I really wish "recommended" would at least have some information about resolution and fps requirements, is that recommended for 120fps at 4k? or 30fps at 1080p
Based on regular CS performance this is either concerning or they figured out a lot of performance bugs. I’m surprised they aren’t recommending more RAM as if I remember correctly 32gb and high-core count processors were generally always recommended for bigger cities.
I was about to disagree, then I realized I was looking at the minimum specs rather than the recommended. They do seem pretty intense but I also forget that the 2080ti and the 9700k are nearing 5 years old
Damn 5 years? I had a chance to use the 2080ti and the Radeon 7900 XTX with high-end games. I saw them improve from like 60fps to 80.
It's a 40% perf increase but it doesn't feel like hardware has improved that much since then
I hope it runs on my Laptop tbh. But I don't think so but at least on pic. I think for mouse focused games like this the stream deck screen is too small for me and the trackpad is also no complete replacement imo
So my 10 yr old PC is just barely at the minimum. CPU is actually under with an i5 4690K. My 780ti should be ok though. Man I wish I had money for an upgrade
I hope they change their minds in light of the new porting toolkit. It's also a bit weird considering how Mac-friendly Paradox published games tend to be, and that CS1 runs on Macs.
I'm similarly saddened that Hades II is currently listed as Windows-only, when Hades runs beautifully on MacOS.
And Frontpunk 2.
And Homeworld 3, though it's been a while since Mac-friendly HW2.
Heartbreaking indeed. I hope Apple's new Game Porting Toolkit aids developers by a ton. Even with a lot of translation layers, CP2077 run decently at ultra settings (see latest LTT vid)
I have to admit, the UI of this game shown on trailers felt like a prototype of some sort, graphics also felt not so far from the first installment. I wonder if it's just the trailer, hopefully the game itself will look better.
It looks like they are prioritising more stuff on the screen, bigger viewing distance, much more sharpness, more simulations etc. over fidelity and personally I think that's te way to go.
It looks considerably different to me. They've clearly gone for a much more realistic and toned down style for this one, which is pretty noticeable compared to the rather cartoony look if the first one.
Definitely important to remember what vanilla CS is like rather than the massively modded versions most of us play now
That's not even necessarily that bad. IMO the main focus of the second installment should be on the game engine multicore performance. That was easily my biggest gripe with the first game and honestly, I wouldn't mind that much if the second one would be just an engine replacement with more or less the same feature set as the first one.
If you haven't played it and can find it cheap, the first game is still fantastic if you want to play something right now. So much modded content available too, which I'm sure will pick up quickly for the sequel but won't be there on day one.
Oof, theres the problem. Unity is a great RAD tool for indie game devs, but start trying to make more high end games with it and it shows its limitations quickly.
The first game was heavily CPU-bound. The devs mentioned that their ability to multithread was heavily limited by the version of Unity they were using.
Newer versions of Unity claim to be better for multithreading. I’m really curious to see how much the sequel benefits from that. CS seems like it could really take advantage of many threads with the thousands of cims being simulated at once.
Add comment