603
Lowered the graphics options a bit and managed to get a stable fps in Cities: Skylines II
(i.imgur.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
603 points (98.2% liked)
Cities: Skylines
1256 readers
6 users here now
An unofficial sublemmy for the game Cities: Skylines.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The performance has been pretty shocking at launch even with the latest patch. What's even more shocking has been the super bad takes from the steam forum commentators such as:
I get that people invested want to bootlick their favorite company, but pushing out games that are clearly not finished isn't great
Yeah I've seen bad takes but I've also seen a lot of fair takes.
Like I gave a good review because I've liked the game and had no performance issues at all.
But I agree, the game should not have been released. All versions should have been delayed for QA and optimisation as is happening with the console versions. It would have been a very unpopular decisions though - in fairness to the Devs/publishers they were damned if they do and damnedol if they don't.
I guess they figured that if it works for Bethesda it'll work for them.
I feel like there's a significantly higher number of bad takes on the negative side. Obviously the launch state of the game isn't perfect or even good, but there's people out there claiming all manner of shit. I've seen people downplaying it for sure, but the instances I've seen of that fit more of the:
The people with negative things to say however... well I'm pretty sure about half the accounts posting that are either waffling back and forth (positive and negative) every comment, or are trying their best to spin the narrative that Paradox did this intentionally, for some reason. I don't think they realise that a bad launch doesn't help them make money in any way. It literally does not benefit them.
The only reason it was launched as it is, is because Paradox made the gamble that enough people would be able to play and have fun. Those people would then be able to make videos or take photos of the new features and capabilities, which at least verifies for the people that can't play, that the features are there. They aren't just waiting for a less ugly CS1, there's actual tangible improvements.
I think it's also worth mentioning that even today... CS1 runs like actual ass. I have a 3800x and a 3070, both overclocked, with 32gb of RAM. I still get shit FPS in it. I think at best, I get 80fps (excluding the 0-2000 pop phase) when theres <30k pop, and it goes down the higher that is.
Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk, I ain't no shill and the game still runs chunky. Hopefully most of these performance issues get dealt either sooner rather than later.
I think what sort of confusion is the frame rates really inconsistent. I dropped all my settings to low and it looked terrible and then I fiddled with them and changed some of them back to high and it looks fantastic and essentially there's no difference in frame rate.
I'm actually really struggling to figure out what it is that's actually causing the frame issues. Apparently a big chunk of it is vsync, which I don't understand.
Yeah bro just spend 2000 dollars a month to run it on Amazon’s elastic compute cloud
I haven’t heard that one. CS1 was very popular at launch. There was a significant thirst in the market for city builders after SimCity destroyed itself and left the market.
Where have you seen people mention that? That seems like a very bad informed opinion.
It’s straight up hilarious seeing some peoples get so upset not having 100 fps in a fucking city builder lmao