this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
229 points (94.2% liked)
Games
32986 readers
1073 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hm. So it scales with VRAM and GPU, not CPU? Interesting.
That's less concerning than people had made it out to be, at least for a game of this genre. It still doesn't sound particularly pleasant to play, but hey, less of a dealbreaker.
Precisely. Not to sound too much like a shill because full disclosure I bought and I'm very excited for C:S2, but I find some of the concern is overblown. Yes the performance is a MAJOR problem, but the game is feature complete and optimization is ongoing, with significant improvements to arrive by console release.
Yeah, it seems weird because you'd think all the simulation load would be in the background and they could scale the visuals. Since it seems like there's a high base cost for them I assume it's possible to make that run at least a bit better at some point.
The console release target is a bit of a question mark, though. You'd think they have just weaker GPUs and they'll need to optimize to fit, but they can also target lower resolutions and do other stuff there. Plus if there's an I/O issue in there, there's a reliable spec for SSDs on those, so who knows.
Alright, so I got the game and it a) actually has a fantastic options menu with a ton of granularity, and b) it has some really dumb, wasteful settings flagged as "high" with no "ultra" preset.
I went from launching into a default in the 30s for the default map to toning down their nuts global illumination, volumetric clouds and transparent reflections for a neat 100+ fps. And then I cranked it back up a bit to be hovering around 90. I'm sure I'll have to tweak more when I get deeper into the game, but yeah, no, this is gonna be playable.
For the record, I think setting up decent defaults and settings should be a thing in PC games. Tuning the game shouldn't be the first thing you have to do. But whether it's thanks to last minute patches or people overreacting to the announcements I think this was a bit overblown. I'll report back if that proves not to be the case as I get deeper in.
My god man two hours have passed, did it drop off yet?
Hah. It did lose some fps as the city grew. By the time I expanded to a bunch of tiles I was hovering at 50-60 instead of 70-90, but I'm on a VRR display, so I never felt the need to crank it down further. It may get there eventually, but I'm done for the day
The defaults for high are absolutely messed up, and it's entirely possible that some of the settings are straight up bugged. The game doesn't look that much better than CS1 on reasonable settings... but it also doesn't run that much worse, either.
Honestly, I have bigger gripes with some of the interface and with how much micromanagement there is in here. I think the tech issues are both overblown and could have been mitigated with better defaults.
EDIT: In case someone has use for it, what I did was mostly turn off volumetric clouds, turn off Vsync, turn off transparent reflections and drop the settings for Global Illumination and other screen-space effects to not be full res.
Oh, and also, they seem to think SMAA looks better than TAA here. It doesn't. You definitely want to manually change that to TAA and disable DRS, which defaults to extremely gross FSR 1.0. The way this is technically put together by default is super weird.
I just bought the game and see their post from today, which matches up with what you're saying. I have high hopes.
Yeah, I saw that they acknowledged the broken settings and provided a slightly confusing explanation about the technical reasons for it.
I genuinely think they should have locked those settings to a lower default until they can patch them. I get what they're trying to do by being transparent, but... yeah, I don't think it worked out for them or the people interested in the game.
I've been playing a bunch, I now have a large city going on and it's still very playable, at the cost of worse lighting and slow-loading textures in close-ups. Honestly, at this point I'm more annoyed by some UI and sim quirks than the performance, but here's hoping they keep improving all of the above.
Also, compared to any other city builder, there really is no competition. Even if the launch was truly botched, the game was unplayable, nobody got about 12 fps, there's not another full feature city builder. Not since SimCity blew it's brains out.
Straight up SimCity-likes, I suppose not, but there certainly are lots of games aiming to scratch some of that itch.
Honestly, CS2 is mostly competing with CS1. Or with my endless instinct to go back and play more SimCity 4 again.
People just think that all new games should be able to run at 60fps on ultra settings on 4 year old hardware or it isn't "optimized". If it runs fine, I'm happy ,even if it needs to be on "high" settings until hardware catches up a bit.
Yeah. In fairness, it IS disappointing to have to target 1080p or 1440p at 30 fps these days on PC... but it's definitely not a dealbreaker for a sim game like this. Seeing early benchmarks and performance I'd say it went from wait and see to "temper expectations and be ready to target 30".