| |
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. |
|
| |
Shine
Registered: Jul 2012
Posts: 369 |
A _crack_ for me was/is a program, who had a copy protection. (Maybe a password protection...)
A copy protection is something what can't be copied and running after copying 100% with a standard/native copy program.
If this is disabled by someone, i would call it crack.
Only my 5 cent... |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4732 |
The credit "Crack" is a credit. It shows if someone actually cracked something or not i.e. a protection. If the person trained something, add that. If he or she linked something, add that. It's the fine spectrum of an entry. Thus: just add "crack" as a credit if something was actually cracked, i.e. made copyable, copy protection removed.
The entry definition "Crack" is an umbrella definition to be able to run this database: It is a definition of a program or game that was cracked, manipulated, or released as a crack, with just added trainers or whatever. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Hell, it's your database. Tag the stuff as you like.
But it is not faithful to C64 scene tradition. Just to have that mentioned.
If you wnat it that fine I request "Hi-Saver" and "Level-Packing" credits. Otherwise there is no proper way to credit such things. "Crack" was fine for all kind of manipulation like hi-savers, different loading system, level-packing, one-filing or whatever. So you make things more complicated with the new definition IMO. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4732 |
Quote: Hell, it's your database. Tag the stuff as you like.
But it is not faithful to C64 scene tradition. Just to have that mentioned.
If you wnat it that fine I request "Hi-Saver" and "Level-Packing" credits. Otherwise there is no proper way to credit such things. "Crack" was fine for all kind of manipulation like hi-savers, different loading system, level-packing, one-filing or whatever. So you make things more complicated with the new definition IMO.
It's our database, not mine. Thus, I will forward your requests to Perff. If it's anyone's database, it's his. Don't shoot the messenger. |
| |
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: 4732 |
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: 11391 |
who cares how csdb calls it anyway - what matters is what they call it on the top5 elite BBSs! |
| |
Goat
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 43 |
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: 4732 |
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. |
... 15 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
