Cities: Skylines II CTO Confirms 30 FPS Target for Newly Released City Builder: “No Long-Term Benefit to 60 FPS”

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
11,302
Points
83
Cities: Skylines II is now available to play on PC via Steam, the Windows Store, and Xbox Game Pass, but would-be architects may want to know that the new city builder wasn't really designed with higher frame rates in mind. That's according to "co_damsku," chief technical officer of developer Colossal Order, who revealed during a reddit AMA yesterday that the game, published by Paradox Interactive, was developed with a 30 FPS performance target. According to the developer, this target was chosen because 60 FPS isn't necessary for Cities: Skylines II, with it being a city-building game, although they did admit that doing so probably "wouldn't hurt" and could enable better visuals. Cities: Skylines II has a Mostly Negative rating on Steam at the time of this writing.

See full article...
 
For this particular game and/or genre - yeah, they aren't really wrong. Not a lot of fast paced action in a city building sim. You just stare at buildings.
 
That has got to be the most nonsensical excuse for 30FPS.

What is even the meaning of long term / short term when it comes to FPS?
 
Last edited:
I do somewhat agree that 60 FPS isn't really needed for something like this. There are a number of games out there that may report 60 FPS in overlays but you can easily tell that a number of character animations and such are not rendering at that speed. The Resident Evil games have received criticism for years for that same thing with background characters rendering at 15 or 30 until they get close enough.
 
The Resident Evil games have received criticism for years for that same thing with background characters rendering at 15 or 30 until they get close enough.
Too many games do that. It's pretty f*cking sad. I expect that sh1t on consoles, but when they port to PC they don't tend to improve on this, and it is very annoying.
 
The Resident Evil games have received criticism for years for that same thing with background characters rendering at 15 or 30 until they get close enough.
That doesn't even save on rendering because if you render a new frame you need to render everything. That just saves on the game engine not having to update their animation and status as often.
 
I do somewhat agree that 60 FPS isn't really needed for something like this. There are a number of games out there that may report 60 FPS in overlays but you can easily tell that a number of character animations and such are not rendering at that speed. The Resident Evil games have received criticism for years for that same thing with background characters rendering at 15 or 30 until they get close enough.

Sure but if it starts at 30fps in a small city, what will it be running at when you reach 50k or 100k population?
 
60FPS might not be needed for something like this but its certainly better.
I'd argue it is more needed in games where you view it top down and pan the entire screen. lower FPS is much more annoying on a fullscreen pan.
 
I'd argue it is more needed in games where you view it top down and pan the entire screen. lower FPS is much more annoying on a fullscreen pan.
Well, that certainly is a good case for it but I think it matters more for something like a first person shooter. Either way, 30FPS is crap.
 
I've never played cities skylines, but I'd imagine it is the style of game that you could easily play at 30fps.

Sid Meier's Civilization is like that for me. I'm happy as long as I don't dip below like 15fps.

Don't get me wrong, 60+fps is still nicer, but it is not strictly necessary in order to enjoy the game.

Now in a first person title, on the other had, I refuse to play if it dips below 60. I'd imagine I'd be the same with 3rd person titles, if I played 3rd person titles.
 
Become a Patron!
Back
Top