Talk:Chip's Challenge/Archive 1

Copyright

Ok, so who owns the rights to Chip's Challenge? 82.181.201.82 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, no-one knows who owns the rights to the game anymore. Not a single tax registrar, IP database, nothing. The only thing that's know is "the game is copyrighted." Strange, if you ask me. Does anyone have specific info regarding? 128.214.133.2 (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess it's true; absolutely *no-one* knows who owns the rights to the game. 82.181.94.185 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The copyright and trademark are owned now by a company that does not make video games Allack (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sentence

I removed "Chip's Challenge is considered by many the most challenging video game ever released." - anyone have a source on this? It seems wrong to me. --SPUI (talk) 06:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the person who wrote that were refering to the challenge of getting more than 6000000 points which is probably impossible. I however don't think the game itself is the most challenging video game ever. 130.241.154.213 07:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about the challenge of not being eaten by the monster in SkiFree? Every game has impossible stuff; the "winning condition" (which can be subjective) is what should be compared, not an arbitrary impossible condition that some have taken it upon themselves to try to achieve. --SPUI (talk) 17:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ignore passwords

i'm sure ignore passwords doesn't normally appear in the menus. Plugwash 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I revised that part. Eric119 01:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

ending

Does anyone know what happens after the last level? Or is it even beatable? Just curious. Lady Eowyn Of Rohan 03

iirc there is some kind of ending seqence after the last official level and then it goes back to the start but there are some hidden levels after that which can only be reached by password. not sure what happens if you beat all of them. Plugwash 08:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

nope, you get to the level Special (149 i think) and then beat it by mapping out where the hidden fire is under the blocks. When you go through the portal, the portal fills to the size of the screen and chip does a little 2-frame dance. then the leader of the computer club Chip is trying to get into (thats the story of the game, her name is Melina i think) accepts him. And the screen goes black until you start a new game. --Froth 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Plugwash was nearly right; the last five levels are unaccessible without the password taken from the Cypher level (34 or so, from memory). That lets you jump to level 146; you then get the completion sequence by pushing on through the four levels to Special when you get the ending sequence. The official end (level 144, Fireflies (I think)) has the same ending. Level 145 (Thanks to...') is only available by guessing the password.

There's actually one more way to reach the 'secret' levels, and it's probably what the designers originally intended: If you beat all 144 'regular' levels, 145 will become unlocked (instead of showing the usual "enter password" for 145, the level will start). I've done it myself long before I solved the Cypher puzzle or learned of the silly "ignore passwords" cheat, though I obviously don't have a source to cite. Am I allowed to add this to the main page, or wait until someone can verify my claim before doing so? --Zero.prophet (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember getting to 149 without cheating too... i still have the password written down in a very old notebook... 89.36.53.11 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Atari ST and DOS versions when you beat the last level there is a full-screen image of Chip and Melinda (looking pretty nerdy) and Melinda says "let's go to the e-prom together". - Rainwarrior 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What's so special?

Why exactly is the Ctrl+D command specifically mentioned?

Ctrl+D bypasses Passwords. You also can use Ctrl+F5, Ctrl+K or Ctrl+T. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

leave the external links alone!

Great, I see that some Wikipedians are now starting to go overzealous on policing of external links. From the guidelines they are citing, here's the list of "types of links to avoid", and my response to why no such links are found in the current list:

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.

Since this is not even close to feature article status, this point does not apply. Also, most of the sites have content such as programs and high scores that would never be in this article, feature status or not.

• Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

This is idiotic. That's why they are external links and not sources or citations! Moreover, most of them are factually accurate. It is unclear how one would even begin attempting to apply "original reseach" to any of the sites, as hardly any of the sites contain anything that can be construed as "research".

• A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

As far as I can tell, none of the current editors of the article are involved with any of the external sites being linked to.

• Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.

There is no advertisting or commercial activities involved with any of the sites linked to.

• Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.

All sites linked to are accessible to any general web browser.

• Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.

None of the sites linked to require Flash, Java and other rich media.

• Foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites.

All the sites linked to are in English.

• Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

There are no bookstore sites in any of the links.

• Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

There is one site that can count as a forum (though technically it is only a newsgroup), but anyone who bothers to actually read it will see that it is not a mainly social forum. There are far more reports of high scores and new levelsets than casual chatter. Also, the article right now does have an Internet community section, and much of the external links are intimately related to the Internet community described.

The remaining sites do not fit under any of the categories listed in the bullet point. (not blogs, not social networking sites, not forums).

• Links to search engine results.

None of the links point to search engine results.

---

So as far as I can tell, the links are not violating any of the guidelines. The list may perhaps use some pruning, but the blanket deletion carried out by Mushroom does not seem warranted at all. 131.107.0.73 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you call the guideline idiotic leads me to believe you are not likely to accept any change in the current external links. Here is my study of the external links:

For the record, I only called "idiotic" the guideline related to "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources", which to me seems to be conflating the purpose of external links with references and citations (unless you guys are moving towards such a conflation as a goal of your cleanup efforts). Perhaps the guideline has been re-worded since, I haven't checked. That's not to say that I supported having links to factually inaccurate material or unverified original research; however, I feel that such links are better weeded out through the normal, informal collaborative WikiEditing process as opposed to formal guidelines.

131.107.0.73 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a pretty long (nearing 200kb right now) at the External links page, where we are trying to polish the guideline. That line in general is not about us checking the content of an external link, but instead believing in the online reputation of a site. In example, spong.com is known for throwing information and hiding the hand. theinquirer.net has a low reputation as well. These links are not useful as external links, except in the articles about themselves. In other words, if the general online feeling (between other reliable sites, that is) is that the site is not trustworthy (like some site saying "Dubious site TheInquirer has confirmed...", "Spong, not known for its verifiability", etc) then it should not be included. -- ReyBrujo 02:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://strategywiki.net/wiki/Chip%27s_Challenge: This could stay, as the information used to be linked from a Wikibook, and was moved due the new Wikibook rules.

Ok. 131.107.0.73 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• news://news.annexcafe.com/annexcafe.chips.challenge: First problem, the guideline states that Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community A browser cannot access a news:// URL without an auxiliar application.

Fair enough. 131.107.0.73 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://chips.kaseorg.com/newsgroup/frameset.php?group=annexcafe.chips.challenge: This could stay, as it makes the previous link accessible (and there is no need to give two URLs to access the same site, it is like pointing to the Flash page and the HTML only page of a site.

Ok. 131.107.0.73 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://chips.kaseorg.com/avi/: No need to have links to walkthroughs. We link to general information sites.

Hmm. How about a link to http://chips.kaseorg.com itself? It is effectively a portal page to various things about Chip's Challenge, some general and other more specific. 131.107.0.73 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.geocities.com/purpletentacle1977ca/: No need to have a high score site unless official. The information there is not reliable, as our guideline state.
• http://www.telusplanet.net/public/nfield/ChipChallenge/chip.htm: Who is Richard Field to have his link here?
• ChipEdit home site, ChipCap home site, Tile World home site, CCTools home site and Chips Plus Site: No need to have links to unofficial sites that give tools. In example, we don't link to a trainer or a level editor in the StarCraft article.
  
  A casual user who comes here to learn about the game won't need to be directed to a site that offers a level editor or a trainer. Someone who comes here looking for them will be able to search for these utils through Google.

For these points I'm not entirely sure the External Links Cleanup guidelines are optimal for this subject. That being said, if we allowed the link to the chips.kaseorg.com portal site, most of the links above you proposed to remove can be accessible indirectly through links in the portal. I felt that the high score, ChipEdit and ChipCap links are important enough to the Community to be included in this article, but perhaps it's sufficient to make a passing mention of them in the article without providing direct links to them. 131.107.0.73 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with chips.kaseorg.com if that means several others will be removed. One of my main beliefs when working at Wikipedia is creating articles thinking in a casual user. Sure, the article should be useful for a real fan, but if that means cluttering the article for a casual user, we are losing him. If a casual user can find information about Chip's Challenge at that site, and at the same time a fan of the series is able to locate more specific sites (level editor, themes, high scores, etc), then it should be included. The fewer external links there are in the article, the less problems someone who does not know about the topic will have when trying to find information about the article. -- ReyBrujo 02:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All web sites about Chip's Challenge are technically unofficial. Most of these links are to sites well known to the Chip's Challenge community. The exceptions would be the StrategyWiki guide, and perhaps Richard Heathfield's site. Jimmy Vermeer's high score site should be kept, as it is accepted by the CC community, and there is no good alternative. (There's a web site of Ruben Spaans being maintained by Warwick Anderson, but it hasn't been updated since the end of 2004 and it doesn't show individual scores.) Eric119 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that the sites are not useful for the casual reader. If they are useful for the community, they are addressed in a community site. After reviewing chips.kaseorg.com, it seems it is the only fan site we need (strategywiki being the other site to include):

• The AVI walkthroughs and ChipCap site can be accessed from the site
• Tile World, CCTools, ChipEdit, Chip's Plus, Richard Field's Chip's Challenge, Chip's Challenge high score, the newsgroup and the web interface for the newsgroup can be accessed from the links section of the site

In other words, currently Wikipedia is mirroring the links section of chips.kaseorg.com, which is plainly bad. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Thus, I believe the best for both the article and Wikipedia is to leave the StrategyWiki and the chips.kaseorg.com links, as all others can be accessed through the later. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I agree this is probably the best solution. Eric119 05:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. 131.107.0.73 (talk · contribs)? -- ReyBrujo 05:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

CC2 info?

My brother was part of the development team for Chip's Challenge 2 and I have been in contact with Chuck regarding the game itself (We even have swapped a few levels.).

I still have the actual game as it is in completed form and content would not have changed after this point if the game had went on to be released. I'm curious as to whether or not more info on the sequel is needed? Having made more levels myself than there were to be in the actual game, I probably know the most about the game engine besides the programmers themselves.

GaeMFreeK 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two potential problems with this. The first is that this could violate a non-disclosure agreement (as the game is not released). But you probably know better than I whether that's an issue. The second problem is that any information you add will likely not be verifiable, since presumably there is no other source of the information. (Actually, there used to be a page that explained all the new game elements, but it was taken down.) Eric119 16:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Error in level 20

In level 20, Tossed Salad, there are 15 chips to be collected; the problem is that there is no chip socket that requires them, that's why you can clear the scene without collecting them. I think we can add this to the article. What do you say?200.71.186.241 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary, Wikipedia is not a game guide, and should not have information too specific about the game unless it is notable. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Then forgive me, I'll try to find more general info.200.71.174.1 05:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded harsh, it was not my intention! Check WP:NOT#HOWTO for more information. -- ReyBrujo 12:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Errors in Chip's Challenge

There are many more errors in the microsoft verson. For example, on level 49, chip doesn't have to doge any pink balls in the lower part of the mase, because of a error with a baretrap. Also, clone machines in some levels don't even clone, and there are many other beartrap errors too.Also, in level 88, there is a extra peice of wall that makes the level almost imposible to solve. Oh, and by the way, there is no error in level 20! Yes, I know there isn't a chip socket, but it is a joke! It's suppost to trick you! [and also, it's in the lynx version, (the original verson) which dosen't have any of these errors.] So, this is all I have to say now. If you have any questions about Chip's Challeng, please send me a message at: user_talk: Everysubjectman Thank you!

                                                             Everysubjectman 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)everysubjectman

Surname?

The article gives a surname for Chip-I'm not familiar with this, but I have only played the Windows version. Is that given in Lynx only? --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Chuck's Challenge section

I suggest that the Chuck's Challenge section be removed. It looks more like an advertisement than encyclopedic information and it doesn't cite any trustworthy sources. Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyphoroz (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree this is news; I've been waiting for 20 years for a new game from Chuck Sommerville. So is this his latest game or not, I think it is for the following reasons:

- It’s got Chuck Sommerville in the game

- It’s produced by Niffler, which Chuck Sommerville is part of

- If you go to Facebook Chuck Challenge, you can see Chuck is an active member of the group

Also regarding the launch date of the game, the Facebook page does state the 17th December 2010 . (iTunes only shows the last update date, so you can’t see that anymore). (Allack (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

173.78.67.136 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I agree too, maybe remove the excess pictures and remove "has been".

External link cleanup part II

I recently added the high score site to the page, and it got reverted - erroneously, but understandably - due to a "suspected conflict of interest". Yes, I run the site that I linked to, but I did not link it because I want more traffic (indeed, if you look at the site, I make no money off it), but rather I linked it because it is important; it is one of the main community websites.

There was a previous consensus about not putting all sorts of external links on the page, but this consensus was in 2006 and was based on how there was one main community hub (http://chips.kaseorg.com) that linked to all the smaller sites (so we could just link to only http://chips.kaseorg.com, and all the smaller sites would be represented there).

However, http://chips.kaseorg.com has now been abandoned by its owner, and its links and resources are years out of date (indeed, if not for the online portal to the newsgroup, it wouldn't even merit a mention here). The closest thing to a "community hub" that we have now is http://pillowpc2001.net, but ever since the owner of that site stopped hosting the scoreboards (which ultimately got transferred to me), his site isn't as main as it once was, so I don't think the previous consensus applies now. Additionally, I don't think it's really that user-friendly to say "here's a link to one site with a whole bunch of other links, BEGONE WITH YOU", when we can add a couple more links to give direct access to the most important sites.

That said, the external links ARE getting a bit lengthy, so I propose we reach a new consensus about what we should be putting there:

Currently, we have:

1/ http://chips.kaseorg.com - the main discussion boards
2/ http://www.chipsportal.com - an all-in-one site
3/ http://chipschallenge.wikia.com - the CC wiki
4/ http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_175825302437909 - a Facebook group
5/ http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Chip%27s_Challenge - CC StrategyWiki
6/ http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseekid.cgi?id=0000937 - CC World of Spectrum entry
7/ http://pillowpc2001.net/ - video solutions, some resources, and a super jumbo amount of links
8/ http://www.pillowpc2001.net/levels.htm - list of most fan-made levels on the internet
9/ http://webcc.psumaps.com/ - online CC (sort of)
10/ http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tworld/ - the homepage of Tile World
11/ http://kil.me/chips - a fan download
12/ https://sites.google.com/site/bocclevs/ - a fan download

1, 2, 3, and 7 are automatic.
4 should probably not be here, even though it's considered by many to be a valuable resource.
5 and 6 should probably stay.
8 is the same site as 7 and should be deleted, IMO. The only thing 8 has going for it is that it draws a user's attention via the link description, but we can just change 7's to reinforce its custom level set resources.
9 has copyright issues...
10 is debatable, I'm leaning towards keeping it because the article has a Tile World section. (what about TW2, by the way?)
11 and 12 are just two fan-made downloads out of thousands. Deletion is called for, although it would be nice to see these sites represented on something like pillowpc2001.net so they don't completely disappear.

Proposals to add:

http://jamesa7171.net - high scores for all official packs - reasoning by bolded statement above, plus how, for an important resource, it's surprisingly barely linked to (which I think can be chalked up to its novelty).

I was also thinking of suggesting Pieguy's site and the Yahoo! group for custom sets, but in that case it's more user-friendly to just link to Mike's site (which links to not only those two but all the other more minor custom level sites as well, providing a hub for that resource).

Jamesa7171 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(DAMN, such a bureaucratic post O_o)

No, no, and no. WP:RS and WP:V are quite clear on personal websites see WP:42. And goodness, this article needs cleaned up. Phearson (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I could see disagreeing with adding my link, but you disagree with EVERYTHING I wrote? Also, if we are to go solely by those guidelines, we should remove the entire external links section, and some hefty chunks of the article. It is impossible for any Chip's Challenge link of any kind to be "official". In light of this, we need to consider WP:IAR. Jamesa7171 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, but it appears people are adding links to their own/favorite website, and that's just not right. Phearson (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External link cleanup, part III

Recently, most of this page's external links were removed. I disagree with the following removals:

• Official Chip's Challenge Wiki

meets criteria #12, as it has been stable for 4 years now and has been contributed to by quite a number of people (recent activity is down quite a bit as there isn't really anything new to add, but that is irrelevant).

• WebCC, an online game in the style of Chip's Challenge with the ability to create levels.

If we are going to have a section about WebCC in the article, we should probably have a link...

• Tile World Homepage

Ditto above.

• Mike L's Chip's Challenge Site, tips, downloads, links, and similar games.

This does contradict WP:EL #11, but this a case where ignoring the rules should come into play, IMO. This site is essentially a hub to every thing related to Chip's Challenge available on the internet. It is of invaluable help to anybody that wishes to continue exploring the game beyond the contents of the Wikipedia page, and it also alerts people to the fact that high scores, discussion boards, custom levels, etc. exist for CC, when such a notion is counter-intuitive considering both the age of the game and how nothing community-related is mentioned in the article itself. The presence of this link does all this while causing no harm to the article. One important thing to consider here is that it is impossible for any kind of CC link to be "official", unless you consider an endorsement by Chuck Sommerville himself to be a granting of official-ness (because that can be arranged).

Also, while I begrudgingly accept the deletion of the community section, a passing mention of CCLP2 and CCLP3 should be present in the "Chip's Challenge 2" section. Chuck has given his endorsement to both of these level packs, if that strengthens the case. Jamesa7171 (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see more explaining why WebCC is being included. I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but if that's cleaned up, then I think the link belongs, otherwise WebCC will eventually get removed anyway, and the link along with it. Likewise for Tile World. I agree with the inclusion of the wiki, but I'm not really sure we need the fan-site. I think maybe we should get this article in better shape and then reassess. Grayfell (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think WebCC needed to be on the page, so that's fine. Tile World is relevant in some sense due to the 16-bit nature of the CC executable. The game is literally unplayable on 64-bit operating systems (most versions of everything after XP). Tile World allows people to play Chip's Challenge on modern systems when it would otherwise not be possible save for virtual computers. Not saying we need an entire section dedicated to Tile World, but a passing mention of it could be useful. Ditto the CCLP2/CCLP3 reference suggestion I gave in my last talk post, as well as the suggestion to add the one fansite link. The page looks much better now. Jamesa7171 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Tile World warrants a sentence or two, with sources, and a brief mention of the existence of fan-made levels wouldn't be out of place, again with sources. There are a lot of older games that require effort to make working on newer machines, that's not really notable in itself. What this article needs is sources, and I think it would be great to have a few more before adding additional content. A couple of other people even mentioned this on the AFD, but I've found many sources that refer to Chip's Challenge in passing, often as a standard by which the sokoban genre is measured, but none that are really usable. I even dug through a stack of old video game magazines from the Lynx era I randomly found in my garage, but no luck. I'm confident sources are out there, so I'll keep an eye out for them. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit having added https://sites.google.com/site/bocclevs/ (the best of chip's challenge's levels) to the list since no other way was found by me for it to turn up while Googling. I thought of it a valuable addition to the web, and that is why I had compiled the list, worked up the screenshots, and uploaded them to a permanent website -- although it may never any sensible publicity it may deserve. Twipley (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disregard the above paragraph: I cannot expect of Wikipedia to include such links just out of such personal desires. (Besides, I have posted the link in a message board, which solves the issue.) Twipley (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blue keys

Everybody keeps calling them blue keys but they're really cyan. Why didn't they make those keys in that game really be blue instead of cyan? Blackbombchu (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but in the original Atari Lynx version, the keys were blue. There were many versions of this game. As far as I know it was only the Windows version that used cyan keys.Grayfell (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What were the logic changes?

At the time of this writing, the article states

the logic was slightly changed from the original version

I hear that exact same phrase in The Lazy Game Review's Chip's Challenge review. Can anyone elaborate what the logic changes were whether or not we can get that information in shape to add to the main article or not? ProfessorTom (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This Wikia page describes the changes. I don't know of any WP:RS which discuss this, though. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)