Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unreal 2 - Worst game of 2003?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Well, I have to disagree with Gurm that the game runs like shiiait

    Installation. I have no problem with it puttin 1,5 GB on my drive and you would probably get much longer loading times if it ran directly of CD.

    SecuROM. Yes it sucks but it didn't cause any problems here.

    "Queer screen saver". You don't have to watch it, notice the "Press ESC bla bla bla" text. Almost all games have some title sequnce with logos of the involved companies and this was pretty nicely done.

    Options screen. The stuff that I did change, graphics and sound was OK, don't know about the controls so I won't argue here.

    Loading times. I didn't notice that the loading took a long time, it was like between 5 - 20 seconds depending on what was being loaded. I agree that you should be able to skip the cutscenes but the saving/quicksaving takes 2-3 seconds on my machine.

    Graphics. They look very nice but I hade to get the latest drivers because the models were all smeared and messed up. I have a GeForce 3 Ti200 and for the most of the time it runs well except on some places with alot of enemies trying to kill me at the same time, when it starts to lag, although it never becomes unplayable. I'm running at 1024x768x32, 75Hz, no AA, everything set to high except the shadows which are turned down, not off. Yes, the cut scenes are badly done but in-game everything looks fantastic!

    Sound. Good sound, had to turn off EAX on my SB Live! 5.1 otherwise the game would crash now and then.

    Gameplay. The game is good, nothing wow! that I will remeber but it doesn't suck, kind of little better than mediocre. Weapons. Like the shotgun the most but that's just me

    Levels. Nicely done and look great.

    Enemies. They look good also, can't compare with UT2003 since I haven't played it.

    The story was kind of bad and the game is nothing special and it's damn short, didn't took me long to finish. The alien Draak world looked very creepy and the two last levels are the best, the story kind of gets it's meaning and you finally get to have some use of that damn sniper rifle that you've been carying around.
    QDI KinetiZ 7E, Athlon XP 1800+, 1 GB PC133 SDRAM, ATi Radeon 9600 PRO 128 MB, SB Live! 5.1, Memorex 40x CD-RW, NEC ND-2500A DVD-/+RW, 120 + 80 GB Seagate Barracuda, Windows XP SP1, 17" LG L1710B TFT

    Comment


    • #32
      That's 3 people that can actually play the game at higher resolutions than me. Hrm. I wonder what the common thread is - memory size, methinks.

      - Gurm
      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

      I'm the least you could do
      If only life were as easy as you
      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
      If only life were as easy as you
      I would still get screwed

      Comment


      • #33
        I have 512MB, I'll see how it runs. May confirm what you're suspecting Gurm.

        Comment


        • #34
          I believe he also has 512 ("with a half gig of DDR 2700").
          Guess he's referring to the 1GB that thop and Helevitia have.

          I'll be getting my hands on it in a week or so, though with only 256 ram I think it will stutter bad. I already have some issues with UT2003 regarding this.
          Last edited by Admiral; 5 February 2003, 10:16.

          Comment


          • #35
            In my NOT so humble opinion...

            NO GAME SHOULD _REQUIRE_ A GIGABYTE OF RAM.

            I mean, JESUS.

            - Gurm
            The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

            I'm the least you could do
            If only life were as easy as you
            I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
            If only life were as easy as you
            I would still get screwed

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Admiral
              I believe he also has 512 ("with a half gig of DDR 2700").
              Guess he's referring to the 1GB that thop and Helevitia have.

              I'll be getting my hands on it in a week or so, though with only 256 ram I think it will stutter bad. I already have some issues with UT2003 regarding this.
              That was what I meant, sorry for being unclear.

              Comment


              • #37
                on me then

                Comment


                • #38
                  Two people I talked to also have big performance problems with the game.

                  One has a XP2000 with 768 MB DDR SDRAM and a ATI Radeon 8500 and the otherone has a XP1800 with 512 MB DDR SDRAM and a ATI Radeon 9000 and Unreal runs worse on their computers than on mine...
                  QDI KinetiZ 7E, Athlon XP 1800+, 1 GB PC133 SDRAM, ATi Radeon 9600 PRO 128 MB, SB Live! 5.1, Memorex 40x CD-RW, NEC ND-2500A DVD-/+RW, 120 + 80 GB Seagate Barracuda, Windows XP SP1, 17" LG L1710B TFT

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Ok, so I got my hands on it sooner than I expected.

                    Levels do take ages to load, saving a few seconds (not complaining).
                    1024x768x32 trilinear, no AF, no AA, everything maxed, getting decent framerates. Low 20s in more crowded places, 30-60 in general, above in less demanding areas.
                    fps tend to drop to 5 for a short period when you want to talk to someone or you enter a new room and it swaps to the harddrive.
                    It's stable, no crashes, though I haven't enabled EAX yet.

                    In general, for me it behaves just like UT2003.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      And you have how much RAM?

                      - Gurm
                      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                      I'm the least you could do
                      If only life were as easy as you
                      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                      If only life were as easy as you
                      I would still get screwed

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Leadtek 7350KDA (SIS 735), TBred 1700+ (1466@1656, 12x138), Mushkin PC2700 256mb, Leadtek GF3 Ti200 128mb @265/500,
                        SB Live! 5.1, IBM 45GB 7200rpm, TEAC CDW58E 8x8x32

                        ... is what Admiral's sig says...
                        DM says: Crunch with Matrox Users@ClimatePrediction.net

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hmm... i dont have the game nor do i intend to get it. UT2003 suprisingly runs smoothly on a PIII600MHz 256MB SDRAM Geforce256 64MB DDR system. so the graphics engine cant be at fault. From all your comments,(i may be wrong but) i can only deduce the problem lies with memory implementation. DDR SDRAM users seem to fare better as well those with 128MB graphic cards esp. nvidia cards. Things should clear up after a few patches.. remember MOHAA..

                          ragu.
                          (my 2c)
                          Life is a bed of roses. Everyone else sees the roses, you are the one being gored by the thorns.

                          AMD PhenomII555@B55(Quadcore-3.2GHz) Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 Kingston 1x2GB Generic 8400GS512MB WD1.5TB LGMulti-Drive Dell2407WFP
                          ***Matrox G400DH 32MB still chugging along happily in my other pc***

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Yeah it does seem to like 128mb video cards. And that could explain EVERYTHING, truth be known. Bear with me:

                            Long load times...
                            This could be cause by the engine stupidly forcing texture compression through. Long RELOAD times could be due to the level not caching properly, or the engine stupidly forcing the entire level to reload. Without texture compression, load times are greatly reduced in other games as well.

                            Crappy framerates...
                            If people are getting 20-60 varied without the compression, 10-40 with would not surprise me.

                            Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if the engine were simply making some retarded assumptions... or if the designers only hipped one set of textures.

                            - Gurm
                            The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                            I'm the least you could do
                            If only life were as easy as you
                            I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                            If only life were as easy as you
                            I would still get screwed

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Please, sir. Tell me your mystical config. I have an 1800+ and a 64MB Radeon 8500 275/275. I get unplayable frame rates at 1024x768 with default settings. I get mostly playable rates (albeit with kicks, stutters, and tearing) at 800x600 with detail settings all at medium. Please clue me in as to how your machine is set up. Mine is pretty damn fast.
                              Here are my specs:
                              Athlon XP 2000+ stock speed
                              A-Open Ak77-333 (via kt333 chipset)
                              512 MB DDR266
                              Audigy (253 drivers)
                              Radeon 8500 275/275 stock speed 128 MB VRAM (Built by Ati)
                              (Catalyst 2.3 drivers currently)
                              Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 80GB

                              All I can say is that maybe the game's textures + framebuffer do not fit into 64MB, but they do fit into 128MB. Maybe try different versions of Ati's drivers?

                              REALLY? I clocked mine. The SHORTEST load time was 30 seconds (between cut scenes). The longest was well over a minute. Saving takes LITERALLY 20-30 seconds.
                              The times I stated earlier are accurate. Saving takes no more than 5 seconds. I have no idea why? Which Catalysts are you using?

                              I surely would like to know how Tomasz is doing it. Before his post i'd have said that NOBODY on the planet can play the game smoothly at 1600x1200.
                              Nothing special. Probably because of playing games at relatively low fps on my g200 and g400max for the last few years I have gotten used to low framerates and it does not bother me much. Seriously, for single player first person shooters, I consider anything over 25 fps to be playable and 30-40 to be quite good. I play in 1600x1200 because the same framerate dips into 15-20 fps area occur on lower resolutions too. Just the max fps, which I don't really care about, rise at 800x600.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I'm beginning to REALLY suspect the video memory.

                                - Gurm
                                The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                                I'm the least you could do
                                If only life were as easy as you
                                I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                                If only life were as easy as you
                                I would still get screwed

                                Comment

                                Working...