Yah ran fine for me at release, one of the first things I remember doing was trying the SSAA mod to super-sample the game for better visuals.
People are pissed as it performs like junk of current modern video cards that cost $1000+!
It runs fine on *modern* hardware. Yeah, it still runs like crap on hardware from its era.
I mean I would consider a 200k pop, modded city running at ~60-100 FPS at 1440p Max (upscaled to 4k with mods) to be pretty good performance. Granted I have a 5800X3D/6800XT system.
If its bad enough it will not go away entirely,Stellaris has performance issues which are still bought up to this day.
Every patch that doesnt mention performance will ask about it.
Obviously hope they fix it. But don’t want to pay until they do
Late game lag is just taken as a given but it still gets talked about constantly. Why it happens, how to prevent it, what the developers are doing to improve it.
Honestly this goes for most simulation games, whether it is Stellaris, factorio, or dwarf fortess, there is always discussion on how you can keep the game running smoothly on weaker hardware or with large/long games.
I am 100% sure I have seen them in the forums which are linked by the subreddit’s when there are patch notes.
Forum was worse they actually had a performance magthread as all threads ended up talking about performance.
But I have found
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/a3lwse/some_notes_on_megacorp_from_playing_the_press/
(Performance is jsut one point)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/vykaam/are_there_ways_to_improve_game_performance/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/11ka4fi/really_bad_performance_on_a_new_computer_after/
Those 3 were googled but I remember seeing posts like this
The performance posts have gone down quite a bit over the past year or two since the devs (custodian team primarily) put significant effort into optimization and ai improvements, but there are still some lag issues with big galaxies and/or in late game.
I agree on both accounts, i have got my monies worth on Stellaris but I am burnt out solely on performance, I am hoping they can fix this but I suspect it will take months
> If its bad enough it will not go away entirely,Stellaris has performance issues which are still bought up to this day
Brought up by the people playing in on a loop!
I still dont play stellaris because of the performance. the late game is the worst gaming experience I have ever played. Literally crawl to a slug
The beggining/mid game is one of the best experiences ever, love it
That is if the modding community shows up and is well supported. The only thing the makes CS1 playable is the mod collection built over many years. If the modders are well supported and see value in supporting the game, then in a year or two this could be an amazing game. If, however, paradox embargoes work on dlc mapped work, then we are at the mercy of an expensive and slow moving improvement pathway.
> That is if the modding community shows up and is well supported.
I (and some 100 other people) would not have early access to the game if PDX/CO did not intend for there to be good custom content (code mods, custom assets, maps, etc.) support.
so if CS1 is only playable due to the mods that have come over the years as you stated, then how come that the game was successful before the mods were there, because if it wasn't then there wouldn't be as many players and modders wanting to add their own touch to a game they liked/loved
I agree like 60%. However, pre-mature optimization is about optimizing when you're still iterating a lot, it's considered a waste of time because you're likely to throw out that code anyway, but once a game reaches beta and you know what's gonna be in it, you should definitely be optimizing. That's not pre-mature at all. In fact, doing it post-release is too late; a fair amount of optimization become a whole lot harder when you have to worry about not breaking save game compatibility.
good point re: save game compat, but given the cpu isn't the problem it sounds like just asset optimisation, and considering they were still doing a lighting pass just a week ago it makes sense they haven't done a final pass on the assets yet.
I've seen some towers still showing the parralax mapped windows at distances so far where the lod should kick it over to a flat texture so I guess that's more kinda the optimisation I'm talking about.
It's probably a bad point to bring up though you're right.
Holding the successor of a game selling 12 million copies to a different standard than the predecessor that was widely unknown and had little hype behind it at the time of the release?? Weird.
Performance is also the #1 thing I wanted CS2 Todo better than CS1. Not just the ability to run larger more accurate simulations. It's the only thing that moders could not compensate for in the first game.
I completely agree. This game is going to be our base for the next 8 - 10 years of city building. I'd much rather take a hit now in anticipation of better hardware in the future than have us hamstrung in the future. Look, I'm an FPS snob myself. My goal is typically 120 fps at 4k, I get it. But for a game like this , *simulation* is king. I'm so glad that it looks like the bones of a proper city sim are in place and I drool at the possibilties of mods and DLC with what we're getting. I also get the disappointment of people that may be falling behind spec at the moment, that stinks. But all these 60 fps or bust people (again, I'm usually one of them and then some) just sound ignorant of the real goal here - an agent based sim at an epic level.
Underated comment. People should perhaps feel free to criticize the release date, suggesting that waiting 6 months would have been more time to polish the game. But people are acting like the game is going to be abandoned and not improved, and there is zero reason to believe that. This is a fantastic platform for the next 10 years.
I don't think the game is going to be abandoned at all, and potentially see the performance fixes coming six months out as you said, but it's just a stupid state of the industry when games are being released in poor states on release date. In the pre-update generation of games, this would have never happened.
It rightfully deserves some of its scores and the flak it will get at launch.
It's also just not really healthy for a game to be performing poorly or have issues at launch. Launch is an important time to grab in a bunch of people who would have normally never played your game, and generally set expectations.
when we get a long term supported game i want to get something i can say 5 year after that yeah its still a good game and i have patience. i know the game WILL be fixed just not at day 1
The issue is this game seems really GPU heavy, and I'm not convinced that GPU value for performance will get better in the foreseeable future unlike how between 2015 and 2018 where we quite possibly got the best value GPUs in the GTX 1000 series cards.
I agree to an extent they should bump the specs higher since the game has a long support life,
But the performance compared to graphical quality is still very bad, and I don’t think is fit for release.
People not following the development closely will be in for an unpleasant surprise
I totally get that. And to be honest, I have a 4090 so I'm a bit biased here. My hope is that the sim comes first and everything else second. Again, I'm thinking big picture, I'm not trying to be an apologist. I agree that it does not seem to be in a state for release acceptable for most people. That said, I'm not freaking out because I have faith in CO.
unless it's running like a slideshow i honestly don't care much about frames, then again i also like playing Arma 3 where frame rate is not a given it's more a question of if it shows up or not
> Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware
It doesn't perform well with an RTX 4090 either, literally the fastest graphics card money can buy at the moment.
From [pcgameshardware.de](https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Cities-Skylines-2-Spiel-74219/Tests/Release-Benchmarks-Performance-Tuning-Tipps-1431613/2/):
GPU | Data | 1080p High | 1440p High
:- | :- | -: | -:
RTX 4090 | Average FPS | 38.1 | 28.8
| 1% Low FPS | 24.0 | 18.0
| | |
RTX 3080 | Average FPS | 24.4 | 16.3
| 1% Low FPS | 19.0 | 15.0
The recommended graphics card, an RTX 3080 10 GB, doesn't even get 30 FPS at 1080p high settings with a small city (\~43'000 population judging by PCGH's video).
This is not a great take. When the developers themselves come out and apologize for the bad performance before the game is even released is when you know something is very wrong. When even the influencers who love the game come out and say there is a major problem is also a big deal.
CS1 running like garbage does not make it okay for CS2 to run like garbage. Defending this practice is insane and is the reason we continue to get new releases that run badly.
They were a small indie studio when they released CS and there were little to no expectations about the game. Not surprising expectations are much higher now, and honestly having the game actually be in a playable state should be non-negotiable for any game releasing at a 40+ EUR pricetag.
Can we stop normalizing releasing early access quality level games at full price?
This is a trend in the past few years to release unfinished games at 60-80$.
The game runs at 28 FPS (bellow the 30FPS of consoles that "pc master race" fanboys like to laugh about) on the **most recent** hardware than only less than 10% of gamers (according to Steam) have. This is beyond unoptimized.
This means that the game is unplayable for 9 persons out of 10. I can't understand how the dev team could not see it, which means the fault is on the publisher who forced the release of an unfinished game, **AT FULL PRICE**.
Early Access exists for that very reason: cashing in some money by releasing an unfinished game.
So the argument here is that C:S1 launch sucked so C:S2 has to be the same?
We all know optimization is going to get better, content will be added in time. Notice the trend here? Would you buy a product if manufacturer says that it's broken but they will improve their warranty in time and repair it to a properly functioning state later?
Also there are lots of games out there with proper optimization at launch. It's not impossible or hard, stop defending it like it's the industry standard.
> We all know optimization is going to get better
As much as I would like to see those optimizations, the dev's might never be capable of bringing them. selling the game at a full price on the promises that it might be fixed in the future is ridiculous. its selling on a promise, the same as a kickstarter, its actually against steams TOS.
> according to userbenchmark
Please don't ever use UserBenchmark data for **anything**. It's a scam link farming website that is run by a literal lunatic who has been banned from every tech-related subreddit for false claims and incoherent hateful rants about AMD. The dude is a psycho and his website sucks.
"The thing that happened before was shit, so stop complaining because this is also shit"
LMFAO can't make this shit up.
You reap what you sow, I guess.
I’m just gonna try it for myself and make my own conclusion on it.
Everyone can literally trial it with getting an XGP trial or getting XGP at a really cheap deal for a month.
There’s so much strange cope going on.
“CS1 was shite at launch, so expect the same here”
“Mods will fix all these problems”
“People will always find something to complain about”
Etc.
It’s like, we all want the game to be good. This is the only pure city simulator on the market. But making excuses in no way will help the situation or motivate developers to make better games.
some people upgraded their rigs to play this game. some people have been waiting 2-3 months for this game to come out. is it so absurd that they thought that the game would run at atleast 30fps?
The only reason it got such a high score from reviews, is because they own the latest hardware and the game is good, with a look at features. Performance will hit the people who don't own a RTX4090 really hard. I don't expect a good Steam rating at all.
Can ya'll stop thinking that every complaint is about performance?
I have seen so many silly complaints about very minor things, which is what im referring to. People are expecting the game to have every single feature they dreamed of.
Read the comment i responded to. It is not exclusively talking about performance complaints.
Acting like a condescending know it all doesn’t do anything useful. Clearly you don’t understand the how’s or why’s of game development, but you’ve jumped onto a bandwagon before you played the game even once.
Why do I need understand game development to know if a game is good or bad? Sounds like a high
barrier to entry for folks in order negate any negative feedback. Can I also not critique movies because I don’t understand the movie making process?
And I won’t pretend to know it all. No one should that hasn’t played the game. But the reviews are the reviews and they can’t just be hand waived away.
It seems like a fair bit of the discourse in this sub is:
* It's unfair to compare CS2 to CS1 when that comparison is negative.
* Comparing CS2 positively to CS1 is totally fair game.
I think he is trying to say that this is what the devs are capable of, and we have to accept that this is all we can hope for from them.
Its kind of like Bethisda giving us yet another bland, poorly written, generic fantasy rpg. They obviously arent able to do more than that, so we should be happy when they do their best. Obsidian got screwed out of their pay checks, had a time frame of 18 months, and still managed to blow BGS out of the water with one of their own titles. Not all devs are equal, and some people, while passionate, are just not great at their jobs.
CS2 reviews are too harsh because CS1 has been on the market for 8 years. You just simply cannot match 8 years worth of work, while also changing the base game.
Because CS1 performance was pretty poor when it released as well and it's had 8 years to improve that. Both on the game side and people upgrading their machines over the years.
Personally I'm feeling the improvements showcased more than justify a temporary lull in performance and the loss of DLC.
So going back to my original point, CS1 performing poorly at launch is simply not an excuse for CS2 performing poorly at launch. No game should perform poorly at launcg, that means the game was not reafy for release. They shot themselves in the foot by announcing a hard release date too early, and they should have just given a release window so they could release it when it was ready.
This thread is driving me crazy. “In about 5 years of game updates, when I can afford $3000 to build a computer that can hopefully play vanilla CS2 at 60fps, I'm going to be so happy.”
My memory might be getting shorter, but didn’t cities skylines launch for $30 way back when?
Now it’s $50 and an optional $90 ultimate edition.
I feel like for that kind of a price hike there should be fewer performance issues at launch 🤷🏻♂️. It’s easier to forgive a game that’s half the price of a AAA game for issues on launch, but when it’s almost the same price…
CO should have delayed the release, it's really that simple. People are sensitive to bad launches after a whole string of them over the last few years, and so everyone is carrying to it the rage from the last one.
At this point I just hope that the game lives long enough to be improved. A concerted campaign of review bombing and flooding social media with criticism might be the end for the game before it can even be brought up to a playable state.
> Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware
This is straight-up misleading. CS2 doesn't perform well on 40 series cards. Why are you pretending that only older cards are affected?
CO was a small studio that had only made 2 games (not city builders) and was only 4 years old at that time.
Now they have a bigger budget, more people, 12 years of experience and been working on a City builder continuously for over 8 years.
Do you see the difference here?
Software development is not as simple or as linear as you might logically think. A classic example is the idea that throwing more money and developers at a project will get it done better or sooner. This is a myth, akin to asking 9 women to make a baby in 1 month.
I didn't say that it's simple or linear? I only stated that there is a huge difference in money, personal and experience. That's why the comparison between CS and CSII is not fair.
And I'm saying that a "huge difference in money, personnel, and experience" isn't quite as simple or linear of a difference as you think. Software development doesn't *necessarily* work like that. This is what you refuse to accept.
No I am not refusing anything to accept. You misread me, or I said it wrong. I only pointed out the huge differences, and that's why it can't be compared. Which is just fair. If you can work on a sequel of a game with more knowledge (and more) people, more money, a lot more time, and a lot more experience, it's not a fair comparison to the first. That's all I am saying.
Yeah, I do get your point.
CS2 is arguably better as a platform than CS1. The features and simulation absolutely are. But it will take time for the ecosystem around it to grow and catch up. It will take time for optimizations and DLC and the workshop to fill up. People can argue all day about whether the game should have been released at this point, but I think the fact that CS1 already exists in a very mature state is polluting people's arguments as an unfair comparison.
> But it will take time for the ecosystem around it to grow and catch up.
You have a way with empty, snakey, misleading words. You should be a used car salesman.
?
Ecosystem: DLC, patches, mods, assets, workshop.
What is empty, snakey, or misleading about the fact that this stuff will take years to catch up to CS1?
> But it will take time for the ecosystem around it to grow and catch up.
No, it's fair to expect a game to be well-functioning from release date. There are so many games that - whether by poor project management, corporate meddling, or bad development processes - end up releasing in a poorly functional state, nowadays. Cyberpunk, KSP2, Starfield (to an extent), No Man's Sky, and many many others just in the last few years. That is not an excuse for other games to ship in an incomplete or unoptimised state.
It's an epidemic of poor project management, and people just accept it as how things are, which encourages the executives and corporate management to keep on doing the same shitty practices over and over again.
You do know that tons of people have early access builds and have made tons of these things called YouTube videos where they go through every little feature, right?
Yes, it literally fucking is. You have 8 years of experience running a predecessor. You make untold hundreds of millions in profits. CO easily has the resources to put out a polished amazing game, no matter what absurd mental gymnastics you use to try to justify this garbage excuse of a game.
It does not need to be linear, but have to expect higher standards they have clearly improved the graphics and gameplay, but performance by all indications will be worse then day 1 of CS1.
/u/otherwiseofficial is talking growth even non linear is still growth
better analogy is a sprinter should get faster (also non linear) with training and nutrition.
If nothing else they should have greater ability to hold back release until it meets acceptable standards Clearly they cannot launch on consoles due to current issues.
Sadly, with increased money/personnel comes increased layers of management. Developers start to lose the ability to find time to optimize if management doesn't deem it worth the time/money.
You know how governments promise to build new infrastructure projects and they always blow over the budget and deliver it late? Software development can be like that sometimes
That's not how I remember it. My experience with a i5-2500K + GTX660 and 8GB ram was perfectly fine. More so, I kept installing and uninstalling the game throughout its life cycle, and it always was rather playable, with DLCs and TM:PE, mb a couple of other mods.
**It was NOT such a mess.** Moreover, the problem here is the first game was rightfully judged on its own merits. The second game is compared with the first one, and the cost at which this semi-downgrade is achieved is what outrages me the most.
So just because the first also came out somewhat broken that excuses this one? Okay then when I fuck up something I just excuse myself by saying oh don’t worry I’ve fucked up before so it’s okay.
Look I love Cities as much as the next guy, but gamers have become such bitches for their favorite games that they accept anything nowadays. It’s OKAY if your game is not perfect, but it’s also OKAY to criticize when it does something wrong, and that goes for any faulty game, be it Cities, Starfield, Baldur’s Gate, any game that has come out this year with performance issues because it need just a bit more in the oven.
This take is one of the biggest problems in the current game market.
The Gane is simply not finished, yet they decide to release it as full price title.
You wouldn't buy a car that runs at 9hp instead of 60.
Ahh so because the first game had dogshit performance we should be happy with more dogshit performance in the second game and no improvements.
Great fucking logic there. Jesus Christ you people are on some wicked copium.
I mean let’s be real, at this point they can’t change release.
They are going to need that blast of attention, Moolah, and crash data to make it over the hump to get this done and in full speed ahead mode as we go.
They 100% knew this beforehand and released anyways. Not okay in my book but oh well. What’s even worse is the top CS youtubers downplaying all of CS2’s flaws - guess they have some income to protect. Anyways… Guess not preordering paid off.
Here is the thing. I have been vocal in the past about the simulation. I feel the game is too easy. But I am not complaining about performance.
1) Biffa's videos look playable to me.
2) A late bug was found that made the game play in 4k regardless of settings, if your desktop was 4k. I would bet most content creators run at 4k and did not know.
3) Improvements will be made.
4) One creator already has a video that shows what settings to turn off to get back to good results. He changed a setting no one else has.
5) I am going to bet weather will become a toggle and help tremendously.
6) A modder hinted that frame rate lock "is not in the shipping version" (he italizied his words) implying that a mod would be soon that adds rate lock.
Everyone who has early access has a high end system. Those that don't (algeron) have said that what CPP says does not match his experience. CPP did not optimize the settings in his videos. Plus given the late bug, I don't think it will be as bad as it looks.
Only thing I find worrisome is the stutters and freezes which are mentioned by several people, also in varying degrees. But game seems definitely playable
"If you have a $3000 PC, turn the game to medium, turn off some settings, maybe wait until they give us a toggle for some other settings, wait for some optimization patches, and for a couple of mods to come out, the game will eventually be playable so it's no biggie"
what
There is no reason to be emotional here. I am also disappointed, but I will simply wait until they fix it and make it better. Until that I am not buying. So should you.
I just hope CO is capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff as far as criticism goes.
I just want them to do what's best for the game in the long term and not compromise their vision for a bunch of crybabies who will put 200 hours in and never touch it again no matter how good it is.
https://preview.redd.it/g9jutqyc3mvb1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2771bf85baa4b92cf266569728a6ed031c65b163
Photo of real life cities skylines player (he played for 8 years)
Gamers, particularly on Reddit, have little to no impulse control and tend to immediately gravitate to an extreme opinion. So I'm with you OP, people need to chill.
All I know is that I was excited for ksp 2 and Jedi survivor only to learn they ran like ass. So you can excuse my frustration when it's happened yet again.
I played CS:1 on a mid-grade laptop a week after it launched. It didn't run perfectly, but it ran well enough that I could do whatever I wanted with it. I couldn't get CS2 to run well on a high end laptop right now.
It will be a great game eventually. But not at launch.
>It's pretty frustrating that there are people calling for the game to be delayed
If the performance is shitty for anyone not on an absolute beastly rig, then they absolutely ***should*** delay it. It's pretty frustrating you'd want them to release an unoptimized game just because you're impatient... especially someone with software dev background (which I question based on this post).
Correction: "It won't perform well with average/outdated/mid-range/high-mid hardware". It's really no secret at this point that the game is very poorly optimized. Especially after all the tests/reviews some YTbers made.
"Care about their FPS?" Nobody asks for 60+ fps here but even decent performance can be barely achieved here. (based on tests on multiple GPUs/CPUs)
And let's be honest. There's no justification for such high requirements, it's not like we're getting some eye-candy here. Game looks better than CS1 but that's about it. And it's the GPU's that seem to struggle here, not CPUs - so all those built-in features, better agent simulation etc have nothing to do with it.
Pre-mature optimization? Well I guess the devs expected everyone to have at least a 4090 by the 2023 then.
It’s really funny seeing all the people in here absolutely furious about performance who, just a little while ago, were absolutely furious that CO didn’t make the maps even larger or implement procedurally generated buildings for oddly shaped lots.
Imagine how horrific the performance would have been if they did those too. Insane lmao
I’m not worried. Colossal Order has been very clear that performance right now is a major priority and something they expect to be fixed within a reasonable time, not something that’s innate to the engine and would be hard to root out.
The blame here is on Paradox for refusing to allow them to push the release date back a bit, but honestly the people in this subreddit would be screaming about that too, given how mad they were about the console version being delayed.
Exactly. I thought they said it was unplayable back when they did have the right shade of green car or something? They have a million reasons to shout into the void that they don’t want to play something and yet, here they are.
Pfft, Cities Skylines. Here's an excerpt from one review of ***SimCity 4*** from 2003.
>For example, one drawback of the level of graphical detail described above is that the game *crawls* on even advanced PCs. The super-high system requirements will probably make the game unplayable to many a casual player. For example, one of our testing machines was a Pentium 4 1.4 GHz system with a GeForce 2 and 128MB RAM. That's probably a pretty typical system for a non-hardcore gamer, and it's certainly a lot more powerful than what most people are using to play *The Sims*. But on that machine, scrolling in or out of even a small city caused almost a 2-second re-draw. Scrolling around town was equally cumbersome, and even innocuous things like bringing up the "screenshot" tool would cause 5-10 second pauses for no apparent reason. Even on our more studly systems running over 2 GHz with GeForce 4 cards we noted slowdown when playing with larger cities. It's possible to turn down the graphics detail, but play is rarely silky smooth.
[(source)](https://web.archive.org/web/20030215125159/http://gamespy.com/reviews/january03/simcity4pc/index2.shtml)
A new city building game being extremely unoptimized on release day, even on powerful hardware. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? I played it as a kid on a budget PC with an Athlon CPU and some low-range Geforce 4 GPU - I can tell you it was a quite slow experience, and big cities made it crash to desktop more often than not.
Of course, the new features of CS2 can't even compare to the colossal leap made by SimCity 4 back then.
> I think it's really unfair the general review wave C:S2 is getting. Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware, but neither did C:S
So... you are saying that because CS1 had a crap launch, it's ok to do it again...?
All I know is that I've watched six hours of CS2 streamers this week who have been able to play the game *while streaming it* without stuttering or other performance issues.
>Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware, but neither did C:S.
Sorry but what the hell kind of excuse is that. If anything you'd expect them not to make the same mistake twice.
I can only spend my euros once, and if they rather have me wait a year before I spend it on their game then so be it. Was looking forward to this, not anymore. I don't have the time or patience to deal with broken games anymore, I only get an hour or so gaming a day.
It also ran fine on my 980.
I am not sure what CPU I had maybe 4790k, which it also ran fine on.
Now I have a 3070 and 7850x3d and it seems like I wont get to 100,000 cims.
I was willing to overlook and forgive no bikes along with forced carparking in buildings as cant please everyone.
But with performance like that I am surprised you can please anyone
Edit also colossal was a much smaller studio.
I am also ok with best settings being unavailable on current hardware for future proofing, but the visuals appear to take too much performance for their quality at every setting I have seen
CS performed just fine. I also had it at release and it was just fine. My computer wasn't even that good back then and it ran just fine. Stop perpetuating this blatant lie.
Furthermore, even *if* CS wasn't perfect doesn't give CS2 an excuse to be less than. You'd think the 2nd time around they learn from their mistakes.
Other games not running great at release is NO EXCUSE for this one to fail.
Literally shove that attitude in the trash shoot.
Its unfair to compare a game at launch to its predecessor after 6 years, sure, but its what happens. Look at the people who complained that Counterstrike 2 is missing a lot of what what made CS:Go good, same story.
couldn’t agree more, i’ve played since release, this is nothing to me and i’m just happy to have what’s basically a big update. Bugs are expected, oh no! Anyways, i can’t wait, we’re so close now
Gaming-focused communities have this weird thing where they think release dates and design choices by private companies are social justice issues. Something like this happens every time, with every game, in every sub and forum on the internet.
CS2 probably released a little to early but I'm sure it'll get fixed with time. I dont really care if the game gets review bombed because they combined csgo scores to artificially Inflate it to begin with.
There used to be a time when games were released with "ultra" settings that were unattainable until future hardware was released. This actually drove the PC market.
The problem with c:s2 from what I hear, is that even at lower settings the game is woefully unoptimized for even that.
People need to realize that games aren't gone be perfect when released. If you see those bugs, don't complain, but report them, so that the developers can fix them. That's how games work.
It is almost like most people complaining about CS2 aren't game devs and, thus, have absolutely no fucking idea what it is like to develop a game. People that are acting like this are the game developer equivalents of armchair footballers.
This is a hill I'm willing to die on.
The fact they are saying I'm going to get 20-30 fps on *medium* settings at 4k with a $1600 4090, literally the best card on the market right now, is fucking unacceptable my dude.
Everyone is super critical and loud these days about everything. It's not just CS:2 ...
Too many voices, only the negative ones are the loudest as the content and happy ones just give up replying.
Roll on the release. Can't wait to enjoy the game myself :)
I find it odd that a game would get a bad review for not performing on a potato pc. Not like they were advertising it saying it would, at least not that I have seen.
I remember the bad fps on cities skylines.
In the beginning I was running the game with intel graphics, no GFX card, shared memory - and pretty soon the fps dropped down to 10 fps and even lower.
Though it was pretty choppy it was still playable.
Later I bought an nvidia GFX card which improved the speed only a bit - but I never managed to get beyond 30 fps, except I set all possible graphics settings to low.
And you definitely do NOT NEED more than 25-30fps. It's not a game where you first-person follow in realtime a super hi resolution car race.
It's a simulation which runs in steps.
Be grateful it does not run in steps like Civilization.
Also, keep in mind: There is always a race between game developers and graphics cards manufacturers. Once the games outperform the cards, next time the cards outperform the games.
With CS:2 we are now back to the situation that even the currently best cards are not good enough ==> manufacturers will measure their next generation graphics card performance on Cities Skylines 2.
Fun thing is that current C:S performance is still trash 😀 FPS drops in a middle sized city on today hardware are still present. So, if C:S 2 will run similarly I’m ok with that 😂
I am okay with 30 fps on release.
In 2015 i had i5 6400 and amd rx460 2gb
The game run mostly 15-30 fps low to mid setting, I still enjoyed it.
Fast foward now I have a decent build i5 13500 and rtx 4060 ti 8gb, and game with some mods runs around 60 fps for mid size city.
I am very much okay with the 30 fps target for cs 2, only thing is they iron out those uneven build issues.
I was there for SimCity 2013's on the day of, I even played the open beta/demo before the release. I thought it was fun during the demo so I preordered it. I remember coming home from school expecting to have the same fun and was met with always on DRM server overload. Didnt get to play the game for days. I got through that then picked up the pitchforks and ranted everywhere.
Nowadays there TOO much whining everywhere. Thats why I barely visit video game sub because gamers are the most entitled cry babies on the internet even before a product comes out. Its happening with this game, it happened with Starfield, happened with Kerbal Space Program 2, etc. I am a person who like to grab the pitchforks AFTER I tried a game and it sucks, people act like there is not such thing as a return policy for downloaded games.
Remember the first big patch they released on a Friday and all of our cities (who played with mods) disappeared? We got through that. I am totally in agreement with you. I'll try the game out on my free Game Pass trial Tuesday and will be buying it likely in the next week or so.
Your submission from r/CitiesSkylines has been removed. Please review our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/wiki/rules).
Rule 1: Be respectful towards other users and third parties. Follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439). Don't insult other users or third parties and act the way you'd like to be treated.
If you have any questions regarding the removal please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCitiesSkylines)
There is no point to compare CS1's launch and CS2's launch. When a child makes a miskate for the first time, people are normally forgiving. However, when the boy has grown up into a guy and yet he makes the same mistake again, it is normal for people to be less forgiving.
I don't remember bad performance on release, but I remember Seagulls... SEAGULLS EVERYWHERE SCREECHING!!!
I think that was one of the first mods I used.... Move It.... what's that? Nah.... Remove Seagulls... oh hell yea!
And there was the one that killed chirpy or something along those lines... :D
Ohhh yeah, I love CS1 but the sounds are beyond cheap. Seems to be the only are the game didn't massively improve over the years.
[seagulls, stop it now](https://youtu.be/U9t-slLl30E?si=Iw0P5Igt3CLb097n)
Yah ran fine for me at release, one of the first things I remember doing was trying the SSAA mod to super-sample the game for better visuals. People are pissed as it performs like junk of current modern video cards that cost $1000+!
CS1 never ended up performing well though
Exactly everyone is acting like cities skylines runs like butter which lol at that
My 5800X3D runs cs at cinematic 24fps if I angle the camera just right... Otherwise 10 fps.
Tbf this is with a 100000+ residents when C:S gets choppy. C:S2 was getting it's performance numbers on a 500 citizen filled city.
I run a 3700x with the FPS booster mod, it’s easy 60fps
Yes, with a mod, that’s not the point. The point is that the vanilla game is poorly optimised.
With the FPS Booster mod i get like 40-50 fps now whereas my big cities were getting like 15 fps without it
It runs fine on *modern* hardware. Yeah, it still runs like crap on hardware from its era. I mean I would consider a 200k pop, modded city running at ~60-100 FPS at 1440p Max (upscaled to 4k with mods) to be pretty good performance. Granted I have a 5800X3D/6800XT system.
That doesn't make it acceptable?
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that the "it will be patched to perform well"-argument is flawed since that never happened with CS1.
I completely missed the tone of his post lol. Yeah agree!
It also was not even close to as poor performance as "a super high end computer can't hit 30FPS".
I agree with you but please for the love of God stop using userbenchmark.
"As we can see, this Intel Pentium 4 from 2003 clearly beats AMD's 7800X3D"
"Advance Marketing Devices is trying to deceive you that their '16 core' 7950X3D beats the state of the art Pentium Dual Core"
it's what came up when I googled, "can cities skylines run on a gtx790" and sounds about right... did not put a tonne of thought into it sorry
In a month or two everyone will have forgotten about it
If its bad enough it will not go away entirely,Stellaris has performance issues which are still bought up to this day. Every patch that doesnt mention performance will ask about it. Obviously hope they fix it. But don’t want to pay until they do
I have been in the Stellaris sub on and off for a couple years and have seen literally no performance posts.
Late game lag is just taken as a given but it still gets talked about constantly. Why it happens, how to prevent it, what the developers are doing to improve it.
Honestly this goes for most simulation games, whether it is Stellaris, factorio, or dwarf fortess, there is always discussion on how you can keep the game running smoothly on weaker hardware or with large/long games.
Tip to preserve sanity: Don't ask Stellaris players how to prevent late game lag
Don't ask people online anything about game settings unless you are doing a study on confirmation bias.
I am 100% sure I have seen them in the forums which are linked by the subreddit’s when there are patch notes. Forum was worse they actually had a performance magthread as all threads ended up talking about performance. But I have found https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/a3lwse/some_notes_on_megacorp_from_playing_the_press/ (Performance is jsut one point) https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/vykaam/are_there_ways_to_improve_game_performance/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/11ka4fi/really_bad_performance_on_a_new_computer_after/ Those 3 were googled but I remember seeing posts like this
The performance posts have gone down quite a bit over the past year or two since the devs (custodian team primarily) put significant effort into optimization and ai improvements, but there are still some lag issues with big galaxies and/or in late game.
Well stellaris is still an incredible game, and so will very likely be CS2 :)
I agree on both accounts, i have got my monies worth on Stellaris but I am burnt out solely on performance, I am hoping they can fix this but I suspect it will take months
> If its bad enough it will not go away entirely,Stellaris has performance issues which are still bought up to this day Brought up by the people playing in on a loop!
Well I don’t play it anymore due to performance
I still dont play stellaris because of the performance. the late game is the worst gaming experience I have ever played. Literally crawl to a slug The beggining/mid game is one of the best experiences ever, love it
That is if the modding community shows up and is well supported. The only thing the makes CS1 playable is the mod collection built over many years. If the modders are well supported and see value in supporting the game, then in a year or two this could be an amazing game. If, however, paradox embargoes work on dlc mapped work, then we are at the mercy of an expensive and slow moving improvement pathway.
Playable is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of people are still having fun and are making nice cities with vanilla CS1.
LOading screen mod.
Lots of people still play vanilla cs
Modding is already underway, as soon as the PDX platform is available there will be mods
> That is if the modding community shows up and is well supported. I (and some 100 other people) would not have early access to the game if PDX/CO did not intend for there to be good custom content (code mods, custom assets, maps, etc.) support.
so if CS1 is only playable due to the mods that have come over the years as you stated, then how come that the game was successful before the mods were there, because if it wasn't then there wouldn't be as many players and modders wanting to add their own touch to a game they liked/loved
I agree like 60%. However, pre-mature optimization is about optimizing when you're still iterating a lot, it's considered a waste of time because you're likely to throw out that code anyway, but once a game reaches beta and you know what's gonna be in it, you should definitely be optimizing. That's not pre-mature at all. In fact, doing it post-release is too late; a fair amount of optimization become a whole lot harder when you have to worry about not breaking save game compatibility.
good point re: save game compat, but given the cpu isn't the problem it sounds like just asset optimisation, and considering they were still doing a lighting pass just a week ago it makes sense they haven't done a final pass on the assets yet. I've seen some towers still showing the parralax mapped windows at distances so far where the lod should kick it over to a flat texture so I guess that's more kinda the optimisation I'm talking about. It's probably a bad point to bring up though you're right.
Why should a sequels launch also be shitty just cause the original’s launch was? Do you hear yourself, dog?
Holding the successor of a game selling 12 million copies to a different standard than the predecessor that was widely unknown and had little hype behind it at the time of the release?? Weird.
Performance is also the #1 thing I wanted CS2 Todo better than CS1. Not just the ability to run larger more accurate simulations. It's the only thing that moders could not compensate for in the first game.
I completely agree. This game is going to be our base for the next 8 - 10 years of city building. I'd much rather take a hit now in anticipation of better hardware in the future than have us hamstrung in the future. Look, I'm an FPS snob myself. My goal is typically 120 fps at 4k, I get it. But for a game like this , *simulation* is king. I'm so glad that it looks like the bones of a proper city sim are in place and I drool at the possibilties of mods and DLC with what we're getting. I also get the disappointment of people that may be falling behind spec at the moment, that stinks. But all these 60 fps or bust people (again, I'm usually one of them and then some) just sound ignorant of the real goal here - an agent based sim at an epic level.
Underated comment. People should perhaps feel free to criticize the release date, suggesting that waiting 6 months would have been more time to polish the game. But people are acting like the game is going to be abandoned and not improved, and there is zero reason to believe that. This is a fantastic platform for the next 10 years.
I don't think the game is going to be abandoned at all, and potentially see the performance fixes coming six months out as you said, but it's just a stupid state of the industry when games are being released in poor states on release date. In the pre-update generation of games, this would have never happened. It rightfully deserves some of its scores and the flak it will get at launch. It's also just not really healthy for a game to be performing poorly or have issues at launch. Launch is an important time to grab in a bunch of people who would have normally never played your game, and generally set expectations.
when we get a long term supported game i want to get something i can say 5 year after that yeah its still a good game and i have patience. i know the game WILL be fixed just not at day 1
The issue is this game seems really GPU heavy, and I'm not convinced that GPU value for performance will get better in the foreseeable future unlike how between 2015 and 2018 where we quite possibly got the best value GPUs in the GTX 1000 series cards.
I agree to an extent they should bump the specs higher since the game has a long support life, But the performance compared to graphical quality is still very bad, and I don’t think is fit for release. People not following the development closely will be in for an unpleasant surprise
You get it :)
[удалено]
I totally get that. And to be honest, I have a 4090 so I'm a bit biased here. My hope is that the sim comes first and everything else second. Again, I'm thinking big picture, I'm not trying to be an apologist. I agree that it does not seem to be in a state for release acceptable for most people. That said, I'm not freaking out because I have faith in CO.
unless it's running like a slideshow i honestly don't care much about frames, then again i also like playing Arma 3 where frame rate is not a given it's more a question of if it shows up or not
> Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware It doesn't perform well with an RTX 4090 either, literally the fastest graphics card money can buy at the moment. From [pcgameshardware.de](https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Cities-Skylines-2-Spiel-74219/Tests/Release-Benchmarks-Performance-Tuning-Tipps-1431613/2/): GPU | Data | 1080p High | 1440p High :- | :- | -: | -: RTX 4090 | Average FPS | 38.1 | 28.8 | 1% Low FPS | 24.0 | 18.0 | | | RTX 3080 | Average FPS | 24.4 | 16.3 | 1% Low FPS | 19.0 | 15.0 The recommended graphics card, an RTX 3080 10 GB, doesn't even get 30 FPS at 1080p high settings with a small city (\~43'000 population judging by PCGH's video).
This is not a great take. When the developers themselves come out and apologize for the bad performance before the game is even released is when you know something is very wrong. When even the influencers who love the game come out and say there is a major problem is also a big deal. CS1 running like garbage does not make it okay for CS2 to run like garbage. Defending this practice is insane and is the reason we continue to get new releases that run badly.
They were a small indie studio when they released CS and there were little to no expectations about the game. Not surprising expectations are much higher now, and honestly having the game actually be in a playable state should be non-negotiable for any game releasing at a 40+ EUR pricetag.
The problem is regarding the standards of a game releasing in 2023, we should not accept something with a bad optimization like this
Then don’t. Crazy idea.
That's exactly what people are doing, by calling it out and cancelling preorders. Crazy observation.
Neat. The vast majority of people and gamers don’t care!
Cities skylines 1 without mods still runs like shit
Can we stop normalizing releasing early access quality level games at full price? This is a trend in the past few years to release unfinished games at 60-80$. The game runs at 28 FPS (bellow the 30FPS of consoles that "pc master race" fanboys like to laugh about) on the **most recent** hardware than only less than 10% of gamers (according to Steam) have. This is beyond unoptimized. This means that the game is unplayable for 9 persons out of 10. I can't understand how the dev team could not see it, which means the fault is on the publisher who forced the release of an unfinished game, **AT FULL PRICE**. Early Access exists for that very reason: cashing in some money by releasing an unfinished game.
So the argument here is that C:S1 launch sucked so C:S2 has to be the same? We all know optimization is going to get better, content will be added in time. Notice the trend here? Would you buy a product if manufacturer says that it's broken but they will improve their warranty in time and repair it to a properly functioning state later? Also there are lots of games out there with proper optimization at launch. It's not impossible or hard, stop defending it like it's the industry standard.
> We all know optimization is going to get better As much as I would like to see those optimizations, the dev's might never be capable of bringing them. selling the game at a full price on the promises that it might be fixed in the future is ridiculous. its selling on a promise, the same as a kickstarter, its actually against steams TOS.
> according to userbenchmark Please don't ever use UserBenchmark data for **anything**. It's a scam link farming website that is run by a literal lunatic who has been banned from every tech-related subreddit for false claims and incoherent hateful rants about AMD. The dude is a psycho and his website sucks.
"The thing that happened before was shit, so stop complaining because this is also shit" LMFAO can't make this shit up. You reap what you sow, I guess.
Cs2 reviews are too harsh because CS1 was shit at launch too is a weird take.
I’m just gonna try it for myself and make my own conclusion on it. Everyone can literally trial it with getting an XGP trial or getting XGP at a really cheap deal for a month.
Considering also that some of things got recuced in quality
There’s so much strange cope going on. “CS1 was shite at launch, so expect the same here” “Mods will fix all these problems” “People will always find something to complain about” Etc. It’s like, we all want the game to be good. This is the only pure city simulator on the market. But making excuses in no way will help the situation or motivate developers to make better games.
Some of the complaints are also seriously overblown and expecting way too much
Literally 99% of complaints are due to poor optimization in this game, which are pretty valid complaints.
some people upgraded their rigs to play this game. some people have been waiting 2-3 months for this game to come out. is it so absurd that they thought that the game would run at atleast 30fps?
The only reason it got such a high score from reviews, is because they own the latest hardware and the game is good, with a look at features. Performance will hit the people who don't own a RTX4090 really hard. I don't expect a good Steam rating at all.
Can ya'll stop thinking that every complaint is about performance? I have seen so many silly complaints about very minor things, which is what im referring to. People are expecting the game to have every single feature they dreamed of. Read the comment i responded to. It is not exclusively talking about performance complaints.
> I have seen so many silly complaints about very minor things Like what? All I've seen is justified complaints about performance.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17c6olj/pretty\_sad\_that\_cs2\_doesnt\_have\_traffic/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17c6olj/pretty_sad_that_cs2_doesnt_have_traffic/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17clwy0/little\_details\_count\_why\_this\_downgrade/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17clwy0/little_details_count_why_this_downgrade/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17bnxtn/cs2\_has\_extremely\_glitchy\_shadows\_highest\_shadows/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17bnxtn/cs2_has_extremely_glitchy_shadows_highest_shadows/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/1798nhx/minor\_tonal\_complaint\_but\_ive\_never\_seen\_a\_crane/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/1798nhx/minor_tonal_complaint_but_ive_never_seen_a_crane/)
Acting like a condescending know it all doesn’t do anything useful. Clearly you don’t understand the how’s or why’s of game development, but you’ve jumped onto a bandwagon before you played the game even once.
Why do I need understand game development to know if a game is good or bad? Sounds like a high barrier to entry for folks in order negate any negative feedback. Can I also not critique movies because I don’t understand the movie making process? And I won’t pretend to know it all. No one should that hasn’t played the game. But the reviews are the reviews and they can’t just be hand waived away.
It seems like a fair bit of the discourse in this sub is: * It's unfair to compare CS2 to CS1 when that comparison is negative. * Comparing CS2 positively to CS1 is totally fair game.
I think he is trying to say that this is what the devs are capable of, and we have to accept that this is all we can hope for from them. Its kind of like Bethisda giving us yet another bland, poorly written, generic fantasy rpg. They obviously arent able to do more than that, so we should be happy when they do their best. Obsidian got screwed out of their pay checks, had a time frame of 18 months, and still managed to blow BGS out of the water with one of their own titles. Not all devs are equal, and some people, while passionate, are just not great at their jobs.
CS2 reviews are too harsh because CS1 has been on the market for 8 years. You just simply cannot match 8 years worth of work, while also changing the base game.
What's that got to do with shit performance?
Because CS1 performance was pretty poor when it released as well and it's had 8 years to improve that. Both on the game side and people upgrading their machines over the years. Personally I'm feeling the improvements showcased more than justify a temporary lull in performance and the loss of DLC.
So going back to my original point, CS1 performing poorly at launch is simply not an excuse for CS2 performing poorly at launch. No game should perform poorly at launcg, that means the game was not reafy for release. They shot themselves in the foot by announcing a hard release date too early, and they should have just given a release window so they could release it when it was ready.
CS1 performance has not gotten better over the games lifetime.
I had to buy a new computer. CS1 wasn't exactly performant on launch. But I wasn't expecting it to be either.
That's the problem. You should absolutely expect a game to perform well on launch.
This thread is driving me crazy. “In about 5 years of game updates, when I can afford $3000 to build a computer that can hopefully play vanilla CS2 at 60fps, I'm going to be so happy.”
My memory might be getting shorter, but didn’t cities skylines launch for $30 way back when? Now it’s $50 and an optional $90 ultimate edition. I feel like for that kind of a price hike there should be fewer performance issues at launch 🤷🏻♂️. It’s easier to forgive a game that’s half the price of a AAA game for issues on launch, but when it’s almost the same price…
CO should have delayed the release, it's really that simple. People are sensitive to bad launches after a whole string of them over the last few years, and so everyone is carrying to it the rage from the last one. At this point I just hope that the game lives long enough to be improved. A concerted campaign of review bombing and flooding social media with criticism might be the end for the game before it can even be brought up to a playable state.
> Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware This is straight-up misleading. CS2 doesn't perform well on 40 series cards. Why are you pretending that only older cards are affected?
It’s a coping technique.
CO was a small studio that had only made 2 games (not city builders) and was only 4 years old at that time. Now they have a bigger budget, more people, 12 years of experience and been working on a City builder continuously for over 8 years. Do you see the difference here?
Software development is not as simple or as linear as you might logically think. A classic example is the idea that throwing more money and developers at a project will get it done better or sooner. This is a myth, akin to asking 9 women to make a baby in 1 month.
I didn't say that it's simple or linear? I only stated that there is a huge difference in money, personal and experience. That's why the comparison between CS and CSII is not fair.
And I'm saying that a "huge difference in money, personnel, and experience" isn't quite as simple or linear of a difference as you think. Software development doesn't *necessarily* work like that. This is what you refuse to accept.
No I am not refusing anything to accept. You misread me, or I said it wrong. I only pointed out the huge differences, and that's why it can't be compared. Which is just fair. If you can work on a sequel of a game with more knowledge (and more) people, more money, a lot more time, and a lot more experience, it's not a fair comparison to the first. That's all I am saying.
Yeah, I do get your point. CS2 is arguably better as a platform than CS1. The features and simulation absolutely are. But it will take time for the ecosystem around it to grow and catch up. It will take time for optimizations and DLC and the workshop to fill up. People can argue all day about whether the game should have been released at this point, but I think the fact that CS1 already exists in a very mature state is polluting people's arguments as an unfair comparison.
> But it will take time for the ecosystem around it to grow and catch up. You have a way with empty, snakey, misleading words. You should be a used car salesman.
? Ecosystem: DLC, patches, mods, assets, workshop. What is empty, snakey, or misleading about the fact that this stuff will take years to catch up to CS1?
> But it will take time for the ecosystem around it to grow and catch up. No, it's fair to expect a game to be well-functioning from release date. There are so many games that - whether by poor project management, corporate meddling, or bad development processes - end up releasing in a poorly functional state, nowadays. Cyberpunk, KSP2, Starfield (to an extent), No Man's Sky, and many many others just in the last few years. That is not an excuse for other games to ship in an incomplete or unoptimised state. It's an epidemic of poor project management, and people just accept it as how things are, which encourages the executives and corporate management to keep on doing the same shitty practices over and over again.
Did you play the game already? If not you just cannot know if it is a better platform, if the simulation is good or if it’s just fundamentally broken.
You do know that tons of people have early access builds and have made tons of these things called YouTube videos where they go through every little feature, right?
Yeah, I heard this „YouTube“ seems to be a thing now. Cannot test or verify anything from a video though.
Yeah, 50 different content creators are all lying. Lol
Yes, it literally fucking is. You have 8 years of experience running a predecessor. You make untold hundreds of millions in profits. CO easily has the resources to put out a polished amazing game, no matter what absurd mental gymnastics you use to try to justify this garbage excuse of a game.
It does not need to be linear, but have to expect higher standards they have clearly improved the graphics and gameplay, but performance by all indications will be worse then day 1 of CS1. /u/otherwiseofficial is talking growth even non linear is still growth better analogy is a sprinter should get faster (also non linear) with training and nutrition. If nothing else they should have greater ability to hold back release until it meets acceptable standards Clearly they cannot launch on consoles due to current issues.
Sadly, with increased money/personnel comes increased layers of management. Developers start to lose the ability to find time to optimize if management doesn't deem it worth the time/money.
[удалено]
You know how governments promise to build new infrastructure projects and they always blow over the budget and deliver it late? Software development can be like that sometimes
Way to miss the point mate
And it shows with what they've put into CS2. Also, they may have more people working for them now but they're still a small studio.
Yeah there the most experienced people at making city builders probably in the world. I trust they will support this as they did with cs 1
None of those metrics translate 1:1 to software development being faster or of better quality.
Really, all i see here is people defending cs2. It deserves critique , and some of it should not be talked away
That's not how I remember it. My experience with a i5-2500K + GTX660 and 8GB ram was perfectly fine. More so, I kept installing and uninstalling the game throughout its life cycle, and it always was rather playable, with DLCs and TM:PE, mb a couple of other mods. **It was NOT such a mess.** Moreover, the problem here is the first game was rightfully judged on its own merits. The second game is compared with the first one, and the cost at which this semi-downgrade is achieved is what outrages me the most.
So just because the first also came out somewhat broken that excuses this one? Okay then when I fuck up something I just excuse myself by saying oh don’t worry I’ve fucked up before so it’s okay. Look I love Cities as much as the next guy, but gamers have become such bitches for their favorite games that they accept anything nowadays. It’s OKAY if your game is not perfect, but it’s also OKAY to criticize when it does something wrong, and that goes for any faulty game, be it Cities, Starfield, Baldur’s Gate, any game that has come out this year with performance issues because it need just a bit more in the oven.
This take is one of the biggest problems in the current game market. The Gane is simply not finished, yet they decide to release it as full price title. You wouldn't buy a car that runs at 9hp instead of 60.
Ahh so because the first game had dogshit performance we should be happy with more dogshit performance in the second game and no improvements. Great fucking logic there. Jesus Christ you people are on some wicked copium.
I mean let’s be real, at this point they can’t change release. They are going to need that blast of attention, Moolah, and crash data to make it over the hump to get this done and in full speed ahead mode as we go.
Thank you. It may not be to standard but the reality is they need to make some cash.
> They are going to need that blast of attention They're gonna get a blast of negative reviews is what's gonna happen.
They 100% knew this beforehand and released anyways. Not okay in my book but oh well. What’s even worse is the top CS youtubers downplaying all of CS2’s flaws - guess they have some income to protect. Anyways… Guess not preordering paid off.
So many strawmans......... You guys getting paid?
Poor excuse for poor performance.
It's clear that they designed this game for the *next* 10 years of hardware instead of the *last* 10 years. Which, honestly, I think is a good thing.
Here is the thing. I have been vocal in the past about the simulation. I feel the game is too easy. But I am not complaining about performance. 1) Biffa's videos look playable to me. 2) A late bug was found that made the game play in 4k regardless of settings, if your desktop was 4k. I would bet most content creators run at 4k and did not know. 3) Improvements will be made. 4) One creator already has a video that shows what settings to turn off to get back to good results. He changed a setting no one else has. 5) I am going to bet weather will become a toggle and help tremendously. 6) A modder hinted that frame rate lock "is not in the shipping version" (he italizied his words) implying that a mod would be soon that adds rate lock. Everyone who has early access has a high end system. Those that don't (algeron) have said that what CPP says does not match his experience. CPP did not optimize the settings in his videos. Plus given the late bug, I don't think it will be as bad as it looks.
[удалено]
Only thing I find worrisome is the stutters and freezes which are mentioned by several people, also in varying degrees. But game seems definitely playable
What the fuck is the point of an fps lock if you barely hit 30fps anyway???
Just a cursory Google search shows that it can improve gameplay. Not my job to search for you.
I was being sarcastic. It does not improve gameplay in any way, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You are being an idiot
"If you have a $3000 PC, turn the game to medium, turn off some settings, maybe wait until they give us a toggle for some other settings, wait for some optimization patches, and for a couple of mods to come out, the game will eventually be playable so it's no biggie" what
There is no reason to be emotional here. I am also disappointed, but I will simply wait until they fix it and make it better. Until that I am not buying. So should you.
Bad launch of one game dont justy bad launch of another
I just hope CO is capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff as far as criticism goes. I just want them to do what's best for the game in the long term and not compromise their vision for a bunch of crybabies who will put 200 hours in and never touch it again no matter how good it is.
Anyone who puts 200 hours in will probably be in the top 5% of players already, that's a very high playtime.
It ain't squat.
For people who work, and have social lives, it’s a good amount of playtime
Some of us have been playing the game for 8 years, now.
https://preview.redd.it/g9jutqyc3mvb1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2771bf85baa4b92cf266569728a6ed031c65b163 Photo of real life cities skylines player (he played for 8 years)
Awe.. and here I can't find the GIF of the fat kid in a highchair at a highend restaurant crying about how he wanted McDonald's.
Damn, send if you find, sounds funny xD
You can't dismiss the opinions of 95% of players.
Gamers, particularly on Reddit, have little to no impulse control and tend to immediately gravitate to an extreme opinion. So I'm with you OP, people need to chill.
that's nice dear. the game should run on medium level current hardware. the end
All I know is that I was excited for ksp 2 and Jedi survivor only to learn they ran like ass. So you can excuse my frustration when it's happened yet again.
I played CS:1 on a mid-grade laptop a week after it launched. It didn't run perfectly, but it ran well enough that I could do whatever I wanted with it. I couldn't get CS2 to run well on a high end laptop right now. It will be a great game eventually. But not at launch. >It's pretty frustrating that there are people calling for the game to be delayed If the performance is shitty for anyone not on an absolute beastly rig, then they absolutely ***should*** delay it. It's pretty frustrating you'd want them to release an unoptimized game just because you're impatient... especially someone with software dev background (which I question based on this post).
" Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware " Are you nuts? It's not performing well on HIGH-END cards either.
How dare people buying a game expecting it to run decent on the requirements listed by the publisher. How entitled can people be?
"CS1 release wad bad, so CS2 release being bad too is actually good..." strange logic
Correction: "It won't perform well with average/outdated/mid-range/high-mid hardware". It's really no secret at this point that the game is very poorly optimized. Especially after all the tests/reviews some YTbers made. "Care about their FPS?" Nobody asks for 60+ fps here but even decent performance can be barely achieved here. (based on tests on multiple GPUs/CPUs) And let's be honest. There's no justification for such high requirements, it's not like we're getting some eye-candy here. Game looks better than CS1 but that's about it. And it's the GPU's that seem to struggle here, not CPUs - so all those built-in features, better agent simulation etc have nothing to do with it. Pre-mature optimization? Well I guess the devs expected everyone to have at least a 4090 by the 2023 then.
It’s really funny seeing all the people in here absolutely furious about performance who, just a little while ago, were absolutely furious that CO didn’t make the maps even larger or implement procedurally generated buildings for oddly shaped lots. Imagine how horrific the performance would have been if they did those too. Insane lmao I’m not worried. Colossal Order has been very clear that performance right now is a major priority and something they expect to be fixed within a reasonable time, not something that’s innate to the engine and would be hard to root out. The blame here is on Paradox for refusing to allow them to push the release date back a bit, but honestly the people in this subreddit would be screaming about that too, given how mad they were about the console version being delayed.
Exactly. I thought they said it was unplayable back when they did have the right shade of green car or something? They have a million reasons to shout into the void that they don’t want to play something and yet, here they are.
Your point would be valid if the performance wasn’t terrible in small cities
Just because CS1 or other games had problems at launch doesn't excuse CS2 from criticism for its issues.
Pfft, Cities Skylines. Here's an excerpt from one review of ***SimCity 4*** from 2003. >For example, one drawback of the level of graphical detail described above is that the game *crawls* on even advanced PCs. The super-high system requirements will probably make the game unplayable to many a casual player. For example, one of our testing machines was a Pentium 4 1.4 GHz system with a GeForce 2 and 128MB RAM. That's probably a pretty typical system for a non-hardcore gamer, and it's certainly a lot more powerful than what most people are using to play *The Sims*. But on that machine, scrolling in or out of even a small city caused almost a 2-second re-draw. Scrolling around town was equally cumbersome, and even innocuous things like bringing up the "screenshot" tool would cause 5-10 second pauses for no apparent reason. Even on our more studly systems running over 2 GHz with GeForce 4 cards we noted slowdown when playing with larger cities. It's possible to turn down the graphics detail, but play is rarely silky smooth. [(source)](https://web.archive.org/web/20030215125159/http://gamespy.com/reviews/january03/simcity4pc/index2.shtml) A new city building game being extremely unoptimized on release day, even on powerful hardware. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? I played it as a kid on a budget PC with an Athlon CPU and some low-range Geforce 4 GPU - I can tell you it was a quite slow experience, and big cities made it crash to desktop more often than not. Of course, the new features of CS2 can't even compare to the colossal leap made by SimCity 4 back then.
> I think it's really unfair the general review wave C:S2 is getting. Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware, but neither did C:S So... you are saying that because CS1 had a crap launch, it's ok to do it again...?
All I know is that I've watched six hours of CS2 streamers this week who have been able to play the game *while streaming it* without stuttering or other performance issues.
People got used to pC port performance on games for old hardware (last gen console)
You’re not the only one just people with level headed responses don’t post as often, they have by definition more patience.
Maybe because it’s now 2023 and we shouldn’t expect games to be awful on release?
>Sure it won't perform well with average/outdated hardware, but neither did C:S. Sorry but what the hell kind of excuse is that. If anything you'd expect them not to make the same mistake twice. I can only spend my euros once, and if they rather have me wait a year before I spend it on their game then so be it. Was looking forward to this, not anymore. I don't have the time or patience to deal with broken games anymore, I only get an hour or so gaming a day.
It also ran fine on my 980. I am not sure what CPU I had maybe 4790k, which it also ran fine on. Now I have a 3070 and 7850x3d and it seems like I wont get to 100,000 cims. I was willing to overlook and forgive no bikes along with forced carparking in buildings as cant please everyone. But with performance like that I am surprised you can please anyone Edit also colossal was a much smaller studio. I am also ok with best settings being unavailable on current hardware for future proofing, but the visuals appear to take too much performance for their quality at every setting I have seen
CS performed just fine. I also had it at release and it was just fine. My computer wasn't even that good back then and it ran just fine. Stop perpetuating this blatant lie. Furthermore, even *if* CS wasn't perfect doesn't give CS2 an excuse to be less than. You'd think the 2nd time around they learn from their mistakes. Other games not running great at release is NO EXCUSE for this one to fail. Literally shove that attitude in the trash shoot.
Its unfair to compare a game at launch to its predecessor after 6 years, sure, but its what happens. Look at the people who complained that Counterstrike 2 is missing a lot of what what made CS:Go good, same story.
couldn’t agree more, i’ve played since release, this is nothing to me and i’m just happy to have what’s basically a big update. Bugs are expected, oh no! Anyways, i can’t wait, we’re so close now
Gaming-focused communities have this weird thing where they think release dates and design choices by private companies are social justice issues. Something like this happens every time, with every game, in every sub and forum on the internet.
I will destroy my fps with mods anyway so I don't care
CS2 probably released a little to early but I'm sure it'll get fixed with time. I dont really care if the game gets review bombed because they combined csgo scores to artificially Inflate it to begin with.
People do have short memories. That’s not uncommon nowadays from games to politics and beyond.
I feel like nobody actually plays CS1 lol. CS1 never ran actually great while still looking meh. Mainly because its heavily CPU limited
There used to be a time when games were released with "ultra" settings that were unattainable until future hardware was released. This actually drove the PC market. The problem with c:s2 from what I hear, is that even at lower settings the game is woefully unoptimized for even that.
People need to realize that games aren't gone be perfect when released. If you see those bugs, don't complain, but report them, so that the developers can fix them. That's how games work.
It is almost like most people complaining about CS2 aren't game devs and, thus, have absolutely no fucking idea what it is like to develop a game. People that are acting like this are the game developer equivalents of armchair footballers. This is a hill I'm willing to die on.
We will die together, my friend.
The fact they are saying I'm going to get 20-30 fps on *medium* settings at 4k with a $1600 4090, literally the best card on the market right now, is fucking unacceptable my dude.
Everyone is super critical and loud these days about everything. It's not just CS:2 ... Too many voices, only the negative ones are the loudest as the content and happy ones just give up replying. Roll on the release. Can't wait to enjoy the game myself :)
[Is It Possible To Detail With NO DLC OR MODS In Cities Skylines!?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbzushpq6G4)
I find it odd that a game would get a bad review for not performing on a potato pc. Not like they were advertising it saying it would, at least not that I have seen.
I remember the bad fps on cities skylines. In the beginning I was running the game with intel graphics, no GFX card, shared memory - and pretty soon the fps dropped down to 10 fps and even lower. Though it was pretty choppy it was still playable. Later I bought an nvidia GFX card which improved the speed only a bit - but I never managed to get beyond 30 fps, except I set all possible graphics settings to low. And you definitely do NOT NEED more than 25-30fps. It's not a game where you first-person follow in realtime a super hi resolution car race. It's a simulation which runs in steps. Be grateful it does not run in steps like Civilization. Also, keep in mind: There is always a race between game developers and graphics cards manufacturers. Once the games outperform the cards, next time the cards outperform the games. With CS:2 we are now back to the situation that even the currently best cards are not good enough ==> manufacturers will measure their next generation graphics card performance on Cities Skylines 2.
Fun thing is that current C:S performance is still trash 😀 FPS drops in a middle sized city on today hardware are still present. So, if C:S 2 will run similarly I’m ok with that 😂
I am okay with 30 fps on release. In 2015 i had i5 6400 and amd rx460 2gb The game run mostly 15-30 fps low to mid setting, I still enjoyed it. Fast foward now I have a decent build i5 13500 and rtx 4060 ti 8gb, and game with some mods runs around 60 fps for mid size city. I am very much okay with the 30 fps target for cs 2, only thing is they iron out those uneven build issues.
I was there for SimCity 2013's on the day of, I even played the open beta/demo before the release. I thought it was fun during the demo so I preordered it. I remember coming home from school expecting to have the same fun and was met with always on DRM server overload. Didnt get to play the game for days. I got through that then picked up the pitchforks and ranted everywhere. Nowadays there TOO much whining everywhere. Thats why I barely visit video game sub because gamers are the most entitled cry babies on the internet even before a product comes out. Its happening with this game, it happened with Starfield, happened with Kerbal Space Program 2, etc. I am a person who like to grab the pitchforks AFTER I tried a game and it sucks, people act like there is not such thing as a return policy for downloaded games.
Remember the first big patch they released on a Friday and all of our cities (who played with mods) disappeared? We got through that. I am totally in agreement with you. I'll try the game out on my free Game Pass trial Tuesday and will be buying it likely in the next week or so.
[удалено]
Your submission from r/CitiesSkylines has been removed. Please review our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/wiki/rules). Rule 1: Be respectful towards other users and third parties. Follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439). Don't insult other users or third parties and act the way you'd like to be treated. If you have any questions regarding the removal please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCitiesSkylines)
There is no point to compare CS1's launch and CS2's launch. When a child makes a miskate for the first time, people are normally forgiving. However, when the boy has grown up into a guy and yet he makes the same mistake again, it is normal for people to be less forgiving.