3 ms·

My personal opinion: yes. As 160+Hz monitors are finally becoming commonplace, it's becoming less defensible for games to run anywhere below 60fps. But it's th

My personal opinion: yes. As 160+Hz monitors are finally becoming commonplace, it's becoming less defensible for games to run anywhere below 60fps. But it's the fact that these figures are being seen with the most powerful consumer graphics card (on a brand new unpopulated game map) that's the problem.

legitster 3y ago
City Skylines 1 has been played and supported non-stop for over 8 years. Why should they limit the highest possible graphics settings only to existing technology? Again, this is a simulation game. If I ask the game to spit out more detail and graphics than can be physically supported by today's technology, I guess I don't necessarily see this as a design fault.
- kaibee 3y ago
  If it were doing a ton of compute-shader simulation on GPU to actually increase the fidelity of the simulation that would be one thing, but having a badly implemented graphics pipeline isn't that.
- iforgotpassword 3y ago
  Somewhat yes, I didn't try it yet, but a few things don't add up then: Why enable those heavy, performance crippling post processing filters by default? From what I can find in this comment section, and I guess this has to be taken with a grain of salt, performance doesn't scale. It seems we max out at 50fps on a beefy 13th gen Intel with the fastest GPU available, but then there's a couple comments with mid-range hardware where performance is nearly identical.
  - HappyDaoDude 3y ago
    To shoot from the hip on this one. It sounds like it could be limited by a single thread. Clock rates between mid and high end CPU's are significantly different but core count is. Thus if a single thread is holding up the works, that would explain the stagnant performance profile despite potential overall performance.
- danudey 3y ago
  > If I ask the game to spit out more detail and graphics than can be physically supported by today's technology, I guess I don't necessarily see this as a design fault. To be clear: I had to turn the quality down to much worse than I recall Cities Skylines 1 looking in order to get worse performance than Cities Skylines 1. The major complaint here is not "I cannot max the settings on my mediocre hardware", but rather "I cannot mediocre the settings on my max hardware"; the performance is bad at any level, but my hardware, while not top-of-the-line, should be able to run a game like this at 4K playable, or at 1080p while looking awesome and running great. Instead, I get 1080p with a mix of medium/low settings in order to get it looking pretty okay in most aspects.
- cmovq 3y ago
  > Why should they limit the highest possible graphics settings only to existing technology? This assumes Cities Skylines 2 is using some next gen graphics technology when in practice it is a Unity game without any cutting edge graphics. Another comment mentioned they are doing 10k+ draw calls per frame - it's just poorly optimized.
  - chemmail 3y ago
    Sticking with Unity probably killed them. They might as well have deved another engine.
    - Vetch 3y ago
      How does developing another engine help at all? It is very likely its graphics are so under-optimized because they spent most of their time on the simulation aspect, which is more than challenging enough. Dyson Sphere Program is a game with lots of stuff going on at a time, the engine isn't the issue. Cities Skylines 2 is just a very complex game. As a city builder it has not just dynamic geometry (which makes graphics optimization more challenging) and lots going on on screen like DSP, but also a complex agent based simulation of a city, its transportation, its economy, and individual agent AIs. It is far more complex than most games despite not being graphically intensive. And do note that as far as cities builders go, it's also one of the most ambitious graphically. My personal opinion is they deserve some slack as long as the game continues to improve.
- serf 3y ago
  this is a trope that is spit out by the developers of every poorly optimized sim in recorded history. Yes, scalability towards the future is good -- but not at the detriment of player performance now. If the player base doesn't stick around during our current dark-times medieval technology stack, there won't be a player base when we have whatever future tech makes it playable -- see the problem?
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>As 160+Hz monitors are finally becoming commonplace, it's becoming less defensible for games to run anywhere below 60fps. You're forgetting the increasing popularity of the Steam Deck where even 60 FPS is a luxury so game devs should definitely have that as a target.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  CS2 devs reportedly had 30 FPS as a target. Which is actually fine for that kind of game, but it sounds like that is NOT for low-end hardware ?
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    For CPU heavy games it totally makes sense to target 30fps, but that better be 30fps at 1080p with integrated graphics, (or 30fps 1440p with 1060 class gpu). Add eye candy if you want, but it really should run well on any remotely modern system.
giobox 3y ago
> As 160+Hz monitors are finally becoming commonplace The Steam hardware survey suggests otherwise to my eyes; it's often easy to forget working in tech that a lot of Steam customers have relatively shit hardware: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw... While they don't track monitor peak supported refresh, just looking at the rest of the results suggests to me high-refresh gaming (over 60FPS) is going to be relatively niche at best. Lots of PC gaming specs I take for-granted on my own builds or consider "average" are actually not that common. I absolutely agree 60fps should be considered the floor for most modern PC games running on "reasonable" hardware though, 30fps belongs to the past.
- Iulioh 3y ago
  Off topic but 42% of VR headsets are Quest 2 Woahhh
  - xnyan 3y ago
    It’s the cheapest headset that also offers a reasonable experience. For around $250 you get a well designed device that includes controllers and does not require a separate computer to use. It’s a very good value, and if you’re unsure about VR probably the best place to dip your toe in the water.
- aeyes 3y ago
  Most Steam customers play games like Counter Strike, Dota, Team Fortress, PUBG, GTA, Call of Duty which have modest hardware requirements. I wouldn't read too much into these stats.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    I don't think that's true. Most people who play PC games are Steam users, and they're playing a huge variety of games: pretty much any game that's not exclusive to some other store.

legitster 3y ago

City Skylines 1 has been played and supported non-stop for over 8 years. Why should they limit the highest possible graphics settings only to existing technology? Again, this is a simulation game. If I ask the game to spit out more detail and graphics than can be physically supported by today's technology, I guess I don't necessarily see this as a design fault.

kaibee 3y ago
If it were doing a ton of compute-shader simulation on GPU to actually increase the fidelity of the simulation that would be one thing, but having a badly implemented graphics pipeline isn't that.
iforgotpassword 3y ago
Somewhat yes, I didn't try it yet, but a few things don't add up then: Why enable those heavy, performance crippling post processing filters by default? From what I can find in this comment section, and I guess this has to be taken with a grain of salt, performance doesn't scale. It seems we max out at 50fps on a beefy 13th gen Intel with the fastest GPU available, but then there's a couple comments with mid-range hardware where performance is nearly identical.
- HappyDaoDude 3y ago
  To shoot from the hip on this one. It sounds like it could be limited by a single thread. Clock rates between mid and high end CPU's are significantly different but core count is. Thus if a single thread is holding up the works, that would explain the stagnant performance profile despite potential overall performance.
danudey 3y ago
> If I ask the game to spit out more detail and graphics than can be physically supported by today's technology, I guess I don't necessarily see this as a design fault. To be clear: I had to turn the quality down to much worse than I recall Cities Skylines 1 looking in order to get worse performance than Cities Skylines 1. The major complaint here is not "I cannot max the settings on my mediocre hardware", but rather "I cannot mediocre the settings on my max hardware"; the performance is bad at any level, but my hardware, while not top-of-the-line, should be able to run a game like this at 4K playable, or at 1080p while looking awesome and running great. Instead, I get 1080p with a mix of medium/low settings in order to get it looking pretty okay in most aspects.
cmovq 3y ago
> Why should they limit the highest possible graphics settings only to existing technology? This assumes Cities Skylines 2 is using some next gen graphics technology when in practice it is a Unity game without any cutting edge graphics. Another comment mentioned they are doing 10k+ draw calls per frame - it's just poorly optimized.
- chemmail 3y ago
  Sticking with Unity probably killed them. They might as well have deved another engine.
  - Vetch 3y ago
    How does developing another engine help at all? It is very likely its graphics are so under-optimized because they spent most of their time on the simulation aspect, which is more than challenging enough. Dyson Sphere Program is a game with lots of stuff going on at a time, the engine isn't the issue. Cities Skylines 2 is just a very complex game. As a city builder it has not just dynamic geometry (which makes graphics optimization more challenging) and lots going on on screen like DSP, but also a complex agent based simulation of a city, its transportation, its economy, and individual agent AIs. It is far more complex than most games despite not being graphically intensive. And do note that as far as cities builders go, it's also one of the most ambitious graphically. My personal opinion is they deserve some slack as long as the game continues to improve.
serf 3y ago
this is a trope that is spit out by the developers of every poorly optimized sim in recorded history. Yes, scalability towards the future is good -- but not at the detriment of player performance now. If the player base doesn't stick around during our current dark-times medieval technology stack, there won't be a player base when we have whatever future tech makes it playable -- see the problem?

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>As 160+Hz monitors are finally becoming commonplace, it's becoming less defensible for games to run anywhere below 60fps. You're forgetting the increasing popularity of the Steam Deck where even 60 FPS is a luxury so game devs should definitely have that as a target.

BlueTemplar 3y ago
CS2 devs reportedly had 30 FPS as a target. Which is actually fine for that kind of game, but it sounds like that is NOT for low-end hardware ?
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  For CPU heavy games it totally makes sense to target 30fps, but that better be 30fps at 1080p with integrated graphics, (or 30fps 1440p with 1060 class gpu). Add eye candy if you want, but it really should run well on any remotely modern system.

giobox 3y ago

> As 160+Hz monitors are finally becoming commonplace The Steam hardware survey suggests otherwise to my eyes; it's often easy to forget working in tech that a lot of Steam customers have relatively shit hardware: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw... While they don't track monitor peak supported refresh, just looking at the rest of the results suggests to me high-refresh gaming (over 60FPS) is going to be relatively niche at best. Lots of PC gaming specs I take for-granted on my own builds or consider "average" are actually not that common. I absolutely agree 60fps should be considered the floor for most modern PC games running on "reasonable" hardware though, 30fps belongs to the past.

Iulioh 3y ago
Off topic but 42% of VR headsets are Quest 2 Woahhh
- xnyan 3y ago
  It’s the cheapest headset that also offers a reasonable experience. For around $250 you get a well designed device that includes controllers and does not require a separate computer to use. It’s a very good value, and if you’re unsure about VR probably the best place to dip your toe in the water.
aeyes 3y ago
Most Steam customers play games like Counter Strike, Dota, Team Fortress, PUBG, GTA, Call of Duty which have modest hardware requirements. I wouldn't read too much into these stats.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I don't think that's true. Most people who play PC games are Steam users, and they're playing a huge variety of games: pretty much any game that's not exclusive to some other store.