20th July 2005, 11:21 PM
No, Rare didn't "keep it in there for hacks to get to". They scrapped it and had no idea anyone would later find the missing data and unlock it. It was effectively removed. They had no intention at all of anyone playing that level. They just kept the data there because there was no point deleting any and all code related to unused things, plus it's hard to say if some other part of the code didn't depend on that data without some extra testing. It's simply more cost effective to do otherwise.
Now, there's going to be a lot of heat about that sort of excuse. Passionate people HATE it when you say a solution was more cost effective, but sometimes it really is important to keep things like that in mind. Why force them to go to such extremes anyway? Is it to prevent people from hacking with the intention of finding hidden data? I just don't see the point.
Here's the thing. You assume that the console versions have it as some hidden content that some button code unlocks. As you know, a gameshark can unlock this stuff. That IS a mod. A mod doesn't have to be complicated, it just needs to modify existing code.
I won't judge a game because a game shark code can screw up the graphics saying "ya know, the game is great and all, but the mode unlocked when you put in this code has a lot of garbelled textures and isn't completable, they really should have thought that out, what a disappointment...".
I'm sure you would agree with that much at least, that we can't blame them for a game getting screwed up because we altered the code. By the same token I'd say we also can't blame them for other stuff.
Okay, let's put this differently. A standard alkaline battery is built pretty safe. If you store it in a cool dry place or just use it as it is intended, there is nothing you could complain about. However, if you modify it by splitting it open and then poor the battery acid into your eyes, then there's something pretty bad going on. That acid was in the battery BY DESIGN. There ARE alternative battery types that don't have this acid. Should they be held accountable for making batteries with ACID in them? Shouldn't they have forseen this and not just "put a warning on it" but just removed it outright?!
NO!
That person who opened up the battery exposed a hidden part, but they were never meant to actually get INTO the acid. The battery was meant to be placed in a device using that type, expended, and then disposed of properly.
This is the same thing.
Sure, in this case it's a lot less needed for the function of the game, though it may just have some calls to it that would make it risky to remove and much more cost effective to simply leave it in but unaccesible to the user, but it's pretty much the same thing. The stuff there isn't in the game when played using the official hardware without unliscensed modification. If someone comes along and modifies the code, whether the PC version with some hex editing or any console version using a Gameshark, whatever they get is their own fault, and can't be blamed on the game designers.
Sorry, but I can't see any logical reason for people to be upset at anyone other than the people who made the code modification.
Now, there's going to be a lot of heat about that sort of excuse. Passionate people HATE it when you say a solution was more cost effective, but sometimes it really is important to keep things like that in mind. Why force them to go to such extremes anyway? Is it to prevent people from hacking with the intention of finding hidden data? I just don't see the point.
Here's the thing. You assume that the console versions have it as some hidden content that some button code unlocks. As you know, a gameshark can unlock this stuff. That IS a mod. A mod doesn't have to be complicated, it just needs to modify existing code.
I won't judge a game because a game shark code can screw up the graphics saying "ya know, the game is great and all, but the mode unlocked when you put in this code has a lot of garbelled textures and isn't completable, they really should have thought that out, what a disappointment...".
I'm sure you would agree with that much at least, that we can't blame them for a game getting screwed up because we altered the code. By the same token I'd say we also can't blame them for other stuff.
Okay, let's put this differently. A standard alkaline battery is built pretty safe. If you store it in a cool dry place or just use it as it is intended, there is nothing you could complain about. However, if you modify it by splitting it open and then poor the battery acid into your eyes, then there's something pretty bad going on. That acid was in the battery BY DESIGN. There ARE alternative battery types that don't have this acid. Should they be held accountable for making batteries with ACID in them? Shouldn't they have forseen this and not just "put a warning on it" but just removed it outright?!
NO!
That person who opened up the battery exposed a hidden part, but they were never meant to actually get INTO the acid. The battery was meant to be placed in a device using that type, expended, and then disposed of properly.
This is the same thing.
Sure, in this case it's a lot less needed for the function of the game, though it may just have some calls to it that would make it risky to remove and much more cost effective to simply leave it in but unaccesible to the user, but it's pretty much the same thing. The stuff there isn't in the game when played using the official hardware without unliscensed modification. If someone comes along and modifies the code, whether the PC version with some hex editing or any console version using a Gameshark, whatever they get is their own fault, and can't be blamed on the game designers.
Sorry, but I can't see any logical reason for people to be upset at anyone other than the people who made the code modification.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)