What is Infiltration...?

[spm1138]

Inf is a gloriously violent full contact team-sport that bears some relation to section level infantry combat.

Where real life is imperfect, Inf should not slavishly ape it.

Now... what does or does not come under that heading is a matter for some debate.

Obviously what I do want modelled goes quite some way beyond what other people would want modelled.

2.9 was a bloody good compromise, imho.

re: One life gametypes
The problem I have with them isn't that they encourage the attacking team to wipe out the defending team but that hunting the other team down often turns into a one-player-on-their-own kind of activity which I find dull as feck.

If the best/easiest way to win is to cap the objective then you've obviously got an incentive to move as a team to achieve the objective first and foremost.

re: Sniper's rifles
Most FPS games (inf being no exception) simply do not need sniper's rifles. I'd say leave them out and discourage lonewolfing and encourage fire and manouvre. If the next version of Inf used an engine that allowed for massive maps with vehicles and lots of players then I'd be in favour of a couple per team.

re: Multiple primaries
I actually feel 2.9 has this right. You can do it, but it is far from desirable.

re: Strafing
I'd like to see it go.

re: Explosions
I like Yurch's way

re: Damage
I like Tiffy's way

re: Weapons
More commonly used stuff please. If I'm seeing it on the news I'd like to see it in Inf.

re: Maps
RtK, EP, Macedonia etc. etc. = good. Too many tiny urban CQB maps = bad.

 

[fist_mlrs]

You're right for the most part, but there are a couple of details that you are not considering. There are no objectives in TDM, so people can venture out to wherever they want. With one life, EAS will be similar to DTAS. You might say again that attackers will only concentrate on eliminating the entire defending team first, but isn't that the logical thing to do? I mean, in reality you would secure the zone around the objective, which prolly means taking everyone out in that area first. Defenders will have incentive not to camp out at obscure spots in order to defend the objective. In DTAS (as I remember playing it), people will seize the opportunity to capture the flag even before the other team is completely dead. But that's thing now isn't it? It boils down again to the right people... it will take patience and teamwork, and that is the general downfall for this idea given the immaturity of this populus.

thats right, but dtas is a very simple objective setup. for missions like this it works great, for more complex stuff, as soon as a secon goal comes into action, it causes problems. single-life games at multiple objective map are great in clanmatches, but on public servers is see quite a few problems with this. a map like mostar can only end up with one of both teams whiped out if no respawns are used for example.

 

[Psychomorph]

Voted "Infiltration is... a game."

Seriously, it is no way a simulator and 90% of the players seem not to want it to be one at all.

Why it is still worth playing to me? Because other games do not make it better. A fact that makes me depressive.

What sucks the most is also the understanding of many players of realism. Many mods were said to be "realistic"... Bullsh*t!
They are some actual mods in progress that are said to be realistic, after seeing screenshots and reading the concept I can only say: "Realism?... Bullsh*t".


It is middle of the year 2006 and the only improovement in the tactic game genre that happened from the beginning of the year 2000 till now are the limitation of bunny hopping and the limitation of circlestrafing. Wow, impressive, wake up man, even CS have this.

Impressive, 7 years and the only progress was the limitations of bunnyhopping and circelstrafing. Man, now I have an idea about how the Middle Age feels.
Maybe, when I'm 50 years old, finally reflex sights can be aimed in a game at least a little bit closer to how it is done in real life, can't wait, so excited.

 

[geogob]

No simulator can be more realistic then the relealism in with which the users use it.

Take the top notch Airbus or boing simulator from CAE, those used for pilot training with an exact replica of the flight deck... It would be very easy to transform this thing into a game just by the use you make of it. An expensive and complex game, but still a game. Similarly, you can take the crappiest fly simulation game on PC and turn it into a very serious procedure training simulator. I know a few student pilot that use MS fly simulator and X Plane to train for IFR, instrument navigation and emergency procedures... yet so many people use them only as games and fool around, not bothered with checklists, procedure, navigation charts and approach plates.

Same goes with infiltration, americas army, or similar. They all can be used as fun games, but can also be used a very serious simulators that could, to some extent, be used to practice communication drills, tactical movement, reflexes, situation awareness. Yes, infiltration as flaws in the level of realism it presents (not taking into account the way it is used), but so do all simulators. Knowing and working around those limitations is something you have to do with all simulators. If it was the real thing, it wouldn't be a simulator after all

Some things could be done to improve this level of realism (low/high ready, better player movement, more accurate weapon models and procedures, nurses to take care of you when you get shot ) but the difference between simulation and game really only takes place in the usage. That my conclusion after years of thinking about it.

This poll shows it well. Many people think of INF as a game. Play with them, an you'll have a game. Now do a match with only those who wish for it to be a simulator, you'll have a simulator. Sadly, get one people who wants to game around in the simulator crowd and it's all lost.

Also, it reminds me that I miss Tiffy. What's up with him? And, psycho, how do you dig out all these old posts anyway?

 

[Psychomorph]

I was searching for a dowload of a the map "real manor night", like this damn thing never existed in reality, dunno have to wait for anTKillas answer, he got the map on his server. So I digged out this thread.


You took the flight-sim as example. Whatever you do with this sim, it still keeps beeing a sim, because of the programmed physical laws. Reprogramm the flight-sim where you can accelerate your plane from min to max in few seconds and you get a game. INF is a game in that respect.


You say it's how the people play what makes it sim or game, well if I simply could aim the damn reflex with "both eyes" open just by "choosing it" so, damn I would do that, but whoops... (sorry for all the same example, that allready starts to get on everybodys nerves, but this issue still exists.).

Hey if I could use a fast-walk with a gun double as steady as while jogging, darn I would do it (I bet more people would do it), but whoops... maybe that's just me and I missed this feature in INF?

Hey if I could start to run (ducked, weapon not ready) during a "standing up from prone" action and not freeze there motionless for 2.5 seconds, hell I would love that in so many life threatening situations, but whoops... did I miss something again?

I would like to perform a short sprint with a shouldered weapon, to avoid beeing mowed down from behind because to lame, or beeing mowed down from the front because my gun wasn't at the shoulder for about 1,5 seconds, but whoops... maybe I need to assign a key I didn't notice to perform this action?

You know I could go on and on and on.



Yes, it is possible to give a touch of simulation to every type of game if players to choose to move slower and formed as a squad, that's up to those who prefer it that way.
Exactly THIS is the reason why I still play INF, the community is ready to play that way. I was playing AA:O few days ago, graphics and animations like I always wished it for INF, but the players are morons (gameplay wise), that made me quit the sh*t.

What I speak about are the physical laws that define movement, weapon handling and so on, all the correctness, that makes your flight-sim a real sim that pilot students use, not a game that gamers use.

Note that I do not speak about simulation extremes, but at least a little step closer to it.
INF has few things that come close to a simulation (freaim, slow paced jog), but that is BY FAR!!!!! not enough.
Again here, the reason why I still stick to INF is, because I know how most other games are, as said that makes me really depressive (as a gamer of course).



I remember how yurch always was against all the realism sh*t that I was talking about, he clearly preferred the existant weapon handling of INF, he even made a mutator for HL2 with exact the same thing.

I even had the bad feeling that the Sentry Studios planned to stick to the exact same weapon handling, something that would cause me to quit INF (I know, nobody would miss me, but that's not my point here).



And what makes me depressive aswell is, that 90% of the INF realism players simply do not care about all this. Not that I have a problem with their opinions, but you know, it speakes for itself.

Browsing other tac "sim" game forums I feel like beeing in the "Kindergarten" (<-- whats the english term?), INF forums always felt adult in that case, but since 4 years I see no evolution, no revolution here, its all the same, old.

I only noticed few exceptions on other forums (SWAT4, ...), some people even talked about and suggested stuff like "lowready", proper reflex sight aim and so on, I was amazed, but even these people seemed to be some sort of police officers, or ex military.

 

[Bloodstorm]

i say its a game. realy, all simulators are are more complex games. so a games and a simulators are one and the same.

 

[geogob]

You say flight simulator has programmed physic laws, thus always is a simulator and never a game. How is that any different than infiltration, which also has physics law programmed in it? What ever you do, those law still apply in INF.

Maybe the laws of physics are better approximated in flight simultators then Infiltration? Except on multi-million systems, I would say "think again". Most flight simulators have very poor flight dynamic models, because physics is not the only important aspect of flying... procedures are as important. Without procedures nowadays, there is basically no flying. Pilots train on simulators that have even absolutely no physic model, no viewscreen, etc. It's just a logic system to train on procedures, but it's still a simulator.

All you are saying is that INF is not a simulator because of the limitations or errors in the model used. I'm sorry, but that's not what makes the difference between a simulator and a game. Absolutely not. Bloodstrom is closer to the reality... he just wrong on one point... simulators are often much more simple then games.

You decided to view INF as a game only because it does not contains features you would like it to have. Fine with me. But I don't say I agree with such a view and distinction between simulation and game.

 

[Psychomorph]

A simulator is called simulator because it simulates reality, thats why a flight sim behaves correct. You can't accelerate like an alien space ship, it is designed to behave like a plane.
A simulation where you could fly a plane unnatural is a bad simulation.

INF doesn't simulate well. You acelerate to a jog without inertia, you jog backward same fast and with the same kind as forward (should be a fast rapid walk, with less weapon stability than a usual forward fast-walk).
The weapons are handled in NO WAY close to reality, except freeaim and vectorized hit system. Sights aren't aimed properly (some of them).
INF is in no way an accurate simulation, not in movement (only aspects like slow paced jog are a good thing in concept), not in weapon handling, not in injury, and sadly not in mission/objective.


Whatever. You say simulations are always simpler than games, absolutely correct. Simulations are meant to give you (simulate you) circumstances, where you have to react, deal, decide. It is a pure training tool. They is no point in simulating realistic view bobbing, realistic muzzlesmoke effects. No point in making it a game.
That's the reason why I use to call realistic games "Simulation Games". "Simulation" because it tries to recreate reality as good as possible (function wise). "Game" because it tries to look as good and real as possible (Visual wise).
Both aspects are nearly equal important to me.


I don't really even care if it is a simulation, I want it to be realistic.

Most people think "oh my god, I have to crawl for a hour", when they hear the term "realistic".
When I hear the term "realism", I think: "cool, I can use movement and weapons flexible and effective (faster movement with steady weapon, binocular aim, ducked run/sprint, effective unaimed weapon use in CQB, less overkill recoil, a better leaning behavior with a low held weapon, and so much more), with just some necessary ineffectivities that serve the purpose to create more realistic player behavior (inertia, injury, fatigue)".

 

[Clutch]

my oppinions on each of the choices:

Game: yes, it is a game.

Simulator: Not a simulator because, although it is realistic, it does not simulate real life combat situations. you cannot give complex orders and you are not fighting realistic AIs. Also when a simulator is played online with others it stops being a simulator and starts being a game. others online will not follow orders, will not be as tactical, and will not fight like in real life, therefore ceasing to be a simulator.

Game that should become a simulator: no no no... as i said about it being a simulator. it will not be realistic on online play. simulators also are not as fun...

Sim that should be a game: not a sim, is a game...

something else: not a sim, or a game, or both?