ANSi JED<ACiD>
In Their 26th Year Of Glory, FairLight Released #1038
Prototype 2 (c) Activision Blizzard
Supplied by: FAIRLIGHT : : Release Date: 28/07/2012
Cracked by: FAIRLIGHT Game Type: Action
Packaged by: FAIRLIGHT Image Format: ISO
DISCS: 2 DVDs Protection: Steam
System Requirements : (S)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine
SCENE NOTES:
After advanced analysis of vague claims in Prototype.2.Proper-SKIDROW, we
want to reply with our conclusion of things.
To begin, we should have a quick look at a similar situation, where an EMU
was compared with a better rebuilded crack and lead to a proper. The latest
target it happened with was The Dark Eye - Chains of Satinav. Here you have
data to compare up against, to determine if the proper is valid or not.
Examples are given like:
Load to menu with intro videos = 47 vs. 28 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )
Load to menu, intro vids skipped = 38 vs. 19 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )
Load new game = 16 vs. 10 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )
On the first view it looks overwhelming. Then when you take a closer look
you should asking, "How long does the original exe take in time?". Here we
have Securom as protection, what is known to slow down a game's performance
in general, with more protection features activated, the more of a
performance hit you might see in theory. In our opinion a group's crack
should run at least as good as the original retail released exe does. If
developers find it acceptable that the user has to deal with Securom and
the longer loading times (if any) are exceptable for them, then this is not
a release group's problem. When would you consider to draw the line?
Say another group found a way to make it load even quicker than RLDs by a
couple seconds, should that be enough for a proper? GameISO groups in the
scene again are not here to improve a game's general playability with a full
release or fix any bugs that an update will take care of.
In the case of The Dark Eye, SKIDROW's crack still misses the mark to even
compete with the original, normally such a giantic time difference is not
the norm. And still, they refused to accept the proper.
This small excursion should give a first overview, on how a good proper
reason can look. It has proof given, and can be recreated easily by anyone.
But the most important thing is, that the proper crack runs as good as the
original game or even better. Your crack is the opposite, slower than the
original. RELOADED has even released games with Solidshield activated
offline by way of a keygen which is a valid release, the game plays exactly
like the original. RELOADED also seems to grasp the idea with CRACK ONLY
releases like this, not a full 2 DVD pack because your claim is the other
exe is slower. If the game did not work, then a full release can be
neccessary.
During the last few years the acceptance to use, more or less, emulated
parts in a crack was basically ignored. So a comparison between a more
emulated crack like we have in Protoype 2 and, like you claim, a complete
rebuild of the protected game exe, is not a general reason to proper.
The strange thing about your proper is, that you seem to have problems to
really prove anything you've stated. Now should it be up to the original
group that pred the game have to debunk your accusations when no proof is
provided? This is the job of the group wanting to release a proper, and then
state found proof in the nfo of the proper release. You say, our method to
calculate right values slows down the runtime and it COULD lead to false
results or COULD crash. This is all speculation, nor even a fact with proof
YOU MUST provide, not us having to provide proof of false claims.
When someone has read your claims, they would expect that our game runs
like crap and a shit storm is brewing into a complete crash of the game.
The truth is, that we again played our release on 7 different computers,
all with different configurations and operating systems after your unneeded
proper. We were looking for any odd behavior and logging the frame rates in
various areas of the game. The conclusion was, that compared to the original
game without our cracked content applied, there was no noticable difference
in function or performance. Infact it didn't ever perform slower than the
original did on any of the systems. It ran as it should for those systems,
both cracked and uncracked. One of the results from a machine we used:
Original Files:
Time (ms) of Test: 900000
FPS MIN: 37
FPS MAX: 57
FPS AVG: 45.833
Our Crack Files:
Time (ms) of Test: 900000
FPS MIN: 38
FPS MAX: 57
FPS AVG: 45.850
Now everyone was curios to see how SKIDROW's crack performed. Very
disappointing that on 2 computers, the game did not even start. It sent
the testers back to desktop with an appcrash. The rest made it, to start
the game. So there was nothing to compare but general gameplay with FPS
and loading times. As a result there was only an increase of about 5 FPS
for three of the testers. Again, a very marginal result as various
background programs can slow games a lot more than this at times. So these
results should be enough for a proper?
A group with a recent history of doing whatever it takes to get a release
working is now doing propers for 5 FPS on some machines? Wow, thats
something that makes you ask yourself, what were the motives to make such
an accusation and without providing proof, which is needed always anyhow.
A group that has even used unprotected exes or weaker protected exes and
tag it as the original stronger protection cracked now proceed forthwith
such and proper? Over the last years basically any solution which would
make a game start was acceptable for SKIDROW. Loaders wrapped inside
another dll, even different versions of an exe were good enough to make
a release. Not to mention from the few but funny situations
you got caught for "using alternative supply sources" and then claim
we don't have to explain ourselfs, only to people we believe should (pinch
self).
If you think you have something to reply from our previous statements we
hope its informative to the release. Do keep in mind that quoting
comments from other sources (public web forums and whatnot), that this is
not an acceptable form of proof, it should be strictly your own. We are
open for qualified proper reasons and will be accepted when proof is
provided that can be recreated in such cases in which they are required.
Also your crack needs some addressing as it still is not working on two of
our systems.
/TEAM FAiRLIGHT
QUALITY, TRADITION AND PRIDE
924e461726d984a678301222f2c1a81b
Sprache wählen 
Registrierte Benutzer können Text-, Hintergrund- und ANSI-Art-Farbe individuell anpassen! 
