| |
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....
|
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 488 |
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: 4732 |
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: 11391 |
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: 1045 |
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: 4732 |
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: 1045 |
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. |
| |
Goat
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 43 |
Then please add at least these new credit categories instead of simply "crack": unpacking, password removing, improving, shortening, high saver including, onefiling, levelpacking, including picture, changing device number, etc... and maybe even unboxing the original, inserting the disk correctly, eating and farting. |
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
Quoting Goatfarting.
+1 |
| |
Mr.Ammo
Account closed
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 228 |
Best thing to do is to break with traditions. Traditions are holding back progress.
Not sure if CSDb needs or even wants to be a meta-data database. It's an archive for releases as I have been told numerous times and it's doing a pretty good job at that. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
