• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Insurgency Mod ... EPIC THREAD OF DOOM

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Insurgency Mod ... EPIC THREAD OF DOOM

  • It's Great! Check it out...NOW!!!

    Votes: 55 26.6%

  • It's just OK -- worth downloading but...

    Votes: 95 45.9%

  • It sucks buckets...

    Votes: 57 27.5%
  • Total voters
    207
Sort by date Sort by votes
#1,062
Nimsky said:
Well, I've been playing B2 for a few hours and it seems to crash less for me. Anything higher than 24 players seems to be a guarantee for a server crash.

Some of the new things are pretty cool, like the HUD icons... I think this is good for teamwork, and now people at least know where the objectives are.

People say movement is faster but I haven't really noticed this tbh. Recoil seems still quite controllable to me, at least the AK-47 (haven't played USMC a lot) It's still very buggy though. The movement is still clunky, and you still get stuck every 10 seconds. The hitboxes are messed up, especially on prone enemies. Sometimes they're impossible to kill. Lots of shots don't register.

I agree that the SVD is bad, what's up with that ridiculous scope view? Spawncamping is still there by the way.
It does seem they're straying away from realism (though they won't admit that of course). I think if they'd focus more on slow tactics and teamwork it would be alot better. The INS team seem to be a bit confused as to which direction they want to take with their mod. Realism, or tactical shooter? Sometimes INS feels more like a deathmatch shooter because on some maps, fighting is only centered around one objective (ie: Baghdad).

I rate it about the same as B1: not worse, but not better either. Will uninstall for now and hope they actually fix bugs and smoothen out gameplay next patch. I still think it has potential but INS is just too clunky at the moment.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that review Nimsky! :thumbs up:

I guess I won't reinstall it then.
 
Upvote 0
#1,064
Moz said:
I loaded INS up again yesterday and I've had more fun placing my dick on a toilet seat and smashing the top down repeatedly. INS is a very successful for what it truly was for, which is to pad the portfolios of everyone involved. I heard that much of the team has been snatched up by industry.
Click to expand...

i.e. More mediocre games coming our way.
 
Upvote 0
#1,066
D3terioNation said:
Who cares?

The game had good potential. But they chose the wrong engine & had terrible leadership to boot!

The project members definitly show a level of talent which deserves its rewards!
Click to expand...
You're seriously going to say that "wrong engine" line in here again? Seriously? Wow.

If they had talent, they'd be able to deliver on their promise. They haven't.
 
Upvote 0
#1,068
Bluehawk said:
The whole free aiming iron sights one shot kill thing actually fells the most comfortable on Source than any other I've experienced, that's over RO and OFP/ArmA too, no offense. It just works.
Click to expand...

Huh? INS has an almost nonexistant freeaim area, which is smaller than an enemy soldier at the average INS fighting distance... so shooting from hip is pretty much point and click.
 
Upvote 0
#1,072
Zips said:
You're seriously going to say that "wrong engine" line in here again? Seriously? Wow.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously going to fish with that bait again? seriously? Wow :p

Ohh well, the thread does have "of doom!" appended to its name, so i guess we can skirmish a little:

You where given no shortage of reasons why people have no faith in the Source engine running a realism based shooter of this sort the last time, but you never bothered to defend your position, infact, nobody here has been able to make a good argument for the Source engine beeing used, other than "its easy, because Valve is mod freindly".. well be that as it may, that does not say anything usefull about the engine or what kind of games it is good or bad at.

So, care to actually say anything on the subject this time? or shall i just declare "T3h win!" now and eat a victory cookie?
 
Upvote 0
#1,075
They definitely chose the wrong engine. Realism is simply impossible on Source (that's no excuse for the clunky gameplay though!). And let's not forget the piss-poor netcode that Sauce is so famous for. The only good thing Source had going for them is the huge number of people with HL2... or the huge number of naive Source fanboys, to be more precise.

To say that none of them have talent is a bit harsh... the people who did the 2D, 3D, sound and level design are obviously very talented... it's the gameplay that's whack. It looks and sounds great but solid gameplay is hard to find.

If this was the INS forum someone would now jump in going all "IZ JUS A BETA!!1!!"... luckily RO players are a bit more critical.
 
Upvote 0
#1,076
O hay guys, whats goin on in this thread?, IS I POSTING IN EPIC THREAD??!!!









But seriously, its not bad. It could be better though. Animations (3rd person), as well as some other things, but overall, it feels like a CQC Modern RO to me.
The hitscan, I think, is appropriate for the distances in this game. One thing that always bugs me in RO is that combined with the realististic bullet speeds and lag, I have to aim unneccasarily far infront of people im shooting at (even at close range).
 
Upvote 0
#1,077
Zips said:
Baiting? If anyone was baiting it was him with that silly line.

Just as with any engine, given enough talent, you can mod anything you want.

Shame this team has very little talent to show.
Click to expand...

No, no you cannot, all engines have limits, limits that no amount of talent will save you from, because it doesen't matter how good YOU are, the engine is not good enough in that area, the engine is setting the limits.

And it just so happens that the limits of Source are of the kind that are a big problem if you want to make a realistic shooter, especially in the map size and terrain abillities.


Something tells me you dont know much about the boring tech stuff behind game engines and mod making, this is true, yes? there's no shame in that, i am certainly no expert either, but i do know enough about it to spot the pitfalls that will make an engine a bad choice for certain kinds of games, because they just dont support the things that are needed, or others are supporting thease things much better.
 
Upvote 0
#1,078
This is hilarious. The whole 'is source a good engine for this game' discussion/debate had already been done. Half of the posts in this thread are dedicated to that probably. A lot of knowledgeable people voiced their opinions.
And I thought the conclusion of that was 'source is a bad choice for insurgency'?!!

Or do we need to debate that again? :) hehe
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#1,079
Grobut said:
Something tells me you dont know much about the boring tech stuff behind game engines and mod making, this is true, yes? there's no shame in that, i am certainly no expert either, but i do know enough about it to spot the pitfalls that will make an engine a bad choice for certain kinds of games, because they just dont support the things that are needed, or others are supporting thease things much better.
Click to expand...
The engine indeed does set limits.

But you can still push the boundaries.


Look at the World at War mod, they got huge terrains with emitters for huge amounts of vegetation (far above the standard amount of emitters) and I think ballistics aswell...
 
Upvote 0
#1,080
what really kills INS for me is the maps. They suffer from the same thing my map BDJ does. They spent too much time trying to make it authenic as possible without ANY regard for gameplay. The amount of stupid bottlenecks, SPAWNCAMPING ****ty layouts and missplace areas make it just a chore to play. Half of the battles seem to take place nowhere near where the open layout and cover was designed for, and instead involve sitting at corners in tight hallways. Half time you spend minutes walking through dense and detailed areas only to come to the action in a big empty field or the spawns are so buckled on to the level that they make no sense and are either unprotected or out in the open facing the wrong direction.

It seems to me that they built it graphically from the ground up instead of designing it layout wise. By the time they discovered how they actually played they couldn't go back and redo the layout because of all the art passes that were finalized.

I remember back when I had time to do play testing for RO many of the wonderful maps started out as huge untextured blocks No static meshes, doors where almost square, all building are the same height and any large prop was represented by blocks. The level looked like lego. So instead you spend much of the initial play testing moving all these loosely fitted together blocks until they start to flow like desired, then work on the details. Add some more detail to the base structures, etc. Until you get to the level of, for example, Danzig. I can tell you with no doubt that danzig did not look like it does now when it was first playtested. It had zero lighting, no textures and the streets where flat, and no terrain. It had this repeating checker board pattern everywhere. And that's simply how you design a good level. You start barebones, otherwise you'll build these complicated graphics and details, and then can't shrink something because then none of the details fit any more.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu