Talk:Chip's Challenge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
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)

[edit] What's so special?

Why exactly is the Ctrl+D command specifically mentioned?

[edit] 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.
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChip%27s_Challenge_9e83.html"