Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Faction
I am not sure they have universal rights to the old games. When THQ went out of business, individual properties were sold off in auction.
Either way not enough people want a rehash of an old extremely linear shooter that would have to be recreated from scratch. Your not slapping on HD textures and calling it good with the first two games.
As for 2, it's one of the worst FPS games i've ever played. And adds nothing to the franchise.
I've never pre-ordered another game since.
Also to add my cents to the actual question at hand, I reckon it's because it's the most popular one and also because it's easier to do. People would expect a lot more work put into either of the first two games, possibly a full remake. Also if this is anythjing like Darksiders this could just be them testing the waters for a new game.
which one? as i dont quite remember seeing hate for either Red Faction 1 or 2
I mean granted, Armageddon supposedly wasnt all that great as a game but still