Author
|
Topic: Hacks of Hacks? (Read 2 times)
|
Disch
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2008, 12:51:23 pm » |
|
Uh, that's pretty hard to do, if, say, you want to hack a game that was translated from Japanese to English. Pretty hard to not "include the original patch's work" in it, unless you wanted the person to re-write ASM routines, change the font, and change ALL of the script.
I think you misunderstood. You wouldn't make your patch against the original ROM, you'd make it against the translated ROM. So to play your hack, the user would have to apply your patch to the translated ROM (not the original untranslated ROM). But that seems silly to me.. and will just mean your hack might become broken if an update to the translation patch is made.... and may ultimately lead to confusion regarding which version of which translation of which ROM you're supposed to be patching. |
|
|
|
|
Lindblum
Guest
|
|
« Reply #46 on: September 08, 2008, 01:08:17 pm » |
|
DS,
I've actually been thinking about that issue, as it applies to me. Let's say someone wants to make an improvement patch for FF7 NES that uses my translation patch but doesn't include it. If the hacker does all their changes directly to the translated ROM, at the end it could be very difficult to separate their work from mine. It would be more responsible if they would write a batch that preserves the original ROM (oROM) and the translated ROM (tROM), produces a copy of the tROM as the new ROM (nROM), applies all their modifications to nROM, and then generates an IPS by comparing tROM to nROM.
|
|
|
|
|
DarthNemesis
Guest
|
|
« Reply #47 on: September 08, 2008, 02:02:24 pm » |
|
Uh, that's pretty hard to do, if, say, you want to hack a game that was translated from Japanese to English. Pretty hard to not "include the original patch's work" in it, unless you wanted the person to re-write ASM routines, change the font, and change ALL of the script.
I think if the person who creates a patch like this simply says "this is what I did, and everything else was already in so and so's patch" it should be fine.
I think the idea would be to simply make your patch as the difference between the original patch and your hacked version. That way it would include only the changes that you made, and then you could just link to (or distribute intact) the original patch to maintain its credits separately. That way you'd be less likely to step on any toes. Edit: Whoops, missed the new page. |
|
|
|
|
Paladin
Guest
|
|
« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2008, 03:18:37 pm » |
|
I don't think anybody has a problem with a patch created for a patched ROM. Just don't include the original patch's work in your work. That way, the patch you make is all your own work.
Ah...yes...I understand now. :thumbsup: That way the end user knows exactly the difference between what your work is and what it's built upon...and the proper credit to all is well understood. |
|
|
|
|
DarknessSavior
Guest
|
|
« Reply #49 on: September 09, 2008, 01:44:55 pm » |
|
Uh, that's pretty hard to do, if, say, you want to hack a game that was translated from Japanese to English. Pretty hard to not "include the original patch's work" in it, unless you wanted the person to re-write ASM routines, change the font, and change ALL of the script.
I think you misunderstood. You wouldn't make your patch against the original ROM, you'd make it against the translated ROM. So to play your hack, the user would have to apply your patch to the translated ROM (not the original untranslated ROM). Yeah, I did misunderstand that. I didn't know he meant to patch off of the translated ROM. But even if that's what he meant... But that seems silly to me.. and will just mean your hack might become broken if an update to the translation patch is made.... and may ultimately lead to confusion regarding which version of which translation of which ROM you're supposed to be patching.
This would happen. I don't see how it hurts to patch off of the original ROM, including the stuff person A did, and your edits, as long as you credit person A (and provided person A doesn't complain). ~DS |
|
|
|
|
Karatorian
Guest
|
|
« Reply #50 on: September 16, 2008, 06:50:49 am » |
|
I've got a fairly strong opinion on this subject (as I've mentioned before). I honestly belive that someone hacking a hack has no more obligation to the original hacker than they did to the game stuido that produced the game. In other words, basically none.
However, I belive that credit and informing one's predeccessor of your work is to the benifit of the community. What I don't belive is that permission needs to be granted. I'd be willing to bet that no one here has permission from the original game studios to make thier hacks, nor do they need it.
I truely belive that anyone who says "don't hack my hack" is a total ... Nevermind, I'm fairly sure what I was going to say is against the terms of service. I'd say that asking permission isn't required, but it's a nice gesture. But, I'd also say that granting said permission when asked is mandatory. Of course others disagree, but how they can hold such internally inconsistant views is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
