Maps are environments not game maps...

Am I alone in feeling these maps where made to look good rather than play good...
Like the random ruins on farmhouse or the millions of random houses on crossing, they aren't necessary for game play infact after playing with them I'm starting to think they are impeding the map designs. In original insurgency maps had like a key part to them, like for instance station had the main long building made for occupy, with smaller and fewer building providing tactical passions and cover for flanking players. Now its a shit show, objectives are random building in the middle of thousands of other buildings, there are exceptions like Push insurgents-Hideout objective A. Im not complaining they are too big I'm compiling that they are shit show and badly need stream lining. What do you think?

I wouldn't call it a shit show or anything. I like how they're not particularly tailor made for a gunfight but instead seem like random environments that got visited by opposing forces, if you catch my drift. I do, however, think you have a good point. The maps are unused save for a few locations that are objectives. I think objectives in Checkpoint (Co-op) need to be randomized to take advantage of the amazing maps. Just my opinion.

Insurgency has always been based on a gameplay compromise between pseudo-realism and arcade. I think it was quoted in an article, that it sits between games like Call of Duty/Battlefield on one side, and Arma/Squad on the other.

Do note, that the realism aspect of the game wouldn't necessarily support the idea of hand-crafted, streamlined maps that complement FPS gameplay, but would rather mimic a more realistic setting. Yes, that would mean a far less structured environment in terms of FPS complementing aspects, such as flanking opportunities/cover seemingly gifted to the player by god(The Devs).

That's not to say that they don't exist. In the 15 or so hours that I've played in Sandstorm, it seems that flanking is heavily encouraged (Especially on crossing, more so in the map's east), with multiple routes all converging on the same point.

Getting to the point, the seemingly random structure of the environments seems to be a decent attempt at building a realistic setting, where there are no [physical] boundaries that funnel gameplay into an area that was designed for ideal fps engagements. Instead, what you have is a town, with many buildings, roads and random objects, within which the player must find their own way; their own vantage points; their own cover, and an environment where strategies formulated by one side can be considerably more inventive and creative than a handful of well known cooperative actions that everyone knows by heart.

My two cents. The less intent-laden, pseudo-realistic approach to environment modelling in Sandstorm is a welcome change which adds more creativity and less repetition to the rather basic task of capturing/destroying something.

@Vostok, I total agree I don't what arcade shity maps like cs or something. But I don't want the same amount of random shit as there is currently. The original game I felt struck a good balance between arcade and realistic, organised chaos if you will. currently I think its just a little too funky thats all.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.