this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
235 points (95.4% liked)
Games
15812 readers
1256 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If 90% of gamers can't play a game, is it still worth releasing it like that?
I doubt 90%of players run the newest games at 4K/high
It’s not the resolution:
Dude if someone is spending 1.8k on just a fucking CPU and GPU together (this doesn't include the cost of the motherboard, ram, storage, case, monitor, or mouse) I would fucking hope I can run my new game release at fucking 60fps 4k (minimum) natively.
Game dev companies got lazy. Instead of DLSS and FSR being really great tools for older GPUs to run newer games, it became a crutch for brand new $900 GPUs to run newer games.
Don’t get me wrong, DLSS and FSR are awesome and I use them to get games to run well at 4K with my 3070 Ti, it’s just a shame so many devs are abusing it.
I think its a bit unfair to say they got lazy. They just shifted their development to lower the priority on optimization since even though corporate Game development sucks I don't think I've seen many "lazy" game devs. Many of them work pretty hard jobs for shit pay at least compared to other programming fields (Rough crunch periods, most of their audience hates them, etc)
Absoluteley, any lazy gamedev would just quit, get a boring SWE job and work fewer hours for twice the pay.
No. This is a city builder, not cyberpunk. This is a cpu optimization problem, not a gpu one. Also, a lazy development team doesn’t add enough features for it to suffer from such major optimization problems.
Oh shit, I actually missed that last part of the headline. Mea culpa.
I just built a 7800x3d RTX 4090 build so I'd expect to hit 4k 60fps but I'm more a 1440p 240hz guy. I guess I'll settle for whatever I can't get with this game lmao. At least it's on game pass.
Do you believe 90% of gamers will be playing at 4K/High settings?
I mean... At the current state of the game, 0% of gamers will be playing at 4K/High settings.
I don't know what "high" refers to in this instance, but in general I kinda wish every game had their very highest settings targeted to future hardware. Not by necessity of bad optimization, but simply because it feels stupid playing older games that cap render distances, LoDs, foliage amount crowd sizes, lights, shadow qualities etc to hardware limits that were set a decade or two ago.
Just make it obvious and don't call it "Very High" or "Ultra", but directly just "Next-Gen" or something in the settings and have it target like 720p 30fps on a 4090.
I think I'm pretty confident in saying most people aren't interested in sub 60 FPS, especially if it's at 1080p and looking the way it does (which is mostly flat and unimpressive)
That's the most shocking part, the high-end hardware needed to brute force a 1080p game at acceptable framerates
Eh, I'm fine with it in this style of game. A shooter I will not. BG3 I accepted running around 30 and didn't even feel it. It's not a twitchy game. It's a top down city builder. As long as it's responsive, it doesn't really need to run at 60. It's probably the ideal game to target 30.
BG3 runs at stable 1440p100fps+ for me on a 4070Ti without DLSS. I only enabled DLSS Quality and then capped framerate at 90fps because I didn't really feel like the power consumption was worth it.
I'm almost in Act 3, and so far it's been unproblematic... This game is on a totally different level.
Edit: every setting maxed out in BG3
For you. On a 40 class GPU. On a game that isn't CPU bound.
Act 3 performs worse. Anyway, everyone has a different system. My point is different games have different acceptable framerates first person games need to be at least 60, most top down games can be lower and you won't even really notice.
Hate to say it but this is a city building sim. Above 60fps would be amazing, but Cities Skylines 1 was already known for being... not great for frame pacing or frame rates.
Obviously more is better, but you can look at any similar game and get fairly understanding "oh only 37 FPS in CS1/CIV6/Rise of Industry/Urbek City Builder/Satisfactory/Dyson Sphere Program, that's pretty solid." The only (similar-ish) game I can think of that actually has never had bad performance is "Per Aspera", but every single other one mentioned, I have had performance "desires/issues." I could also throw rimworld and dwarf fortress in there but those are different enough to be questionably relevant, but those too have performance problems at different points in time.
That being said, it does not sound like the Devs intentionally hid this info, the content creators did mention early on there were performance issues and that Paradox was aiming to have them resolved. If there was any intentional hiding, it would be probably from Paradox as the publisher, but they seem to be relatively open this time around in regards to information.
TLDR: Low fps in genre ain't that surprising, most are used to it. Obviously more is better, but they seem to be at least intent on addressing it, unlike some other devs.
By "people" you mean "the kind of wankers that fellate Gamers Nexus."
Cities:Skylines has always had a frame rate that takes the strugglebus to work.
That's basically what Crysis was when it released, so yeah why not?
Because Crysis for its time was breaking barriers in terms of graphics and physics. City skylines 2 doesn't even look that good (graphically). So it just comes down to poor optimization that will get fixed after half a year to a full year of patching. This isn't a great look even though they said "But we said it will perform poorly".
"PURR URPTURMIZURTION"
Or... here's a fucking idea... it's a CPU bound game and not GPU bound. FUCKING WOW, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT that the simulation game may not be graphically amazing but will wreck the shit out of any CPU with its simulation routines?
Only everyone that's ever played any sort of in-depth simulation, that's who.
You would have a point if you couldn't increase your FPS by 20 fps by disable clouds, volumetric fog, lower LOD to the bottom. Also wouldn't the FPS get better with increasing the resolution since you are putting more work on the GPU instead of the CPU?
You don't even have the game and you are shilling for it super hard for some weird ass reason.
Crysis was the game that got me to stop being lazy and finally build my first PC.
I dont get why people are mad about this. I'm happy that games are coming out that destroy top setups today because that means they will be beautiful (hopefully that's what they are with max settings) with future hardware.
They're ugly looking now, that's the issue. skylines 2 definitely is an improvement over 1, but it's not an astronomical improvement (like the difference you'd notice with some franchises moving from unreal engine 4 to 5)
The amount of raw performance needed to power this game is what's shocking. It's just a lack of optimisation.
Do you even fucking know what that word "optimization" means, or do you just throw it around because Jim Sterling told you to?
The issue is when the game is destroying top setups because its poorly optimized and full of bugs, and I dont think it was their idea to do a game for the future hardware because that would not be comercial viable.
You clearly never played CS1 on release.
That's why you don't run on high settings you fucking genius.
Its a single player game, who gives a shit how someone run it. If someone is spending 1.8k on just 2 parts I think its fair to hope a game will run "well" like this is abysmal.
Welcome to PC gaming. New here?
Nope, its pretty rare for games to release in such a horrid state where even top of the line stuff isn't able power through it. Typically its the midrange/low end cards that are stuck with horrid frames and rely heavily on DLSS/FSR (even though that is annoying). The meme of "Can it run Crysis" shows how rare it is for a game at its highest be literally unplayable with modern hardware.
You don't pay much attention do you?
Here's an eight year old thread where a bunch of REEL GAMERZ MAN whinge about the same shit as now.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/what-is-happening-with-recent-aaa-games.2866464/
"Can it run Crysis" stuck around because Crysis was built for hardware that didn't even exist yet, but was scalable enough to be played on then-current gen. It wasn't because poor performance was rare.
Go to literally any major release's Steam review page and you'll see review after review shitting on the performance. Almost like there's no way to fix shit you don't know is broken.
Again my literal point was typically poor performance is to the mid range and low range rigs. This is a literal new release that as the fucking title of the fucking post says is
"Cities Skylines 2 reportedly runs with 7-12fps on an Intel Core i9 13900KS with AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX at 4K/High Settings"
7-12 FPS on top of the line gear is fucking stupid. Even Jedi Survivor wasn't this bad and that was also a game that had "poor" performance for top tier gear.
Lower resolutions and graphical settings exist.
You have no point.
Shut the fuck up.
My fucking point was if it truly was as "CPU bound" as you say. Lowering the resolution and graphics will have very minimal impact when most of it trouble is coming from calculating the sim as you claim. There are no settings to significantly decrease the amount of "CPU" work. So I feel you are talking out of your ass for a game you are stanning for that hasn't fucking released and you haven't fucking played yet. Fanboism is a cancer.
Edit: also can you stop spreading the conversation into multiple pointless threads, like Jesus Christ.