What is the Future of INF and Sentry Studios?

But you seem not to read your PM's?
I asked you to delete two mis-posted threads.

Crowze,

If you feel that my explanation is not enough, there is little I can do about this. I was never under the impression that I had to comply with a criteria if my post was "relevant" or not to YOU, if this is how the Forum works then I will follow this protocol.

If you feel that my intentionally carefully worded post so to not offend anybody STILL offends you with my allegedly "thinly veiled insults", I cannot help this. I was not under the impression that I was under pressure to provide names, dates, location etc, as if this were a government investigation. Fact is, I do not have the time to research the names of the posters, and do not wish to bring their identities to light here. They did nothing wrong, they simply expressed their opinion, as did I.

Again, I feel that my post is relevant, and I stick to the fact that there were posts to that effect. You don't have to believe me.

This reply is only to respond to the fact that you believe I am "insulting" which I am not, also that I have not, nor ever will break Forum rules. I understand this reply is Off Topic, but your post was adressed to me so I am obliging you with a respectful and truthful reply.

I also believe one other thing.

Even if I have not read it, it still DOES NOT mean it didn't exist, and it wasn't posted. I speak from experience. Believe me, it has happened to me.


Any further explanation I expect to be received by PM, please.

This conversation is concluded, thank you.



Death Touch

You took the time to write that post, and surely you know who we are talking about otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. If I said 'France is purple', wouldn't you ask for proof? It's not as if I'm going to take a baseball bat to anyone who disagrees with me. I'm trying to understand why these people think that.

Psycho, I can't since I don't have moderator permissions on all the forums. I'll have a yell at the admins.

DeathTouch, so it didn't occure to you for one second that if your post was irrelevent / wrong / missleading / base on false assumptions for Crowze, it might also be so for other of us.

Do you need us to do a poll about your post or something? I mean, after crowze mentioned it, there is no need for all of us to add our comment and repeat the exact thing he said.

Then, there is the fact that no one said we didn't believe you when you say that someone said that they didn't want INF to evolve and go to a new engine. But when we ask you who exactly, it doesn't mean we don't believe you, it mean we are asking you "who exactly".

Once yous start looking at who exactly wants this an realize it's not even a considerable fraction of the active INF community, maybe you'll see how pointless the argument is.

Tell you what, I'll just jump in and say i remember not wanting inf on the source engine cause it only runs under windows!

That doesn't mean i don't want it on another engine ...

P.s. at the moment inf uses and inordinate amount of CPU resources for what it is. With a new engine that supported hardware T&L it would run faster and work on less powerfull machines ...

DeathTouch, chill out dude. This is a relatively small community and most active players know eachother. I must admit, when you mentioned that some people would rather play inf on ut99 because of hardware issues, i found myself wondering who would say that too.

oh and,

DT said:

..If they STILL like outdated graphics and somewhat passe gameplay, that is their decision..

Click to expand...

There is nothing passé about inf's gameplay. It's either you like it, or you don't. And i dont 'STILL like outdated graphics'. Like i say 'these textures are nice' all the time. Inf is what it is, a mod i like to play more than any other. Without photo-realistic textures, without so many new gfx features that new games have. The engine is old period.

The problem lies where newcomers play this game, find graphics and whatnot outdated because of it's age (understandable), then hang out and tell everybody they have to move on to bigger and better engines.

Sorry to mention but:

Why is CS 1.6 still way more populare than CS-Source - if it was all about the engine??? HL1 is older than UT ...

You can't blame everything on the engine...


And as a matter of fact: I know a few players who don't consider moving on because their hardware isn't capable of ...

Perhaps at the very worst INF will degenerate into perhaps weekly or bi-weekly scrimmages between clans. The truth is, many here have strong bonds of friendship and have put a lot of sweat and tears into INF. Infiltration is what real combat is.. fear, heroics, and that true sense of immersion.

I mean, you were not playing this whole time for years with "omg I cant wait for 3.0 to come out" on your mind where you?

CS 16 and CS source are basically the same game. But 1.6 has more maps and a few more features. Both are equally worse.

I mean... I played some CS with SWAT the other day... first time in years. It's really built around 5 years old level tactics. I'm sure you could train a monkey to play this game and even be good at it.

As was said in the NVS forum, perhaps the Inf team contact Epic for mod support for UT2K7, as they approached them for the Game of the Year Edition for Unreal Tournament.

zeep said:

DeathTouch, chill out dude. This is a relatively small community and most active players know eachother. I must admit, when you mentioned that some people would rather play inf on ut99 because of hardware issues, i found myself wondering who would say that too.

oh and, There is nothing passé about inf's gameplay. It's either you like it, or you don't. And i dont 'STILL like outdated graphics'. Like i say 'these textures are nice' all the time. Inf is what it is, a mod i like to play more than any other. Without photo-realistic textures, without so many new gfx features that new games have. The engine is old period.

The problem lies where newcomers play this game, find graphics and whatnot outdated because of it's age (understandable), then hang out and tell everybody they have to move on to bigger and better engines.

Click to expand...

Zeepster,

I believe after playing games in which there are features such as Medics, Grenadiers, Heavy Gunners, ability to form/ join squads, player movement, weather effects, weapon movement,VOIP, Artillery, vehicles,Mortars, RPGs, AT4s, explosives,HUD Maps,lght sources, higher quality weapon and player models,animations, realistic looking skins and map objects, realistic particle effects, I find INF hard to enjoy.
I have played INF since it first was released. I got into it because at the time it was exactly what I was looking for. But after being impressed by other games I was finding it harder and harder to stay with it. So what I am saying in essence is that I am NOT a "newcomer" myself, I'm just a player that felt he had to move on, that's all. I NEVER discredited, ignored, or devalued ANYONE'S opinions about INF, I was in fact just stating my own, and those few who may not be so tolerant of change.
IMHO , INF is behind the times in comparison to other games, this is why to ME it is passe. Just my opinon, folks, no one is going to die here because of it. I DID like it, at one time, now, not so much.
INF has classic quality gameplay, however, for me it is just not as enjoyable anymore, ok?
That's all I am saying.
If you still like it, GREAT for you and everybody else. I am actually supporting you and everyone elses's decision despite the misunderstandings.

Again, I reiterate I am not a newcomer. BUT, I was very pleased and excited when SS announced they would move on to another engine.
My posts were meant to discuss and encourage this move. Sadly, it failed as SS stated they would no longer be focusing on the Source game they developed. When the announcement was made, I began suggesting an alternative to UT2004, why? Because I want to play INF again, in a better light, so to speak.
I also do not see anything inherently wrong with suggesting SS to move on to something else, not arbitrarily, but because there is more out there now, and that INF could be enjoyable to more players ans simply be "better". Since I am not one of these "newcomers" you speak about (I was a longtime "lurker" and player before finally registering with the Forum), I do not take offence , I actually agree that ill informed posts that condemn others and offer nothing substantial is never a good thing.
For me, I was just adding my voice, concern, and support for the move (it WAS decided by SS, NOT me, or anyone else here, you know?) to something more "featureful", for lack of a word.

Finally, I AM "chilled out". I just see no reason to take on any "tone" other than a frank, and truthful manner in my post wording.
Thanks,

Death Touch



(Admins, while my reply is OT, I wanted to reply to Zeep directly, back on topic now)

Medics... I've yet to see them realistically implemented. No-one who is severly injured on the field will be able to get 'patched up' and combat-ready as if nothing happened within 10 hours, let alone 10 seconds.
Grenadiers: Take a HK69.
Heavy gunners: Take an M249.
Squads: Whether you have it displayed on the HUD as a nice little icon or not, you can be in a squad. This is one of the best things I see in Inf - squads forming on-the-fly because the players know they will do better as a team than as individuals.
Player movement: I sure hope the players in Inf move.
Weather effects: You can get some fairly rudimentary ones in UT already (e.g. rain in Flagstaff, snow in Siberia), better ones would be nice.
Weapon movement: See player movement.
VOIP: Check out TeamSpeakSync.
Artillery: Not sure what place this has in an infantry simulator. AI controlled airstrikes etc. could make things interesting (Iraq).
Vehicles: See artillery.
Mortars: See artillery.
RPGs: Possible, but name one game that has them modelled realistically (backblast for example).
AT4s: In game (kind of). See RPGs.
Explosives: In game.
HUD maps: Not realistic. Check out Kasbah for maps.
Light sources: Yes. There are lights.
Weapon and player models: Higher quality than what?
Skins: See above.
Particle effects: Much needed (ties in with the realistic weather).

So, tell me what game implements all of these? As I said before, I've seen lots of games with some very nice features, but nothing that puts them all together properly and that doesn't have major flaws. I agree that some of them would be very nice additions, but as you well know the UT engine is a dead end for all of them. It's not an easy job to create all new content (and I will take the aformentioned baseball bat to anyone who says 'port' - that means you Logan6 ), and even more work to get them all right. In my opinion, Inf is the closest to what I think is the perfect realism shooter, and I'm willing to overlook its flaws simply because it is a free mod and no other game, free or commercial, is on the same level.

Well said Crowze!

... and the more you are looking for alternatives, the more obvious becomes what you just said.

Well from what I read he is pretty much listing feature of BF2, a game which implements pretty much all of them very poorly. Nothing to be impressed about.

Death, just to try, join us in a DTAS game when you have the opportunity. If you have it, join TS aswell. We usually have a lot of laughs too. This old mod has some quality games to offer still. And who knows, you may even like it.

On another subject, since we're talking engines; Defence Alliance 2 that was released last week, the mod looks great, sounds good, but there are few people playing online. Man in a way i'm glad inf didn't go for ut2k4 because there simply aren't enough people playing. Or are there? Maybe i didn't connect at the right time. I feel bad for any mod crew that works hard to deliver quality and few people play it.

Apart from TO i think Inf is the most played TC mod on ut99.

I´m also glad INF didn't went for UT2004, it looks so cartoonish and all the mods too. It would be to hard to even out the 'cartoonisation' in just a mod.

I have seen great maps for SF, SAS, RO - I don't really see how they look 'cartoonish'

You can use custom models, animations, textures ... of what more does the look consist and how would it look 'non-cartoonish' on any other engine?

The reason most mods built from UT2K4 is because that was how they were designed. They did not have to be. Don't mix engine with content.

I fully inderstand the reasoning behind not going with UT2K4, specialy with the issues with vehicles. For me I didn't want vehicles anyways so I feel it is worth a try. Saying that though the important point here is that it is not my vision that SS needs to carry out it is there. that is all that matters. Currently they can't with what is available so that is something I have to accept.

BTW I am still waiting for that list of games that is as good as Infiltration and as as much fun. You know the one, an Infiltration killer with pretty pictures.

Anyone? Anyone at all?

Some maps are pretty realistic in RO, but still most looks still cartoonish