View Full Version : Unreal II Impressions

Pages : [1] 2

02-01-03, 06:26 PM
Ok, I play UT2003 a lot, with everything set at high and 2X AA / 4X AF, at 1024x768 and while I have seen slowdown in some boards, it has always remained playable. Enter Unreal2 based off the same engine, with the high settings, default ()high no custom modifications) I receive what is a very unplayable frame rate (7 - frames sec) during combat. Turning off AA and AF leads me to about 15 frames a sec still very unplayable. Given my system Dual Althon1800+, with a Geforce4 4600 512megs ram and Ultra160 15K HD's that fact that I can not play this level at a reasonable frame rate at 1024x768 is just scarry. So I'm asking what other people have discovered?


02-01-03, 09:31 PM
if true, then we finally have a game that pushes technology. IMO UT2003 was not demanding enough :p

UT2 and Doom3 lead the way to new graphics for us all :) never a bad thing. if you can't tell yet i like games that scale in details and performance when i decide to next upgrade.

02-01-03, 09:35 PM
what drivers are you using? I've heard that 42.86 drivers improve speed alot :confused: I don't have the game yet, I'll have to buy it sometime;)

02-01-03, 10:57 PM
how did you get a copy of unreal 2 already? it has not been released yet...released date is feb 4th or 5th..today is only the 1st???? do you have an inside/underground supplier?

02-01-03, 11:35 PM
He warezed it.

02-02-03, 02:20 AM
yes, he warezed it. and please, before the questions start coming, let us not mention that again. no questions on where to find it please.

i think this is a legitimate thread as performance in this game sounds like it could be a serious concern for many of us, and the game is coming out soon.

02-02-03, 06:24 AM
' The minimum spec is a Pentium® III or AMD Athlon 733 MHz or higher (Pentium® or AMD 1.2 GHz or greater recommended) with a 32 MB NVIDIA® GeForce2 MX® or better (NVIDIA® GeForce3® / ATi® Radeon™ 8500 or better recommended) '

Given these recommended specs, which by most accounts WON'T run high details well, I won't be surprised if I have to drop the detail a bit.

02-02-03, 01:16 PM
Just tried 28.46, was getting 15 frames a sec with AA x2 and AF x4 on, and the same with AA Off, AF x2 which seems wird, my current guess is that that I'll have to wait on a patch for UR2 to fix the problems I'm seeing. Maybe I'll try Fraps later and see if it agress with the in game counter.


02-02-03, 02:47 PM
Maybe becouse you run it with AA try running the game without it :rolleyes: , in the future games don't excpect to run with AA on Geforce ala Doom 3 resource hungry hippo , but in case you have some beta Unreal 2 , moustlikely code is not optimized yet ;)

02-02-03, 05:21 PM
No it should be a shipping build (Gold release), however I tested under UT2003 and found that I was pulling over 35 avg with 2x AA and 4x AF enabled and all setting set at the hihest levels, but in Unreal2 I'm pulling 15 or so in using the default options. This is what conserns me, since it is the same engine I would have expected similar performance, to me there is a vast diffrence between 15 and 35 frames a second. Also note the lack of improvement I've seen when turning off AA and AF. I should metion that the first level of UR2 was playable a about 35 frames a sec, even in the out doors, but that the second mision (also outdoors) played very poorly, this is what I'm talking about.

Note: I've been using the outdoor levels in UT with between 8 and 12 players, so this is should compare to UR2 as closely as I can manage.


02-02-03, 05:38 PM
While it is using the same engine, the devs pumped a lot more detail into the game than in UT2
...so they said

02-02-03, 06:37 PM
This game is good..Im going to pick this one up...Its running super smooth on my system..(read sig)..I havnt played with any settings yet..I'll start to experiment now and try the same settings as you egant..I'll let you know what my FPS are..

I see some texture problems though..And I crashed to the desktop every so often :confused:

But this is not a final release so I cant criticize..

02-02-03, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by egandt
No it should be a shipping build (Gold release), however I tested under UT2003 and found that I was pulling over 35 avg with 2x AA and 4x AF enabled and all setting set at the hihest levels, but in Unreal2 I'm pulling 15 or so in using the default options. This is what conserns me, since it is the same engine I would have expected similar performance, to me there is a vast diffrence between 15 and 35 frames a second.

that's a bad assumption to make, since UT2003 was a deathmatch game and speed is much more crucial. a single player game can have lower framerates because it doesn't require twitchty reflexes.

02-02-03, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
that's a bad assumption to make, since UT2003 was a deathmatch game and speed is much more crucial. a single player game can have lower framerates because it doesn't require twitchty reflexes.
Actually its a single player game is a more controlled environment (you won't have anywhere from 2-32 players in the same level) so they know what they can push.

I play single player games a lot, and I gotta tell you I like having twitchy reflexes in em :)

02-02-03, 11:50 PM
Been busy playing this game all day long..... It runs just fine it appears on my rig. Not sure what the command is to show the fps but i have all the details set to high except for the shadows and they are set to medium with all types of them turned on. Heck even enabled the EAX in the game. It's just is totally awesome and the eye candy is something to really behold. oh and this is set at 1024 since my lousy 17in monitor doesn't have a 75 refresh rate at 1280.

02-03-03, 08:28 AM
Post your feedback regarding the performance, gameplay and visuals of the release of Unreal II: The Awakening.

02-03-03, 04:30 PM
The problem is not that Unreal2 is better in the graphics department than UT2k3.. its ALOT more cpu dependent.
I tried to have all the graphics and everything possible on low or off and I got around 35 fps then I tried 1280x1024x32 and everything on high except shadows that was on low, 8x AF, 2x FSAA and I got around 30 fps...
I think its bad programming or something beacuse Unreal2 and UT2k3 uses the same engine.

My system:
Amd XP2000+
512 mb DDR
GF 4200 64mb

02-03-03, 05:53 PM
my rig:
AthlonXP 1600+
GF4 4200Ti

played on 1024x768 everything high except shadows

runs usually at 40-50 fps, 30 fps minimum.... until enemys pop up and drop it. depends on the amount of them. but there aren't many situations where you can't play.

The graphics are extremely dtailed, though does not have the impact like the first Unreal had.

BTW wierd plot

02-03-03, 08:26 PM
I am getting over 100fps at 1280x960 6x FSAA and 128 tap aniso all ingame features at maximum. ;) :rolleyes:

/me waits for applause

I wonder if the retail game will be faster. ;)

02-03-03, 11:20 PM
It is a shame tho that your crew goes the way of columbia. Can't wait till the media gets ahold of that with its impending release and the latest crash.......

02-04-03, 04:45 AM
I got my copy today and I must say the game overall is a disappointment. On the other hand...the graphics are simply stunning. My radeon 9700pro throws the game around at 10*7 with 4XAA and 8X aniso. My card does start to feel it on like 2 or 3 maps at these settings though.

02-04-03, 08:02 PM
ok, can't remember what det's i'm running [the last offical whql 1's].
anyway, runs fine [athlon xp 1700+, gf4 ti4200] but... the skins aren't appearing on the player models.
i'm running at 1024x768, 32bit, details etc on high.
anyone else run into this??

02-04-03, 09:24 PM
Wow, this game is a beast, but it's gorgeous.

Ok, let's get the boring stuff out of the way, then I can get into what I really like (and really don't like) about the game so far.

I'm currently playing on the following rig (all speeds stock):

AMD Athlon 2600+
Asus A7N8X Deluxe (Nforce 2)
1GB Kingston PC2700
Visiontek Geforce 4 ti4600
Windows XP Pro SP1
DirectX 9

While I'm certainly not running a super-rig, it's pretty muscular by today's standards. I only wish I'd held on to my Radeon 9700 Pro long enough to try it on that card as well.

One thing that sometimes bugs me about professional game reviews is that they seem so jaded. I've read two "professional" reviews of the game so far (Gamespot and Gamespy) which give it less-than-stellar ratings, but rather than break the game down into features and how "ground-breaking" it is, I'll just offer this: I personally don't *need* "ground-breaking." I want fun, immersion, and an occasional sense of awe, which Unreal II so far supplies in spades.

For starters, I can't run this game at 1200 x 1600 smoothly. Even without antialiasing and anistropic filtering, the demands on my video subsystem are just too great, particularly in the lush outdoor environments. While this may sound depressing, the game looks beautiful at 1280 x 960 with Quincunx enabled, and runs smooth as mother's milk with all the in-game features turned up.

Ok, I'll come out and admit it...Return to Castle Wolfenstein scared me at various points, particularly in the crypts when fighting the undead. I'd venture to guess the most of you remember that crypt level very well, and found yourself listening for any noise that might give away an approaching zombie.

Unreal II at many points captures that feeling. The scripted sequences are nifty, but overall I find myself just enjoying the mindless combat.

The Skaarj are back, and you don't have to wait very long before you've seen far more of them than you would like. Now, I'm certainly no deathmatch champion, but if you are expecting the Skaarj to go down after a few lucky shots like in Unreal I, you're in for a surprise. These guys just aren't easy to kill with early-game weaponry.

Oh, a minor spoiler here - If you are long enough in the tooth to remember that first encounter with a Skaarj in Unreal I, then you'll find your first meeting with one in Unreal II to be almost nostalgic...

Combat is in-your-face and crazy at times. The death animations of enemy creatures seems pretty straightforward at first, and then the game surprises you with a death shot that rivals Hollywood's best (which arguably isn't saying much). Of particular enjoyment is the fact that "gibbing" is back with a vengeance.

"Gibbing" critters, or blowing them into their component chunks is one of my guilty pleasures. As games recently have struggled to achieve their family-friendly "Teen" ratings, I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised to see the return of blood and guts to a shooter.

I could rave about the graphics for hours, but I won't. Most of you have probably seen the screenshots, and have a pretty good idea of what the static images look like. What I *will* do is elaborate a little bit on the graphics engine.

First of all, very much like in the first game, enemy creatures shoot at you, and very quickly at that. The end result is that you are often staring into an approaching wall of various types of plasma and energy beams which the enemy critters do their best to hide behind. Even though the crosshairs change when you have an enemy targeted, it can be very difficult to pick your target out among the incoming firepower, much less return a meaningful counterattack.

My first real "Wow!" moment came when I walked into an area that was interspersed with scum-covered pools of water. As I approached, the reflections on the face of the water mirrored the sky in a way that was eerily lifelike, while the algae-covered areas returned no reflections at all. This little attention to detail had my jaw in my lap, and after I killed the local Skaarj, I just ran around the area taking in the view and watching how the light played on various surfaces. Huge kudos to Epic.

The large polygon counts also allow for details simply unheard of in desktop gaming until now. Bundles of wires now consist of individual cables, each with their own polygons and individual texture, instead of a single rough shape with a multi-cable texture slapped onto it.

NPC characters look good, but don't really pioneer a lot of new ground here. It seems like Epic figured you'd be spending a lot more time with enemies and monsters than up close with friendly humans, and wisely chose to put their effort into enemy models.

With one exception so far: I *like* Aida. Aida is your first officer, and she is exceptionally well done. While I would like to throw Epic a bone and say that marketing never entered their minds while Aida was on the drawing board, the sheer geometric perfection of her mammary units and the amount of flesh thereon exposed by her skimpy top would make giving the developer the benefit of the doubt ludicrous.

Needless to say, Aida's ability to make my girlfriend "hmph!" and stalk out of the room in a huff when she walks on screen certainly adds to her appeal.

The player comes equipped with a HUD this time around, and it's functional, though not revolutionary. The crosshair changes for each weapon, so its pretty easy to see what you've got in your hands without having to change your focus to another part of the screen.

Anyway, to summarize I will just say that I'm having a lot of fun so far. Is it fair to say Unreal II is really just Unreal I with better graphics? Somewhat. But look back on Unreal and remember the first time you saw that amazing waterfall after leaving the doomed prison ship, or remember how interesting and unique each new environment was.

Sometimes...Just sometimes, when I'm all Age of Mythology'd out, and following quests in Morrowind requires just a little more mental wattage than I feel like generating, a pure eye-candy shooter is just what the doctor ordered. This fits the bill nicely.

02-04-03, 10:17 PM
There ARE things I don't like:

It runs a little less than stable on my system. If I enabled EAX, I would get various general protection faults, though I imagine those with Audigy cards will not. Unreal II didn't seem to like my Soundstorm very much though...

Also, load times. Even if you die on a level you've quicksaved on, it takes a goodly long time to reload...Like 10 to 20 seconds. That's just not cool, especially for folks like me who die a lot. :D

There were a very few texture artifacts but by and large I think they're issues with the map design and not the video card. I'll take a look see on my friend's Radeon and see if it happens there too.

One last thing - While it doesn't affect me per se, I really feel for those who buy this game with the minimum system requirements. My suggestion would be that you're pushing it even with the "recommended" system. This is definitely harder on my box than Morrowind ever thought of being.

Anyway, that's about it.


02-04-03, 11:35 PM
I bet the amount of polys being pushed is so overwhelming that even the R300's 256bit bus has trouble managing all the load. :)