underworld ascendant freezing up fixed


Hey guys i played the game for about 1.5 hours game never crashed it looks like this game runs on the old microsoft.net framework from windows xp/vista i dumped the UIautomationcore.dll and that solved the problem.
just in case you don’t know microsoft rewrote the netframework in windows 7 and took it out all toguether in win10.the game was not crashing before the update so i don’t know how much of the old framework is in the game but that fixed it for me.
Dragons age origins was doing the same thing randomly crashing the dll file fixed that as well but sometimes you get framerate lag i totallly understand dragons age as the release for that was back in 2009 and made for winxp/vista.but come on guys this is a 2018 release.anyone that is having the same problem welcome to email me at amackmacka@yahoo.com and ill gladly send the the dll.i got 2 diferent versions of the dll for windows vista i dumped both in there.


This is a Unity game, so it is possible that it is using .NET framework, but this is a fairly limited usecase. Even so, I strongly advise anyone who wants to install the framework to download it from Microsoft’s servers directly: https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-framework-runtime

The Unity manual shows what .NET support is available. Very few games that I’ve seen make use of it, in favor of the IF2CPP tools that are built in (and can thus be ported to other OS, like Linux and Mac): https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/dotnetProfileSupport.html


the game might no be crashing anymore but is taking a long time to load and i got frame rate lag in other words is taking lot of my computer to run this game because it was made crappy you imagine skyrim actuallly runs smoother then this game the witcher 3 runs better then this .i have a game called thief simulator that game also takes a while to load because that is how the game was made but that is an indie game i do not consider this an indie type of game good luck putting this on the consoles.


Yes, I’d imagine 100 developers with tens of millions of dollars to fund the development would manage to optimise a game to a much greater extent than 10 developers without those resources.


The above is not actually true, either in respect of general practice, or necessarily in this case.

A surplus of programmers doesn’t guarantee anything except a surplus of code, and perhaps different commenting regimes. Of course, debug teams can help…which leads to…

Otherside were notionally a small team, but using an established engine, to which they could bond their own code. And, as was said, a good number of sub-contractors, including access to engine-debug help, and pipeline expertise, publisher manpower, testing etc etc.

Optimising, in my experience, is as much a managed experience as it is an end-process. You start with as clean a code-bed aspossible, or set of functions or whatever (or the changing sands of a 3rd-party engine, which you ‘lock’ against constant change) and you have strict testing regimes, many of which are pre-planned, and frequent.
By all accounts the code is not that bad according to some commentators.

In this case, we were told many times that processes were in-hand, and being managed. It was only as things progressed that it became clear this was a variable (boom boom). Of course it’s not that easy, but extra bodies does not necessarily make a difference.

Plus, it’s even harder to optimise when you are met with changing scope, different game requirements, and the addition of physics engines late on…and you have agreed to an insanely tight (unrealistic) schedule before you’re even in the nitty-gritty of testing, never mind end-optimisation. Familiarity with an/the engine counts for a lot, too.

I’m struck by one strand of posts that always seem to labour the ‘small resources’ argument as if it negates just about every fault. Memory leaks are not what they were.

More than ever, common sense applies. If you’ve got a small team with prior experience then you’re duty-bound in some ways to scope the game accordingly and allow suffiicient time for optimisation, saving regimes etc.

If it’s messy now it’s because it’s after-the-fact.


It’s not like Unity produces smooth-running games just out of the gate. And I’m not saying, in any shape or form, that having few resources negates any fault. I’m saying that it’s unreasonable to compare a small project on a shoestring budget to the likes of Witcher 3 and Skyrim, big games made by big studios with lots of resources.


Poor resources is fine, but it still competes in the same market as games with larger money pools, so maybe less ambitious and more polished for next project. Indie is not an excuse when you still have to compete against other, better-financed alternatives for the consumer dollar.


Starker said:

It's not like Unity produces smooth-running games just out of the gate.

Oh come on. no…no engine does. And this one doesn’t hinder them either. Of course, provided you have people familiarwith the engine at hand, and consistency of code-handling.

And if it’s engine suitability …well you choose the right engine for the job. Game design 101. Not that this excuse can be used here.

I’m afraid that game-design is the issue here (amongst many others)…not a game of ‘blame the small team’, ‘blame the money’, ‘blame the fans’ or ‘blame the engine.’

As for competing with big-budget games…why? Where? How? Consumer consciousness is not monogamous. Underworld is it’s own thing. It will always have a place, if done with affection and half an eye on what makes a decent immersive RPG. It’s not either/or. That’s yet another ‘escape capsule’ argument.

Dawn…but I’m not sure it does compete with those mega-money games. There was, and is, a residual pool of Underworld fans that is large enough to release a successful game for, and still make good money. Of course, if you ignore those fans, and what they’re saying, then you run the risk of reducing your income and success (ahem). It is a large market, there’s plenty enough to go around.

Not many devs have (had?) a property as widely known, and loved, as this one, to play with? Plenty would have loved that asset and headstart…?


What I commented on was about the comparison with Skyrim/Witcher 3. Do you think it’s fair to compare their development to UA’s?

Yes, no game engine produces well-optimised games, that’s exactly my point. You need people and time to make it work. You can’t expect the same results from a team on a shoestring budget than you can from a company with deep pockets of both resources and talent. A team of 100 developers means you have people to spare to work on something like this. It’s not as easy for a small team where a few programmers are all tied up with making the gameplay work while at the same time wearing a designer hat while at the same time responding to bug reports.


Sometimes I wonder if you are even reading the same thread! Nevertheless, if you have the right idea from the start, things have a much better chance of working out in the end… seems to be what Flug is going on about.


Starker said:

What I commented on was about the comparison with Skyrim/Witcher 3. Do you think it's fair to compare their development to UA's?

I don’t think the comparison itself is meaningful. It’s a red herring.
We can discuss any number of non-sequitars instead of the underlying issues: which are failure of design, imagination, scheduling and production.

We said years ago you judge by results, not intentions - and if you judge primarily by financial limitations then you’re going to love it to bits (while doing a disservice to all those successful games produced b small teams with limited budgets…at which point another trap gets sprung,which goessomethinglike ‘well, it’s those pesky big budget player expectations these days’.

As for bug-reports, I have heard from several testers who were there from the get go… that a good deal of the lower-level feedback was seemingly ignored. I’m not talking about superficialdetails. Added to this, the cheer-leading aspect which was heard a lot around Paxtime, was often suspiciously gushy and vague, as were the dev-led magazine testing snippets.

These are all mini escape pods from the central fact - the game was badly envisaged in it’s final (panicky) year (and perhaps from the beginning), and wildly unfinished even in those narrowed aspects which were retained, or bolted-on at the last minute. One thing stands out here - do you remember how often we collectively said we had no idea of how it would play, and what would be included? It was always a game of wait-and-see, and vertical Slice-gets-further-sliced.

To matters worse, much of this was foretold and forewarned (loudly and repeatedly). At this point the ‘seasoned veteran’ reason was often given, or ‘trust us’. And we did, by and large,…because there was little alternative. Small details were often acted upon,and forum interraction did go through ups and and downs (it got markedly better) but to what end, if there was a void at the centre of it all?

Yes, no game engine produces well-optimised games, that's exactly my point. You need people and time to make it work. You can't expect the same results from a team on a shoestring budget than you can from a company with deep pockets of both resources and talent.

Already answered time and again. Plus,who wanted that big-bang triple A glitz? According to the devs, not them. According to us, not us. So who, exactly? Perhaps …sunspot activity was to blame?

A team of 100 developers means you have people to spare to work on something like this. It's not as easy for a small team where a few programmers are all tied up with making the gameplay work while at the same time wearing a designer hat while at the same time responding to bug reports.

We know all this. So you cut your cloth, and in theory listen to your core supporters who are to some extent wanting a sequel which, by the way, is what they have advertised, whilst precisely trading off the originals (and their own experience and glorious hand in it).

We have done the ‘grateful-that-it-was-being-made’ thing to death. Now that it has fallen wildly below expectations, and also wide of the mark…a few sane crux points from the devs who were there is not unreasonable (given legal restraints). Fromadesignperspective if nothing else. It’s not about finger-pointing…I see it mostly as being about imaginative failure. It’s a small and trivial take on an otherwise large game-world predicated on tension, darkness, mystery, interactions, survival and problem solving. And to think you can stack boxes.

It’s not as if statements to date have settled the matter. In fact, given their wholesale unreality (Joe’s face and demeanor in his first post-release vid said more than everything else since put together) it wouldn’t do any harm to flesh out some of the process. No-one, least of all the devs I suspect, think it all boils down to small-team-money-deadlines. That’s just not a sane appraisal, and still doesn’t account for the game’s lack of scope, or actual ‘game’.

I’m curious as to why so much ofthe ‘game-world feeling’ is missing, not just the direness of the tone and many of the game mechanisms. The NPC and dialog thing is inescapable here,wyether we like it or not - and other standard Underworld experiences.

Where were the ideas? Were there any at the start? If so, what happened to them? We saw the wholesale removal of features starting about 9 months out…that much is known…but why? When did the design change so much that it relied on so many chunks not being technically viable in the time allotted? Scheduling? Engine? Personnel turn-over?

Simply as a PR exercise if nothing else, some fleshing-out would be worthwhile. It is more than just ‘small team’.


Again, the only thing I commented on was the comparison to Skyrim and Witcher 3. How is that a non-sequitur? If you agree with me, why are you arguing so vehemently? Or do you disagree with me?

Me saying optimisation takes time and effort means simply that a small team with few resources can’t be compared to triple A developers in that regard. As for who asked for this, there’s one person right in this thread who I was responding to who asked for this.

As for the other stuff, I remember quite clearly when people did want larger levels and in fact a very common criticism was the small size of the tutorial level. Also, graphics was a bugbear as well, until UA started to resemble a triple A game more closely.


…Starker I’m not laying all at your feet.It’s more a long sigh, aimed at the devs as much as anyone else. It was they who initially raised the ‘small team-no-money’ thing. And that was fine. But it doesn’t explain the lack of an Underworld game entirely.

The small team may be a factor, of course… but the over-riding reason?

For some perspective, years ago when I was in software the program with a team of 7 (and goverment-level responsibilities) made a better product than a later commercial product that saw the team go from 11 programmers to a team of about 85, and each seat licence triple in price. It’s seldom a simple equation.


Why don’t you make a thread about it, if you want to get it off your chest so badly?

Also, I have experience in software development as well and I know just how hard it really can be. I can only imagine it being even worse for games.

Look, it could be that a team of 10 can be better than a team of 100, especially when the team of 100 is mired in office politics and just wasting time. But a team of 100 of a veteran studio, a team who is used to work together, who know all the tools, who have the resources they need and then some… Yeah, I would not take that bet that a team of 10 is better off necessarily. A small team can be efficient, but not 10 times as efficient, if the larger team has their stuff together.

Also, maybe UA wasn’t as polished as Skyrim right out of the gate, but it’s getting better from what I hear.


With respect to the original topic/post, for what it’s worth, there’s strong evidence that the freezing/long load happens mostly in the Underswamp - either a load of a savegame in that area or a transport from there to the Hub.

I’ve seen others say it’s “six minute load times” but from what I can tell UA.exe becomes unresponsive with no network or disk activity then appears to “wake up” at some point and the do the actual load which takes a matter of 1-2 seconds (lots of caching going on apparantly).

I thought the last update solved the above but I’m pretty sure I was doing most of my exploration in Upper Erabus at the time and other non-Underswamp areas where the problem doesn’t occur. When I started a new game and went back to the Underswamp i experience lots of freezing.


This does match my experience; I have experienced it in places other than the Underswamp, though. It also doesn’t always seem to “wake up”, and waiting isn’t worth it for me on the offchance that it might, so usually I just try to save before a portal, and if it stops responding, just restart UA and retry. I haven’t yet had a portal lock up twice in a row.

When going through a portal at the end of a level, the lock up appears to happen before displaying the quest results screen.