ultrasquid,
@ultrasquid@sopuli.xyz avatar

I heard someone on Discord claim that the depth of field dropped the performance significantly, and they could run it stable once they disabled it.

SchizoDenji,

Stable at 30fps?

HerrLewakaas,

More than enough for a top down strategy game. Why are you so obsessed with 60 fps in a game where nothing moves fast and reaction times dont matter

jimbo,

Because the higher FPS look nicer and we’re talking about something done for no other reason than for enjoyment.

good_girl,
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Eye strain

ILikeBoobies,

Cap your fps if you don’t want it jumping around

good_girl,
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

It’s not about the fluctuations lmfao.

ILikeBoobies,

Then you aren’t going to experience eye strain

good_girl,
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Oh sick thanks yeah i needed someone to tell me my own experiences.

ILikeBoobies,

Okay, as a quick test

Look at a slideshow, and go to the next slide once per minute

Now go to the next slide every second

You’ve just simulated low and high fps, which one is harder?

good_girl,
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Is this a bit? I’m telling you low fps are hard on my eyes, I don’t need to simulate 1fps vs 1fpm to know that.

Plus there’s a vast difference between 15fps vs 30fps+ and 1fpm vs 1fps.

You don’t have to eat the slop served to you, demand better.

GreenMario,

For me it’s smoother camera panning. I just love that 60+fps feel when you move the game camera. Silky smooth.

SchizoDenji,

Absolutely. If I’m spending my money on a game and running it on an above average hardware, the bare minimum I will expect is to atleast run smoothly regardless of features or quality.

The bar is so fucking low.

EngiNerd,

Yo ho, yo ho a pirate’s life for me

Blackmist,

I don’t think that will fix the performance issues either.

I think I’ll just play the first one or Tropico.

Broodjefissa,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Contend6248,

    They are digital releases, it literally makes no sense at all. Stop preordering and make yourself a calendar entry if you have to.

    WhiskyTangoFoxtrot,

    For me it’s just Project Aces, but even then only in theory. I bought AC7 on release-day but I didn’t pre-order, and while I could see myself pre-ordering AC8 when/if they announce it I might just wait for the release again.

    ILikeBoobies,

    Steam reviews are worthless, it’d be better if they didn’t have it

    Teritz,

    They are suprisingly one of the most accurate reviews i saw rarely it is a Review Bomb like OW2.

    ILikeBoobies,

    Cookie Clicker has a better rating than FTL

    itslilith,
    @itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    I use them more as a general trend, a 90 vs a 95 isn’t really saying anything, but a 60 vs a 90 usually has good reasons

    kamen, (edited )

    Do yourself a favour and be a patient gamer.

    Edit: It would also do a favour to the industry if you think of it.

    TheBlue22,

    Absolutely

    JustZ,

    Runs fine for me. Reduced some settings. It’s a game built for the best right now, and for the future. Lot of potential.

    ArmokGoB,

    Almost every game has potential.

    nyoooom,

    Have been playing all night, the performances are not great, but it’s actually playable for most people with lower settings, and the game is pretty great.

    Also it’s a city builder, it’s okay to play it with 30fps in low, it’s not a FPS.

    It’s CS2, not CS2.

    JJROKCZ,

    Agreed, I’ve played strategy and builder games forever on 20fps.

    I remember playing tw:rome (1) on my xp machine at a solid 12 fps and having a blast. 60fps should be the goal if you meet recommended specs I agree but it’s unreasonable to say that anything less is “unplayable” because that just isn’t true

    XTornado,

    It’s CS2, not CS2.

    At first I tought it was mistake and you repeated the same 😅 .

    Klear,

    It’s TF2 TF2 all over again.

    verysoft,

    I suppose we could call Cities 'C:S2' and Titanfall 'T2'?

    MeetInPotatoes,

    He did repeat the same. Mwuahahah.

    StereoTrespasser,

    The need to hit FPS targets has always been blown way out of proportion by the casual gamer. But seeing people bitch about their city builder not hitting 30+ is a new low in the chase for unnecessary frames.

    good_girl,
    @good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    30 is the bare minimum for any game regardless of genre lmfao. Anything below 30 gets hard to look at because of the bad frame pacing, things below 60 can still cause eye strain if you’re not used to low fps.

    WhyJiffie,

    If I was already playing CS1 with 30 fps in low, I guess this would be 10-15 fps if it even starts up, right?

    SchizoDenji,

    Also it’s a city builder, it’s okay to play it with 30fps in low

    In 2007? Sure. In 2023 why should a consumer settle for 30 fps on fucking low settings?

    masquenox,

    I have never understood why people anticipate game realeases - I mean, people have learned how the AAA game industry works by now, right?

    Honytawk,

    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.

    conc,

    I’m having a great time on medium graphics

    Dagrothus,

    Go ahead and spend $50 to form your own opinion. Be sure to leave a review!

    ultra,

    Most of the reviews are because of bad performance, but a friend told me FPS massivly increases on medium settings. They just defaulted to high for some reason

    misterwu, (edited )

    Well yes the Performance gets better on Medium. But the problem with this game is that it’s not optimized at all. The devs basically admitted it even before launch.

    Edit: someone did a deep analysis on the games rendering system.

    HerrLewakaas,

    The devs said they couldn’t reach the level of optimization they were aiming for in time for release. Would you rather have them release the game a month late or play on medium for a month. I know what I prefer. You don’t know what you’re talking about frankly when you say its “not optimized at all”

    misterwu, (edited )

    Yeah I know exactly what im talking about. Leaving aside that I myself do Vulkan c++ programming and know what proper graphics optimization looks like, im also a gamer. I can run nearly any new AAA+ game on ultra settings with 60+ fps on my rig. Cities skylines runs with 20 on Max settings, 30 on high and 40-50 on Medium. Saying that cs2 is not optimized is an understatement. Stop shilling shit products.

    rotopenguin,
    @rotopenguin@infosec.pub avatar

    It may hurt right now, but trust me, there are plenty of fish in the sea.

    darkdemize,

    Is that Dungeons of Dredmore? That was a fun game.

    Geek_King,

    I positively loved that game! I wish they would have made another! Here are my two proudest achievements in DoD!

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/301e0592-3fbb-4a22-87e5-a7d1848d7ce7.png

    H2207,
    @H2207@lemmy.world avatar

    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

    scrubbles,
    @scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

    These worked for me. I’m at about 10k citizens and the game is running fine. 3000 series GPU

    XEAL,

    I read C:S 2 as CS:2…

    bittersweetsymph,

    Same, I had to go back and reread. I was so confused.

    A_Very_Big_Fan,

    It’s the TF2 (Team Fortress 2 / Titanfall 2) situation all over again

    Rai,

    Diablo 2 (good) / Destiny 2 (I have so many rants)

    fakeman_pretendname,

    Transport Fever 2, surely?

    XTornado,

    At least on this case they have the : to difference themselves…

    MudMan,
    @MudMan@kbin.social avatar

    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.

    prof,
    @prof@infosec.pub avatar

    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.

    MudMan,
    @MudMan@kbin.social avatar

    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.

    prof,
    @prof@infosec.pub avatar

    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.

    MudMan,
    @MudMan@kbin.social avatar

    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.

    ColonelPanic, (edited )

    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.

    Takumidesh,

    I was playing all night last night on low (second from bottom) at 1440p and getting constant 60fps with occasional frame hiccups if I zoomed quickly or scrolled way across the map quickly.

    I have a 2080 non super.

    So there must be something else going on.

    On the very lowest settings I was getting around 80-90 fps.

    azertyfun,

    Yeah, a 2080 should be more than capable of handling a game like that, badly optimized or not. I’ve seen people report running the game much better with way worse cards.

    However all the people I see complaining here of terrible performance don’t mention which CPU they have, when it was already the bottleneck in C:S 1… And the kind of people who don’t think the CPU is relevant information probably aren’t the kind to use a modern, top-of-the-line CPU.

    I’ll still wait until the patches roll in before buying it, but I’m also not going to trust complaints from players who don’t even know which CPU they are using when playing a CPU-bound game.

    AVincentInSpace,

    Sorry, that’s Cities: Skylines 2, not Counter-Strike Source 2, right?

    StorminNorman,

    Correct.

    Pfnic,

    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

    Gabu,

    The 3900x isn’t really way older than the 5800X3D, only 1.5-ish generations older.

    Pfnic,

    I guess so, though I imagine the 3D cache of the 5800X3D might benefit the workload of this game specifically

    BlackVenom,

    Vsync off, high settings, full screen windowed Ryzen 2700x, 7700xt… no idea what frame rates are but perfectly playable… Only 5k in city so far.

    Biggest complaint are the maps… Pretty but annoying.

    theletterw,

    Makes me think of the Spore hype train…

    ChrisLicht,

    Spore early game was fun.

    FMT99,

    Except like the rest of the game, way too shallow. The idea of it was amazing though.

    Ethalis,

    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

    DragonTypeWyvern,

    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!?!?”

    Honytawk,

    Meh, the end game was boring and tedious.

    Mid wasn’t as great but at least it had content that wasn’t so freaking slow.

    The start, that is where it is at.

    tdawg,

    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

    lepthesr,

    And when you’re older you have no time to game. So, you’re a few years behind. By the time they get to you, they’re either hashed out and good or have fallen out of popularity.

    Or you could be like me and still play games from the 90s.

    christian,
    @christian@lemmy.ml avatar

    I remember thinking that surely Duke Nukem Forever would turn out awesome once it’s finally finished. After seeing the reception I just decided it wasn’t worth checking out.

    teichflamme,

    Tbh it wasn’t that bad and had some pretty fun moments.

    Klear,

    After the hell that was its development, the game was surprisingly good.

    BTW isn’t there a project to finish the original vision of the game? That I’m definitely looking forward to.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • memes@lemmy.ml
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 18878464 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/http-kernel/Profiler/FileProfilerStorage.php on line 171

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 10502144 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/error-handler/Resources/views/logs.html.php on line 38