well freedom why yes, but if they don't, they should be held to account, which is what reviews do. This game based on precedent, and what they gave up by keeping the bathwater and throwing out the baby, deserves no more than a 4-5. It really is that simple. It doesn't mean a 4-5 can't be enjoyable, it just means, it should of been more....and RFA should have been more. Otherwise gamespot is rewarding poor game development. 90 percent of the game is missing for most players and it only loses .5 of a point from the previous game? Anyone think

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 7:45 pm PT

    I'm not trying to sway YOU, and anybody should realize that if you don't play MP, my critique doesn't affect YOU. It affects those (the majority) that DO play competitive multiplayer. (and yes cooperative multiplayer is generally termed co-op, and competitive multiplayer is simply multi-player...it's not my definition, it's the generally used one..and you tried to say that multiplayer is multiplayer, when it was clear I was speaking of competitive multiplayer...overall though that's semantcs...but it isn't MY definition)

    Ask 10 people what multiplayer gaming is, I bet at least 9 say, playing AGAINST someone else, or with a team of humans against other humans...not co-op with humans against AI. No one else does a 'siege' where you don't protect a flag inside of a building, you're protecting THE BUILDING. They had TYPES of multiplayer within RFG that simply cannot be achieved in other games. To scale it out, 1-100, what's CoD multiplayer like on the innovation scale? 20? Others maybe 10? RFG was a 100. Game developers have to hope and pray and luck into getting such a competitive advantage over their competitors. They had such an advantage, and they ditched it.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 7:44 pm PT

    I guess I forgot to finish the response to @DaNubianPryns
    It's ok we disagree, and I can understand that some people don't like multiplayer, or perhaps don't want to pay for xbox live or what not. That's cool. If you just play single player it may not affect you, but you are in the minority and the review has to be bigger than that.

    But to anyone that DOES play ANY sort of multiplayer, and it is a majority of gamers now that do, those that played RFG multiplayer would agree it's NOTHING like anything else on the market (ever). It had it's own niche. It carved out it's own little slice of competitive multiplayer fun.

    But regardless of whether or not people play it, the majority do.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 6:35 pm PT

    Finally my opinion is that what they did sucked, but, it is a FACT that they took 90 percent of the game playing out of the game. So it's more than just opinion, but an opinion based on that fact.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 6:25 pm PT

    I liked the oppressive angle too, I loved it in the first one ~2000. But the point is, whoever bought RFG and played the multiplayer, felt it was a blast. Something unique that has now been abandoned...and why? It was great. People that played, loved it. I'm an example of that. It was a horrible decision made by them, and again they could of ODST it. WHere they had RFA like they had it, brought back the RFG maps, and added a few (so they didn't have to redo the whole thing) if the wanted to go that route. That multiplayer was the best part of RFG, and if anything, and I don't see HOW they didn't see that. It's like missing a red light, or leaving the microwave door open while running, it was Sarah Palin obvious.

    So again, in RFG they had wrecking crew, single player, and revolutionary multiplayer.

    In RFA they have wrecking crew updated/horde, no multiplayer, and a campaign 1/3 as long.

    There's a standard set. What if FFXIV was only 1 disc and about 5 hours long? Should it get an 8? That's what was pulled here, and the part they kept, wasn't the best part. I just don't know how much more plainly I could put it. Hundreds of hours of revolutionary gameplay vs 8. That's a let down in anyone's book. It's like going to see a sequel and the movie is 20 minutes long, and the best actor is gone. That's what RFA is.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 6:24 pm PT

    It wasn't just a 3rd to 1st or 1st to 3rd, whereas there are plenty of either.

    You had a company, who had something revolutionary, that no one else is doing, and they did it well, and they ditched it. (which also happen to be where many RFG players played for hundreds of hours over the past two years)

    Griping? No, it's called telling the developer we RECOGNIZE when we're being shafted, and to clue the knuckleheads in that they just 'jumped the shark'. Maybe another way to put it is this. Baby and Bathwater. The RFG competitive multiplayer was the baby, the single player was the bathwater. They threw the baby out with the bathwater. Which was the most important thing to keep from RFG? The revolutionary multiplayer.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 6:24 pm PT

    @DaNubianPryns

    You hinted at it with your syntax, but that's ok.

    Again, you are saying I'm griping. I'm informing the world (or one person that is) that a revolutionary aspect of the game (the WAY RFG did their multiplayer) is gone.

    Remember when Super Mario Bros came out? It was revolutionary in terms of platformers. What if all of a sudden Super Mario ditched it, to become more like, Lode Runner or any of the other much crappier 80's platformers. That's what RFA is. The ditching of what made their previous game tick. They could of done what they did with RFA and still kept mp, and would have a much better game.

    My point isn't a simple 1st-3rd person DESIGN decision. My point is that they took 90 percent of the game away, and that 90 percent was REVOLUTIONARY compared to CoD or what ANYONE is doing with THEIR competitive multiplayers. Look around, you won't find anyone in the competitive multiplayer space that RFA exited (by ditching what RFG had). There is a huge gaping hole now. One that shouldn't of happened.

    It's like Madden leaving football, and then there is no football game one season. That's what RFA did by ditching multiplayer. No one else is doing what RFG did so well, and what so many people found so fun.

  • Yams1980

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 5:39 pm PT

    heheh nice review

  • DaNubianPryns

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 12:21 pm PT

    @jmc88888

    I was speaking literally, referring to the definition of the word multiplayer. I don't believe I said you were wrong. Multi means more than one, player means you or I. Prime example would be Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. That has cooperative and competitive multiplayer. Both are considered multiplayer.

    I feel like they strayed too far away from the origins of Red Faction in Guerrilla and now in Armageddon. They changed it from an FPS to a 3rd person shooter. That bummed me out, but you don't see me griping about it. I accept Guerrilla for what it is, as well as Armageddon. But, simply because they had specific "competitive" multiplayer types in Guerrilla does not mean they have to put it in Armageddon. Different game, different environment, and it likely wasn't particularly conducive to the story.

    In RFA, the story deviates from the oppressive, subjugated tone in the original. That's what I miss from the original, the story. I'm all for the story and atmosphere in games. That's why I don't care for your definition of multiplayer and am doubtful of the video game industry as a whole if multiplayer is the thing of the future.

    We just disagree.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 10:45 am PT

    @brono
    Yes, I remember cheating by going through to the end of the level by going through the wall to the end. Yeah, I know, but the game was so different, I had more fun THAT way a couple of times. You never knew what to expect when blowing through enough walls....fun.

    That's what is funny between the original and this generation's. The first ones you could only blow through dirt, the structures were solid. In this generation's one, the dirt is solid, but the structures can be brought down.

  • moonkill3

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 10:29 am PT

    I dont know.Iplayed demoand thought it was cool was thinking a little Lost Planet in it.but only 8 hours of campaign and lack of any sustantial multiplayer has me a little disappointed

  • Sgthombre

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 10:24 am PT

    I thought the old Red Faction games were semi-original in that it was a conflict on Mars that didn't have freaking aliens. But not anymore...

  • Imakuleus

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 9:05 am PT

    How very well said DAMSOG. ^^

  • dovberg

    Posted Jun 3, 2011 2:15 am PT

    I played the demo and the destruction is still cool and the magnet gun too.

  • Dook_Pukem

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 9:30 pm PT

    Unicorn queefs are lethal!

  • InExcelsis

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 7:52 pm PT

    I played the demo and thought it was pretty good I will probably buy this game when it gets to 30 dollars.

  • Pawfalcon

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 6:13 pm PT

    Played demo, was thinking "Dead Space" the whole time too. Tool weapons, other planet, demonic aliens, stasis, etc. Even little things like the radio communications between you + other characters look and feel the same. Its just less Horror and more Action... and hilarious unicorns apparently

  • afrodudeman123

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 4:19 pm PT

    the unicorn made my day....

  • Spudtaco

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 2:44 pm PT

    There's a lot of reviewers hating on this game, but to be honest Gears of War and Dead Space are built on almost exactly the same premise! I'm giving this game a chance and I bet its going to be awesome.

  • grim0187

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 2:36 pm PT

    Game looks awsome. True, the original was and always will be the best. But this still looks like a solid game.

  • mad-at-nintendo

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 2:26 pm PT

    Having an ugly protagonist will greatly hurt game sales, not an opinion just a sad materialistic fact. Anyway, looks like a cool game.

  • pcty

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 2:22 pm PT

    Where is the trigger on that unicorn? I just hope it is not where I'm thinking it is.

  • hgerisson

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 1:39 pm PT

    what? the hell is up with little unicorn? shooting laser up its a hole

  • Walt4294

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 1:38 pm PT

    Thats a wonderful little unicorn

  • mrchiledonut

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 1:27 pm PT

    I saw Brad Shoemaker. Funny.

  • onelessvillian

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 1:00 pm PT

    Did i see a unicorn shooting a laser out its.....? wha?

  • Lotus-Edge

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 12:46 pm PT

    Very destructible....I like.

  • brono

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 12:21 pm PT

    some one played the first one? do some one remember that the walls made of dirt could be destroid too??? plese explain to me how a explosive charge destroy iron made structures and not make a bump in the dirt flor .those rocks are like god made indestructable. sorry for the bad inglish and i still say only red faction game that wase cool was the first one .why they dont do a mix of the 2? destroi everithing not just buildings i remenber even making a hole near a locked dor and driving a mining car doing my one caverns some one remenber this too???

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 12:11 pm PT

    A better summation. They were ahead of the curve, and they gave it up. To put it in computer terminology, they gave up their 128 core monster (with hyperthreading) to return to an old Apple IIGS. Huge step back. They took Hamburger hill from CoD and Halo, and just gave it back to them without a fight. They stormed the beaches of Normandy, only to go home.

    It's just sad to see someone really shake things up and improve upon a multiplayer shooter (because we have sooo much innovation in games these days), only to abandon and forfeit the game, when they are leading. I can't describe the bummer feeling I get when thinking about what a 'video game' travesty has just taken place. We're Winning....so lets give up...and they did! Buying a new car and driving it into a wall across the street from the dealership makes more sense than what Volition did with RFA.

    RFG was revolutionary RFA is anything but

    Here's to hoping the next one gets it right (or some other developer steals their thunder and takes THEIR winning idea and runs with it...and makes loads of fiat).

    I just wanted people to know how Volition, with their arbitrary, unneeded, asinine decisions made a pre-ordering fan of the franchise feel, and that's disgusted.

  • breadisgood

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 11:58 am PT

    Red Faction 1 will always be the best

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 11:36 am PT

    RFG's multiplayer is still the best imo ever made. They could have Halo ODST it, with some additional maps, but they didn't. They just dropped it, and it WAS the BEST aspect of the previous game. Otherwise people are defending a company that took two years to develop a sequel to a game that has just 8 hours campaign and no multiplayer. This sort of "effort" should take 6 months, not 2 years and should of been on shelves xmas 2009. People need to stop being apologetic to companies for products that are only 1/2 (or less) of what they should be. Because if you accept such worthlessness, it will become the industry norm for $60. So to finish, in order to have a sequel come out in two years, a game developer ought to focus on one thing, and that one thing, isn't the best part of the preceding game? (and some would say best TWO parts [non-linear])...get your thinking caps on people and use them for once. [sorry for length, 4posts but it is complicated]

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 11:36 am PT

    Under your scenario you'd say that they saved time doing it this way...well what sort of game would they have had if they included mp? 4 hour campaign? Would that even be a game? Thus the argument makes no sense. They didn't spread themselves to thin, because this is already barely a game!

    Again, spreading a development team too thin...is the responsibility of who is running the show...and their ability NOT TO NOTICE IT. It is in no way a reason to say mp should be pulled from games, it's a reason for those running the show, to get their act together and be more cognizant of what they are actually putting together and trying to sell. It's called quality control.

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 11:35 am PT

    This game left the best part of the franchise on the table (and better than other more advertised franchises) all for an 8 hour campaign with few character models (aliens), TWO YEARS later. It's also not like they went from 360 to the 360's successor. It's basically the same game engine modified more.

    You really have to understand in total what you are saying, because while I respect it, you didn't add up the sum of what your saying otherwise you'd understand fully it meant nothing. Anyone can make a bs sophistry argument to blur the lines so that reality isn't so apparent, but such arguments doesn't make it true.

    Multiplayer had been done before, in reality all they had to do was create new maps and add another line in the menu. Not that hard. Instead for 'dropping it', we got a small campaign. (perhaps if it was a 40 hr campaign your words would be more true, but they didn't it's 8 hours....hardly a reason to drop mp because they are focusing on those other aspect...they DIDN'T)

  • jmc88888

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 11:35 am PT

    @DaNubianPryns
    respect the comment but your argument is pure sophistry

    Shooters that have multiplayer in previous editions, especially ones where that WAS the majority of the time playing in the game has set a standard.

    Look I love multiplayer shooters of all sorts, but RFG took it to a new level of fun. So unique, so destructive, and the backpacks were a blast. RFG multiplayer fun factor was >halo or any CoD or other shooter out there. I love those two, but RFG multiplayer had some serious genius behind it. Plus when you say it diverts their attention, that is only the case when those overseeing the development of the game, are way over their head and should not be in their job position. There is no reason why a game that came out YEARS after the previous one did not have enough time to include mp...so in RFA what you say has no bearing on THIS game. Developers can always hire a few hands and split things up into different teams or what not. It's like saying, car companies don't need to focus on improving brakes because they are focusing on improving the engine. It's asinine. People can walk and chew gum at the same time. Except those that can't.

    Also yes, co-op isn't multiplayer online. You are taking my words, and changing the meaning...and THEN saying I'm wrong. You knew full well I mean real MULTIPLAYER...and co-op is not multiplayer. Semantic arguments progress nothing and change nothing.

  • use739

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 10:44 am PT

    is this game freeroam or just linear?

  • pitosga

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 9:39 am PT

    Ah yes, and lol @ 3:56.
    If anything, I'll get the game out of curiosity over that. Seriously, what the hell...

  • Jedilink109

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 9:38 am PT

    Just started playing the first game recently. Feels very strangely similar to Half-Life.

    And what the frak was up with the unicorn!?!?!?!?

  • pitosga

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 9:38 am PT

    Magnet gun looks like loads of fun. Even more than the gravgun in Half-Life 2 at the time. Alas, given the trailers which actually included story, I had hoped that story would once again become one of the series strong points since the original. So I was wrong then. But goddamn if I don't get back to this series with this iteration. I'm missing the destructive environments. You'd think it'd have caught on by now and many games were "doin' it", but apparently not.
    Though, again, I preferred the realistic destruction in the original. Blow a hole in rock or a wall felt much more tangible than watching those frail sci-fi shanty buildings fall apart with a shot or two from a gun. Planting half a dozen remote chargers and getting a wall or building down with effort, that's what's gratifying. If we throw a rocket and something goes down, it just makes everything look fake and unreal, which it is, but we're meant to be fooled to enjoy it.

  • survivor9712

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 9:10 am PT

    A UNICORN ! SQUEEZE THAT TAIL !!

  • FaYt2021

    Posted Jun 2, 2011 7:56 am PT

    @3:57 lol completely random!

Red Faction: Armageddon Quick Links

Summary | Reviews | News | Previews & Features | Images | Videos | Answers | Achievements | Hints & Cheats | Forum

Red Faction: Armageddon

Red Faction: Armageddon Boxshot Enlarge the boxshot

Follow for the latest news, videos, & tips from experts & insiders

Game Stats

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games