| |
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.... |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007 Posts: 548 |
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. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009 Posts: 4552 |
Spending energy on making this database better and more accurate is what you should do here. That is the main purpose having an account here. I am only interested in the accuracy of the database. It's not about scene politics and/or anything else. I am not attacking other groups or anything else.
My interest here lies in to be as exact as possible, and the credits is the key to that. It's a lot of work to "correct" entries, but that is what this place is all about. I have spent 10 years here, uploading and researching >10.000 releases. Instead of spending energy on modern day scene politics and stuff, helping the database grow and be more accurate is what people should spend their energy on here, in my view. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011 Posts: 478 |
I support what O'Dog and Slator pointed out. You can overdo accuracy. You can also transfer whole detailed credits for e.g. Comaland from the note for each part like O'Dog mentioned, but would that make sense?
Slator had the right words for it IMO:
The term "cracked by" was more like "work done by", whatever you did. It was just a standard term used.
That should be enough for a CSDb entry. For me the current credit "Crack" is good as is, no change or extension needed. To be used as Slator wrote. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009 Posts: 4552 |
Quote: I support what O'Dog and Slator pointed out. You can overdo accuracy. You can also transfer whole detailed credits for e.g. Comaland from the note for each part like O'Dog mentioned, but would that make sense?
Slator had the right words for it IMO:
The term "cracked by" was more like "work done by", whatever you did. It was just a standard term used.
That should be enough for a CSDb entry. For me the current credit "Crack" is good as is, no change or extension needed. To be used as Slator wrote.
One could also check Tacky+2HD intro scroll: It mentions no credit for cracking. But it do credit trainer, hi-saver, bug-fix and linking. Just wanted to point that out.
And if accuracy and research is not what this place is about, we should lift out the archive, and just keep the forum and quasi facebook debates. I'm dead tired of debating people who fight wind mills. The energy should be put into making this archive better every day. If people in here have the attitude: "get a life" and "what does it matter", go to IRC or other places and rant there. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017 Posts: 11 |
Debating this with you is infact fighting windmills, because you don't get my point: Keep it simple and keep detail to a level that makes sense. You will not find that detailed credits everywhere. It has nothing to do if I have really "cracked" something or not. It is just the common standard phrase from scene history for what ever a cracker has done... but if CSDb really wants to invent the wheel again... so be it! |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 11088 |
so after over 20 years you find out that csdb names some things different than what your personal pet theory calls them?
GOOD WORK
at the end it doesnt even really matter. what matters is that everyone uses the same rules and naming schemes - not what exactly those rules are. deal with it.
and as others said already... it doesnt really clash with "traditions" either. even in 1985 ppl called things "cracks" where nothing was cracked in the first place. and even in 1985 ppl using "linking" and "packing" (the later even was a discipline of its own for a while). that YOU didnt do it doesnt really matter.
if only the energy in this thread had been put into making a release that is even worth such a thread. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 1044 |
Whole lot of blablabla.
Crackers can do whatever they want with this stuff. They did it in the past many many times. Conformity will struggle as opinions differ. I think write it in the scroll text the way you want, what happens on a DB like this, forget about it. :D |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009 Posts: 4552 |
Quote: Whole lot of blablabla.
Crackers can do whatever they want with this stuff. They did it in the past many many times. Conformity will struggle as opinions differ. I think write it in the scroll text the way you want, what happens on a DB like this, forget about it. :D
Yes. Call it what you want in your scrollers. If you want to call linking cracking in your scroller - nobody will complain (but people will laugh of course, and mock you. IRC is a good place for that ;)). But in a database of this kind we need to be exact, and we do have people here that actually knows if there was cracking involved or not. The facts of the database should not be debateable. We, the users signed up here, should all help the database to aim for preciseness. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 1044 |
Well, don't think anyone questions on when a protection was cracked or a protection did not exist etc. But more, that the word crack has indeed been used many many times as a reference to modification of some kind. |
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |