Because our previous "Infiltration 3" discussion is gone, lets start a new one in the right place.
INFILTRATION 3
- Thread starter Psychomorph
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
seconded on the texture pack.
If i"M not mistaken we had argued down to three essential points.
UT3 since it's pretty and there may be some similarities between the coding structure of UT and UT3.
Counter argument: It's a sci fi game and we're bound to run into some limitations as a result of that.
Crysis since it has a lot of the features that INF was supposed to have and has an optimized engine for contemporary combat.
Counter Argument, INF should be revolutionary and not just rely on the same formula it has since its inception. IF SS wants to make something new, than it's possible they could run into limitations with the Sandbox editor like the UT 3 engine. Further investigation needed.
Third option is to wait for ground branch. Counter Argument, it's not INF.
What else?
If i"M not mistaken we had argued down to three essential points.
UT3 since it's pretty and there may be some similarities between the coding structure of UT and UT3.
Counter argument: It's a sci fi game and we're bound to run into some limitations as a result of that.
Crysis since it has a lot of the features that INF was supposed to have and has an optimized engine for contemporary combat.
Counter Argument, INF should be revolutionary and not just rely on the same formula it has since its inception. IF SS wants to make something new, than it's possible they could run into limitations with the Sandbox editor like the UT 3 engine. Further investigation needed.
Third option is to wait for ground branch. Counter Argument, it's not INF.
What else?
Hmm, actually I should have made it a poll on the major design aspect of INF3, the "freestyle game" versus "defined game".
Freestyle game is like Infiltration is right now, just camouflage differates the teams, everything else is purely free choice, no nations (except you see nations as beeing defined by the camouflage), no solid armory, neutral objectives in a neutral location.
Neutrality and shapelesness. That is why I am against that, it has to much of a "moddish" feel to it, or "mod2000ish" feel.
Defined game is what I see as beeing serious and solid design. No need for US vs Terrorism stereotypes, you can go fictional as much as you want, aslong the core design remains beeing solid and well defined.
Defined means you have a unit, or force that is somehow recognizable, even if you have a fictional unit, such as Rainbow Six in the R6 franchise, it is still made of "real" people, there is motivation, reason and structure behind it and a story which somehow justifies their existence. The unit or even the situation/story is not real, but it could be real. And this "could be" is what makes thing appear believable, solid and sort of "mature" at the end.
The armory may be not strict, if you have some sort of special force unit it is ok to have a little variety of weapons, but the weaponry has to make sense, either beeing high quality firearms that a unit like this would use, or beeing the weapons of the enemies (AK, G3, FAL stuff as usual if enemies are low tech).
<offtopic> I barely touched the texpack the past two months, but I get into it again, am doing it at this minute. </offtopic>
Freestyle game is like Infiltration is right now, just camouflage differates the teams, everything else is purely free choice, no nations (except you see nations as beeing defined by the camouflage), no solid armory, neutral objectives in a neutral location.
Neutrality and shapelesness. That is why I am against that, it has to much of a "moddish" feel to it, or "mod2000ish" feel.
Defined game is what I see as beeing serious and solid design. No need for US vs Terrorism stereotypes, you can go fictional as much as you want, aslong the core design remains beeing solid and well defined.
Defined means you have a unit, or force that is somehow recognizable, even if you have a fictional unit, such as Rainbow Six in the R6 franchise, it is still made of "real" people, there is motivation, reason and structure behind it and a story which somehow justifies their existence. The unit or even the situation/story is not real, but it could be real. And this "could be" is what makes thing appear believable, solid and sort of "mature" at the end.
The armory may be not strict, if you have some sort of special force unit it is ok to have a little variety of weapons, but the weaponry has to make sense, either beeing high quality firearms that a unit like this would use, or beeing the weapons of the enemies (AK, G3, FAL stuff as usual if enemies are low tech).
<offtopic> I barely touched the texpack the past two months, but I get into it again, am doing it at this minute. </offtopic>
Good. All I want to hear out of you for the next month is texture pack stuff. You're sitting on a gold mine Trebec!
I think that if INF3 becomes a "defined game" there should be missions for different armed forces all over the world. I don't like the "neutral objectives in a neutral location" thing.
Whatever is done, team tactics and objective-based game-types should be encouraged. Team elimination/death-match takes tactical games to a pretty low level. I'd like to see game-types where everyone on a server is on the same team against bots (kind of like INF Coop, but realistic). As long as the new games have decent AI, that should be fun. The reason I'd like to have stuff like that is that when people play against people, they can and do manipulate flaws* in games (maps, etc.) to their advantage. When you're playing against AI that aren't necessarily hunting you down like you are to them, those advantages aren't as large.
As for UT3 vs Crysis, I want UT3.
I think UT3 gives Infiltration more potential to be unique. From what I've seen, mapping in Crysis is extremely limited. It may look good, but it will all start to look the same eventually. I could be wrong, but it looks like Crysis maps are all on islands or outside for that matter. With the ability to create completely unique buildings and stuff, UT3s user-created content potential is much higher and from what I've seen, constant new content has been a large factor in preserving INF.
* Flaws both general (camping) and specific (a glitch in a certain game)
Whatever is done, team tactics and objective-based game-types should be encouraged. Team elimination/death-match takes tactical games to a pretty low level. I'd like to see game-types where everyone on a server is on the same team against bots (kind of like INF Coop, but realistic). As long as the new games have decent AI, that should be fun. The reason I'd like to have stuff like that is that when people play against people, they can and do manipulate flaws* in games (maps, etc.) to their advantage. When you're playing against AI that aren't necessarily hunting you down like you are to them, those advantages aren't as large.
As for UT3 vs Crysis, I want UT3.
I think UT3 gives Infiltration more potential to be unique. From what I've seen, mapping in Crysis is extremely limited. It may look good, but it will all start to look the same eventually. I could be wrong, but it looks like Crysis maps are all on islands or outside for that matter. With the ability to create completely unique buildings and stuff, UT3s user-created content potential is much higher and from what I've seen, constant new content has been a large factor in preserving INF.
* Flaws both general (camping) and specific (a glitch in a certain game)
I agree about UT3. Crysis just doesn't feel right to me. Plus, it does not have OOP. The vehicles are very generic, as are the maps. I think much more could be done with UT3 ( as proven by INF) and once you get the feel of UT, nothing else seems quite right. Crysis, while ok, just didn't seem real (espcially at 10 FPS at 800x600 on MEDIUM LEVEL!) As for game type in 3.0, Merc vs. Merc, just like Inf 2.9!
Strange thing though. I can play UT3 on high, no problem. But the editor kicks my dual core cpu to 100% and pretty much of the time leaves it there!
Strange thing though. I can play UT3 on high, no problem. But the editor kicks my dual core cpu to 100% and pretty much of the time leaves it there!
Last edited:
Î would like "Infiltrations" design beeing centered around the concept of "infiltration", or "infiltrating". And with "infiltrating" I don't just mean the attackers team attacking the defenders, but really "infiltration".
However at least to some extent. Something unique to infiltration is our ability to choose any weapon for use on any map on any team. Something not many games give players.
Lethal Dosage
Serial Rapis...uh, Thread Killer
Bing! Bing! Bing! Psychomorph recieves an award for saying Infiltration the most in a single post. Tell him what he gets barry!
... He wins this lovely handful of AIR!!!!!!!! It's usleful for so many things around the house, like breathing, heating or even cooling. It comes with many features and despite containing small parts it's perfectly safe for under 3 year olds and is near completely non toxic!
... He wins this lovely handful of AIR!!!!!!!! It's usleful for so many things around the house, like breathing, heating or even cooling. It comes with many features and despite containing small parts it's perfectly safe for under 3 year olds and is near completely non toxic!
Well, I have to eat my words about Crysis. I've played about half way through the single player now, and its pretty awesome. It would make a good engine for the next Inf.
Also, supposedly, we will see a really good modern warfare mod come out soon called Obsidian Edge 2. Obsidian Edge 1 was a mod for Far Cry. Models look pretty good. Hmm, wonder if we could do a mod of a mod?
Also, supposedly, we will see a really good modern warfare mod come out soon called Obsidian Edge 2. Obsidian Edge 1 was a mod for Far Cry. Models look pretty good. Hmm, wonder if we could do a mod of a mod?
From what I've seen, maps are going to all look the same unless someone goes through all the trouble of making new models for buildings all all of that. With that said, Unreal Editor provides almost limitless possibilities for maps with not much trouble at all.
The familiarity aspect is probably the most important factor in the decision. With the coding and mapping being similar, it will probably be much quicker and easier to make a mod for UT3.
I don't want INF3 to be rushed, but I doubt it will be worth the wait for people to familiarize themselves with a completely different game. It might not be as good as you thought or it might just take too long for it to really pay off.
I just think UT3 is the better way to go. Maybe it's just me.
The familiarity aspect is probably the most important factor in the decision. With the coding and mapping being similar, it will probably be much quicker and easier to make a mod for UT3.
I don't want INF3 to be rushed, but I doubt it will be worth the wait for people to familiarize themselves with a completely different game. It might not be as good as you thought or it might just take too long for it to really pay off.
I just think UT3 is the better way to go. Maybe it's just me.
From what I have seen, there is little what the Crysis engine cannot bring to screen. In game there is (in addition to carribean island levels) variety of mountain/rock terrain, artic/winter levels, all kinds of forrests (not just jungle), industrial complex, cave and indoor levels.
The only thing I haven't seen in game so far is an urban/big city scenarios, but I don't see why the enging should fail here (in something that any half way decent engine is capable of since ages (houses can be modeled with pretty few polygons)
---
The crytek engine has definitely lots of headroom left, that INF could grow into with ongoing developement. The Predecessor FarCry received the final patch 1.4 in 2007 (3 years after the initial release) and the developers added lots ob substance between 1.0 and 1.4 (HDR for example) and the modding community was involved in the final release.
Looking back, one big reason INF has been played for so long is the scalability of the engine - it was able to compete with newer engines for quite a while. In this concern Crysis seems like the much better choice to me: i.e. everything for fully destructible environment is already there.
And before some start whining about the minimum hardware specs: by the time I suspect INF3.0 to be ready Crysis capable hardware will be down to entry level already
Here is an interesting interview I stumbled across (when Logan mentioned obsidian egde): http://www.obsidianedge.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=172
The only thing I haven't seen in game so far is an urban/big city scenarios, but I don't see why the enging should fail here (in something that any half way decent engine is capable of since ages (houses can be modeled with pretty few polygons)
---
The crytek engine has definitely lots of headroom left, that INF could grow into with ongoing developement. The Predecessor FarCry received the final patch 1.4 in 2007 (3 years after the initial release) and the developers added lots ob substance between 1.0 and 1.4 (HDR for example) and the modding community was involved in the final release.
Looking back, one big reason INF has been played for so long is the scalability of the engine - it was able to compete with newer engines for quite a while. In this concern Crysis seems like the much better choice to me: i.e. everything for fully destructible environment is already there.
And before some start whining about the minimum hardware specs: by the time I suspect INF3.0 to be ready Crysis capable hardware will be down to entry level already
Here is an interesting interview I stumbled across (when Logan mentioned obsidian egde): http://www.obsidianedge.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=172
Last edited:
Lethal Dosage
Serial Rapis...uh, Thread Killer
You don't have much of a point clutch, IMO since maps for Crysis all use prefabed buildings proffesional quality maps will be much easier to make, as well as since buildings are fairly simple to model and the such, if INF introduced an additional 50 or so buildings in addition to the number already in the game, there's a huge variety to use. Not to mention that since the buildings are all done, mappers can save weeks if not months building detailed structures and furnishing them, leaving the mapper to focus on terrain, foliage, ambient sounds, and what map specific scenario coding there is. Clutch i don't ever recall you mapping for INF, if you ever did properly do any serious maps you'd know just how time consuming making buildings and furnishing them with doors, lighting, actors, bot pathing, destructable windows, etc. When i made maps or "butchered" them as i did with ACB and Peacemaker, 80-90% of my time was spent just doing the buildings and their interiors.
While the Devs might still be familiar with the coding for UT3, they'll still be severely hampered with what they can do as UT3 is still essentially just an improved UT with better graphics and currently is almost too it's limit, where as Crysis uses a new engine that'll still be able to be tweaked and enhanced for years to come. While Crysis can support adding attachments to weapons ingame on the fly and the such, UT3 will still require seperate models for all the weapon and attachment combinations that INF2.9 is still restricted with. Essentially while coding the game for UT3 will be quicker, it'll still take forever to get new weapons ingame, it'll be just as difficult (near impossible) to add new attachments to existing weapons, and the Devs will still be heavily restricted with what new features they'll be able to implement. Ballistics and penetration still won't be much different than it is in INF2.9. While futuristic vehicles may be provisioned for in UT3, creating modern ground vehicles with realistic handling will be everemely difficult if not impossible. Crysis already has principle of realistic weapons and vehicles in game, and won't require much in the way of tweaking to get how we want, not to mention it already has a destructable world, where as the only destructable things in UT3 will be what the mapper puts huge amounts of time in to figuring out and get working properly, and the amount of destruction will be limited to pre-defined areas. Crysis also has much better AI, and with Crysis (and the current possibility of INF3) being geared towards both a Singleplayer game with a campaign and skirmish maps, and also as a multiplayer game, smart AI will make singleplayer only players enjoy the game more and giving it a much greater replay value, as well as making nights on quiet or unpopulated servers more fun and enjoyable while waiting for players.
UT3 might sill have a loyal community from UT99 and the other UT games, but it's still essentially a tired out old engine and for the most part is supported by older veteran players, while the latter might be so bad, a new game/mod needs newer, younger, 20something year old players for the fresh blood and the new talent that has the skills to produce top quality that takes full advantage of the engine and game capabilities. Crysis is new, and while probably still sufferes from some bugs, it's got a rapidly growing community of all types of people and players, and is looking forward to good developer support in the future, as well as since it's EA thats publishing it (confirm?), you can look forward to at least one expansion pack with more wonderful new goodies to inforporate in the future.
Theres all the arguments i've outlined above going for Crysis, as well as what Nuke has been going on about, and all i see you bringing to the table is a scared little boy afraid of change and whats new, and the one little argument that going with UT3 will mean some familarity for the Devs with the coding.
While the Devs might still be familiar with the coding for UT3, they'll still be severely hampered with what they can do as UT3 is still essentially just an improved UT with better graphics and currently is almost too it's limit, where as Crysis uses a new engine that'll still be able to be tweaked and enhanced for years to come. While Crysis can support adding attachments to weapons ingame on the fly and the such, UT3 will still require seperate models for all the weapon and attachment combinations that INF2.9 is still restricted with. Essentially while coding the game for UT3 will be quicker, it'll still take forever to get new weapons ingame, it'll be just as difficult (near impossible) to add new attachments to existing weapons, and the Devs will still be heavily restricted with what new features they'll be able to implement. Ballistics and penetration still won't be much different than it is in INF2.9. While futuristic vehicles may be provisioned for in UT3, creating modern ground vehicles with realistic handling will be everemely difficult if not impossible. Crysis already has principle of realistic weapons and vehicles in game, and won't require much in the way of tweaking to get how we want, not to mention it already has a destructable world, where as the only destructable things in UT3 will be what the mapper puts huge amounts of time in to figuring out and get working properly, and the amount of destruction will be limited to pre-defined areas. Crysis also has much better AI, and with Crysis (and the current possibility of INF3) being geared towards both a Singleplayer game with a campaign and skirmish maps, and also as a multiplayer game, smart AI will make singleplayer only players enjoy the game more and giving it a much greater replay value, as well as making nights on quiet or unpopulated servers more fun and enjoyable while waiting for players.
UT3 might sill have a loyal community from UT99 and the other UT games, but it's still essentially a tired out old engine and for the most part is supported by older veteran players, while the latter might be so bad, a new game/mod needs newer, younger, 20something year old players for the fresh blood and the new talent that has the skills to produce top quality that takes full advantage of the engine and game capabilities. Crysis is new, and while probably still sufferes from some bugs, it's got a rapidly growing community of all types of people and players, and is looking forward to good developer support in the future, as well as since it's EA thats publishing it (confirm?), you can look forward to at least one expansion pack with more wonderful new goodies to inforporate in the future.
Theres all the arguments i've outlined above going for Crysis, as well as what Nuke has been going on about, and all i see you bringing to the table is a scared little boy afraid of change and whats new, and the one little argument that going with UT3 will mean some familarity for the Devs with the coding.
While I am not sure about the difficulty of adding attachments to weapons. It was possible to add and remove attachments in game in UE2 which probably means the same thing can be done in UE3.
On another note, I think I was told that attachments cannot be made was the way skeletal animations worked in the game, and there are no "hard points" to attach items.
Don't know how accurate that is, someone will probably correct me that has worked more with the INF weapons.
On another note, I think I was told that attachments cannot be made was the way skeletal animations worked in the game, and there are no "hard points" to attach items.
Don't know how accurate that is, someone will probably correct me that has worked more with the INF weapons.
Good points. I too was a little worried like Clutch about there being too much pre fab which would make all the maps the same looking, but after seeing what the OE2 modders are working on I'm convinced thats not true.
Some good shots of the buildings and weapons they are working on here.
http://www.obsidianedge.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Sorry can't get hyperlink to work for some reason.
As you can see, they are making some very nice buildings and weapons. They were one of the few to get a pre-sdk, and they seem to have maxed it out as they are now waiting like everyone else on the release of the SDK.
So, just looking at Sandbox 2 doesn't mean much. We really won't be able to tell what we can do until the release of the Crysis SDK.
And lets admit it. While coding in UT wasn't too bad, making maps in the editor was a BITCH. At least it was to me. I gave up after about a week of trying. Just too much.
Another point is, Crysis introduces too new words into Virtual Reality gaming.
FR ( Free Ranging) and LBW ( Living Breathing World ). It reminds me of when Ultima 7 came out and you could walk anywhere and do anything. Crysis is the FPS equivalent of that. Saved my butt in the game many a time, because I could avoid ( with some work ) bad checkpoints that I could not have fought or snuck my way through. For those who have played, that check point with the bridge, the boat, and the three troop trucks comes to mind Not to mention the 20 or so DPRK soldiers! I skirted WAY around that, through a lot of untamed jungle.
Now Im waiting for someone to port HL2 to this engine
Hmm, HL3?
Some good shots of the buildings and weapons they are working on here.
http://www.obsidianedge.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Sorry can't get hyperlink to work for some reason.
As you can see, they are making some very nice buildings and weapons. They were one of the few to get a pre-sdk, and they seem to have maxed it out as they are now waiting like everyone else on the release of the SDK.
So, just looking at Sandbox 2 doesn't mean much. We really won't be able to tell what we can do until the release of the Crysis SDK.
And lets admit it. While coding in UT wasn't too bad, making maps in the editor was a BITCH. At least it was to me. I gave up after about a week of trying. Just too much.
Another point is, Crysis introduces too new words into Virtual Reality gaming.
FR ( Free Ranging) and LBW ( Living Breathing World ). It reminds me of when Ultima 7 came out and you could walk anywhere and do anything. Crysis is the FPS equivalent of that. Saved my butt in the game many a time, because I could avoid ( with some work ) bad checkpoints that I could not have fought or snuck my way through. For those who have played, that check point with the bridge, the boat, and the three troop trucks comes to mind
Not to mention the 20 or so DPRK soldiers! I skirted WAY around that, through a lot of untamed jungle.Now Im waiting for someone to port HL2 to this engine
Hmm, HL3?