| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
Release id #47392 : SWAT Saboteurs - Raid on Timbaland
I think crediting Chris Yates with code for this is quite out-of-place. Perhaps there should be a new credit, "Tool" or "Development tool"? Or just skip it all together.
I'm certainly not going to start adding the ca65 and Turbo Assembler developers to the credits list of my productions. :-P |
|
| |
j0x
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 215 |
I believe the rationale is that SEUCK games contain Chris Yates' code, whereas programs compiled/assembled using ca65 or Turbo Assembler do not in general contain any code from these tools.
I'm not saying I agree with giving credit to Yates. I've also noted that some people credit the guys who coded the loaders used in the production. If we were to follow that line, we'd also need to credit the guys doing the decrunch code.
Only crediting *custom* work (exclusive artwork, custom loaders, etc) would solve some of the problems (e.g., game coders and intro coders should not be credited in a crack, IMHO), but I wouldn't want to lose the credits for, e.g., ripped game music/art used in old demos (Hubbard and Bob Stevenson come to mind)
(in case you couldn't be bothered to read the full post, here's a quick summary: I don't have a solution either) |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
I think one shouldn't credit for utility code (cruncher, music player routiner), but you should credit for the actual product (music, graphics, custom code).
In addition you could credit people that are explicitly credited in the release.
The loader routine is a bit in between.
We should't make too much a fuzz of that and leave it to the one actually filling out the credits :-) |
| |
j0x
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 215 |
Quote:We should't make too much a fuzz of that and leave it to the one actually filling out the credits :-)
Yes, that's probably the best rule :)
|
