• Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think I’m pretty confident in saying most people aren’t interested in sub 60 FPS, especially if it’s at 1080p and looking the way it does (which is mostly flat and unimpressive)

    That’s the most shocking part, the high-end hardware needed to brute force a 1080p game at acceptable framerates

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh, I’m fine with it in this style of game. A shooter I will not. BG3 I accepted running around 30 and didn’t even feel it. It’s not a twitchy game. It’s a top down city builder. As long as it’s responsive, it doesn’t really need to run at 60. It’s probably the ideal game to target 30.

      • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        BG3 runs at stable 1440p100fps+ for me on a 4070Ti without DLSS. I only enabled DLSS Quality and then capped framerate at 90fps because I didn’t really feel like the power consumption was worth it.

        I’m almost in Act 3, and so far it’s been unproblematic… This game is on a totally different level.

        Edit: every setting maxed out in BG3

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Act 3 performs worse. Anyway, everyone has a different system. My point is different games have different acceptable framerates first person games need to be at least 60, most top down games can be lower and you won’t even really notice.

    • QueriesQueried@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      most people aren’t interested in sub 60 FPS, especially if it’s at 1080p

      Hate to say it but this is a city building sim. Above 60fps would be amazing, but Cities Skylines 1 was already known for being… not great for frame pacing or frame rates.

      Obviously more is better, but you can look at any similar game and get fairly understanding “oh only 37 FPS in CS1/CIV6/Rise of Industry/Urbek City Builder/Satisfactory/Dyson Sphere Program, that’s pretty solid.” The only (similar-ish) game I can think of that actually has never had bad performance is “Per Aspera”, but every single other one mentioned, I have had performance “desires/issues.” I could also throw rimworld and dwarf fortress in there but those are different enough to be questionably relevant, but those too have performance problems at different points in time.

      That being said, it does not sound like the Devs intentionally hid this info, the content creators did mention early on there were performance issues and that Paradox was aiming to have them resolved. If there was any intentional hiding, it would be probably from Paradox as the publisher, but they seem to be relatively open this time around in regards to information.

      TLDR: Low fps in genre ain’t that surprising, most are used to it. Obviously more is better, but they seem to be at least intent on addressing it, unlike some other devs.

    • hiddengoat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      By “people” you mean “the kind of wankers that fellate Gamers Nexus.”

      Cities:Skylines has always had a frame rate that takes the strugglebus to work.