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.
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 Brand new systems are out of date the moment you buy it.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.
This is so incorrect though. Nobody is expecting every game to run on every system at 4K@120Hz. CS has more fidelity and higher framerate than Cities, Rainbow Six Siege has even more fidelity and even more framerate than the both of them (talking like 600+ fps). Cities bottleneck should be CPU as it was in the first game. It should run very well to begin with and slow down the bigger and bigger the city gets, but that's not the case, it runs like ass from the get go. They built it from scratch, which is the best time to make sure it is performant during development, but in most cases devs seem to rush for feature complete instead, especially in the current environment of consumers accepting half-baked games.
It's not entitlement to expect more and it makes no sense to defend lackluster performance in games, if you don't care then just carry on enjoying it and let others ask for better. Again 1080p@120Hz is hardly an ask these days, any GPU/CPU from the last 8 years can handle that shit perfectly fine, hell even mobiles can run that now.
Games should be built to run well on today's hardware, not built to let future hardware take over. Incentivizing upgrades is just going to create more e-waste.
It is though. You're comparing apples to oranges - you can't compare an FPS to a top down strategy. Even Cities 1 never had a great framerate, even 8 years later on modern hardware it still chugs, and it doesn't have nearly the fidelity that Cities 2 has. The only reason the GPU is the bottleneck is because of the fidelity. If you turn down the graphics settings to Cities 1 level, guess what, the CPU becomes the bottleneck again.
For another example, Age of Empires 4 locks the zoom level because they couldn't handle showing too much on screen. You just can't demand the same rates as an FPS. Completely different parameters. You're expecting an M1 abrams tank to have the agility of a honda accord and the speed of a masarati, when you really needed something something that could seat 20 people.
You brought fidelity and Counter Strike up. Cities Skylines 2 is not exactly an 'impressive' game to look at, a more stylised approach is better for this type of game, it doesn't need to look real and you spend hardly any time zoomed in anyway to notice fine details. Just looking at graphics the game performs horrendously for what it looks like. I don't think Cities Skylines was a bad looking game and I don't think Cities Skylines 2 trading off more performance for not a big leap in 'fidelity' is worth it. I think Cities Skylines looks better and more refined myself honestly, the art style fit it really well.
I can demand whatever performance I want? From FPS I expect higher than 120 even, it's just what is better for that game. For builders 120 as a baseline minimum is not a big ask and I would still expect it drop into the 90s and 60s once you build your city/whatever out. If you are fine stuck at 60fps or lower with all your games then congratulations, but I expect more from games these days that aren't exactly pushing the bar in other areas. I don't think graphics make a game, but games have been at a point where they don't need to look any better for years now, so performance should be the focus.
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.
Act 3 - so many bugs, inconsistencies, crashes. The issues leak into the first two acts aswell, but act 3 is a real mess. The game really struggles to keep up with itself by that point.
Oh shit I haven't experienced that personally but I'm sorry that you are! I did lower the graphics a little in the city since there's so much more going on, maybe that's made it more stable for me.
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.
I don't want to pay for the hardware either. I have an old 750 Ti, and you would be surprised how many (not new) games are running perfectly fine on it. Amount them those like the last deus ex games. I don't remember the framerate I had, but neither do I remember it as an unplayable laggy mess.
When I read that CS2 barely manages to run on a 2060 or some other powerhouse (in my eyes at least, but honestly for some reason I have the impression that 20xx is not much of a leap from let's say a 1080 Ti) I can't think anything else but that the game is a totally wasteful garbage technically.
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.
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?
For smooth panning? Why would I want less?
Cause it costs more to run that and it isn't necessary for a good gaming experience.
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.
This is so incorrect though. Nobody is expecting every game to run on every system at 4K@120Hz. CS has more fidelity and higher framerate than Cities, Rainbow Six Siege has even more fidelity and even more framerate than the both of them (talking like 600+ fps). Cities bottleneck should be CPU as it was in the first game. It should run very well to begin with and slow down the bigger and bigger the city gets, but that's not the case, it runs like ass from the get go. They built it from scratch, which is the best time to make sure it is performant during development, but in most cases devs seem to rush for feature complete instead, especially in the current environment of consumers accepting half-baked games.
It's not entitlement to expect more and it makes no sense to defend lackluster performance in games, if you don't care then just carry on enjoying it and let others ask for better. Again 1080p@120Hz is hardly an ask these days, any GPU/CPU from the last 8 years can handle that shit perfectly fine, hell even mobiles can run that now.
Games should be built to run well on today's hardware, not built to let future hardware take over. Incentivizing upgrades is just going to create more e-waste.
It is though. You're comparing apples to oranges - you can't compare an FPS to a top down strategy. Even Cities 1 never had a great framerate, even 8 years later on modern hardware it still chugs, and it doesn't have nearly the fidelity that Cities 2 has. The only reason the GPU is the bottleneck is because of the fidelity. If you turn down the graphics settings to Cities 1 level, guess what, the CPU becomes the bottleneck again.
For another example, Age of Empires 4 locks the zoom level because they couldn't handle showing too much on screen. You just can't demand the same rates as an FPS. Completely different parameters. You're expecting an M1 abrams tank to have the agility of a honda accord and the speed of a masarati, when you really needed something something that could seat 20 people.
You brought fidelity and Counter Strike up. Cities Skylines 2 is not exactly an 'impressive' game to look at, a more stylised approach is better for this type of game, it doesn't need to look real and you spend hardly any time zoomed in anyway to notice fine details. Just looking at graphics the game performs horrendously for what it looks like. I don't think Cities Skylines was a bad looking game and I don't think Cities Skylines 2 trading off more performance for not a big leap in 'fidelity' is worth it. I think Cities Skylines looks better and more refined myself honestly, the art style fit it really well.
I can demand whatever performance I want? From FPS I expect higher than 120 even, it's just what is better for that game. For builders 120 as a baseline minimum is not a big ask and I would still expect it drop into the 90s and 60s once you build your city/whatever out. If you are fine stuck at 60fps or lower with all your games then congratulations, but I expect more from games these days that aren't exactly pushing the bar in other areas. I don't think graphics make a game, but games have been at a point where they don't need to look any better for years now, so performance should be the focus.
I suppose they could implement smooth panning in high fps even if actual updates would be slower… though it might look funky.
Our computers are more powerful than ever, but our games run worse than ever before. I love the future
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?
Act 3 - so many bugs, inconsistencies, crashes. The issues leak into the first two acts aswell, but act 3 is a real mess. The game really struggles to keep up with itself by that point.
Oh shit I haven't experienced that personally but I'm sorry that you are! I did lower the graphics a little in the city since there's so much more going on, maybe that's made it more stable for me.
Bruh, I don't even have a monitor that can display 120fps, and you want that as a minimum?
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.
I don't want to pay for the hardware either. I have an old 750 Ti, and you would be surprised how many (not new) games are running perfectly fine on it. Amount them those like the last deus ex games. I don't remember the framerate I had, but neither do I remember it as an unplayable laggy mess.
When I read that CS2 barely manages to run on a 2060 or some other powerhouse (in my eyes at least, but honestly for some reason I have the impression that 20xx is not much of a leap from let's say a 1080 Ti) I can't think anything else but that the game is a totally wasteful garbage technically.
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.
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.