Like those reviews mean anything …
They are filled with unfunny meme reviews, review bombs because they feature a gay person, or reviews from people who don’t understand how computers are supposed to work.
I’ll form my own opinion, thank you very much.
Go ahead and spend $50 to form your own opinion. Be sure to leave a review!
I’m having a great time on medium graphics
Gonna need to be more specific…
Looks like they are talking about Cities: Skylines 2
You win a prize. You have to go find it though. Two hints, it’s at the store and I haven’t paid for it
Cities skyline 2 performance is pretty bad from the stream I was watching. HOWEVER according to this review by Wal Der Qual if you set the dynamic resolution to “constant” you will get an FPS boost. It helped the gal on the stream I was watching anyhow. I cant speak for their other suggestions as they didnt get tried on the stream.
Dynamic resolution? So it is going to bring you down to sub 1080p in order to run at a decent framerate? That doesn’t seem worth it.
Me and X: Rebirth. Looking forward to it for years and it comes out as an abomination.
5 years later I pick up the game on a deep deep sale and I try to dock and the physics gets screwy and immediately refund it. This was after 4 expansions and several patches to make it version 4.something.
Also Payday 3. Though the server issues have been fixed.
Are they fixed? Or are less people trying to log in?
Could be a bit of column A&B lol
There are 10 times more daily players in pd2 than in pd3, so the servers arent overstressed anymore. (Also means players don’t want to play pd3 even when it works)
Payday 3 :(
I’ve been a fan of the series for a very long time. Since the first game. But the overkill that released PD:TH isn’t the overkill of today. They are extremely incompetent and replaced by fresh blood. PD3 is going to be a mess and I will not be surprised if they go back to releasing PD2 DLCs again.
I’m just so confused over the time-limited “premium” currency that you can only buy with in-game cash.
This was me with mythbusters: the game. Followed it for 7 months for nothing
That sounds like Walmart bargain bin shovelware. Was it supposed to be good!?
It was supposed to be good but it ended up being too scripted
Mythbusters is a great thing that we would all love to experience again in another medium, but that just wasn’t going to happen. It’s hard to even point to an existing good game that has the mechanics that you’d want from a Mythbusters. They could have gone Factorio, or an Infinifactory, but a goal of “maximize this” or “build this intended output” still doesn’t capture the scientific intent of extracting some tiny nugget of truth from a cold unfeeling universe. Straitjacketing the whole process into something scripted, or throwing a sandbox at the player and walking away, are about the only two approaches that a game could do.
And here I am, glad I got Sea of Stars for a slight discount on launch. Such a charming game for ~$30.
People would have been complaining about a delay if they had gone that way. I personally like how they handled a no win situation.
delays would disappoint people but at least keep your reputation intact. Plus, it makes crunch for devs less likely since deadlines aren’t permanent
Delaying also means that you are burning cash with zero income. You can only borrow money on worse and worse terms, and if there is an actual prime rate hike whoa boy are you pooched.
In my experience delays just means the crunch time is extended.
Anyone thinking this release was reputation destroying is just fickle and shouldn’t be taken seriously
Makes me think of the Spore hype train…
Spore early game was fun.
Honestly the endgame was pretty fun as well on face value if a bit barren, it’s the midgame that was super disappointing to me. Overall it’s a decent game imo, it just set expectations way too high and couldn’t deliver
I thought the endgame was terrible, and I’m all about sci-fi. Just never been one for “wow look at this randomly generated content!?!?”
Except like the rest of the game, way too shallow. The idea of it was amazing though.
Well I think the whole performance thing have been blown waaaay out of proportion by a vocal few. I have a relatively old pc with an rx580 8gb vram and the game’s been running fine for me. Obviously it needs some patches, but people have been saying it’s the second coming of ksp2, and that’s simply bullshit
Agree. I’m several hours in and I’m honestly loving it. Face it gamers, y’all just like to hate things, it’s fun to be in the “in crowd” who knows better than everyone else to not buy something. Misery loves company.
Meanwhile, imma keep playing.
Don’t downplay peoples valid concerns, we should strive for better performance in any game. Just because some people can put up with low framerates doesn’t mean others should have to. I think 120fps at 1080p should be absolute minimum performance we should accept out of a game given the power of PCs these days.
Wat. This ain’t counter strike. This is a city sim. The hell do you need 120fps for so much that it should be minimum?
Our computers are more powerful than ever, but our games run worse than ever before. I love the future
For smooth panning? Why would I want less?
and the heart of the problem. Gamers have forgotten that games are tradeoffs. Counter Strike has high FPS and the expense is lower detail. Cities opts for higher detail and fidelity over having higher FPS. Of course studios would love to give every game 120FPS at 4K ultra, they didn’t just decide not to do that. Optimization and squeezing a few more frames per second is tedious work. It’s not some switch in the engine they forgot to flip. It requires pouring over millions of lines of code, deciding to create this class instance later, to move this memory allocation to another place, to deciding what to cut out to make it just a smidge faster.
I stand by my other comments. Gamers have become entitled that their systems should run brand new games at perfect ultra settings. That’s not how it ever worked. Brand new systems are out of date the moment you buy it. The only way to guarantee anything to run at perfect ultra for every game is to wait 5 years after it released on hardware that just came out.
Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t want to downplay people’s experiences and performance issues ARE concerning, and I personally hold the belief that a company is responsible for the quality of the product they bring to market and ultimately a fault in their own processes if they couldn’t. BUT it doesn’t take away that the issue has been overblown. It simply, given the game’s circumstances, shouldn’t be getting the hate it’s currently harbouring. It seems to me that the internet’s found the new shiny thing to hate on, and the human psyche simply can’t resist just a smidge more of rage
Perhaps that is the case, but it also swings in the opposite direction of games being overpraised when there are glaring issues - see BG3. Bad press usually causes change a lot faster though and I find it refreshing when people actually leave negative reviews with their concerns. Although I agree there are the people who take it too far and just jump on a hate bandwagon, which ruins actual criticisms.
I agree! I miss nuance in the internet’s hivemind
What glaring issues are there with BG3?
Bruh, I don’t even have a monitor that can display 120fps, and you want that as a minimum?
You should make your next upgrade a 144Hz monitor!
Or not, because it really doesn’t matter.
What’s your problem? It makes no sense to want a worse experience.
The point is not that, but that modern games are super wasteful with computing resources.
Both are valid, I don’t know why people want low framerates when we can have silky smooth ones.
It is not like we want low framerates, it is just that we don’t want to pay for the hardware to run those when regular framerate is more than enough.
60 fps is plenty for every game genre. You only need more if you are a professional gamer, or can splash the cash because you play all night every night.
60fps is not plenty. You have never used higher have you? Low-end hardware these days is ridiculously powerful compared to what it used to be. Don’t let poor optimisation in games condition you to thinking otherwise, they could all be running a lot better.
Anything with lots of camera panning is an objectively nicer experience at 120fps or higher.
I think the performance issue is not at all overblown, but the complaints about stripped features are overblown. The game is more complex than the original, but it does run like dogcrap right now.
Assuming this is about C:S 2, turning off Vsync and setting to medium graphics gets my 60+ FPS. 6800XT and Ryzen 7 5800X3D, Arch linux btw
I read C:S 2 as CS:2…
It’s the TF2 (Team Fortress 2 / Titanfall 2) situation all over again
Transport Fever 2, surely?
Diablo 2 (good) / Destiny 2 (I have so many rants)
At least on this case they have the : to difference themselves…
Same, I had to go back and reread. I was so confused.
I’ve the same GPU but way older CPU (3900X) and could play for 3h without issues yesterday. I noticed that the game is using multithreading way better than C:S 1. All cores of my CPU were used equally which made me think that the technical foundation seems to be solid, just too demanding for the average gaming PC. I’m on openSUSE btw
The 3900x isn’t really way older than the 5800X3D, only 1.5-ish generations older.
These worked for me. I’m at about 10k citizens and the game is running fine. 3000 series GPU
I had it running at 100+ fps.
Some of the settings there are absolute killers. Volumetric coulds is nuts. The game is 90% staring at the ground, and I lose 10+ fps with that. Ditto for transparent reflections, and the settings for global illumination on high are insane as well.
Sure, once you tune it down selectively it looks like CS1… but it also performs like it.
I really don’t understand some of the choices they made here, either in the way the visuals work, the way the default settings work or the way they communicated it. If they hadn’t come out saying it’d be super heavy and they renamed “high” to “ultra” or had an intermediate setup between medium and high they wouldn’t be getting this much crap.
I strongly disagree. The game has massive performance issues and I’m getting 10-20 FPS on the lowest possible settings with my 2080 Super. At that point it looks worse than CS1 and performs worse.
Also the 7 FPS or so on the main menu are ridiculous, unless they’re using my pc to mine crypto in full force.
If they release a complete game for 50€ or 90€, then I expect that shit to be a super smooth experience, even on the minimum recommended specs, which do in fact note a GTX 980 if I recall correctly.
So either get the specs correct, optimise the game properly or get out of the business. I’m a programmer myself and I’d be deeply ashamed if I released software that performs so poorly.
2080 SUPER here too and while I also get the seriously low framerate in the menu (1 - 2 FPS for me) I also get 30+ FPS in game on medium settings at 4k (on an empty map) so I’m not too sure what’s going on with your PC unless your CPU is the bottleneck. If I go up to high settings then performance does drop down to ~15 FPS.
I agree the performance is not great and I’m absolutely not justifying it, just throwing in my experience too. It’s mostly playable for me and I can probably live with it until it’s hopefully patched.
That does sound like a setting is bugged somewhere, or perhaps like one of the problematic settings is not toned down on the low preset. It’s hard to tell without testing on the specific hardware. I’m curious enough that I may install it in more devices with less VRAM and mess with the settings just to see what happens.
I do think if they hadn’t told people that performance was going to be messed up you’d absolutely assume that’s a bug, given that, as you say, it doesn’t match their spec notifications.
No one told me before I bought it, and it’s not mentioned on the steam store, see the point of the specs. So I don’t quite understand what you mean with “if they hadn’t told people”, because they sure didn’t unless you’re on that specific social media they did it on.
I’ve watched all those feature videos before and they don’t mention that I shouldn’t get my hopes up.
Anyways I don’t want to occupy your time and argue, in the end I’m just super miffed and disappointed because I had a free weekend for once and was looking forward to binging CS2.
They did put out an announcement that they had “missed their performance targets”, and that made news.
It’s fair to be disappointed, though. There ARE serious issues here. The game can be made to run acceptably (I went and dug up a comparable card to your 2080 and yeah, it’s a 1080p30 game there, but it works). That takes significant fiddling in their advanced menu, and there are significant visual compromises to be made.
At the very least, their default presets should have been tuned differently. That would have been free and prevented the whole “it runs at 20fps on my 4090 on low” frustration with no additional development effort. Not to say that they shouldn’t be patching this up a LOT going forward, but they had tools to mitigate that they’re not using, which is very confusing.
Sorry, that’s Cities: Skylines 2, not Counter-Strike Source 2, right?
Correct.
deleted by creator
From what streamers have said, turn off V-Sync and all of the depth of field options and your FPS should vastly improve.
For a second I was thinking you were talking about the King Kong game.
(yeah i know that’s not what this is about but it still fits)
If it makes you feel any better getting older means you learn to see these things coming from a mile away. The best games are (generally) the ones you learn about from word of mouth
