- Publisher: DreamCatcher Interactive
- Release Date: Jun 3, 2002
Buy Now
| Buy on |
|
- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
4D definitely set out to do what it intended, however. To make a solid, fast-paced FPS that is solid in both single-player and multiplayer settings. Now if they get the design part down, they would have had a winner.
-
I found Gore to be kind of mundane.
-
Gore isn’t a bad game but it isn’t an overly good one either. It offers a quick run and gun game for those after a basic first person shooter which doesn’t rely on storyline for the player to enjoy it.
-
netjakIs it worth the twenty-bucks? Without hesitation I say "yes". Is it the same value as a "Serious Sam"? Nopers.
-
A poor single-player campaign and quirky interface issues make the game frustrating to all but the hardcore death match crowd.
-
An utterly middle-of-the-road shooter on its way to obscurity.
-
It's a just passably competent old-school shooter that sets its sights pretty low and then manages to hit that mark.
-
The biggest problem with Gore is a lack of originality: None of its dimensions live up to the level of the best first-person shooters on the market in the last few years.
-
Overall, the multiplayer is the only thing Gore has going for it. I admit that it's quite a kick, and the atmosphere of the game makes up for the sub-par graphics, and disgustingly annoying single player.
-
Computer Games MagazineOther than the sheer speed, there's nothing particularly revolutionary or memorable here, but it does everything just well enough to be fun. [Sept 2002, p.81]
-
Depressingly average in almost every respect.
-
If it had offered a more comprehensive and fun single player experience with a great storyline, it might be worth it for the legions of FPS fans.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 3 out of 7
-
Mixed: 2 out of 7
-
Negative: 2 out of 7
-
Oct 17, 2013
-
Mar 12, 2011bad game...
-
Toxisches_eiOct 27, 2002