Well the previous red faction (Red Faction: Guerrilla) was a free roam game where you could go and do any mission you wanted (within reason). The new one, (Red Faction: Armageddon) looks like a linear shooter with 1 direction to travel in. So really I am asking, is Armageddon bad and how would it be compared to Guerrilla?
Well the previous red faction (Red Faction: Guerrilla) was a free roam game where you could go and do any mission you wanted (within reason). The new one, (Red Faction: Armageddon) looks like a linear shooter with 1 direction to travel in. So really I am asking, is Armageddon bad and how would it be compared to Guerrilla?lolatmyaccounts
not a free roam game as rfg. smaller and more limited area maps and you go from one objective to the next. this isn't necessary a bad thing since I'll take a well-done linear game over purposeless free roamers any day.
destruction is still fun, though in much smaller scale and not quite the thrill as in rfg.
game is pretty slow at first but it picks up to be alot more fun as the game progresses. It can also be fairly varied especially at the levels past the halfway point of the game. The guns in the game are pretty fantastic especially the magnet gun(which IMO was a mistake to give to the player so early since you can pretty much practically go through the majority of the game with that one gun. I did.). Despite its limitation with the linearity(which is not neccesarily that bad to be honest) it does the destruction extremely well like the last game. The story itself may be lousy but its just there to conveniently move things along. Only kind of MP that exist is pretty much the co-op infestation mode which is basically fighting off waves of the bug enemies that you see in the game. Had they gone with something more battlefield/star wars battlefront styled but with the fantastic destruction present in the game, i think they would have had a rather enjoyable MP game on thier hands. As it stands its a pretty good game and its far from the terrible game that some would presume it to be.
I've got it on my PC, and I've played it on my cousin's PS3. The PC verstion looks really better, but it still didn't get me addicted like Guerilla did. I was hoping it would be a really better game.
[QUOTE="lolatmyaccounts"]Well the previous red faction (Red Faction: Guerrilla) was a free roam game where you could go and do any mission you wanted (within reason). The new one, (Red Faction: Armageddon) looks like a linear shooter with 1 direction to travel in. So really I am asking, is Armageddon bad and how would it be compared to Guerrilla? Excuse me but your topic title is misleading the real question you're asking, Armageddon was built on the same graphic engine of Guerrilla - both look the same by graphics, and about your real question, dunno never played it yet but as from the gameplay trailers looks like this time the went into modding the original Guerrilla game into a story based sort of mod with a horror effect, sort like making Dead Space out of Guerrilla
[QUOTE="PredatorRules"][QUOTE="lolatmyaccounts"]Well the previous red faction (Red Faction: Guerrilla) was a free roam game where you could go and do any mission you wanted (within reason). The new one, (Red Faction: Armageddon) looks like a linear shooter with 1 direction to travel in. So really I am asking, is Armageddon bad and how would it be compared to Guerrilla? Excuse me but your topic title is misleading the real question you're asking, Armageddon was built on the same graphic engine of Guerrilla - both look the same by graphics, and about your real question, dunno never played it yet but as from the gameplay trailers looks like this time the went into modding the original Guerrilla game into a story based sort of mod with a horror effect, sort like making Dead Space out of Guerrilla How is it misleading, the title begins with showing my opinion on how the game looks followed by "am I wrong" the am I wrong part is clearly a question which relates to the post that I am asking and everyone but you has seemed to have answered this correctly.
most multiplatformers would look the best on PC...that's a given, so that's not remotely worth mentioning if rfa looks better on PC than on consoles.
rfa is based on a newer version of the engine for rfg; the new red faction game does look worse than the previous one, especially at higher resolution (over 1920x1080), the gap of their visual quality widens. considering that rfa has smaller and more limited maps, I'll say it does look "bad" compared to rfg.
anyway, the gameplay, destruction/various weapons and abilities, is still quite decent and fun.
Log in to comment