CS2 hits Mostly Negative on recent Steam Reviews

[Dushess]

because they believe the community will fix a lot of problems game has

*cough cough, developer's job.. at least right after release... *cough, but look at this now...
Yes, we know the terrible state of the product, but it IS officially released, so..

 

[Brumes Wolf]

I find quite funny that there so many people more interested in seeing a 0.1x simulation with cars crawling through streets and people moving like zombies in slow motion and simulation time going at 1 minute each 30 of real time, but at 60FPS, rather than a playable game running at the desired speed at 30FPS, which is more than enough for fluid animations I guess everyone has bought the game for a different reason.

You are splitting this into 2 issues when it shouldn't be, a simulation should run at an acceptable speed and a game should hit a minimum of 1080p 60fps on recommended hardware in a reasonable situation. There is no choice to be made here, both should be true.
1080p 60fps is the base minimum for any pc game made past 2016 (and probably way earlier) running on a recommended spec machine, anything less if a failure on the part of the developers.

Given that recommended specs on the steam page are pretty modern/high end and any PC of those specs should be paired with a >1080p monitor that is probably also capable of >60hz at least. The failure to hit that minimum performance benchmark would indicate a massive failure on the part of the studio, and given the hardware that is asked 60fps 1440p seems like a reasonable bar too, but I presume their recommended specs are for 1080p60fps as that it the standard on steam for recommenced specs, and any deviation from the standard is usually shown on the steam page like "recommended (1080p)".

 

[BoraBora]

Only Paradox is authorized to publish a roadmap.

A good thing we're on the Paradox forum, then.

​

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

I think there are 2 main reasons why we have no roadmap:

1. CO doesn't have roadmap either. I strongly suspect that they do not have even rough idea how long it will take to address many of the issues.

2. If they showed their own internal roadmap, the players would be even more unhappy, after seeing how far away are the real improvements.

Just have a look at asset mods, it went from "close to release", to "delayed" to "hopefully in fall".
Same for console release.

The only thing that they could probably put on the roadmap with approximate release dates, are the DLCs, as those are mostly (3/4) asset packs and are unrelated to fundamental game issues.

In short, their current roadmap probably looks so bad and is no unreliable, that publishing it would cause even more backlash and more disappointment.
At the same time, openly admitting that they have no idea how long certain issues will take to sort out, would also cause a lot of backlash.
It is lose-lose situation for CO either way.

I think that at thins point, many posters here, expect or actually demand some kind of miracle to happen.
The game can improve a lot, but it will take a very long time, not a month, not a quarter, maybe not even a year, but a lot longer.

I think u raise valid points and agree with you on most points. I do want to point out though that CO literally promised a roadmap post the vague March date just a few weeks ago, and was hinted that the next WOTW we might even have one:

Now apparently from this WOTW it’s not happening because it’s Paradox Responsibilities not CO, so what is actually happening at CO? What is happening the constant miscommunication and breaking of promises? And why is it always someone else fault and not Colossal Orders?

I’m really confused, disappointed and demotivated. Everything is “we are looking into it, nothing to see”. Hard mode was discussed a few weeks post release with “we are looking into it”, same thing in last WOTW.

And finally, all this would have been easily resolved if they slapped it as “Early Access” and gave discounts to people who bought it as such. It’s not like people didn’t warn them it should be delayed.

 

[KyoLo the major]

They are just unable to fix the gargantuan amount of bugs and design decisions that turned out to be wrong in a acceptable time. It's clear. Do you want (and I mean the people on the forum) them to say we cannot do it out clear so they lose any remaining grain of credibility or just keeping writing knowing that nothing will be fixed? I think it's just gone..

 

[ClemiMD]

A good thing we're on the Paradox forum, then.

You're right!
It just worries me that Paradox is at least as much to blame for the current misery, but CO is getting all the dirt. Hardly anyone from PDX shows up here. We can be glad that someone from CO dares to lurk here regularly.

 

[Licenturion]

You're right!
It just worries me that Paradox is at least as much to blame for the current misery, but CO is getting all the dirt. Hardly anyone from PDX shows up here. We can be glad that someone from CO dares to lurk here regularly.

Why is Paradox to blame as much ?

They said the game was 3 years too late already.

Paradox allowed 3 years of extra investment without any return. Eventually they probably had two options: release the project or cancel the project.

They chose to release it. The wrong thing they did was not releasing it in early access for a lower price until mods, assets, editors, performance and bugs were all sorted out.

But all the bugs, performance and stuff not ready are all development or/and or planning problems. I read a few times in WOW that they had to redo all assets for performance, redo how water works, retool the whole asset import pipeline and so. If you have to restart all those things after actual release, then these are all development issues.

 

[BabylonDK]

Absolutely.

In my view, the primary responsibility lies with CO rather than PDX. It's evident that CO has mishandled yet another installment of their game(s). Having enjoyed Cities In Motion, I was disappointed with Cities In Motion 2, where they noticeably faltered.

Being reminded that CO was also behind that game sends chills down my spine. They never fully addressed the issues with CIM2, leaving it unresolved before moving on to Cities Skylines.

The recent surge in CO hiring for numerous Senior roles raises doubts about their ability to promptly rectify the game's issues. All signs point to potential delays or even abandonment of the product, unless PDX holds them accountable.

Drawing from my experience as a Product Manager, witnessing the behind-the-scenes challenges of a flawed launch, there are numerous indicators that CO will face significant struggles in the coming months. Predictions suggest we might not see a console version or a fully fixed game with mod support until the 2025 calendar is well underway.

It's imperative for PDX to step in, exert pressure on CO, and demand a concrete action plan, with public accountability and an apology. While both companies share responsibility, CO bears the brunt of the blame. However, as time progresses, PDX also faces increasing criticism for not demanding a viable solution. PDX needs to take control of the situation, publicly address the issues, and compel CO to do the same.

This goes beyond individual developers, who are not to blame for the senior management's misjudgments. Senior management, earning substantial salaries, must show their faces, prove their worth, and take ownership of this significant misstep.

 

[gpaolo79]

You are splitting this into 2 issues when it shouldn't be, a simulation should run at an acceptable speed and a game should hit a minimum of 1080p 60fps on recommended hardware in a reasonable situation. There is no choice to be made here, both should be true.

Well it's two issues because they are coming from two different aspects of the PC, and they have two different effects.
The issue on simulator speed is coming from CPU load due to simulation calculations, from what I have seen on my PC and from what you can read around.
The issue on FPS is due to the graphics and, if I am not mistaken, partially a choice from the developer to ensure a smooth experience rather than going for FPS for no reason.

The effects are also quite different: the result of the issue on the CPU load is that the game becomes impossible to play after a certain city size, where you literally sits in front of the PC while it's processing a queue of queries without being able of doing anything.
The effect of the second issue is that you might enjoy less the experience (personally, debatable, as long as it's fluid I see this rush for FPS a bit like the one for megapixels on cameras with a plastic lens, but this is my personal opinion), but you can still play with it, because at least in my experience, the gameplay is still fluid.

So they definitely are two separated issues. I'm actually quite impressed by the fact that the developers managed to keep the game running smooth at 25-30FPS while the core of the simulation is stuck forcing the game to run a 0.1x.

edit: don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I would not appreciate 60FPS. I'm saying between 30FPS of a running game and 60FPS of a stuck game, I don't see how there could be any doubt on the preference. Once you have a 30FPS running game, then optimize it for 60FPS, but not the other way around.

 

[FX2K_2]

Well it's two issues because they are coming from two different aspects of the PC, and they have two different effects.
The issue on simulator speed is coming from CPU load due to simulation calculations, from what I have seen on my PC and from what you can read around.
The issue on FPS is due to the graphics and, if I am not mistaken, partially a choice from the developer to ensure a smooth experience rather than going for FPS for no reason.

Comparing a few things, the entire situation is just odd and it looks like they intend to use dlss/fsr? as a crutch.
Main menu - seriously, why is it hitting the resources so hard for a photoshopped screenshot and a few buttons.

Play with the maximum frame latency setting in graphic options and compare things such as:

1) MFL: 1, Game paused, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
GPU at 50-60% usage and high cpu, but the game is paused

2) MFL: 3, Game paused, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
GPU works overtime 100%, probably discarding the queued frames because again, the cpu is being hammered, maybe a few percent more than (1).

3) MFL: 1, Game running, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
Same as 1) but ~5 fps less approx. due to simulation.

4) MFL: 3, Game running, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
Same as 2) but ~5 fps less approx. due to simulation.

5) MFL: 1, Game running, zoomed out overlooking a city of say 100k.
6) MFL: 3, Game running, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight

etc etc..

I don't have all the correct figures to hand, but I did this as an observation for myself
The way I see it is MFL queues frames but clearly can't deliver (hence 100% vs 50-60% usage) and is wasting resources because perhaps the UI system is eating cpu resources (main menu is??) and taking it away from simulation and rendering pipelines. I don't know, I'm not an expert, but a paused simulation vs a running one, should have a very different picture, and it doesn't seem to have a major effect up to a point, obviously 1mill pop would be different!

I'm sure they will figure it out, but there's clearly more going on than just simulation / pathfinding etc, when the game suffers just as much paused as it does running.

i9, 14900k & RTX4090 with 64gb of Ram and the game struggles with low pop counts for me.

 

[gpaolo79]

Main menu - seriously, why is it hitting the resources so hard for a photoshopped screenshot and a few buttons.

Oh you should have seen the *loading screen* on Flight Simulator taking GPU (any) at 100%

I'm sure they will figure it out, but there's clearly more going on than just simulation / pathfinding etc, when the game suffers just as much paused as it does running.

I'm sure there is. Also other things make little sense, from what you say your 4090 seems to be under heavy load, while my 3060 reaches 70% at 30FPS with the game stuck due to CPU load.

 

[mehmeteking]

Comparing a few things, the entire situation is just odd and it looks like they intend to use dlss/fsr? as a crutch.
Main menu - seriously, why is it hitting the resources so hard for a photoshopped screenshot and a few buttons.

Play with the maximum frame latency setting in graphic options and compare things such as:

1) MFL: 1, Game paused, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
GPU at 50-60% usage and high cpu, but the game is paused

2) MFL: 3, Game paused, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
GPU works overtime 100%, probably discarding the queued frames because again, the cpu is being hammered, maybe a few percent more than (1).

3) MFL: 1, Game running, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
Same as 1) but ~5 fps less approx. due to simulation.

4) MFL: 3, Game running, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight
Same as 2) but ~5 fps less approx. due to simulation.

5) MFL: 1, Game running, zoomed out overlooking a city of say 100k.
6) MFL: 3, Game running, zoomed into the ground with nothing in sight

etc etc..

I don't have all the correct figures to hand, but I did this as an observation for myself
The way I see it is MFL queues frames but clearly can't deliver (hence 100% vs 50-60% usage) and is wasting resources because perhaps the UI system is eating cpu resources (main menu is??) and taking it away from simulation and rendering pipelines. I don't know, I'm not an expert, but a paused simulation vs a running one, should have a very different picture, and it doesn't seem to have a major effect up to a point, obviously 1mill pop would be different!

I'm sure they will figure it out, but there's clearly more going on than just simulation / pathfinding etc, when the game suffers just as much paused as it does running.

i9, 14900k & RTX4090 with 64gb of Ram and the game struggles with low pop counts for me.

Using DLSS as a crutch would be nothing but admission of incompetence. It is sad that most people don't understand what DLSS is, I even saw a person say something like "with DLSS, performance will increase by x percent." DLSS is just an AI that conjures frames by looking at previous ones. It doesn't increase performance; if anything, it only tries to mitigate lack of performance by tricking the user. A proper game doesn't need DLSS.

That said, the bottleneck for this game is CPU load; not GPU. The simulation is not scalable, simple as that.

 

[Brumes Wolf]

Well it's two issues because they are coming from two different aspects of the PC, and they have two different effects.
The issue on simulator speed is coming from CPU load due to simulation calculations, from what I have seen on my PC and from what you can read around.
The issue on FPS is due to the graphics and, if I am not mistaken, partially a choice from the developer to ensure a smooth experience rather than going for FPS for no reason.

The effects are also quite different: the result of the issue on the CPU load is that the game becomes impossible to play after a certain city size, where you literally sits in front of the PC while it's processing a queue of queries without being able of doing anything.
The effect of the second issue is that you might enjoy less the experience (personally, debatable, as long as it's fluid I see this rush for FPS a bit like the one for megapixels on cameras with a plastic lens, but this is my personal opinion), but you can still play with it, because at least in my experience, the gameplay is still fluid.

So they definitely are two separated issues. I'm actually quite impressed by the fact that the developers managed to keep the game running smooth at 25-30FPS while the core of the simulation is stuck forcing the game to run a 0.1x.

edit: don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I would not appreciate 60FPS. I'm saying between 30FPS of a running game and 60FPS of a stuck game, I don't see how there could be any doubt on the preference. Once you have a 30FPS running game, then optimize it for 60FPS, but not the other way around.

As you said, there are 2 issues for performance, the simulation (CPU) and the graphics (GPU), there is no need to prefer either 30fps with a fast sim or 60 with a slow sim.
So as I said there is no need to split this into 2 points for preferences, a fast sim at 1080p60fps is the only minimally acceptable bar, anything less than this is a massive failure on the part of the studio.

Also wanting a game to run at 60fps is not like wanting all the megapixels on cameras, 1080p60fps is the bare minimum performance for a PC game not be considered "running badly", anything less is simply unacceptable, so you might personally consider 30fps to be "playable", I do too for some games, but it is not in any way "acceptable".

I'm sure there is. Also other things make little sense, from what you say your 4090 seems to be under heavy load, while my 3060 reaches 70% at 30FPS with the game stuck due to CPU load.

If your game is stuck at 30fps without fully utilizing your GPU that probably means you simply are CPU bottlenecked, nothing odd about that.

 

[Splorghley]

It's imperative for PDX to step in, exert pressure on CO, and demand a concrete action plan, with public accountability and an apology. While both companies share responsibility, CO bears the brunt of the blame. However, as time progresses, PDX also faces increasing criticism for not demanding a viable solution. PDX needs to take control of the situation, publicly address the issues, and compel CO to do the same.

I broadly agree with your points, but this fills me with dread. The last time Paradox did something like this was when they took control of the development of Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines 2, and that is going disastrously. CO needs to do better, yes, but it's not like Paradox are doing very well themselves.

The best thing Paradox could do here is to sub in some of their skilled comms people to take over the game's PR, and let CO focus on fixing the product. I don't know how many more of these 'Words of the Week' the game can survive.

 

[krzychu124]

As you said, there are 2 issues for performance, the simulation (CPU) and the graphics (GPU), there is no need to prefer either 30fps with a fast sim or 60 with a slow sim.
So as I said there is no need to split this into 2 points for preferences, a fast sim at 1080p60fps is the only minimally acceptable bar, anything less than this is a massive failure on the part of the studio.

Also wanting a game to run at 60fps is not like wanting all the megapixels on cameras, 1080p60fps is the bare minimum performance for a PC game not be considered "running badly", anything less is simply unacceptable, so you might personally consider 30fps to be "playable", I do too for some games, but it is not in any way "acceptable".


If your game is stuck at 30fps without fully utilizing your GPU that probably means you simply are CPU bottlenecked, nothing odd about that.

I think you forget that GPU cannot do any work without CPU doing its work first (preparing data for GPU), so there are two issues for performance and 30fps has higher chance for faster sim than 60fps no matter what you do.
Worth noting is this game is not really comparable to many other games simply because more population (bigger city) means more agents, but also more buildings, and each building has props that could potentially be rendered and so on. Preparing data for GPU is going to be harder and harder for CPU when population(city size) grows.
You may notice in larger city fps is worse in a certain scene even if camera is still looking relatively on the same amount of details. The reason for that in a small city CPU has to prepare (filter out) let's say 20k objects of 40k total (50% visible) while in huge city at the end it still shows 20k but the total to test might be 1M objects (or more), so only 2% is finally visible (not to mention invisible simulation data of citizens, vehicles and other things that still need to be processed).

 

[Brumes Wolf]

I think you forget that GPU cannot do any work without CPU doing its work first (preparing data for GPU), so there are two issues for performance and 30fps has higher chance for faster sim than 60fps no matter what you do.
Worth noting is this game is not really comparable to many other games simply because more population (bigger city) means more agents, but also more buildings, and each building has props that could potentially be rendered and so on. Preparing data for GPU is going to be harder and harder for CPU when population(city size) grows.
You may notice in larger city fps is worse in a certain scene even if camera is still looking relatively on the same amount of details. The reason for that in a small city CPU has to prepare (filter out) let's say 20k objects of 40k total (50% visible) while in huge city at the end it still shows 20k but the total to test might be 1M objects (or more), so only 2% is finally visible (not to mention invisible simulation data of citizens, vehicles and other things that still need to be processed).

I did not forget this, it is irrelevant.
My point stands, 1080p60 with a certain target tps (very different per game what number should be here) at recommended specs is the minimum acceptable performance.
There should be no choosing or preference, a big established studio should simply make a game that works.

 

[krzychu124]

I did not forget this, it is irrelevant.
My point stands, 1080p60 with a certain target tps (very different per game what number should be here) at recommended specs is the minimum acceptable performance.
There should be no choosing or preference, a big established studio should simply make a game that works.

I'm not so sure if 30 people studio can be considered a big studio.
As far as I remember, they target 1080p30fps for minimum specs, so on recommended hardware it will run faster. It is not up to 30fps but at least the value (say at the worst only 1% lowest is below, while 99% time it's at least 30).

The missing bit about requirements in case of this specific game is at what load (city size/population) you should expect the target fps to be still met since at certain point your PC will run out of CPU power dragging down the fps and sim speed anyways, because there are no hard limits for simulation data, nor number of objects on screen you can have (you can build as big city as you want/have space on map, as most maps can easily fit 2-3M population city).

 

[Brynjar]

As far as I remember, they target 1080p30fps for minimum specs, so on recommended hardware it will run faster.

You remember incorrectly:

We are aiming for the game to run smoothly (30fps) on the recommended hardware with high settings with hundreds of thousands of citizens. We are committed to big cities and as you pointed out, this is needed also for the consoles.

The missing bit about requirements in case of this specific game is at what load (city size/population) you should expect the target fps to be still met since at certain point your PC will run out of CPU power dragging down the fps and sim speed anyways, because there are no hard limits for simulation data

That is very much an issue created by CO, possibly in collaboration with Paradox. They are the ones with the ability to choose what to simulate and what hard limits to set. Noone but CO and Paradox chose to release the game in a state were performance is terrible on any existing hardware. They are also the ones who have to improve the performance if the game is ever going to be a long term success.

 

[Brumes Wolf]

I'm not so sure if 30 people studio can be considered a big studio.

In the realm of game studios 30 people is pretty big, this would make them on par or even larger than most paradox games I think, studios where 100ths of people work on a single game are mostly not a thing outside of AAA.
Also its more than big and established enough to be able to scope a game correctly to hit pretty low bar performance targets.

We are aiming for the game to run smoothly (30fps) on the recommended hardware with high settings with hundreds of thousands of citizens. We are committed to big cities and as you pointed out, this is needed also for the consoles.

Damn, a 30fps target for a 12th gen i5k and a 3080 is incredibly bad, also no mention of 30fps on the store page which is very scummy as it goes against the expectations a steam user would have.

 

[Studoku]

Nobody will agree on what is the main problem. For some like you, it's the terrible performance. Others will blame the hundreds of bugs. Others will blame the lack of editors and modding support. Others will blame the failsafes and a simulation so easy you can't fail, which makes the game a city painter (not a bug but a feature).

The game has so many glaring issues that no single problem can gain traction. We call it Three Stooges Syndrome.

"So the game is flawless."

No, the opposite. You have Mostly Negative reviews.

"Flawless game..."