| |
jcompton
Registered: Feb 2006
Posts: 70 |
Release id #84078 : Stationfall
What is the standard to actually tag a release as "broken"? This release is not actually playable as-is because the documentation-based copy protection is still in effect. So in my view that would make it "broken" but I assume this is a discussion that has already happened somewhere... |
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11100 |
the "broken" tag on csdb indicates that the particular file is not ok, and that a proper one exists (but could not be found). it does NOT indicate that a crack does not work, or something is missing because the cracker screwed it up. |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2476 |
Wouldn't that be covered by the "Proper release: BROKEN" tag, plus an explanation of the problem in the goofs? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11100 |
oh i was referring to "corrupted file" :)
the "release proper" is indeed for flagging releases where the cracker fucked it up :)
however, in this case i think it doesnt match - it was quite common that the docs came as a stack of photocopies rather than typed into some c64 notefile (which once you think about it...is kindof useless for a lot of those "big" games anyway) |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2476 |
Yeah, but not removing the password protection would still count as "the cracker fucked it up", I guess. :-) |
