It's unclear exactly what the developer's standards threshold might be, given the mess that was deemed acceptable enough to release in the first place.
This should be the top comment. Anyone even considering the game at this point should really avoid it out of principle. The only way things like this will stop happening will be when people STOP BUYING SHIT-PERFORMING GAMES!
So they didn’t get sued / punished by Paradox, their publisher.
There was probably a contact that said “CS2 will release by XX.” If they didn’t hit that target date, there could have been financial penalties.
Obviously it sucks for the consumer, but hitting that target of release and then working to improve the game was probably Colossal Order’s only option.
First week Performance was unplayable. 2nd week its fine and I've forgotten about the bad performance and I've been enjoying the hell out of the game. It's so good and I'm excited for future dlc, assets and mods.
It kinda sucks honestly, because I think if they literally got one or two more weeks, and disabled the offending settings such as depth of field, they would have received far less flak. I feel like a good 70% of the complaints are due to bad defaults.
Like, sure, they probably still would have gotten some justified criticism for it, but I don't really think the game deserved as harsh criticism as it got, or at least, the problems are all very surface level, and underneath what is there actually works well.
Anyone interested will buy it eventually. It doesn't matter if the release is shit they'll buy it eventually and CO will make money from dlc sales. Based on what I've played so far I can tell this game is going to be amazing in a few years.
I personally went from having to have everything on low or turned off to literally cranking everything all the way up and it’s still playable. Mind you, I’m running an eight year old quad-core Xeon, 64Gb of 2400mhz ECC DDR4, and a 2080ti. Game’s installed on a SATA SSD that isn’t exactly new.
And yes, I’m aware that’s an odd mishmash of parts. Most of it came from an old server my last job was throwing away.
I've been having playable framerates but they're not improving. On a 10k city I get about 45fps average but I frequently experience frame drops which definitely make it less enjoyable to play the game. My specs are Ryzen 9 5900HX, RX6800M, 32GB RAM
I'm not sure what framerate I'm getting but it's good enough for me and I do get some drops. I'm on a 50k pop city with a 2070 and a ryzen 5600x and 32gb ram.
They've said there is a lot of room for optimization but I don't expect to much because cs1 ran like shit for what it was.
Well that's good. It's a great game. I've been spared of some of the technical problems, so I'm good - but there are still some bugs lurking around. Could have used couple of more months of polishing before release.
Malibu Stacy can't stand up, her face is mush and the arms aren't attached, but this time she has a new hat!
Of course you don't sell add-ons to a broken toy? Weird that you were even selling it in their first place. I wish companies wouldnt stick so hard to release dates
I think the risk they ran is ending up like Cyberpunk, where they don't delay long enough to make a difference. What was it...a week or something that they first delayed the launch, and only within a day of the release? To be clear, I agree they should have delayed, but longer, and the delay should have been announced earlier. If they said it were now slated for a Q2 2024 release, and said so back in late September, it might have been a good move. But nope.
Team Reptile didn't have a release date for Bomb Rush Cyberfunk until they knew when they wanted to release it. No one knew when it would come out until the release date trailer, about a month before it actually released.
There are not just bugs. The game is also baby easy. All the fallback mechanism made it so you basically can't fail, the game throws money at you. The whole economy is balanced around fallbacks instead of really balancing, because you can't balance what isn't working to begin with.
Played it yesterday for a while and I agree. It ran pretty smooth on my RTX 3060 without noticable issues, but it was very easy. I built a starter city fulfilling basic demands, and I ended up with more money than I started with. At that time I was usually into my second credit on the old game, scraping along.
I personally don't understand the problems people have with performance. I'm used to playing Cities 1 at 15 fps with 200k-700k cities.
Cities 2 is a game with modern quality graphic settings, not a 2015 game. What do y'all expect? It's not a twitchy FPS game. My Cities 2 city is only at 100k now though, with a 3060 btw.
What, how? Are you just leaving the settings at default and giving up? They basically have said what is broken. If you turn those settings off it works alright.
What I'm noticing is that the first game had 2015 graphics and on a medium to large city runs at cinematic framerates (20-30fps). On Cities 2 the graphics are a mishmash of 2010 and 2025 graphics that run somewhat poorly, but also stutter a lot. On my 10k city I'm getting 45fps average with low-medium settings with the recommended changes to improve performance, but large lag spikes are frequent.
Arizona State Univeristy self-imposed a ban from going to a bowl game this year in college football to address their recruiting violations...they're 2-7 on the season...same vibe.