«

[Japo]

EoF, even if there's a problem that the game can't stand a ZA popup and it should, perhaps the problem can be averted if you make it so that the popup doesn't happen. Try creating a rule to block the game (or allow if it's necessary) and if it's a non obvious EXE which is trying to connect, look in the log as I said. It's worth trying if you can finally play the bug-ridden game you paid for.

[Icewolf]

I still think the problem is with the code and not with your firewall settings.
A game shouldn't interfere with ANY of your securiy-instances.
You can't ALWAYS blame yourself... I think EoF is right.

[Tulac]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cazgotsaved @ Sep 5 2007, 03:36 AM) [snapback]308898[/snapback]</div>

For that matter, who really is going to remember spore or hellgate london in the next twenty years?
[/b]

I remember before Sims came out, most of the press was talking - "Who the hell is going to play this game?"

[Japo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Sep 5 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]308951[/snapback]</div>

I still think the problem is with the code and not with your firewall settings.
A game shouldn't interfere with ANY of your securiy-instances.
You can't ALWAYS blame yourself... I think EoF is right. [/b]

True, but. If the game can't live with ZA's normal operation there's nothing to do besides turning ZA down. BUT if the game can live with ZA's normal operation and crashes only after ZA's popups, it's still the game's fault but EoF could sort this out in a satisfactory way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Sep 5 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]308956[/snapback]</div>

I remember before Sims came out, most of the press was talking - "Who the hell is going to play this game?"[/b]

+1, even today games are made as innovative and rich as in the old days, regardless of eye candy (it doesn't substitute gameplay but it doesn't hinder it either). Only not so many.

[gregor]

hmm why not right clisk the ZA and block all internet traffic before playing the game? then i think it shouldn't op up any windows and computer is also safe (i mena since the game doesn't really need the connection...

[Tito]

Well, I think the problem here may be that you're paying too much attention to big blockbusters (such as the aforementioned Hellgate London, Spore, Stalker or Star Wars games) and that is a perfect way for finding all those issues you hate (brilliant graphics, impressive sound, poor gameplay, inexistent originality).

Search a bit more, there are plenty of games with interesting concepts and fresh ideas behind all those marketing campaigns. If you hope the game everyone's been talking about for the last two years of developement to be a gem, you'll suerly be dissapointed.

[Eagle of Fire]

EoF, even if there's a problem that the game can't stand a ZA popup and it should, perhaps the problem can be averted if you make it so that the popup doesn't happen. Try creating a rule to block the game (or allow if it's necessary) and if it's a non obvious EXE which is trying to connect, look in the log as I said. It's worth trying if you can finally play the bug-ridden game you paid for.[/b]

I've thought about that, but the troubleshooting guy didn't paid attention to this. He said he don't know, and why would he bother anyways since he already know how to fix the problem: turn ZA off...

hmm why not right clisk the ZA and block all internet traffic before playing the game? then i think it shouldn't op up any windows and computer is also safe (i mena since the game doesn't really need the connection...[/b]

I think you missed the point... The point is that I want to be able to play the game and be online at the same time. Blocking everything is exactly the same than getting offline, closing ZA and playing the game. Which I already can do... Furthermore, I have no problem imagining that the game itself try to connect to the internet on loading... Hey, Civ III Complete (only Atari versions do that) install a spyware everytime it boots, which I know about for a long while now...

Search a bit more, there are plenty of games with interesting concepts and fresh ideas behind all those marketing campaigns. If you hope the game everyone's been talking about for the last two years of developement to be a gem, you'll suerly be dissapointed.[/b]

Been there, done that... I've purchased City Life exactly for that reason... Not too costly, didn't hear much about it but know fairly well what the game was about and I was expecting it to be good. That, and there was really nothing else on the shelves at the time...

[Blood-Pigggy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tito @ Sep 5 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]309004[/snapback]</div>

Well, I think the problem here may be that you're paying too much attention to big blockbusters (such as the aforementioned Hellgate London, Spore, Stalker or Star Wars games) and that is a perfect way for finding all those issues you hate (brilliant graphics, impressive sound, poor gameplay, inexistent originality).

Search a bit more, there are plenty of games with interesting concepts and fresh ideas behind all those marketing campaigns. If you hope the game everyone's been talking about for the last two years of developement to be a gem, you'll suerly be dissapointed.
[/b]

That's not really what matters, everyone knows System Shock and its sequel's name now because of Bioshock, but who's really played it? Tons of people probably downloaded it from HotU or something and played it for 30 minutes before the atmosphere or lack of direction got to them.
I don't think it applies to discussion when it's about the biggest games in general.
If you have to shift through the mainstream junk to find a decent game that's a problem, I don't want to go online to some small developer's site to buy their game for $60.

As for Spore and Hellgate London I mentioned both of them because their graphics aren't causing any waves in the industry but people are genuinly interested in the gameplay, be it Spore's expansiveness or London's Diablo action on a closer level with tons of cool things that set it apart.

There are very few titles that are still hyped for their concept, or much less, actually played.
There are practically three factors that go into the popularity of a game, its presentation, marketing, and popularity of its brand (IE the Elder Scrolls or Starcraft).

[chumloofah]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Blood-Pigggy")</div>

That's not really what matters, everyone knows System Shock and its sequel's name now because of Bioshock, but who's really played it? Tons of people probably downloaded it from HotU or something and played it for 30 minutes before the atmosphere or lack of direction got to them.
[/b]

True true.
But everybody who's everybody who does games has enjoyed the sequel.

[Blood-Pigggy]

My point is that there's no purpose beyond revealing a classic title when you introduce 10 year old games which have already lost their ability to make money for the publisher and developer long ago.
That's what was done with Bioshock and System Shock 2.

System Shock 2 was in no means a poor sale, it did very averagely, but people tend to laud such games so much and ask why there aren't more titles like it, but the fact is is that they didn't buy the game in the first place.

Everyone likes to hear about how GREAT Deus Ex is, but why do most people tend to speak out about good games that aren't exactly in the public eye when it's been out for several years? I hardly heard anyone talk about Deus Ex or System Shock 2 when it was first out, despite the fact that its quality was even more evident back then.

The industry is shallow, it's all marketing and PR, and so are the people who play games, everyone wants to look more sophisticated than everyone else, companies LOVE mentioning older games in order to put everyone into that "Oh, I remember that game! I was one of the few who played it! *Sticks out chest*" mentality.
So instead of actually delivering the same sort of depth these older games provided, companies adore waving them around to incite a fan's interest, or just to alert the general gaming public that their game is more "inspired, and sophisticated" just because they mentioned some obscure game that got good reviews but almost no one played.

I have this little theory about the majority of gamers who march around telling everyone how they should have played this or that game back then, and how originality in the industry is gone because no one plays those types of games.

The largest amount of those people have
-not played many or any of the games they tend to mention
-are the exact type of people that play an older title for ten minutes and become alienated and give up
-have no clue what they're talking about
-think that just because a game is unknown it's somehow more "hardcore"

I just feel it's wrong that the industry today has taken the games that we find so dear, not because we were one of them few that played them, but because we thought they're *dirty word* good, how many people actually appreciate that when they play System Shock 2 after they downloaded it from an Abandonware site? Not many, there's a big difference between someone who likes to know about gaming's past, and someone who still likes to play those older titles.



That whole blurb was kind of confusing, but in summary, my original point from that quote was that "spiritual successor" and "inspired by" are merely tags in order to snab an additional audience, or create credibility, both among gamers and developers.