Log in or sign up to comment
120 Comments
  • 120 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by Lind_L_Taylor

I knew this was going to suck.  So much for producing
a great game in a great (Martian) setting.

Posted by lacke
@TadThuggish: Totally agree. I think they are very conscious of the impact on Meta-Critic.  I don't think mechanics should affect the review if they didn't affect the enjoyment. The score should reflect how "fun" you had with the game, imo. 
 
Maybe I'm just tainted by Jeff's opinion where he straight out said that he thought the game was boring in the QL. This is Brad's review after all.
Online
Posted by shinluis

At least the box art is pretty cool.

Posted by Napalm

As long as the shooting is satisfying, and the destruction is cool, I'll be buying this. I mean fuck, it's already out, isn't it? Man, this is a review-ass review.

Posted by beard_of_zeus

It's a bummer that this turned out so average, it was one of my most anticipated games for this year. I'd love to know how all the design decisions in this game got made, it all seems so backwards.

Posted by Enigma777
Shame. I wasn't planning on buying it at launch, but I think I'll skip it altogether now.
Posted by Ladnar

Man why would they go and screw up a good thing. I was really looking forward to this game so was avoiding coverage because I like to go into games I like without knowing.  Had to click on the review when I saw it though and may have to hold off until after Infamous 2.   
 
This sucks. 
 
@Deathpooky
: Don't even joke about such a thing in Just Cause 3, I imagine the developers of that game have one of those Pledge Drive Thermometers that they fill up with Open World Jank donations.

Posted by Stackboy

I was going to buy this Day One, but I might wait for a price drop down the track. Too many lukewarm reviews.

Posted by Olivaw
@TadThuggish said:
I get the impression that Giant Bomb, including Whiskey in general, loves to write honest, passionate reviews for products...and then give them one more star than the words intended.  (See: Kinect Sports, Motorstorm Apocalypse, Homefront, etc.) That doesn't mean I don't love this site or its personalities but that seems like an odd problem to have.  3/5 is still in the middle: still good, still fine, still acceptable.  How do you justify a "good" score if the last paragraph is all about shitting over a game?  I don't care if the mechanics work to their intended functions.  I'm reading this because I want to know if Brad Shoemaker liked it.
It's not "shitting all over a game" if he's saying it's okay.
 
It sounds like he was just quite disappointed.
 
Which can sound worse than outright vitriol sometimes, in that parental "I'm not mad, just disappointed" way.
Posted by PillClinton

Can't say I'm surprised.  

Posted by SSully

The way Jeff talked about it on the quick look made me  think that he would give it a 2 stars, but brad was kind of defending it. So while I think it sounds like a 2 game, I am not that surprised he gave it a 3. 

Posted by DrMadHatten

To be honest, I thought this game was going to be amazing. Like a bad company 2 style of growing on what was great. I wish they would talk about why they made these decisions in the next Bombcast, but E3...

Posted by EgoCheck616

Now I am worried about Saints Row 3.

Posted by Brendan

Reads like a one thing, but has a different amount of another thing.   
 
Feel free to just copy and paste that to every other review you will ever comment on to save time.  

Posted by Chaser324

I never understood why they thought taking the basic gameplay of Red Faction: Guerilla and turning it into more of a corridor crawl would be fun. Yo Volition, don't try to turn Red Faction into Dead Space. Work on improving the over-the-top open-world madness that made Guerilla great.

Moderator
Posted by Godlyawesomeguy

Unfortunate that it's not as hilariously fun as Guerrilla, but I'll give it a try when I have time.

Posted by WorldDude

I know Red Faction Guerrilla is praised a lot, but it was just some cool weapons and destruction wrapped in an awful game. The missions were repetitive and exploring Mars was boring. I guess if you love blowing shit up, it's cool, but even that got old after a while. The multiplayer was where the game really shined.
 
Armageddon seemed better to me because the campaign seemed more focused. The real bummer I see is the lack of any real competitive multiplayer. I liked the demo of the campaign though, but I can see that getting old pretty fast. This still seems better than Guerrilla to me, but not by much.
 
Either way, great review Brad!

Posted by Brake

Not to get all hindsight-y, but I kinda saw this coming when they revelaed that it was gonna be linear and underground. Kept hoping they could make it work on the account of how much I liked the previous one, though.

Posted by JustinAquarius

A shame how linear this game is. RF:G had it right. open world + SMASH HAMMER = hours of fun

Posted by MustachedPagoda

The demo I played on Xbox made it seem like the gameplay would get repetitive as it went on

Posted by SpudBug

Too bad.
 
I guess i saw it coming though - I didn't even finish the demo before turning it off in boredom and I fell asleep in the middle of the quick look while watching it today.. lol.
 
Shame, I loved Guerilla. Why did they have to go make a linear boring underground shooter??

Posted by Branthog

This is what I expected and is pretty much how I felt about the last Red Faction. I simply never understood the wanking over zapping a building and watching it fall the eight hundredth time.

Posted by InsidiousTuna

That's some really nice boxart. Hadn't looked closely at it before. 

Posted by fox01313

Think that if this was a linear 3rd person game but using the setting of RFG it might have worked. Great review Brad & can't wait to get my hands on the game to give it a whirl as it still looks fun, just not something to rush out & buy day 1.

Posted by csl316

Is it better on higher difficulties? In Guerilla it elevated the game from stupid fun to tactical bad assery.

Online
Posted by Drakeon

Wished they hadn't messed with Guerrilla's formula and just tried to refine that instead of going this direction :\

Posted by Deathpooky
@Ladnar: I can only hope.  My ideal vision of Just Cause 3 is that the developers break out in song every time they let in another gravity defying ridiculous concept into their game.
Posted by Physic

Why even call it Red Faction if you are gonna strip out the defining openness and hyper-destructability? Guerilla was one if my favorite games of this generation, disappointing to see this game stray from an incredibly fun and ridiculous formula.

Edited by TadThuggish
@lacke said:

@TadThuggish: Totally agree. I think they are very conscious of the impact on Meta-Critic.  I don't think mechanics should affect the review if they didn't affect the enjoyment. The score should reflect how "fun" you had with the game, imo.  Maybe I'm just tainted by Jeff's opinion where he straight out said that he thought the game was boring in the QL. This is Brad's review after all.

No, you're completely right.  As great as the Giant Bomb crew is, they sometimes get stuck in that old corporate journalism mindset where every game gets a 7/10 if it isn't completely broken.  Alex Navarro tweeted "I hate Motorstorm Apocalypse", then gave it a 3/5 because it didn't end up murdering him.  I'm not impressed with a game solely if you press a button and its respective action occurs on screen, and I don't want a fact sheet or checklist; I want to know what specifically they, as fellow human beings, feel.  
 
That train of thought's movie comparison is like a film review saying "it was poop but the lighting rigs worked appropriately, 4/5"
Posted by Fjordson

Not terribly surprised, this game looks incredibly mediocre. I don't get why they ditched so much that made Guerilla fun. That was one of the most fun open world games ever to just mess around in. 

Posted by MormonWarrior

This is too bad. I enjoyed the demo but it seems like it didn't expand from there.

Posted by StingingVelvet

I'm pretty immune to "this game is not like the one before it" disease so I think I will keep my pre-order.  Still it does seem to be more of an average game than a good one by all accounts, which is a shame.
 
Thanks Brad for not acting like this series was always open world, which several other sites did.  As we all should know RF1 and RF2 were linear games.

Edited by HatKing
@StingingVelvet said:

I'm pretty immune to "this game is not like the one before it" disease so I think I will keep my pre-order.  Still it does seem to be more of an average game than a good one by all accounts, which is a shame.  Thanks Brad for not acting like this series was always open world, which several other sites did.  As we all should know RF1 and RF2 were linear games.

Yes, but outside of name, Red Faction and Red Faction 2 were basically a different series, you know?  The story is pretty much entirely new, the developer is new and the gameplay is only vaguely reminiscent (deforming terrain~destructible buildings?). 
 
I think most people are shocked by this transition because it seems to be very much a step in the wrong direction.  A game like Red Faction Guerrilla was exactly the type that needed a sandbox environment.  It seems odd that they would see what people loved so much about that game and step away from it. 
Posted by floodiastus

In the age of Minecraft, I am flabberghasted that they decided to make the game less destructible. Give us the whole planet to mold!!!!!

Posted by AhmadMetallic

that's a shame 
 
no purchase

Posted by Cheesebob

Blimey, from the way that Brad was talking about this game on the quick look, it seemed like it was a 2 star game.

Posted by Hearse

I'm all for trying something new with a franchise but to take it in a more generic direction isn't the right way to go.

Posted by StingingVelvet
@HatKing said:
Yes, but outside of name, Red Faction and Red Faction 2 were basically a different series, you know?  The story is pretty much entirely new, the developer is new and the gameplay is only vaguely reminiscent (deforming terrain~destructible buildings?).  I think most people are shocked by this transition because it seems to be very much a step in the wrong direction.  A game like Red Faction Guerrilla was exactly the type that needed a sandbox environment.  It seems odd that they would see what people loved so much about that game and step away from it. 
It's the same developer, but yes you are right the third game was very different.  This one seems different from all three really.  I'm just saying I personally am very good at taking each game on its own.  Deus Ex is my favorite game every and Invisible War is not a good sequel to it, but I still like Invisible War as a game.  Know what I mean?
 
It does sound like this game is just flat-out not as good as Guerrilla even without expectations though.
Posted by Metal_Mills

If this had a bigger world with more stuff to destroy, I'd have bought it instantly. Too bad they went in the exact direction no one wanted.

Posted by bhhawks78

Such a bummer, best part about guerilla the open world destruction is gone, and the worst parts - shooting and enemy ai are in the forefront :((

Posted by rmanthorp

Nice review. 
 
Too many good games to pick this up anyway...

Moderator Online
Posted by dropabombonit

It's a shame that this game didn't turn out great, last game was so much fun

Posted by Microshock

Yeah, I was disappointed in the way they took the series right after Armageddon's trailer came out. How do you go from awesome open world destruction to linear underground cave shooter with barely anything to even blow up?! 
 
It's just sad. RFG needed a sequel, but this is crap.

Posted by Cirdain

FUCCCKKK!!! I'mcalling.it was down and I couldn't cancel my bet.... fuck

Posted by adamazing

The first sentence of this review sums it all up (I did read the whole review though).  As I said in a comment on the "Quick Look" of RF:A, I hate to see people lose their jobs but people should pay for their mistakes.  Volition really screwed up here.  They went backwards.  To me, the most likely scenario of how this game was developed goes like this... 

 
- The boss's son got a job at Volition
- He was assigned as director/producer of RF:A
- He made a bunch of bad decisions because he didn't know what he was doing.
- The Volition team thought, "These are all terrible ideas, but we can't say anything... It's the boss's son! "
- RF:A was made, as is.

Edited by DougQuaid

I'm pretty surprised Brad gave this 3 stars. Considering how lukewarm the guys have been on this and how completely below average and uninspired this game seems to me, I can't help but think Brad was being pretty generous with the final score.

Posted by blacklab

Pretty much what I expected after playing the demo.

Posted by PieGuy

I loved Red Faction 1, Red Faction 2 was great for the multiplayer and bots aspect. Didn't like the direction they took with Guerilla and this doesn't look great either.
 
Will THQ be giving GiantBomb a early review copy again I wonder =P

Posted by Martdawg

Fable 3 and now this, I hope this isn't the year of terrible sequels.

Posted by HatKing
@StingingVelvet: You're right.  I'm not sure why I was under the impression that Volition just bought the title.  I guess that goes to show you how different it really is. hah... And yes, I do understand that--I'm in the same boat too.  I really appreciate a sequel that departs from the original in some way (i.e.: art style, gameplay, story).  Red Dead Redemption might be an extreme case, but it's a good example.  I also enjoyed the Prince of Persia (reboot thing?) up until the last twenty minutes.
  • 120 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3