I don't really understand how people make the review threads, but we're sitting at a 77 on OpenCritic right now. Many were worried about game performance after the recommended specs were released, but it looks like it's even worse than we expected. It sounds like the game is mostly a solid release except for the performance issues, but they really are that bad.
- Popular Cities: Skylines 1 streamers are reporting that they are not able to achieve a consistent 60 fps, even with RTX 4090s and lowering the graphics to 1440p medium settings. Based on utilization numbers, it sounds like the GPU is limiting factor here.
- Those same streamers are also reporting 16GB of RAM usage when loading up a new map, which means that the minimum recommended spec of 8GB was a blatant lie from the devs.
- IGN and other reviewers are reporting that the game does not self-level building plots, which is something that C:S1 did pretty well. This leads to every plot looking like this:
Maybe not a big deal to some, but the focus of Cities: Skylines has always been on building beautiful cities (vs. having a realistic simulation), so this feels like a betrayal of Colossal Order's own design philosophy.
Personally, this is a pretty big bummer for me. I like C:S1 a lot, but I find it hard to get into a gameflow that feels good unless I commit to mods pretty hard, and that means a steeper learning curve. For this reason, I tend to have more fun just watching other people play the game. I was looking forward to C:S2 as a great jumping on point to really dig into city-building myself. Maybe I'm being too harsh here because of my personal disappointment - many don't really care about hitting 60fps, but those same people also tend to not build top-end PCs. And it sounds like if you don't have a top-end PC, you're looking at sub 30 fps, and I think most agree that that is borderline unplayable.
Anyone else have thoughts on this one?
Yeah, my thought is that this is a game they'll be supporting for 8-9 years so what the fuck does it matter if it runs like dogshit on day one? Don't fucking buy it until the performance increases and the problems you mentioned are ironed out.
It really is that simple.
Anyone that expected this game to be perfect on launch was clearly not around whenever Cities: Skylines launched. The performance was godawful to the point that I refunded it. A couple of months and a couple of patches later shit was cleared up and I repurchased it. Didn't have an issue after that.
So yeah, the whole "Why doesn't this brand new game not have the same performance and features as a nine year old game with numerous DLCs and mods?" thing is getting fucking tiresome.
I don’t think it’s crazy to expect games to have playable performance levels when they release. Not to mention it’s a sequel so you’d think they would learn some things after fixing the first one.
Yeah the fucks up with all the Paradox apologia in this thread? I also remember Cities: Skylines on release It ran fine and my rig was shitty back then. It was a perfectly functional little city builder. People loved it and it was called the new Sim City! "Just wait two years and put down another $50 on dlc bro. Ur dumb for expecting it to be good now." Nah this shits unacceptable. If a game needs to be supported for years before its considered good then an honest developer would call it an early access game. Ya know, those games that get years of support, updates, and features for free.
Colossal Order is the dev, Paradox is just the publisher. Paradox deserves crap for their many mistakes, but this one isn't theirs.
Yeah but it's Paradox as the publisher who is the one setting the parameters of them having to build a game that is designed to support 10 years of DLC like all of their other products because that's their monetization strategy.
Publishers still have a lot of power in a games development. They can set deadlines and dictate the direction they want a games development to take. Seeing as this is a recurring problem with games Paradox both develops and publishes, its easy to see who is to blame here.
DLC part pisses me off also. I know this game isn't developed by Paradox but it seems to be a trend in Paradox games where you need to spend the base price + an absurd amount of extra money to get the developer's "true vision" or whatever. It's really annoying.
To get most of the base game features that are currently present in Crusader Kings III, you would've had to spend a sizeable chunk of cash on DLC for Crusader Kings II.
i’m sure they learned plenty of things about the old game engine they built
and now they have a new one… which was the whole point
I completely agree. I think the point of the commenter you're replying to is that this is the kind of game that will fix these eventually. It's still disappointing for a launch, but eventually it will probably become better than CS1.
@hiddengoat @theangriestbird How did we get to the point where paying money for a broken, unfinished product was acceptable?
It's not, don't buy games on day one. Let the other suckers pay to beta test it. Once it's fixed in a few years, you can buy it for a discount.
I just bought Fallout 4 GOTY for $5 the other day. Look forward to doing the same in a few years when Cyberpunk 2077 has a final release with everything fixed and polished. There's so many good old games, why buy anything brand new.
And this doesn't forgive devs for buggy initial releases either, because I'm not throwing money at something until it's actually done.
The base game of 2077 is pretty good now that 2.0 is out. My biggest issie with it at launch was the lack of cyberspace for hacker player characters. Felt like the game was funneling me towards standard FPS gameplay, even if there are a lot of options within that realm
Exactly this. No man's Sky is apparently decent nowadays too.
Part of the issue is that publishers make studies sign contracts with fixed release dates, with heavy penalties for delays (even though basically any software project ends up going over time).
But yeah, just go through the backlog of older games, this way you also don't need the latest PC either to play on max settings.
Preorders. It used to be that you had to preorder the LOTR special edition on DVD with figurines to make sure the shop had existences... then Kickstarter bastardized it into "pay to maybe get something"... and Steam jumped onto the bandvagon of "pay hoping it might work some day".
Not sure how the point about Kickstarter is relevant but it's not Steams fault devs are releasing unfinished games.
And I wouldn't say it went straight to bad digital preorders. I feel like that is a more recent phenomenon and digital preorders were better years ago.
Not wanting to make you feel old, but... No Man's Sky botched preorder release was 7 years ago (2016).
I mentioned Kickstarter (est. 2009) as a stepping stone in getting people used to pay for not-yet-existing stuff.
I'd much rather play the game in its current state than waiting 3 or 4 months, i have a pretty beefy system and i dont mind low framerates in a strategy game. If you don't feel the same then don't pick it up, wait the 3 or 4 months and enjoy it then.
@saigot is much rather they release a complete project that works on day 1.
It does work I've been playing it all day!
The problem is that they don't communicate this and still ask for the full price.
Imagine I'm a gamer who wants to buy and play a working game today, not in half a year. Nothing on their store page indicates that the game isn't in a playable state yet, so I'd pay full price for a game I can't actually play. That's misleading at best, and a downright fraud at worst.
They could easily fix this by delaying the game or launching it as early access for people who don't mind playtesting a half-finished game, but they didn't.
They did communicate: https://www.pcgamer.com/cities-skylines-2-devs-warn-players-of-performance-problems-we-have-not-achieved-the-benchmark-we-targeted/
These guys are the exception.
This is not what I'm talking about, because the vast majority of people buying the game won't have seen this. It's not enough that the info is somewhere on the internet, it needs to be front and center when buying the game.
Did they do so on the store page, or the news section connected to it? Or was it only announced on news sites no one reads?
If you wouldn't be so lazy you could find it out yourself.
I doubt the average player looks up whether the devs came out to warn players their game runs like shit before buying it, I think they just buy it. Similar to how people probably don't check to see if a movie director has mentioned how bad the sound mixing and lighting is in a movie before going to watch it. Might be a crazy take but imo the onus isn't on the person buying the game to make sure the game is finished, let alone looking up articles on the game to make sure the devs didn't admit that it runs like ass and isn't finished. Though with how often it happens and how often there's people that excuse it maybe that's where we're at now, you reap what you sow and whatnot lol
Anyone buying a full price title without looking it up with a quick Google search or reading reviews on Steam is far gone from my compassion.
You can even refund it so easy it's not even worth the outcry and i don't even pretend to care about anyone pre-ordering digital downloads.
It's shitty that these devs have to put the games out too early, but it would save everybody's money and nerves if you just start to see releases today as early access because that's what they all are. There are many companies out there which don't say a peep and i won't wreck anyone who at least tries to give a heads-up !pre-release! which anyone who cares could get easily for free.
It's kind of baffling how we accept this as pretty much the standard for major releases these days. Why would we be okay buying anything else like this? If I bought a pair of shoes and they had issues that made them unwearable until I got them repaired I would be irritated as fuck, and obviously this would be unacceptable for a store to sell them like that.
We didn't have god damn tunnels in CS1 when it was released and people were raging about the city being limited to 9 tiles.
If company admitted performance issues before release is the hill that these people are willing to die on, well go ahead then. Back then the alternative was either cities platinum series or the abomination sim city became and neither of those was any good. At least now you have something more modern than sim city 4 to fall back on if CS2 disappoints.
Games like this are also pretty palatable at low framerates imo, certainly much better than an fps or something. If the gameplay is solid I'll definitely pick it up. I like to have it as a second monitor game.
The problem is, this sets a precedence in the gaming industry (and in the consumer's minds too) that it's fine to consume 16 GB of RAM, not on a late game megacity but on a new save.
Its not good for the general aura surrounding the release. I don't follow the game actively but all I hear is negativity.