1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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.

What is Infiltration...?

Discussion in 'General Infiltration Discussion' started by geogob, Apr 25, 2004.

?

Infiltration is...

  1. ... a game.

    39.1%
  2. ... a simulator.

    10.1%
  3. ... a game but should aim to become a simulator.

    40.6%
  4. ... a simulator but should aim to become a game.

    4.3%
  5. ... something else (please share your views).

    5.8%
  1. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reading Tiffy's post made me think a lot about this. I think it would be good for everyone here to take a moment and think about this on their own.

    Taking a few minutes to share your views on this with the community and the developpement team could be a good idea at this point since we are at a turning point in the history of Infiltration. Perhaps the team could also share their views on this... for me it could make a big difference on my future in this community.

    Please try to keep the flames down... I expect a lot of divergent opinion on this, but it's no reason fight over then...

    ------------

    I personnly view Infiltration as a simulator an sincerly hope it stays that way. I find it a little sad that so many people are seeing Infiltration as a game when there are so many alternatives while there are absolutly no other simulator of this kind available to the public.

    When 2.87 was annouced I was very happy, but when it turned out to become 2.9, I really had high hopes. I was hoping for the next step in simulation and realism and I have to admit I was a little disapointed. Some already left because of this, but I have a lot of patience and will wait to see how things evolve in the post-UT99 era.

    I think realism should be the way and real life the model. Balance and one-man tanks are for games, not simulators. I only wish for that much for the next generation of Infiltration.
     
  2. mat69

    mat69 just fooling around

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey come on you forget one option: A cheap CS clone!
    :D

    Edit: For me INF is a game. Every simulater imo is a game if you are able to master it it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  3. MP_Duke

    MP_Duke Banned

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think the bulk of it has much to do with the actual game. To me INF 2.9 is a nice marriage of 2.86 and rav2, plus its own additions of fixes, maps, etc. However, what's a game when its fanbase gets reduced to nothing on account of making it really "real?" Actually, throw that out the window, cuz i'm not even gonna try to discuss reality since everyone here has their own opinions anyway. Now, I've never been one to support balance, but I actually think it's a good thing in this case in that it doesn't completely turn most of community away. I used to play rav2 and remember how hard it was for people to get used to it, most wouldn't even try it...
    Maybe, have you ever considered it not to be fun if it was too real? I don't think many soldiers have fun out there in combat... some maybe, but not all. I can just picture the frustration... And why is it that whenever the teams are unbalanced, people always yell to balance it? Cuz it ain't fun to get your ass whooped continuously. Like the americans whenever they go out to kick someone's ass.. oh no here come the americanos with their goddamn numbers and superpowered weapons-- S H I T !

    Preference and community...
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  4. fist_mlrs

    fist_mlrs that other guy

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    imo inf is what the community makes of it. 2.9 is a great game/simulator to be used as a base for further improvements. as i don't expect to see a inf 2.91 its up to the community to implent their own ideas. mapping isn't hard to learn, and uscript shouldn't be a problem either, so if you don' like something, feel free to improve it.

    ut is a five years old engine, so what do you expect? inf can not represent reallife, a few design tradeoffs are absolutely neccesary. i don't say im happy with all of these tradeoffs, for example i realy dislike body armore, but you won't see me crying about it.

    this engine can't handle large outdoor maps all that well, the hit detection is horrible, there is no animation blending... if you want to compare it to modern day engine it looks realy outdated, so inf for ut won't become a infantery equivalent of il2 with doom3 like graphics. get over it.

    now its time for the community to carry on with inf, and there are a lot of possibilitys: addon weapons, whole new gameplay elements... somebody could finaly code a ai-soldier, so coop missions would be possible.

    i don't get the guys who claim inf is moving further away from a simulation though. 2.86 was realy mesed up in quite a few points, and 2.9 is much, much better in any case. however claiming inf has allways been a simulation is just stupid, neither inf for unreal nor the early ut versions were even close to a simulation. there have allways been major desing changes in inf, so instead of complaining how everything was better in the old days some people could come actually up with some constructive suggestions, or even contribute something to the game.
     
  5. DamienW

    DamienW I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my never humble opinion, Infiltration is certainly not a simulator.
    It lacks several major things to be able to claim that title : extremely accurate hit detection. Realistic movement system (even now, bunny-hoping, circle strafing and instant strafing are possible). Realistic wounding system, both in terms of bullet's killing power and incapatitation (you should perform SERIOUSLY less good when you've been shot). Similarly, some elaborate bleeding system. Complex ballistic model going beyond the one currently implemented, with wind taken in consideration, for instance. And so on and so on .....

    Does that means that INf is a failure ? Certainly not. The above shortcomings are not Sentry's fault, but rather the consequences of the very limited UT engine. That, and also a bit of the community's state of mind (thow come the only populated server lately is a TDM CQB server with ooooold maps ?).

    To me, excpecting a simulation from an engine initially designed around a fast-paced futuristic shooter is foolish. It can't happen.

    On the other hand, INF is as real as it gets within those limits, and if you're playing with people willing to play realistically. INF is a game, but it's definitely different than the crowd, and goes as far as a UT mod could hope. Sometimes i have a blast when playing with certains people, other times i feel like i'm playing UT with slightly more effective weapons. Again, it's not Sentry's fault, but rather the fact that, given the limits of the engine, those limits are easy to exploit for someone who wants to play it as a fast-paced deathmatch.

    So, in a nutshell, inf isn't a simulator, by far, but it's the best that could be done with this engine, especially with the right people, and in any case, is a game with a really unique flavor, and a great attention to detail.

    Similarly, i don't excpect the first versions of the next-gen INF to be a simulator. A realistic game, though, yes ...... And maybe, in the future ... who knows ;)

    **disclaimer** : if my post sounds like an attack on Sentry, or stating that INF is a failure, then you misread me. It's just about having realistic excpectations from an UT mod. ** end of disclaimer**
     
  6. ant75

    ant75 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think some of you are expecting to much out of a computer game . I don't know what you guys call a simulator exactly, but to me the simple fact that you're using a mouse to aim instead of a gun, and pressing a key to simulate you running, is enough to say it'll never reproduce a real life experience. You can add as many features as you wish, in the end you'll still feel like playing a video game. Unfortunately, our standarts for realism raise at the same speed the technology does. So even if all the good suggestions made by damien were to come true, you'll still find something to improve.
    My views on the realism subject have always been the same : i don't care whether the weapon i see in the game is an exact replication of the real weapon or not, i just want the players to act more or less like they were in a real combat situation. Unfortunately, it isn't always the case with Inf, but it does happen. I would say that it has more chance of happening in Inf than in most of the games outthere, and to me that's a good enough reason to stick to it.
    The way it is now, the level of realism of the game mostly depends on the people you play with, and obviously there are things that can be done to make people act a bit more like real soldiers. But you can never force someone to play like you want, this is why any game will always need a good community to be good, and this why i feel that seeing people like tiffy go is more likely to affect this game than any mutator you may add (i'm not aiming at tiffy specifically here, i'm pointing out the vanishing of the ra scene).
     
  7. Dr.J

    Dr.J Staying Alive.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    when i first set my eyes on this game back when it was only 2.85, i thought that this was really cool how you could aim down sights and kill people with accuracy... even if the first game i ever played was an offline one, in an UT map. for me the slower movement speeds but fast firefights were enough to have me excited that this was as realistic a game as i was gonna find. the armoury had so many variations i could be constantly having fun while blasting bots. they might not look smart, but sometimes watching them cover each other and performing teamwork was great to see, even on UT maps. to be honest, ive never managed to find a game online where people actually played realisticly (though i hardly ever venture online) watching people carry robar+famas+benelli loadouts sprinting around and hopping on ledges in scramble got me quite disappointed online.. im sure that realistic matches did take place, just that i never got to see them.
    by this time it was already 2.86. i then saw rav2 and DTAS. that got me going again, even playing with bots when there were noone online... seeing some interesting training maps (namely DOM-DOMtraining by jaymian) really got me playing offline again. ive played that map countless times and never got tired of it. once i ventured online and went onto a DTAS server at manor. those games were some of the most fun ive played - defenders actually find points to cover the flag and actually sat there, waiting for attackers to come. playing again got me ever so excited about 2.9. sure, during the wait i sometimes diverted to things like AA:O and some other games, but realism always meant inf for me.
    when 2.9 finally came out i downloaded it and gave it a try online - only to find people sprinting by themselves, hopping over obstacles and trying to shoot people while jogging side to side with the weapon hipped.
    a games feel is what the community makes it. there is the saying 'a bad workman always blames his tools' - youve got to remember that while inf may not produce all the limiting factors that will result in realistic gameplay, you can have some self control and enforce them yourself. in real life kids have all the paramaters for realistic combat, but do they look like specops when they play their 'wargames' and pretend to shoot each other? of course not. why? because thats not where they find fun in playing their game. same goes for here. attitude and what you do is far important in a game than any feature. you determine the gameplay, the game itself can only direct you. bloody hell, counterstrike can be played in a realistic manner and im sure some people do.
    and inf should be kept as pure infantry combat, i think that if we play it in the right way, we can make endless variations each game. personally i think that near the end of 2.86 - the age of rav2 and DTAS was the day for me...
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  8. yurch

    yurch Swinging the clue-by-four

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,781
    Likes Received:
    0
    The lack of an 'RA scene', at least on my part, is due to observation that this community just can't support it right now.

    There's no way I'm going to try and popularize a mutator that already is stigmatized as a 'community splitter', will have to be argued on constantly to determine it's validity, and worst of all, have no chance whatsoever of making it's way into league play.


    No, you can't force people to play one way. But you can force the way the best people play if they want to win. You pit the best 'realism' counterstrikers versus the best ones that don't hold back in thier usage of game mechanics, and the ones who win should be obvious.

    The goal of the simulator should be that both groups are the same.
     
  9. Dr.J

    Dr.J Staying Alive.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, true, but im saying that the way that people play the game is very important - some people might complain about how the game isnt realistic in xxx way, but if you have the right attitude, everyone can do something about they way they play to fix that xxx problem.

    EDIT:but i guess thats really pushing ideology and kinda like saying that communism works if everyone has the mindset of sharing with the rest of the nation - which happens to be impossible :D
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  10. OICW

    OICW Reason & Logic > Religion

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2000
    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do agree with Tiffy. Apart from possibly Operation Flashpoint, I haven't seen land vehicles done properly in realistic games and I doubt they ever will be, even if they were CPU controlled. Everyone would be TK'ing each other over the vehicles or be doing Rambo bullshit in them IMO.

    I wouldn't like to see airstrikes or artillery in Inf. Yes, I suggested emplacements in the NVS forum, but I was envisaging some medium (heavy at most) machineguns to be added in alongside the M2HB, not artillery or airstrikes or mortars.
     
  11. fist_mlrs

    fist_mlrs that other guy

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    what vehicles are you talking about? there won't be any vehicles in inf ut, so you have to aim this at the next gen project. but in how far does the design the team chooses affect inf for ut? why would this affect anybodys reasoning wheather he likes the way inf is going or not?
     
  12. shan

    shan www.clanterritory.com

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    0
    I for one like where INF is now and am excited for where it is headed. While you can have the slogan "As real as it gets," it is important to balance reality against fun. Infiltration does a good job with that balance and I am confident that the game will only improve with the next generation release. Personally, I do not want to see Inf become such a simulator that the community stays small. I would like to see the community grow. There should be hundreds of servers full of Infiltration Players. Sure we would get the Counterstrikers but, as long as we have the game we love and servers to play it on (even if we have to make them private) who cares. Inf's success depends on its fans and making it more real than it is now will simply shrink that fan base.

    Someone above asked why the TDM CQB server is one of the only servers with people on it nowadays. While I think that is a bit of an exaggeration, it should tell us all something about the type of game people like to play. Real is great and all but essentially we all want to have fun.

    Shan
     
  13. Meplat

    Meplat Chock full-o-useless information

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    All I can say is "Adios, Tiffy." with all sincerity. When someone with hard,practical experience decides to sever ties with a project,one has to question where it's headed.

    meplat-
     
  14. Fat Marrow

    Fat Marrow Vegetable

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think you can form the wrong impression by hanging around on these forums (fora?) for too long; just because there aren't a lot of threads called things like "Hey, I'm happy for people to mess around with new weapons and stuff, but I quite enjoy playing vanilla EAS" doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who think that way (myself included :) )
     
  15. ant75

    ant75 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yurch, never did i ask you to do a second RA ! I was merely saying that many people who had the RA mentality are not to be seen on servers anymore, or worst, are to be seen on tdm... (i'm not against playing tdm from time to time, but nowadays there are the most populated servers). You also have to face the fact that splitting the community is what made RA so successful among realism freaks. Some people might not like to hear that, but i think there is a type of players you are better off without if you wanna play realistically. That's what RA did : it acted like a filter for people who only wanted to play a certain style.
    Now what i'm saying here might sound nostalgic : don't get me wrong, i love Inf the way it is now! Maybe a few arrangements would be needed (and crowze in that area has done a wonderful job with dtas), but it certainly has much more potential as it is now than 2.86. We just need to get people excited about it again.
     
  16. geogob

    geogob Koohii o nomimasu ka?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Messages:
    4,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the intent is a game, it isn't that important... but if the intent is to make a similator, THEN a serious questionning would be in order.

    I'm a big aviation amateur and I'll be doing my private license soon enough. In the meantime, I fly alot on flight simulators (most of them are professionnal and FAA approved for training). The day a pilot tels me he's not going to use the simulator anymore because of where it's developpement is heading and how realistic it is, i'm not so sure i'm going to stick with that particular one.


    As for the poll I have submited here, it shows and confirms pretty much what most of us thought...
     
  17. [C22]-Mort

    [C22]-Mort Retired but wearing the tag with pride!

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will probably be flamed to death for saying this but....

    I see Inf as dying, I know some will shout "INF will never die!" but we are seeing more and more old faces leaving and nowhere near enough new faces coming to replace them people like monkey-hanger and tiffy who for a long while have been synonymous with Infiltration have had enough, and it's not as if it's RL issues that have forced them to move on but a general feeling of apathy towards where Infiltration is today!

    Although I am listed as inactive atm, I do look for servers every now and then for a game and not at strange times either, but the times I have been playing INF for the past 2 years, and many nights I struggle to find an occupied server nevermind a full one, sometimes I'll jump on a server to see if more people are browsing, but I'll I see and hear are the tumbleweeds!

    People talk about the Infiltration "community", but to me there are two "communities", the players and the posters, I see so many people post here on these forums and I have NEVER seen them on-line, not that that's a bad thing but surely the community for a game must be measured in terms of the people that actually play it not just talk about it!

    It's a shame for sure, but I have spoken to many well known Inf players that are thinking of hanging up their rifles for good as their interest in Infiltration has just been lost over the past 6-12 months!
     
  18. ninjin

    ninjin The Franco-Japanese Carrot

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see inf as a game.

    But, its the players that define this "game" into a REAL game or a semi-simulation. Sure, its possible to circle-strafe and bunny hop, but for those that do, its a serious misunderstanding of the game and how its supposed to be played. The simulation aspect of Inf is that there are solo-ists and team players. Solo-ists cant care about anything other than their "frag number" and kills, while team players stick with their partners, provide covering fire and enemy locations as soon as they spot them.

    Too many times i have seen DEFENDERS leaving the objective point to go "hunting", and too many times have i seen attackers creating an ambush perimeter around the defenders spawn where the objective is not to hamper defender reinforcement but to secure the objective.

    So, i can see where tiffy is going about this, but one must understand that all these optional attachments, are... optional. They are there IF you want them. Just because there are there does not mean one is forced into using it. Also one must understand the age of the UT engine. Its not the best, its not the newest, but for its age and the way its being used to the max of its abilities by INF is not bad at all.

    Its not the "game" that imposes realism on the players, but the players themselves that define whether its a game or not.

    ~ ninjin ~
     
  19. Derelan

    Derelan Tracer Bullet

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    just to note on tiffy's comment about range:

    What may look like 300m away in INF is probably much closer in real life. INF uses a 90 degree field of view, whereas your eyes look more like the equivalent of a 45 degree field of fiew (in INF, that is, they actually have 180 degrees but very large retina sensors). Thats why the target receives 200m ballistics, because it most likely is actually 200m away.

    In order for INF to become a true simulator, we'd all have to own these big virtual machines sitting in our rooms, a 'pod' if you will, with a 180 degree field of view and different 'real' guns that you point at the big 180 degree screen and use 'real' sights. Lets not forget that INF is running on a computer, after all.

    I wouldn't say they have found the perfect balance between a game and a simulator, it plays more like a game than the 'real experience'. IMO, i would absolutely love to have a big pod with real guns and 100000ghz ballistics, but i dont, i have a little computer in my room where i play pretend. Isn't that what we're all trying to do here, just play pretend?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2004
  20. ravens_hawk

    ravens_hawk New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes INF is a game, yes we are just playing pretend, but that being said I'd rather have a simulator. I don't however, expect that it will happen any time in the near future, and probably not with INF. I don't see how any graphics engine can accurately represent objects at 300m away, and with that limitation I don't see how a standard infantry battle can take place. Sure we can go entirely to SF and CQB, but that's been done. That makes INF CS with iron sights and no cone fire. That kinda the direction we're headed, IMHO. Well maybe not CS maybe one of those uber weapon mods for GR (you know the kind that had like 100 kits, most tricked out M4s and others a portable M2HB with a mortar as well.)

    I'd like to see INF stick to very basic weapons, and try to move away from FIBUA and more towards large open areas. However with the current graphic systems available (even UT4 as far as I can tell) this would not be possible. It would end up being whoever has the best system gets to play Kitty bash as they point and click at the 16 pixels they can see.

    I have no problem with an infantry simulator that uses a mouse and a keyboard and a 17" monitor, but just make sure I can see as I should be able to (I don?t mind the FOV limitation of my monitor, I just want to be able to see targets at ranges outside of 100m)

    That being said, I not sure how many people would want that, as far as I can see the majority of players would like mortars, more attachments, and vehicles, and I think as described there are only a select few who would enjoy a game as I described above. But whatever happens in the next version, INF will likely be a fun game if nothing else.
     

Share This Page