God I hate this meme format
Yeah, it's so annoying and masturbatory. "Everyone who criticizes my treat is just shrieking at me for liking it". I don't like people fixating on tech aspects (at least for indies and small publisher games, AAA can get fucked), but they do not, in my experience, shriek at me for liking things that run poorly.
Lol did you not see Starfield or Cities Skylines 2 comments? It's hate circle jerks
Are you saying you want the OP to QUIT HAVING FUN?
Yes
Normalize unfinished / unoptimized games!
I love poor development practices because I personally don't mind!
This meme needs to die already. You can simultaneously enjoy a new experience while others rightly have criticisms of it. Often the Venn diagram is a circle.
?? This meme literally says you can criticize it all you want and it doesn't matter. You proved this meme more right by hating it
No, this meme is saying that there's two groups of gamers that have opposing views, and the critics are fools for expecting a quality product.
In reality, the group that are playing and enjoying the game are really the only people posting criticisms, because they genuinely like the game.
To give recent examples, people memed on the Lord of the Rings Gollum game, but nobody was seriously demanding better from the development studio, because nobody actually gave a shit. Conversely, people post criticisms of Cities Skylines II and Starfield because they like the games and wish they could be better.
Unless it's VR, then you're definitely not having fun at 30fps.
Unless your idea of fun is motion sickness.
This is very much not my experience
You must be a Quest 1 standalone VRChat user
~In a modern title designed to be played at 60+, definitely. I've been having a blast in dark souls 1 and GTA:SA recently, both of which are capped at 30. Older games are made to work at that FPS, and it takes remarkably little time to adjust and have it feel normal. If I tried to play armored core at 30fps, on the other hand, I think I'd rip my teeth out in frustration.~
Edit: misinterpreted the comment above as "unless it's VR (i.e., in all cases except VR), you are not having fun" rather than "unless it's VR, in which case you are not having fun."
Dude above did specify in VR though, and I agree. Forget playing anything in VR below 60.
Fascinating! It never would have occurred to me that the sentence was worded ambiguously until you pointed it out, but your interpretation is 100% valid. English is a strange language.
I misunderstood too, so you aren't alone there.
Ah jesus this game is shit ain't it. I have never seen this meme being used for a game that isn't dull as dishwater.
Fuck I was actually looking forward to this one.
on the bright side, once it's in a playable state after a few patches it will probably be on sale!
I've been having fun. I feel like the performance criticism is significantly overblown.
Performance could be better, but we're talking motion blur and smoothing frame rates when swapping texture pallets.
Performance issues aren't my concern, as from what I've seen it's just a couple options causing the problems.
But anytime I've seen this meme being used. I always get the impression the game isn't fun, because why would you think people are out to ruin your fun unless you're not actually having fun.
The mailbag showdown episode of zero punctuation talks about this better than what I could.
It's performance, especially on top of the line hardware (13900k + 4090) is dogshit yeah? Just so we're under no illusions about the state this game was released in.
The icing on the cake is colossal orders gaslighting saying that there's no practical benefit to having anything above 30 FPS, as if there's not a tangible benefit to playing games at a smooth 60FPS compared to a sloppy 30 FPS
If I had to choose, I'd take a solid 30 FPS over a constantly stuttering 60 FPS any day, because stuttery frames can completely ruin your immersion.
Uhm, disagree. With my FPS counter on I get to see which games actually hit my 240hz refresh rate on my mid range card. It's like a game within a game.
Yo dawg I heard you like games so we put a game in your game so you can play while you play.
Any first person game at 30fps will give me motion sickness sadly
Strategy games don't give me any issues though. Which is good because half of them have their campaign speed locked at 30fps with all game logic and map scripts tied to it
Permanently Deleted
I wish every reasonably popular old game would get a remaster that only decouples frame rate from game logic. That's all I need for the old C&C games.
NSFW Rivals is the greatest typo ever btw.
I play on a 720p projector and I'm really happy.
Thats the way
One of my TVs is 720p and I'm keeping it until it dies.
Imo projectors look fine on lower resolutions. It's like CRT, the technology hides the lower detail a lot better than LCD.
Game was worth picking up for a dollar on a 14 day Xbox PC game pass trial membership. I got to see first hand how dogshit the performance is! Look at these great numbers (medium settings, no DOF, no volumetrics, 1440p, no vsync)
Look at it absolutely obliterate my 4090 and push my 13900k to the limit. Love to see games released in this state..
You should double check your settings, you may have "Adaptive Resolution" turned on (since it is on by default), but it actually makes performance worse while making everything nice and vaseline-y. Also maybe change the AA, if you hit the advanced settings you can enable TAA which had better overall performance than the others for me.
Edit: oh and I get just barely below you for performance, on a 3800x (OC) and a 3070 (Undervolt OC). Somewhere around 40fps avg, peaks of 60-70. 1% lows bad, but that's a specific known issue that they're working on.
Nice mangohud config.
I must admit, when I got my 144hz monitor I was excited, coming from a 60hz monitor. But even if a game runs at 144 fps I don't see much of a difference, many people do, but I don't. It's a bit smoother, but not much.
But if a game runs at 30 fps it's horrible. The Crew, for example, can be switched to 30 or 60 fps, that's night and day!
Yeah, 144hz makes a significant difference for competitive FPS games (especially fast paced ones like Overwatch), but I hardly notice a difference when playing single player or PvE oriented games.
Hell, on some games (e.g. Borderlands 3 and CP2077) I actually prefer to play on my 60hz monitor since a smooth 60hz is much more enjoyable IMO than an inconsistent 100-144hz experience. My computer is admittedly pretty old though.
144hz in overwatch feels like putting glasses on for the first time, my brain can actually track movement properly
Most other games I barely notice the difference though
You can cap the fps in software, no need to switch monitors.
Also personally I always notice the difference, even when scrolling webpages
Going back to 60, I notice an extreme difference.
Yeah, the difference is very noticable once you get used to the higher frame rate.
Yes, many do. I'm just one of the unlucky ones. But at least I can see the difference between 1080p and 4k. It's the little things in life...
Just to make sure since it does happen a lot, you did change your monitor refresh rate in your OS right? Windows for some reason really likes to not default to higher than 60hz. You'd also probaly want to enable variable refresh rate in your GPU settings if available. And if you do have VRR, some games are weird and have a specific Vsync option for it, others you can just use VRR on normal Vsync just fine.
Two things are important here:
- The faster something on screen moves, the higher your framerate needs to be for a certain level of motion blur.
A 2D point and click adventure at 30fps could have comparable motion blur to a competitive shooter at 180, for example
- Framerate is inversly proportial to frametimes, which is what makes it harder to notice a difference the higher you go.
From 30 to 60? That's an improvement of 16.67ms. 60 to 120 makes 8.33ms, 120 to 240 only improves by 4.17ms, and so on
Ah, something I want to add:
That's only explaining the visual aspect, but frametimes are also directly tied to latency.Some people might notice the visual difference less than the latency benefit. That's the one topic where opinions on frame generation seem to clash the most, since the interpolated frames provide smoother motion on screen, but don't change the latency.
It's super dependent on the game. Baldur's Gate 3? 30 fps is more than enough. League of Legends? Yeah, I'll take those 144hz, tho to be honest I don't notice a big difference compared to 60 fps.
Everone can play what they want but 30 fps is unbearable in most -not all- games
Maybe I'm just not very observant but I can barely tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. I only start to notice below 25.
Everyone's perception is different. I can do 60 fps. I prefer 90 fps minimum and 120 fps target. I see no benefit at 144 or higher. Anything below 60 fps and I just get frustrated. That's my perception.
30 fps though is something we should move away from. Given how far we've come in with all kinds of hardware and software features.
Wild. 60 looks terrible to me. I can't really tell the difference above 120fps though.
In my day 30fps in Unreal Tournament was considered reasonable.
Kids these days....
I played RuneScape 3 for years at 18 fps on max settings on my shitter computer and I honestly couldn't tell at all and had fun the whole time.
I remember playing OSRS and Team Fortress 2 on my shitter PC with like 10-20fps.
It was fine back then, considering my brain hadn't yet normalized 60+, but nowadays I struggle with anything under 50fps. I guess I played too many fast-paced games since then because Switch games that fluctuate between 25-30fps really turn me off from playing.
I've played plenty of minecraft at 15-20 fps and had an awesome time.
Unbearable is wholly subjective.
Can agree. I can play 30fps without complaints because most of my life I was playing on low-end PCs
Let's put it this way:
Everyone has different standards in terms of motion blur they can bear, and you need a certain framerate to achieve that standard at any given speed of motion on screen.
It's not just about how smooth the game looks, but also how smooth it feels to control. 30 fps is way too sluggish for me. Granted, most people would probably reach a point of diminishing return somewhere after 60 fps, unless you're someone with the reflexes and hardware (high polling rate mouse, good frame timing on your monitor, low system lag, etc.) to back it up. I'm quite comfy between 120 to 144 fps, but there's some absolute monsters out there who would probably find that too slow.
If it's not a very fast moving game, like a turn based RPG, then it doesn't matter that much, but at least 60 fps is still a must for me to not look like a slideshow.
We really should move away from 30 fps as a baseline for PC gaming.
Its ok, not everyone has parents like yours that gift you a Threadripper CPU + RTX 4090 Founder GPU on your 16th birthday.
To me, 30fps is unbearable in fast paced games, but okay in slow paced games. This is a slow paced game, so I'm fine as long as the fps stays above 24 with a 1% low of at least 20.
Saying they were aiming for 30 FPS was a mistake I think. When you play Skylines you want to admire the whole thing functioning especially if you have a decent PC and in 2023 30 FPS is just not acceptable. This is what you get however for making a complex simulation in Unity rather than actually making it from scratch like it should be.
That said, I am getting 30 FPS on a 100k pop map and it is playable once you get used to the occasional jerkiness of it. On my now 8k pop map I'm getting 60-90 FPS after following some guides I've seen online about tweaking some settings.
I hope they do eventually optimise this game better but from everything I've seen in other Unity games that suffer similar problems its going to be a long road to treak.
Ive seen on some other threads that skylines 2 is able to get better frames if you turn off some settings like fog and depth of field and that it's likely these two effects specifically that are borked.
The problem is when the game is visibly lagging after turning down the graphics.
And you can't remediate the issue because consoles aren't upgradable. And then the question is - why did they sell the game on console in the first place?
Didn't they delay console launch for this reason?
as an avid fan of cities skylines I'm so very disappointed.
as someone who works in software... I'm eagerly waiting for next year when I do buy the game.
the games industry is a business at the end of the day and building software is a very expensive process. I understand that executives want to see returns start to come in now rather than later and if they make some customers angry then they've weighed the risks and decided it's worth it.
Games make the overwhelming majority of the money right at the start either way, so there's that.
I don't think that has been the case for at least a full console generation, maybe more.
Look at the rise and fall of pre-order goodies to get a rough estimate of when publishers really, really wanted you to buy the game day 1 (and when it stopped mattering as much)
I stream the game on my TV from the Steam Deck with 30fps, reduced resolution, video compression and input lag.
I still enjoy it and I'm too lazy to put in an HDMI/DP cable.
Heads up for whoever might not know it, we have a community at !citiesskylines@lemmy.ml
Thanks for sharing. I usually browse the sub on the old site to kill any interest of me playing the game for hours ಥ‿ಥ
Permanently Deleted
As someone with a lower end spec desktop, I personally think that running emulated games or just normal PC titles at a much lower speed isn't an issue. Especially since I don't play FPS games.
I'm one of those people who'd be fine running a game at fluctuating 30FPS just so long as I can play it. It's how my desktop handled mc before I boycotted it for minetest and how it handles minetest when I'm not on a super flat void world due to mod strain.
cut off
