Stop Talking Down To Players: Cities II

“The performance target is to run at a steady 30 FPS minimum. There is no real benefit in a city builder to aim for higher FPS[,] as a growing city will inevitably become CPU-bound. […] We just don’t believe there would be a long-term benefit in setting the target to 60fps.” Oh, I think you’ll find there are multiple benefits. These are the lines that Paradox Interactive and Colossal Order are using to skirt around the dreadful performance of their newest release, Cities: Skylines II. I’ll play nice and say that’s BS. Stop trying to justify horrible optimization and overall performance woes by talking down to players.

This comes as part of the post-launch apology tour that a lot of publishers and/or developers have had to do this year as part of their PC launches. After announcing the targets for performance were not met before release (and embargo), some were disappointed by this but could understand it as long as it would be addressed later on. A frame rate high enough to equal the age to have a great-grandkid in Newcastle is preferable, even in a city builder. Simply because it looks and feels smoother, more natural, and generally, more aesthetically pleasing.

Most importantly, we’ve all played Cities: Skylines (1), which after a while began to drop like a stone when it got a bit complicated. Of course, I’m talking from pre-release experience. After a while, I did see a little bit of it in Cities II as well. This brings up the other reason for having 60 frames per second: It can give you some leeway as the frame counter ticks down to 30. That might not be the best experience in the end, but you’ll have had many hours playing before you get there. Saying “30 is the target” and “you don’t need 60” is just stupid.

It is a move of 2000s-era triple-A publisher talking down to their players in a way that those of us old enough can remember well. A large number of players aren’t stupid (maybe some). They understand that a city simulation with a vast number of little people roaming around will be CPU-intensive, and thus the largest bottleneck. That still doesn’t account for the fact we’ve seen the CPU-intensive (kind of) predecessor eventually slow down even from 60. If you are playing on a console, 30 is something you put up with, but we’re talking about a PC release that often struggles to hit 60.

We’re not even talking about the 120Hz monitor people, we’re talking about a baseline of 60 for smooth, fluid motion. That is a simple request that even the lowest of global graphical settings didn’t want to consistently hit, and I am talking without DLSS because as I’ve said before, I think DLSS looks horrid. It is grainy and like you are playing through streaming platforms like Google Stadia (ha!), a subpar experience that is below 30 frames per second. If 60 wasn’t important and wasn’t the preferable experience, why is it the target for PS5 and Xbox Series X|S?

There is a reason most people want to aim for 60 and note that the performance isn’t there when that target is missed. Sure, most could play at 30, but once again, it is a subpar experience when you know your chosen platform runs just about everything else at or around that target of 60. I won’t directly compare one game or another to Cities II, mostly because it is difficult to do so. However, I will say that Cities II isn’t the only sim of its kind, but it is one of the few to say “suck it up plebs” when it comes to woeful performance.

What was the original target? In the update on modding, the statement was: “[W]hile our team has worked tirelessly to deliver the best experience possible, we have not achieved the benchmark we targeted.” The target is now 30, what was it before the specs were raised? Speaking from pre-release experience, I could stay above 30 most of the time, but it wasn’t consistent. I’d like to know where these targets were generally, especially given the minimum specs now note a GTX 970 and a 6th-gen i7 are fine with a 12th-gen i5 and RTX 3080 being recommended.

As I said in the review, I’m closer to the latter than the former, and obtaining 60 FPS at 1080p wasn’t easy. If 30 was the target all along, then I want to know who thought a 970 (or the original spec of 780) and a 2015 i7 would get 30 even on the lower graphical options. I also want to know what drugs they were on. More importantly, I want to know why it is deemed appropriate to tell players, a large portion of whom will be knowledgeable, that they don’t understand what they want or the limitations of their systems, and they should just put up with 30 frames per second.

It is treating an entire fan base with different setups and preferences as a monolithic base that should just take whatever the developer and/or publisher deem to be so. As I said earlier, I could understand the statement on not hitting targets as long as progress was made towards decent performance later. Nonetheless, this second statement basically reads: “Sit down plebs, we know better.” It is condescending, unrealistic, and generally chips away at any goodwill previously gained. I enjoy Cities: Skylines II for what it is despite performance woes, but it is difficult to ignore this patronizing stance from a publishing/development team I thought was one of the better ones.

Don’t let it be misunderstood, I’m not saying Paradox or Colossal Order should be hoisted up on the pillory with people allowed to punch them in the genitals. Patches have come and there are aims to maintain that goodwill that fans of the series are used to. I’m just making it clear and trying to make the point that I thought we were past patronizing players. I thought we all had a common understanding that no matter what, a consistent and decent frame rate was preferable. I thought that when you admitted not reaching your goal, you took the hit and tried to do better.

This statement that followed the one noting the missed performance target tries to push away any blame. I get it, optimizing for hundreds of setups is difficult. I’m not saying anyone should be attacked (verbally or otherwise). Though I am saying that putting out a statement that is “there is nothing wrong, shut up, you don’t know anything,” makes enjoying the game for what it is a bitter pill to swallow. The upcoming patches and additions will address some of this and rebuild the trust players want to have for a game they’ll support long-term through (presumably) Paradox and Colossal Order’s countless ideas for DLC.

This aside, the statement only had to be: “We’re working on a number of patches to address performance, here are some solutions in the meantime. We will try to do our best to address all problems players are facing.” No condescension, no snobbish claims of what the correct frames per second are, and no fuel for players to set you on fire. This is PR 101. For the love of all that is holy, stop talking down to players. Sure, have your line that the game is made with modern and future tech in mind, but that doesn’t mean you have to act superior to do it.