| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Suggestion: New release type "C64 Import"
Rough started a discussion a couple of years ago (see Adding the cracker group to import/trainer version), pin pointing a problem where a crack may be credited repeatedly for a group - due to the many imports that may exist.
Some attempts have been made to differentiate cracks from import by suffixing the entry with "[import]" - an approach that might not be appealing to all.
Discussions suggest that original crack group (pun intended) be credited only on *their* release, while imports only be credited to importing group, leaving a link to the original release.
My biggest concern is to be able to (quickly) identify and differentiate cracks from import, when checking for existence of a certain release for example. Although this can be partly solved by suffixing the name, I'm not sure it's the right approach. Cleaning up the credits list would partly solve the problem, but I still wouldn't be able to clearly see a difference between crack and import.
So I'm suggesting that we add a new release type. Let's call it "C64 Crack Import" or just "C64 Import" for short. It would be a fairly easy task to just "re-categorize" any imports stumbled upon, and to some extent it could probably be batch-made with an SQL query (Perff?).
It is often talked about that the DB is not designed to handle certain new features (tags for instance), while adding a new release type would make no harm to performance. Also, from a DB design perspective, it would make more sense since you can then do filtered searches where imports and cracks are differentiated. Also in release lists, it would be possible to see the difference.
...
Having import as a release type, it would furthermore be possible to have an option in listings to "Hide imports"... the result of which of course would depend on the quality of the entries, but it *would* be possible. Think future. =) |
|
... 34 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
yes, and "cracking", as you know, refers to removing copyprotections... |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Since import have its own flag, they need not worry about being classified as re-cracks. I believe it's really only "lame re-cracks" and added trainers that fall into the re-crack category.
And the definition (referenced Groepaz file) of a re-crack is " not a genuine crack". I'd have to bend myself to tick this flag for a version with added trainers. At least if that's the definition..
Can this be made more clear in any way? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
maybe "genuine" is not the right word. its supposed to be a generic definition along the lines of how "crack" was defined. so if a crack is "an unauthorized modification of someones game", a recrack is "an unauthorized modification of someones crack". |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1045 |
Then you have "Re-Release" flag also, equally as lame. |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Well I'd say that is of little importance, as it's only relevant for counting points [e.g. The List]. I'd say most of the existing entries would be re-releases then? And who's to judge? :) IMO, it doesn't add any value to the entry on CSDB really. Better keep that info elsewhere for those interested. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
re-release aka "mail version" aka lame. indeed =) you are right though, its of little importance - like many other of those flags are =P |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1045 |
True.
For me, first release and import flags are the most significunt. |
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
""lame re-cracks" and added trainers that fall into the re-crack category."
I second Didi on that ("If the training group gives proper credit to the group who did the crack I don't consider it as a recrack.").
A recrack, to pass off another's crack for his own by removing the true cracker's intro and so on, is something completely different than improving other people's crack (bug-fixes, highscoresaver added) with giving credit to the crackers.
Noone in the old days would have called Ghostbusters II +27 a recrack, cause that term is definately for doing something LAME. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
i agree, the problem however is to find a simple and clear definition for what sets apart a "trainer" version from a "re-crack" is not giving credit to the original cracker enough?
and we need a different property flag (like "re-crack") to maintain backlinks to the original crack then - whats a less silly name for it than "crack of a crack" ? =D
that said, i guess we want a "fix" flag with backlink to another entry too, so we can maintain pal/ntsc fixes that way too? :)
mmmh and it should then probably be a dropdown box (select only one of) containing "recrack" "import" "improvement(?)" "fix" because it can be only one of them?
edit: mmmh or would it be a better idea to just have generic "based on another version" checkbox with backlink? mmh :) |
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
"i agree, the problem however is to find a simple and clear definition for what sets apart a "trainer" version from a "re-crack"
Yep, some people added cheats and other extra stuff but "forgot" to mention the cracker.
"is not giving credit to the original cracker enough?"
Guess not. e.g. if credit is given inside the game like it used to be done a lot by changing game credits and highscores text and the trainer only points out something like "presents +4 trainer" in his intro/trainer screen without claiming to have it cracked, it's not a recrack.
Also: Removing the original cracker's intro wasn't always done to hide the crack's origin but for size reasons. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
