| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Release id #165554 : Tacky +2HD
Always the same old discussion about what has to be credited as "crack". Even more confusing CSDb now uses different definitions for credits and release type.
There have been a lot of games which never had a protection and claimed to be cracked by someone (even by well known "real" crackers who were able to break protections). Do you plan to verify every crack entry if the original it was made from had a protetion to crack? Have a lot of fun with that. |
|
... 15 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Easiest way would be to accept the usage of the "crack by" credit as is. It was used "wrong" for a lot of years now and from the release itself you need an old crack-dog to know if the original was protected or not. Some games were released in different compilations, with protection and without. Crackers often credited themselves for cracking if they just linked an intro, so it would require lot of investigation to check out what was really done to a game. I doubt that many uploaders have the knowledge for that. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4586 |
O'Dog: Still, you know what you cracked and not, so your entries should be easy to correct, yes? It would be a good start, and the point of this discussion in the first place. You will not see crack credits in GP, Ons, Triad or Excess releases if nothing was cracked, for example.
I am not pointing this out as an attack on you or LXT, I just try to start somewhere, and contemporary cracks seemed like a great start, as we often know if there was a copy protection or not. I actually started as some other users of CSDb pointed this out. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11101 |
who cares how csdb calls it anyway - what matters is what they call it on the top5 elite BBSs! |
| |
Goat
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 42 |
Quoting hedningYou will not see crack credits in GP, ... if nothing was cracked, for example.
I'm just curious: so these games for example really had a protection that needed to be cracked?
Chain Reaction
Plop
Catch 2 +2
Or this preview? Balla Balla Preview |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4586 |
The two first ones were cracked from tape originals, if I remember correctly, yes. The older GP cracks were added to the database by others long ago, but I will correct them when I find them. Perhaps you could find more? Thanks for pointing them out. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Why invent new rules? It is C64 scene tradition to call everything changed to an original game "cracking", protected or not (ask CZ). People I spotted nitpicking about that were demo sceners or new sceners who don't know or don't care about tradition.
Calling the installation of a hi-saver simply "linking" does not reflect the work done either. Please just respect tradition and leave it as is. It is easier to have such an "umbrella credit" than adding special credit for everything a cracker might have done to a game. No uploader will examine the details anyway. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4586 |
Quote: Why invent new rules? It is C64 scene tradition to call everything changed to an original game "cracking", protected or not (ask CZ). People I spotted nitpicking about that were demo sceners or new sceners who don't know or don't care about tradition.
Calling the installation of a hi-saver simply "linking" does not reflect the work done either. Please just respect tradition and leave it as is. It is easier to have such an "umbrella credit" than adding special credit for everything a cracker might have done to a game. No uploader will examine the details anyway.
As I said I have forwarded the request to add "highscore saver" and more stuff to the credits choices so that one can point out what has been done, but still the specific credit "crack" should be chosen if a copy protection was indeed cracked, as that is what "crack" means.
I don't get why you are fighting this. I have added well over 10.000 entries to this database for the last 10 years, and have only seen a broad understandment about this. This is actually the first time there is such an energy in defending a wrongly specified credit. Do you really want to be credited for cracking something when there was no cracking involved? People will keep on laughing. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
It seems you don't get my point: I think you (the moderators) are overdoing with too detailed credits on cracks. Only few will figure out what a cracker exactly did with the game without digging too deep. I'd compare it with crediting each shown effect in a demo to a special coder in CSDb credits, e.g. "vectors by", "mega-dycp by". Got me? That's why I opt to stay with the general credit "crack" and done. Just want to keep life easier for you and the uploaders: Upload a crack, the one who did it is credited for "crack" and maybe "trainer", finished, next.
Only few whiners and nitpickers really care if there had been some protection to crack. Go read the scrolltext or note for more detailed credits and hope they tell the truth. Invite those nitpickers to ckeck the 75.000+ cracks in CSDb and add detailed credits if they have nothing better to do. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 549 |
Just to add my own 2c here.
Back in the 80s/90s I did a few cracks myself and I can tell you that, at least with the swappers that I dealt with, expectations were high. We didn't simply link an intro on the front of a game and call it a crack, that's for sure - I'm sure that some groups did but, well, those groups would largely be ridiculed for that in others' scrolltexts, in the disk mags etc.
Some releases may have been mislabelled where there were, for example, improvements made to the loading system of a game - eg. where IFFL was added... but definitely no proper crackers would claim to have cracked a game where all they needed to do was to copy a file from disk, pack it and link an intro on the front.
I know the scene was rough on crackers as I screwed up a release and was flamed for it (Indiana Jones .. I was the only member of the team that could do multi-load cracks at the time .. sadly, I didn't notice that there was a graphics glitch on level 2 caused by my changes).
So yeah, Hedning is right, "proper" cracks would need to actually be cracks. |
| |
Slator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 273 |
well, honestly, a "crack" was just a label for a game release by a cracker group, may it have actually been cracked in the sense of protection disableing or just intro linking.
The term "cracked by" was more like "work done by", whatever you did. It was just a standard term used. Some people wrote "released by" sometimes, I did that for some Game On/Magic Disk games as I didnt "crack" them, but that is nitpicking.
If you are bored then get a life and maybe not redo every entry for just nitpicking over others, there are not many people out there caring for such info me thinks :D
People who actually have a clue and/or a cracker background will most likely know which games were protected and which not.
I don't see a point in doing this work. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
