There's a lot more to tactical gaming than fast ropes
There is a LOT of great games coming out this year:
OFP 2
ArmA 2
BF:BC 2
But it's unclear what the multi player capabilities will be...
ArmA 2 is saying > 50. They used to say >100 for ArmA. I understand some people have played in >100 servers with ArmA, but even at 40 people I found the lag unplayable (jerking about is totally unacceptable). I tried a few different ArmA 1 servers loaded to ~40 people or more and always had issues with lag.
OFP 2 is saying 24 iirc (might be 32).
BF:BC 2 has a console pedigree and is the flagship BF title being released to PCs this year. So I would expect 64p, be VERY surprised if they support 128 and not at all surprised if they only support 32p.
BF:BC2 is NOT BF3 and that title is unannounced and I would say it's future is uncertain.
Combined Arms realism requires large maps because the weapon systems are so deadly and are designed to operate at long ranges. So when you add in large maps, you need more than 64 players. Kashan is a great map imo, but always felt like it was lacking 40 players. But those sort of goals are outside of the scope of many of the games coming out. The "arcade" modeling of the weapon systems doesn't really require the same considerations for scale. ArmA certainly tries, but one of my biggest criticisms of ArmA is that it's not a great single player game and not a great multiplayer game... and I think they are still trying to make it both.
Obviously Garage Games and the Torque engines are not going to look like OFP 2 or even ArmA 2. But Torque 3D (the next generation of Torque engines) is making a huge effort to update the visual capabilities. They *can* look very decent, check this TGEA 1.8 test video:
"Gears of Torque" TGEA Video on Vimeo
But what we're talking about as an Indie game is recognizing the trade offs in some areas for benefits in others.. obviously metered by budgetary and resource constraints. People still play PR in pretty large numbers (usually larger than ArmA, Frontlines, ET:QW). The graphics in PR / BF2 are getting pretty dated, but the game play is the main draw. If people want superb graphics there are other alternatives (and as noted some great ones coming this year). But those superb graphics will have concessions to mainstream appeal because of the cost of developing the titles.
We're not complete morons... I currently manage a multi year software project that's about the same budget as the top end of AAA game titles. If we can prove that we can get 130+ players, decent visuals, long view ranges, large maps, good object count, and good foliage coverage... well... if we can pass a few tests there (which would be pretty publicly obvious because we'd be asking for community participation) then we will take the next step in evaluating the feasibility of pursuing an indie game.
Some folks might have delusions that they can work on a PR indie game as a full time job, but I don't see that being realistic. It would be more like translating modding into a hobby that might actually pay a little bit of money. We'd need to find a couple / few C++ coders who are fanatical tactical gamers who would want to work in those circumstances. We have managed to find other disciplines that are as good or better than gaming industry professionals (mapping, modeling, texture, sound, etc). So hopefully we can find some C++ coders in the same way.. we've never tried.. but we have been successful at attracting most of the other talent we've needed.
In 1999 the TGEA engine supported >100 players in Tribes matches and their netcode is considered some of the best in the industry. That's a decent start, and we'd check against some critical metrics before we'd invest too much time and energy into it.
egg
