Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
  You are not logged in 
Underground 101% +4HF   [2012]

Underground 101% +4HF Released by :
Laxity

Release Date :
11 May 2012

Type :
C64 Crack

Videosystem: NTSC fixed
Proper release: 101%
Properties: First release

User rating:awaiting 5 votes (4 left)   See votestatistics

Credits :
Crack .... Didi of Laxity
Trainer .... Didi of Laxity
  Zyron of Genesis Project, Nostalgia, Oxsid Planetary
NTSC-Fix .... Didi of Laxity
Bug-Fix .... Didi of Laxity


Intro used in this crack:
DownloadLaxity Intro #35 (Fractal Zoomer) by Laxity

Download :
http://csdb.dk/getinternalfile.php/105938/Underground_+4H_Fix_101_GP_LAXITY.zip (downloads: 737)

Look for downloads on external sites:
 Pokefinder.org


User Comment
Submitted by קєคςє๓คкєг on 12 September 2012
oO
Didi, if you would ever touched a HiTMEN Pal release in the past (well, we always fixed our stuff anyway, but still) i would have kicked your ass ;)

Its rather lame to take a PAL release and fix the game without talking to the release / cracking group.

In the good old days, Cracking and Fixing groups where working together at 99% of the releases done. Please do me a favour and do not talk about stuff you have no idea about. Thank you.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 16 May 2012
@Groepaz:
"a) not having cracked this myself" -> Easily done now, no big deal.
"b) calling the trivial patch ntsc fix" -> It was trivial after I recoded most of the raster routines to make them fix-friendly. But that's some work, too. ;) Also the scrolling needed a fix.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 13 May 2012
Better, pure Laxity version is available here:
Underground +5HFC
User Comment
Submitted by Ksubi on 13 May 2012
Jars' Revenge [tape] is still waiting for a NTSC fix :)
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 13 May 2012
"I'd for one would ask the orignal cracker group if there was any future releases that would need to be fixed and released as co-ops, instead you just pick random releases and fix em."
personally, i'd be terribly ashamed of a) not having cracked this myself and b) calling the trivial patch ntsc fix, and then making a big fuzz about it.
then again, that might be the reason why i stopped cracking 15 years ago :)
User Comment
Submitted by -$iXX!- on 13 May 2012
I'd for one would ask the orignal cracker group if there was any future releases that would need to be fixed and released as co-ops, instead you just pick random releases and fix em.

You could apply at theelite@c64scene.com.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 13 May 2012
Didi: That is exactly what is annoying and makes this discussion to CSDb Drama Thread no 1 this year: you whining over a evil conspiring and unthankful GP, when the discussion is about how to credit a release on CSDb.

We actually do not care what you do on your spare time. Keep on ntsc-fix whatever release you want to spend time on, search for games in CSDb to release or watch Sex Cartoons II. Fly little butterfly, fly!

Alea iacta est.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 13 May 2012
Lemming: Just as I previously wrote: Lesson learned. Never try do do some special people a favour because it will hit you in the back just like Brutus did with Julius Caesar. No more LXT fixes for GP. Topic closed from my side.
User Comment
Submitted by lemming on 13 May 2012
>I have the original here. Just wanted
>to do a fix for GP to see the
>reactions

You got plenty of reactions, however you can't change how people react and especially how they have reacted. This seems like a very passive-aggressive way of approaching this all because:

>My point is just that GP wants to
>hide their (unwanted) involvement in
>this release because they (or some of
>them) simply don't like us

Still, it's not forbidden to use common sense: Just asking or even mentioning about doing this release to, for example, Zyron or Hedning or Sixx would have been a sensible thing to do. It may not be what you consider a tradition, but since there is this thing called The Internet that we're on, nobody has to wait for snailmail to travel 10000 kilometers or hack AT&T or Sprint or your local VMB to get in touch with the releasing group.
It makes no sense to make a 'surprise release' such as this one, expect bad reactions and then not accepting those reactions.

>I stay with my point: I will never
>fix a release by GP again to avoid
>this nit-picking discussion.

And this would have been a good point to start avoiding this discussion :-)
Seems like everyone got their points across some dozen comments ago.
User Comment
Submitted by -$iXX!- on 12 May 2012
"It's just my personal opinion. Would be nice to know what the original GP members think about how some members of the rebuilt GP C64 act nowadays."

Just had a chat with Antichrist and Snacky, don't worry, they are just fine with how things are working out. Thank you.
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
Quote:
Again tradition and history: A Crack with additional NTSC fix has always been counted as combined effort to the final release. That's just the way it is. And if you don't want your effort to be mentioned, it's your problem.

You keep repeating yourself.
Why not present some back-up for what you state instead; every group should be/have always been thankful for whatever other group fixing their release & then upload it without even bother to check if it's ok with the cracking group. And if the original cracking group disapprove they are morons, fucking jerks, probably stupid admins on some c64 scene database website & not supposed to have any disagreements at all but just go along with whatever anyone feel like doing to anything they release, more or less. yay!
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
"NTSC fixers don't have to care about authorization to fix others releases."
you dont get it do you? its not about you fixing that release AT ALL. and another wrongly entered entry STILL doesnt mean you can make even more wrong entries. and if zyron didnt want G*P mentioned, then WHY DID HE DO SO IN HIS COMMENT?

sigh
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Again tradition and history: A Crack with additional NTSC fix has always been counted as combined effort to the final release. That's just the way it is. And if you don't want your effort to be mentioned, it's your problem.
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
Didi, you can fix our releases as much as you want to - just don't add it as a GP release, since it isn't - anymore. :)
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@Zyron: Accept the tradition: NTSC fixers don't have to care about authorization to fix others releases. ;)
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
You can't release for GP since you're not a member or authorized to. Period. Get it?
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@groepaz: Look at all those Slaves of Keyboard stuff for example. It's just similar... and that were just introlinks... e.g. Dan Dare III +7... registered as combined release.
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
"A pure Laxity release including intro and trainers from GP... makes sense... NOT!"
so if i link a shitmen intro in front of this crap, it becomes a shitmen/laxity/g*p release? now that you say it, it makes a lot of sense!
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
"But declared it as re-release, which it isn't."
aha. WHO GIVES A DAMN REALLY? its still not a G*P release.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
A pure Laxity release including intro and trainers from GP... makes sense... NOT!

I stay with my point: I will never fix a release by GP again to avoid this nit-picking discussion. It was a mistake to do it once but the lesson is learned. Good night!
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
You keep dodging the point; this is a Laxity release. That's it, really.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@Zyron: NTSC fixed releases were always entered as release by both groups here... until some nit-pickers tried to change that... but let's not start over again... it's getting boring. It's overall a combined work of both groups, that's a fact. Authorized by each other or not. But as Jazzcat wrote: NTSC fixers never needed permission to fix a release, they just picked one they liked. And most took it as a honor when they picked theirs and made it usable for more people that way.

@groepaz: But declared it as re-release, which it isn't.
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
btw "At current state noone is supposed to know that there also exists this release based on Underground +3 by GP, because the linking information was deleted." - did you somehow miss that zyron did put exactly that info in his very first comment? =)
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
This was originally entered as a release by GP & LXT, which it isn't, so I simply removed GP as releaser. The rest is CSDb drama.
User Comment
Submitted by Jazzcat on 12 May 2012
"Best is to get the original and work on that."

Not necessarily. Fixers can do what they want, always have.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
I have the original here. Just wanted to do a fix for GP to see the reactions because you consider us lame. I just got what I expected, so this will be the first and last Fix of a GP release by us.

@hedning: It all started of Zyron claiming this to be a re-release of the GP release. Which showed he was pissed about us touching his release at all and missing knowledge of C64 cracking terminology and history. Maybe you should work on that. Usually it was an honor to get own releases NTSC fixed which makes them usable for a wider public.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 12 May 2012
Didi: This discussion is about how CSDb should work, and not about GP or LXT. And please: Before you overreact and attack GP with ugly shitstorms next time, try to find the core of the discussion and see if your frustration with GP is suitable to unleash and if it has anything to do with the discussion.
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
Best is to get the original and work on that.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Next time I will only credit the things we added and add a comment with relationship to the release it is based on. Would this be correct for you?
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
"So why were the Supply and Trainers credits removed as well?"
they dont belong here for the same reason the credits for the crack intro or for the actual game dont belong here.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@hedning: So why were the Supply and Trainers credits removed as well? You already got your Firstrelease counted some days ago, so why care about the later releasedate of a modified release? Our next release of this kind will be made from original again, at least if it is a GP firstrelease, so this discussion will be avoided.

The only thing ONS had to say when we last fixed one of their releases was: Thanks for the fix.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 12 May 2012
No. We just simply did not release Underground +4HF 101% [pal/ntsc] at all, and especially not may 11 2012. Don't be so sensitive.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
My point is just that GP wants to hide their (unwanted) involvement in this release because they (or some of them) simply don't like us and due to the fact that Zyron is a CSDb Admin has the might to alter the information like it's convenient for him even it is locked. Simple as that. Someone who downloads the release will get the information anyway. It's even included in the screenshot. So it's useless to remove the links. ;)
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
sigh. it has been common practise since ages, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a moderator involved in whatever release. the same rules are applied to everyone. and if its not written down yet, then it may just be because not every fucking tiny detail has been written out yet. if that is the case however, the solution isnt to assume whatever you feel like, but to ask how it should be done and to update the rules. so if that is what keeps you from getting the point, i guess that what needs to be done. is it?

somehow this reminds me of the idiots who insist on putting credits for the actual game, or the crack intro, into crack entries. sigh.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Excuse me, I cannot find rules about how to properly fill a new record in CSDb. So these rules only exist in your mind and how you admins think about how it should be done. Most users just do it like they see it was done on similar entries. So did I. This entry is now very different from the usual information found in a similar entry, because relevant informations have been removed on request by someone who, oups, is a CSDb Admin himself and don't want to see his name or the one of his group related with this release.
I always thought this should be some kind of archive. Where information is collected, arranged to be easily found and not destroyed due to personal inconveniences. But it seems this is only as long as no Admin is concerned. At current state noone is supposed to know that there also exists this release based on Underground +3 by GP, because the linking information was deleted.
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
its irrelevant how other people feel about how it should be filled really. if everyone fills it how he feels about it, the result is chaos. and thats why these rules have been established, no more no less.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@Groepaz: Some people seem to think different about how to fill this database, that's why all these, in yours and Zyrons opinion, false entries were made and are still entered that way.
I entered C64 scene 1994 with no knowledge about it and established an own group which was finally after years accepted and respected by several old elites. But this is for sure of no relevance in your eyes. Maybe this all happened too late to be really noticed as the peak of cracking scene was long over.
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
"You and Zyron don't seem to have much knowledge about C64 cracking scene standards"
hearing that from someone who never did anything of relevance back in the days when it still mattered is kinda cute.
and not that it matters at all. the scene is not csdb. csdb is not the scene. deal with it. and it has nothing to do with scene standards at all, its a just rule on how to enter certain info into the database. dont like it? dont do it!
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
Quote:
It's just my personal opinion. Would be nice to know what the original GP members think about how some members of the rebuilt GP C64 act nowadays.

All the old members would've given you their blessing in this matter, is that what you imagine?
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 12 May 2012
Why don't you ask them instead of moaning about it here?
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
It's just my personal opinion. Would be nice to know what the original GP members think about how some members of the rebuilt GP C64 act nowadays.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 12 May 2012
Can't you see what you are doing? Instead of discussing the topic you are attacking us again. I'm outta here. I am glad you are using your shit volcano in your own thread, at least.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Scene and CSDb standards are different in several ways. You and Zyron don't seem to have much knowledge about C64 cracking scene standards which existed long time before CSDb, so no foundation for a real discussion.
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
it feels more like being a zookeeper really.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 12 May 2012
Didi: Feel welcome and do whatever you want. This discussion is about scene standards and CSDb, not about GP. It is you that is taking this personal, attacking G*P and acting like a huge baby.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Well, being CSDb Admin has to feel like having the powers of god. ;)
Life's nothing without having the right friends... read Trivia.
User Comment
Submitted by -$iXX!- on 12 May 2012
There's literally 1000's of unfixed games so you better get going if you gonna do 'em all.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
So what do I learn here:
I thought I would do GP a favour by fixing their release instead of doing an own, better release (the original was easy to find) and let the worse release fall forgotten. But after this I will never honour any of the new holy GP releases again with a fix. Guess they don't mind because most of their game releases do not require NTSC fixing at all.
User Comment
Submitted by -$iXX!- on 12 May 2012
What the fuck is a mega-LOL? Sounds Darth Vader like to me.. Get a life.
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
as zyron said, other incorrect entries do not justify adding another.
oh and, a lot of the old fixes ARE in fact coop releases - most of what empire put out for example.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@Groepaz: You gonna tell me that any group whose release was NTSC fixed back then was asked for permission to do so or asked for doing it? This is new to me!

@Zyron: Mega-LOL! Just because of your holy opinion all other entries are false! Not all of these past groups were in coop and I never claimed this is a Co-Op release, but both groups are involved in a way.
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
Quote:
Oh boy! Check any afterwards fixed game from the past. There are always all involved groups mentioned as releasers. Why should this be changed just because of you don't like your borrowed famous group name to be mentioned along with ours?

Hey Didi, listen! It doesn't matter if there are thousands of incorrectly added releases here on CSDb which list each and every group mentioned in the release as releaser, fact is that unless a release is a coop it can only have one releaser; the group releasing the crack. Oh, and Laxity is a famous, very good musician & nothing else it seems.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 12 May 2012
Wtf, Didi. What is this trolling good for? I agree with Zyron here, and I believe the "releasing group" credit is used wrongly on csdb. Why would it be dates added if this was not the case. GP did not release this May 11 - you did!
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
"There are always all involved groups mentioned as releasers."
it should only be that way if both groups were actually involved in the sense of working together - removing G*P from this one is correct. (and probably also hedning and zyron should be removed from the credits)
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Oh boy! Check any afterwards fixed game from the past. There are always all involved groups mentioned as releasers. Why should this be changed just because of you don't like your borrowed famous group name to be mentioned along with ours?
User Comment
Submitted by titan_ae on 12 May 2012
na damit scheint meine anfrage wohl hinfällig, didi.bei soviel wohlwollen hier.
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
This was _not_ released by GP but Laxity, so GP can't be a releasing group.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Readded GP, because you were involved in this release, if you like it or not. :p
I reclaim misuse of Admin privileges by Zyron!
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@Zyron: Then you have to call every NTSC fix by a different group in the past a re-release. Guess you need some serious lessons in C64 cracking business/history. Empire or NEI were some of the greatest re-releaser groups back then refering to your definition.

@Groepaz: You see he doesn't even know what he's writing about. Every NTSC Fix in the past e.g. by an US/CAN group must be a re-crack then. LOL
User Comment
Submitted by -$iXX!- on 12 May 2012
Mmmmkey.
User Comment
Submitted by Groepaz on 12 May 2012
"re-release"
re-crack you mean :o)
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
I did not make the definitions of CSDb. Give me a credit for modifications or Hi-Saver and I'll use them. Discussing this over and over again is pointless. Topic closed.
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
Yes, it is a crack (release type) but there's no cracking (credit type) involved.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning on 12 May 2012
Ah. The famous csdb rules. ;)
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
@Zyron: Installing Hi-Saver is an "unauthorized modification" = crack in definition of the CSDb rules. It's definitely more than just linking.
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 12 May 2012
What did you crack? My linking?
I removed GP as release group since this is a Laxity re-release of GP's Underground +3.
User Comment
Submitted by Didi on 12 May 2012
Nice to see that someone cares about. Thanx!
User Comment
Submitted by The Shadow on 12 May 2012
Yeah this game seriously needed an NTSC fix. Lots of work was done. Good fix!
Search CSDb
Advanced
Navigate
Prev - Random - Next
Detailed Info
· Summaries
· User Comments (68)
· Production Notes (1)
Fun Stuff
· Goofs
· Hidden Parts
· Trivia (2)
Forum
· Discuss this release
Sponsored links
Support CSDb
Help keep CSDb running:



Funding status:




About this site:
CSDb (Commodore 64 Scene Database) is a website which goal is to gather as much information and material about the scene around the commodore 64 computer - the worlds most popular home computer throughout time. Here you can find almost anything which was ever made for the commodore 64, and more is being added every day. As this website is scene related, you can mostly find demos, music and graphics made by the people who made the scene (the sceners), but you can also find a lot of the old classic games here. Try out the search box in the top right corner, or check out the CSDb main page for the latest additions.
Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2018
Page generated in: 0.097 sec.