5 ms·

> If people can't play it at 4k out of the box on their overpriced 4090 then they take straight to the internet to complain (and mind you they have tried fiddli

> If people can't play it at 4k out of the box on their overpriced 4090 then they take straight to the internet to complain (and mind you they have tried fiddling with exactly 0 knobs to make it runnable). The top comment contains this extract from an IGN review: > I have a 13900k, 64GB of RAM, and a RTX 4090, playing on a 1440p ultrawide monitor. I got 35fps at the main menu and in game on a brand new map w/o building a single thing. Turning off motion blur and depth field increased this from 35 to 50fps. Not a single other graphics setting changed the performance at all. I turned off every single setting I could or set it to the lowest possible, and still only got 50fps.

ptasci67 3y ago
Yes, I was addressing the broader discourse more generally, specifically Reddit. But you're right that the article did directly address this though I would say the tone and title of the article are incongruous with the simple fact that they were able to get the game to run well with minor tweaks. I take issue with "only got 50fps". This is not Counter Strike or a game that demands 300fps. 50fps (if your 1% lows are within reason) is completely playable.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  It's not about the number by itself, it's what the number implies. If an RTX 4090 can't get to 60 FPS on an empty map, what will happen when the game is running on an RTX 4060 and it has to render a complete city? >I take issue with "only got 50fps". This is not Counter Strike or a game that demands 300fps. 50fps (if your 1% lows are within reason) is completely playable. You're complaining about people complaining. If you're satisfied with the game being playable then play it, but others may have different expectations of quality, and it's not wrong for them to voice their opinion when the product they paid money for doesn't meet them. I personally don't remember participating in a congress of gamers where everyone agreed not to complain about a game unless it was practically unplayable.
  - Kuxe 3y ago
    >If you're satisfied with the game being playable then play it, but others may have different expectations of quality, and it's not wrong for them to voice their opinion when the product they paid money for doesn't meet them. I'm all for voicing opinions in a civic and calm manner. Most people online voicing their opinions come off as know-it-all teens or children throwing tantrums. It's as-if they have a _right_ to a CS2 with 120fps. Paradox warned about bad performance prior to launch (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/updates-on-modding-and-performance-for-cities-skylines-ii.1601865/ https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/updates-on-modd...). Nobody claimed or said performance was gonna be great. And still, people act surprised. It's no surprise that the reviews was down at close to 30% a couple of hours into the release and today at 52%. Why is there such a massive bias towards large reviews at the first hours? Because many gamers loves thrashing about. It's much more important than taking a step down and calming down.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      The people who reviewed the game in the first few days were the ones who either pre-ordered it or bought it as soon as it came out. They were so excited to play the new installment they took a gamble and trusted that the developer would produce a polished product, because they wanted to be able to play it as soon as possible. When they got to play the game, they saw it ran poorly to the point that it might have spoiled the experience for them. They're right to be angry about it, especially when developers and publishers make most of their money during the first few weeks since launch. By releasing a half-finished product they're treating their most enthusiastic users like crap. They didn't have to do that, they could have delayed the launch. Be it because of decisions made by the publisher or by the developer, they chose to release when they did. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. I don't blame anyone who raves about performance, because what was released was well outside the realm of what's acceptable for a finished product, regardless of what said prior to launch. You don't get to sell a car with an asterisk that says "by the way, the fuel tank leaks so until we find a way to fix it you'll use twice as much fuel as normal".
      - 3y ago
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  Even 30 FPS is perfectly playable in any game. People have truly gone off the deep end with this FPS shit. Back in the day, most (all?) console games ran at 30 FPS, and we somehow managed to play them and have fun. I would love to see the people complaining about "only" 50 FPS try to wrap their brains around that one.
  - jadamson 3y ago
    People's standards increase as technology progresses. I'd expect a modern Mario game to have more polygons than SM64, too. Besides which, if your program is somehow spinning at 30fps in a menu, I don't want your code running on my system.
  - theshackleford 3y ago
    > Even 30 FPS is perfectly playable in any game In your opinion only, not one to be shared by all. > Back in the day, most (all?) console games ran at 30 FPS No they didn’t. > I would love to see the people complaining about "only" 50 FPS try to wrap their brains around that one. Well it helps that first of all, you’re wrong. Secondly, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference with CRT motion quality meaning it’s not at all comparable to frame rates on LCD/OLED today.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >No they didn’t. most/all 3d games did for gen 5 and 6, and most of 7 before engines can utilize that hardware. Ocarina of time ran at 15 fps IIRC. Crash Bandicoot ran at 30fps. Final Fantasy 7 fell back down to 15fps. Once we got to the PS2 era stuff started being 30fps, with the truly exceptionally optimized games hitting 60. Final Fantasy X would get bumped to 30fps and Jak and Daxter: the precursor legacy would be 60fps but often have some spikes down to 30fps. From what I can find, The original Halo also targeted 30fps. >Well it helps that first of all, you’re wrong but you just said it was their opinion not shared by all. This is why people don't take the gaming community discourse seriously.
      - theshackleford 3y ago

ptasci67 3y ago

Yes, I was addressing the broader discourse more generally, specifically Reddit. But you're right that the article did directly address this though I would say the tone and title of the article are incongruous with the simple fact that they were able to get the game to run well with minor tweaks. I take issue with "only got 50fps". This is not Counter Strike or a game that demands 300fps. 50fps (if your 1% lows are within reason) is completely playable.

fluoridation 3y ago
It's not about the number by itself, it's what the number implies. If an RTX 4090 can't get to 60 FPS on an empty map, what will happen when the game is running on an RTX 4060 and it has to render a complete city? >I take issue with "only got 50fps". This is not Counter Strike or a game that demands 300fps. 50fps (if your 1% lows are within reason) is completely playable. You're complaining about people complaining. If you're satisfied with the game being playable then play it, but others may have different expectations of quality, and it's not wrong for them to voice their opinion when the product they paid money for doesn't meet them. I personally don't remember participating in a congress of gamers where everyone agreed not to complain about a game unless it was practically unplayable.
- Kuxe 3y ago
  >If you're satisfied with the game being playable then play it, but others may have different expectations of quality, and it's not wrong for them to voice their opinion when the product they paid money for doesn't meet them. I'm all for voicing opinions in a civic and calm manner. Most people online voicing their opinions come off as know-it-all teens or children throwing tantrums. It's as-if they have a _right_ to a CS2 with 120fps. Paradox warned about bad performance prior to launch (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/updates-on-modding-and-performance-for-cities-skylines-ii.1601865/ https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/updates-on-modd...). Nobody claimed or said performance was gonna be great. And still, people act surprised. It's no surprise that the reviews was down at close to 30% a couple of hours into the release and today at 52%. Why is there such a massive bias towards large reviews at the first hours? Because many gamers loves thrashing about. It's much more important than taking a step down and calming down.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    The people who reviewed the game in the first few days were the ones who either pre-ordered it or bought it as soon as it came out. They were so excited to play the new installment they took a gamble and trusted that the developer would produce a polished product, because they wanted to be able to play it as soon as possible. When they got to play the game, they saw it ran poorly to the point that it might have spoiled the experience for them. They're right to be angry about it, especially when developers and publishers make most of their money during the first few weeks since launch. By releasing a half-finished product they're treating their most enthusiastic users like crap. They didn't have to do that, they could have delayed the launch. Be it because of decisions made by the publisher or by the developer, they chose to release when they did. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. I don't blame anyone who raves about performance, because what was released was well outside the realm of what's acceptable for a finished product, regardless of what said prior to launch. You don't get to sell a car with an asterisk that says "by the way, the fuel tank leaks so until we find a way to fix it you'll use twice as much fuel as normal".
    - 3y ago
bigstrat2003 3y ago
Even 30 FPS is perfectly playable in any game. People have truly gone off the deep end with this FPS shit. Back in the day, most (all?) console games ran at 30 FPS, and we somehow managed to play them and have fun. I would love to see the people complaining about "only" 50 FPS try to wrap their brains around that one.
- jadamson 3y ago
  People's standards increase as technology progresses. I'd expect a modern Mario game to have more polygons than SM64, too. Besides which, if your program is somehow spinning at 30fps in a menu, I don't want your code running on my system.
- theshackleford 3y ago
  > Even 30 FPS is perfectly playable in any game In your opinion only, not one to be shared by all. > Back in the day, most (all?) console games ran at 30 FPS No they didn’t. > I would love to see the people complaining about "only" 50 FPS try to wrap their brains around that one. Well it helps that first of all, you’re wrong. Secondly, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference with CRT motion quality meaning it’s not at all comparable to frame rates on LCD/OLED today.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >No they didn’t. most/all 3d games did for gen 5 and 6, and most of 7 before engines can utilize that hardware. Ocarina of time ran at 15 fps IIRC. Crash Bandicoot ran at 30fps. Final Fantasy 7 fell back down to 15fps. Once we got to the PS2 era stuff started being 30fps, with the truly exceptionally optimized games hitting 60. Final Fantasy X would get bumped to 30fps and Jak and Daxter: the precursor legacy would be 60fps but often have some spikes down to 30fps. From what I can find, The original Halo also targeted 30fps. >Well it helps that first of all, you’re wrong but you just said it was their opinion not shared by all. This is why people don't take the gaming community discourse seriously.
    - theshackleford 3y ago