Max Appearance Settings for Unreal 2?

[gp]

I'm giving Unreal 2 another try, and would like to have all the eye candy turned on. After going through the video options in the in-game menu, the game world still seems heavily aliased. In comparison, Unreal 227 with everything maxed seems much more clear, as well as more current games. I tried looking in Unreal 2's advanced settings, but I wasn't sure what the ideal settings should be for each entry. I also tried forcing higher settings through the video card's control panel, but that didn't seem to do the trick. Things still look jagged and the draw distance looks like it can be improved.

If there's some tweaking that can be done to the advanced settings, or even directly into the ini, I'm interested. I also did some light searching for any enhanced renderers or high resolution textures to no avail.

So my question is basically how to get Unreal 2 to look as good as possible, whether it be by third-party or just maxing all available settings that shipped with the game. Any help would be appreciated.

[スマイル・ドラゴン]

Unreal 2 wasn't designed to use Anti Aliasing properly, if you have a NIVIDA Geforce card you can force Quincux 16x anti aliasing but this will seriously degrade overall performance as it's not smart on what and what not to anti alias...

Forcing settings worked for me though so I don't see exactly what your problem is unless you're not doing it properly... Unreal 2 overall has no "high res" textures, neither does any other game. They just fake it using bump maps and other post processing effects, but the average texture size is either 512x512 or 1024x1024...

[GreatEmerald]

The question is, what's your graphics card and drivers?

[gp]

I appreciate the interest, but I ended up uninstalling it a few maps in when I found it just wasn't entertaining to me.

[Pravin]

An excellent choice.

[KillerSkaarj]

I found Unreal 2 to be a decent way to kill time, and some parts were kinda fun (for me at least). It's a terrible Unreal game but it's at least a halfway decent Halo-clone (Yes, I called Unreal 2 a Halo clone. What of it?)

[Bleeder91[NL]]

I found Unreal 2 to be a decent way to kill time, and some parts were kinda fun (for me at least). It's a terrible Unreal game but it's at least a halfway decent Halo-clone (Yes, I called Unreal 2 a Halo clone. What of it?)

[img]http://eriksmind.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/masterchief.jpg[/img][img]http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww269/Bleeder91/JDalton.jpg[/img]
yep, I get your point.

[GreatEmerald]

It's a good game, although its possibilities are endless, it's just that those who only play it can't understand what they could do with the engine itself. For example, with the dialog system and such, you could even turn it into a good RPG.

[Hellkeeper]

It's a good game, although its possibilities are endless, it's just that those who only play it can't understand what they could do with the engine itself. For example, with the dialog system and such, you could even turn it into a good RPG.

There's a lot of could and should and may and was supposed to, but in the end, the game itself was really not good and mods using it can be counted on the fingers of one hand

[gp]

I personally feel that Unreal 2 is the result of shortsighted planning and a lack of vision from Epic as a business. To throw another "could have" into the mix, Epic could have viewed the Unreal universe as a franchise to build upon. Instead they tossed away the development of the sequel to a third-party who, despite any different opinions about the quality of the game, most fans don't feel as if it fit within the atmosphere created by Unreal or that it's a "true sequel." I think that RTNP should have given Epic warning signs that Legend simply didn't have the talent to handle a full sequel to their franchise, and Unreal as a series could be in a completely different place had the proper effort and skill gone into the development of Unreal 2.

Valve software released Half-Life in 1998, the same year that Unreal was released. Sure they had some bumps and bruises along the way, but I use them as an example to point out that it's possible to have a franchise still going strong for over a decade with fans still anticipating the release of the next Episode. And just this month Infinity Ward released their sixth entry in their flagship series, and I believe I read its sales are strong enough that they might break records. If Epic had kept the development in-house and maintained the standards Unreal created, Unreal would be more profitable and we as fans could be awaiting the release of the third, forth or whatever entry using the latest technology to push the limits of what Unreal brought to us originally.

Finally I'd say that Epic could have scaled their development team with their profits and expansion plans, and wouldn't have had to abandon their Gears of War development if they had hired new people to take over the development of Unreal. All they'd have to do is maintain QA over the project without losing any place they're at today. GoW people would have their game and we'd have ours. Oh well.

[GreatEmerald]

No way, Legend was able to create a good game. The problem is that nobody let them do that. They had to release a game with everything removed from it, since Epic or Atari wanted a release too early. If it wasn't rushed, it would have been a success, I'm sure.
Atari were being evil anyway - first, rushing out U2, telling Legend to cut all the MP content from it, and finally terminating Legend when they were in the middle of a project and still in the support cycle for U2/XMP.
It seems, however, that Epic have learned their lesson - the Titan Pack came out really well, it wasn't rushed (and even kept as a secret so nobody would try and rush it), was well planned, included content reminding about U1, plus they are choosing better publishers now.

[スマイル・ドラゴン]

Atari went from being a nice home console company in the 80's to a completely B$ publisher today... Screw them..

[Leo T_C_K]

Except that the new Atari are in fact Infogrames..and Legend delevoped a lot of strong titles, later some guys left the company and they were sold under gt interactive, under which they produced few games including wheel of time, which is a great looking game and also ahead of its time in many things...
Unreal2 had a lot of potential, the original idea and creature design etc was excellent, the final product what we got is a pretty much knockoff of all of that. In fact it had far more potential, than say quake 2 ever did, which is just a rather tasteless spinoff of quake.

I wouldn't even call it a Halo clone, since Halo ripped off ideas from other games and the developement of both games overlapped. Unreal2 started developement right after Legend finished their other games, oh and RtNP was not done by a main team even, they just hired quake community mappers and Unreal coders to do the job. Talented people on their own though, but they didn't have much time to do the pack and they had very little experience of working professionaly.

[スマイル・ドラゴン]

Warhammer 40,000: Fire Warrior ripped off from Halo so many things you'd be surprised.

[Leo T_C_K]

I didn't even play Halo..but it never looked like a good game to me and it is actually what I hate on the modern games and the enemies are awful, some cute lame monsters running around speaking english? Is that supposed to be menacing? I watched some playthrough videos, didn't watch all because it got really boring.

Unreal2 didn't have any english speaking aliens and they all looked more menacing than what is found in Halo, and if they didn't cut the other enemiesand enemy types, then it would be even better.

Halo was main competitor on XBox opposed to Metroid Prime (sadly I never played it) on Nintendo GameCube, while Unreal 2 kinda stayed in behind that and for PC. (in fact whoever posted that pic could even bring Samus Aran in the line, they are all "heroes" in suits, also that Master Chief in the first pic is not from original Halo, so you should have shown the original I think, than compare it with Halo3 one or what it is)

[[]KAOS[]Casey]

Halo is a very generic game, I would say it's gameplay is slightly above unreal's but not by much. Even halo 3 is basically the same as halo 1, but looks better. I don't understand why people like it so much. and yeah I have played it.

Metroid prime is a superior game through gameplay, immersion and lore. And I believe the metroid series was the first to have a protagonist in some sort of powered armor or some such.

Unreal 2 is better than halo by a large margin, but Unreal 2 as a sequel fails miserably.

It's just like Deus Ex vs Deus Ex : IW. a total disappointment.

[GreatEmerald]

Well, it's not supposed to be a direct sequel. Except for RtNP, there never were direct sequels in Unreal franchise. Each UT isn't a direct sequel, each UC isn't one either. And their bitter-sweet finals are always left to hang and never continued. That's just their style.

[KillerSkaarj]

And their bitter-sweet finals are always left to hang and never continued. That's just their style.

I just noticed that that comment in itself is bitter-sweet, but that's not the reason some people weer mad at Unreal 2. Its atmosphere was vastly different from Unreal 1's. Unreal 1 could almost be compared to Metroid Prime in atmosphere, whereas U2 felt more like Halo (OH SNAP. It's Metroid vs. Halo all over again!!).

In U2, we visited almost nothing but industrial areas (not including the second half of Sanctuary, nor the massive planet-covering thing's stomach, etc.) and fought more humans than aliens. All throughout this, someone's speaking to you through your suit's receiver. The Drakk Homeworld did a VERY good job IMO with the lonely, alien atmosphere, but that was it.

In Unreal 1, as we all know, the areas are kept fresh by varying between modern, mechanical settings (the ships, mines, etc.), ancient areas (ruins, temples, the castles, etc.), and outdoor areas (the villages). Every human we saw was dead, and our only enemies were nothing BUT alien life-forms. You were alone on the planet with no one to help but the Nali.

Unreal might not be about atmosphere, but atmosphere is what made the first so great, not to mention the gameplay. Unreal 2 no doubt was going to have an atmosphere at least hinting towards Unreal 1's (The underwater planet, that one area with the psychic guys), but Atari had to be an ass and force Legend to dumb the game down and make it less awesome. RTNP felt VERY Unreal-like, whereas Unreal 2, made by the same people, of course, does not. I think the fault here lies with Atari or whatever they changed their name to.

[[§Ŕ] ŤhěxĐâŕkśîđěŕ]

I personally didn't like Halo 3.

And I think Unreal *is* about atmosphere, as well as Unreal 2. They aren't even look-alike. In Unreal, you go through campaign alone (if not online I mean) and in Unreal 2 there are other humans. I think that's the biggest difference in atmosphere, you can't really compare the other stuff. It's not a very good idea to compare games, anyway. Comparisons like that are not really stable because someone will think game A is better than game B and someone else would think the opposite. However, some games are epic enough to receive compliments. And those who flame even those games which they believe are the worst, need to get a life. So what if you didn't like it, either be constructive and tell the authors of it how to improve or shut your mouth... (Not referring to any of you here.)

[gp]

I'd agree that comparing two separate games with different gameplay goals is mostly fruitless, depending on the conversation. Arguing with someone that one is "better" in gameplay terms is liken to argue with someone that they should like chocolate over vanilla because it is "better," even though one has no control over the other's taste buds.

However, I think that GT Interactive/Epic/Legend made comparisons between Unreal and Unreal 2 fair game as soon as Unreal 2 was given the Unreal branding. A sequel, as far as I'd argue, is supposed to expand and improve upon the original's strengths/story line/style; while keeping some of the original's own plot within it. And while I won't say that Unreal 2 is a game that its fans shouldn't enjoy, I just wonder why it was given the Unreal name at all, other than trying to capitalize on the IP. To me, it felt like Legend had finished creating their own game using the Unreal Engine 2, with its own game universe and unique plot, when they received a memo from management stating that it was supposed to be a sequel to Unreal. So they then changed a few names and modeled a few Skaarj, put into the game and called it Unreal 2. I felt like they tried to shoehorn a completely different game into the Unreal canon rather than carefully form a game around what the original established.

And that's what I was saying when I said I felt like Epic abandoned Unreal's singleplayer potential, and a series they could build upon/profit from, by allowing Legend to create such a different game. It was like they told Legend "We've got this Unreal Tournament thing going and it works for us, so do whatever you want." And I admit that I don't know about what Unreal 2 was supposed to be as much as some of the other posters here, but why couldn't it have been its own IP? Instead I'd assume that Unreal 2 ended the singleplayer series in a way that left most people with a bad taste in their mouths and not very excited about the notion for Unreal 3. And just so I don't come across as too negative, I'm glad for those of you that like Unreal 2.

But at least we've got [url=http://www.oldunreal.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1225322482]Firestorm[/url] coming, which I think will be a better Unreal 2 than what Unreal 2 turned out to be, in terms of plot, atmosphere and homage.

[Hellkeeper]

I just wonder why it was given the Unreal name at all, other than trying to capitalize on the IP.

Don't wonder any further than this.

Now if I can add a few things, while U2 technically one of the most intriguing and impressive I've ever seen, turned out to be used at about 20% of its possibilities. Unreal 1 on the other hand, had not a lot of assets to begin with (I mean, compard to Quake 2 which was its main competitor, it didn't have any really important asset), but was used far more completely. The material used in Unreal are not numerous. Maps, textures in 256 colours, a few ill-optimised meshes, a bunch of creatures with few possibilities of control and its peculiar lighting. But they used all this pretty well.

Unreal 2 had a ton of new assets and used them very badly. Conversation support ? Just for a few useless and tasteless dialogs. Vast outdoor environments ? Where you can only take one single path. Volumes, physics and Collision tools ? Completely useless. Complex bot scripting ? Ok, they used this one, but seriously, what did they do that was new ? it was basically a few people talking and a bunch of patrolling gards. Particle effetcs ? The only asset they used at 100% of its possibilities (and the result was great).

And of course, shipping the game with a broken and incomplete Unrealed was a backstab to the community which had been building maps for U/UT for 4 years. And no multiplayer. Yeah, no multiplayer in a game that made its name on its multiplayer. Great move (although it is commercially understandable, given the possible competition with their own ut2003).

[GreatEmerald]

Now if I can add a few things, while U2 technically one of the most intriguing and impressive I've ever seen, turned out to be used at about 20% of its possibilities.

This is QFT!
The UnrealEd isn't broken, it's just unstable... Yet has a lot of awesome additions. Actor search, particle engine, working DrawStyles for static meshes...
Yea, the particle engine is awesome, but I don't even think they used it to 100%. It's so advanced yet easy to use and understand that the possibilities are endless! In my particle tutorial video I managed to create snow with no intentions of doing so

Hmm, thinking about it, having two multiplayer games isn't really bad. Both UT2003 and U2 were created by Epic and produced by Atari, so either way money goes to them, it doesn't matter which one they choose, and having 2 games makes you stronger than the competitors. The way it turned out didn't imporve their income at all.

[justinian]

Just wow at all the people calling Halo generic and mediocre. My mind boggles at how someone can even put Unreal 2 and Halo in the same sentence unless you want to highlight Unreal 2's relative incompetence and laziness in almost every regard.

The games seriously couldn't be further apart in terms of FPS design and quality. Now before you go calling me some console 'tard who has never played a "true" FPS, consider that I've been a fairly hardcore PC shooter fanatic since Wolfenstein 3D, and that I am on these forums.

What Halo brought to the genre was a pure revelation. Before Halo shooters were all about ammo collecting and playing it safe so that you wouldn't lose health. There was no reward for waging into battle and creating dynamic tactics on the run. What allowed Halo to achieve gameplay that was deep, visceral and to this day pretty much still unique, are a few critical rethinks about what makes shooters fun:

- A recharging aspect to health. These allow a player to rethink how to approach a fight. Instead of skulking around corners, players could launch themselves into each encounter without worrying about losing health and not being able to find a healthpack.

- Offhand grenades and single button melee. Most shooters before Halo made grenades and melee seperate weapons which had to be switched to, reducing their immediate usefulness and viability in combat. Halo focused on melee, weapons and grenades as the 3 pillars of combat, creating combat situations where all 3 were important to success.

- 2 weapon inventory. While other shooters were about getting bigger and bigger guns throughout the game, resulting in a player carrying a huge stash of weapons by the end, Halo forced players to choose only 2 weapons at any one time. This created not only tactical considerations, but also allowed EACH weapon to shine in various situations throughout the game. No longer were the smaller sidearms only useful in the first 2 levels, no longer could a power weapon become a guaranteed insurance against tougher enemies, and no longer do you have the problem of finishing the game with all your most powerful and fun weapons at full ammo because you were waiting for some superboss that never materialised (also another bane of shooters that Halo disposed of). Fundamentally changed gameplay folks.

- Vehiclular combat seamlessly integrated into gameplay. Halo wasn't the first to do this (Tribes comes to mind but it was multiplayer only), but it was the first to do it well and make it fun. Vehicles were no longer "sections" of the game that had to be beaten, but a added tool which like weapons allowed the player to approach combat differently every time. Not to mention the classic physics which brought such dynamism and hilarity to encounters.

- Superior AI and open sandbox like encounters. The enemies in Halo were designed to interact with one another and the player. Commander units commanded weaker units, weaker units ran to commanders for protection when overwhelmed, and panicked when commanders were killed. These behaviours were tied into levels which were huge and offered many approaches, rewarding daring and experimentation. Do you take out the vehicles, or do you hijack them to use against the enemy, do you snipe the commander and cause panic so you can flank?

All these aspects allowed Halo to offer situations throughout the game that not only never play out the same way, but created a mindset of attrition and endless possibilities. Any tactic seemed possible, and the game rewarded not only skill but also daring. The exhilaration of pulling through epic encounters by a whisker every single time knowing it was your ability to adapt to the dynamic situation and not just your ability to aim well and save ammo, is IMO unmatched to this day in FPS games.

This is all without mentioning the beautiful soundtrack, engaging story and iconic weapons, enemies and vehicles which have made Halo as popular as it is today. Yes, it's cool to hate on what the masses love, and to act superior because Halo wasn't your first FPS, but sometimes it's worth taking a closer look.

[GreatEmerald]

This thread is not about Halo. The title says "Max Appearance Settings for Unreal 2?", and it would be nice not to go off-topic, thanks. You can always create a new thread, you know.

Though I will never agree with your "My mind boggles at how someone can even put Unreal 2 and Halo in the same sentence unless you want to highlight Unreal 2's relative incompetence and laziness in almost every regard." sentence because Unreal II is awesome in many, many ways - the only downside is that nobody really tries to create any kind of mods for it, thus missing the whole promising part entirely. For example, I don't think I have ever seen anything better than Unreal II particle system (thanks to Scott Dalton), both visually and intuitiveness of their creation.

[Hellkeeper]

the only downside is that nobody really tries to create any kind of mods for it, thus missing the whole promising part entirely. For example, I don't think I have ever seen anything better than Unreal II particle system (thanks to Scott Dalton), both visually and intuitiveness of their creation.

I've already thought about creating something with U2, but the audience would be so tiny that it doesn't seems worth the time