The GORE Dream Catches On

DreamCatcher Acquires 3D PC Blast-Fest GORE by 4D Rulers is the announcement that this first-person shooter that's been an independent project until now has found a publisher, as they've signed on with DreamCatcher Interactive. The release, which lists Spring 2002 as the game's projected release date, offers the gory GORE story, their unique weapon and stamina systems, and a description of gameplay: "In GORE’s revolutionary gameplay world, players will need more than a quick trigger-finger to demolish their opponents. The game’s 8 to 10 unique player classes allow each player to choose the character with the right weapons, strengths, and abilities for them. Most of GORE’s frighteningly lethal weapons have secondary-fire modes, a feature that gives players over 30 ways to demolish their opponents. But that’s just the beginning. Almost anything you see in GORE can be destroyed: weapons, health and stamina packs, ammo boxes, gas tanks and more. Don’t want a wounded enemy to get a health pack? Shoot it right before he touches it, and watch the pack explode with lethal force. Four game modes (Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, and Tactical warfare) make GORE challenging for any level of player."
View : : :
34.
 
No subject
Jan 17, 2002, 21:43
34.
No subject Jan 17, 2002, 21:43
Jan 17, 2002, 21:43
 
Ok, ok.

"Yes, your thoughts matter much here. I always thought a mod went beyond changing some variables."

I said that with sarcasm. An insult or an opinion regarding a game being written as a fact has no need here. This is an argument.

"Oh, and yes, Xombie and who ever else thinks Quake 3 is for unskilled players and was not well thought out as a game, your unjustly opinion matters much here."

This is what I had responded to what Xombie and others have written earlier: "Tell me... what thought out gameplay was there in Quake 3?
They put a bunch of models on a map, gave them guns, and they blast each other. there's nothing more than that. the guns don't even have alt-fire."

"Mind you, instead of stinking these boards up with what you think, try and turn this place around from Blue's Shack to Blue's News with some real evidence."

Everyone knows that The Shack is the epicenter for comments written in stupidity and what not. I suggested to try and keep Blue's News from becoming such a site.

"Gameplay and skill involved in differing games like Quake 3 and Gore is based entirely on opinion. Graphics, sound, and gameplay are all opinion."

That is right. All of the listed above are factors regarding opinion.

"So, without further ado, you may post a reply that makes remotely any sense."

This is regarding a posts sent earlier.

"I am not sure how you do not have to aim the other weapons. If you did not aim, you would hit no one except those who ran in front of you."

This is the truth. Taken into literal sense: If you did not aim at all, you would hit nothing but what runs in front of you.

"I am not sure how a shotgun has splash damage. I think you are referring to buckshot. The lightening gun has no splash damage. The melee weapon has no splash damage."

A shotgun does not have splash damage, it has buckshot. Splash damage is from a projectile in which the impact sends "waves," "energy pulses" or "an explosion" outward from the projectile in which it had originated. The other guns I listed have no splash damage.

"Actually, from my experience, there are few crowds in MP. Awards are often given to those who kill the next player quickly, and not if more than one person was killed at a time in a 'crowd.'"

This is correct. Since experience comes first, inexperience comes second.

"If there was no aiming required, let alone, skill to aim required, then I do not see how they can deem certain players "professionals." There would be an awful lot of professional players if no skill was required to aim, let alone, to aim at all."

Skill obviously has to be involved for there to be a ranking system among players determing a good player from a bad one.

"Stamping a game a "tech demo" is based on opinion. I can choose to favor your opinion in light of others, but I do not."

Calling a game a "tech demo" is based entirely on opinion. The opinion is formed from the impression of the game itself.

"The game play in other games is just as simple: You navigate a level and kill who ever you see."

Every game has you reaching for the stars for the same reason. If goals differed, it could result in a change in the genre in which the game resides.

"To say the players are not as good on one game as another is based on how good you are at a particular game. It is said that how much one enjoys a game is how good one is at it."

This is true. People who are bad at a game will eventually become good at it. If not, then that is a rare exception. People who like a game more than others will more likely play better than others (determined, also, by how long someone plays the game).

"To say the game does not require skill is based on your experience. And since it seems as though you had a tough time playing the game, you are going to choose a game over another and simply bash the one you had allegedly played. It seems as though you are no good at it."

Someone who bashes a game for not requiring any skill is more likely a player who had a bad experience with difficulty of play.

"It is not hard to recognize a good player on the Internet, nor is it to recognize a bad one. But it is hard to recognize a player at all."

Simply put: You can tell apart good and bad players and are recognized easily. People who talk about games and have not played them are difficult to uncover.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@199.22
2.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
4.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
5.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@199.22
3.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
6.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@62.30
17.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
7.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@24.70
8.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@216.227
13.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
14.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
16.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
9.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
10.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
  SP?
11.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
   Re: SP?
12.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@144.96
15.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
19.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
20.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
22.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@24.229
27.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
18.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@129.8
21.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
23.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
24.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
anon@64.133
25.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
26.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
42.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@207.18
28.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
29.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
30.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
31.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
33.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
anon@216.227
50.
Jan 19, 2002Jan 19 2002
 Re:
anon@216.150
32.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
 34.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
No subject
35.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
36.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
37.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
38.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
anon@216.227
39.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
40.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@62.30
43.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@216.227
41.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@195.198
44.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
45.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@216.227
46.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
51.
Jan 21, 2002Jan 21 2002
anon@159.231
52.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
58.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
59.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
anon@24.197
47.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
48.
Jan 19, 2002Jan 19 2002
 LOL
anon@168.100
49.
Jan 19, 2002Jan 19 2002
53.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
anon@195.255
54.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
55.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
56.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
57.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
anon@212.73
60.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002