+- CC Zone - Chip's Challenge Forum (https://forum.bitbusters.club)
+-- Forum: Chip's Challenge (https://forum.bitbusters.club/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://forum.bitbusters.club/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Most difficult levels in existence? (/thread-2520.html)
Most difficult levels in existence? - Ida - 20-Jan-2012
Quote:"Commit Suicide?" is one of my favorite CCLP3 levels, even though no one is going to get it on their first try (unless they've looked at a map).
The thing is, you can use logic to figure it out eventually. The long run of chips in the corridor after the force floors are a dead giveaway; actually, I think the level would have been better if there had only been two or three chips there. It would have made the solution a bit more difficult to discover.
Edit: (Spoiler alert, for those who haven't played this level)
The reason for the many chips in the corridor was to make a second puzzle. The first puzzle is to get all the chips (since the chips in the corridor are not visible until you're in it, the player thinks she must get all other chips). The second puzzle is to get as few chips as possible, since you know you have to take all the chips in the corridor.
Maybe this 2-puzzle-thing could have been done in a more elegant way, but I couldn't think of one at that time...
Most difficult levels in existence? - BitBuster - 20-Jan-2012
...I guess that makes sense. The two-puzzle idea is definitely an interesting one.
My thinking was that it would have been a much tougher "single" puzzle had the chips in the corridor not tipped the player off that the key is to refrain from collecting chips. It basically ensures that the "first" puzzle works only once. An empty corridor would have had me scratching my head a lot longer.
Don't get me wrong, I still think it's a great level!
Most difficult levels in existence? - pillowpc2001 - 20-Jan-2012
Quote:MSCC, not CC.
Well, in theory even the original Lynx game could have allowed for invalid tiles too if someone had figured out how to make custom levels for it....but yes, I meant MSCC.
Most difficult levels in existence? - geodave - 20-Jan-2012
Well, I'm no Epyx expert, but certainly the hardware was different and so was the software. It's my theory (with no evidence) that there were only capital letters available (thus the level titles), that wrap-around was a problem (thus the walls) and that the tiles and "creatures" (including Chip and the blocks) were processed in a different way than the "map". So, if I was forced to guess I'd say there was not a way to include invalid tiles the way MSCC allows, since there was probably only one "level".
Someone out there knows if I'm right, but I doubt that person reads this forum.
Most difficult levels in existence? - KeyboardWielder - 20-Jan-2012
Quote:It's my theory (with no evidence) that ... the tiles and "creatures" (including Chip and the blocks) were processed in a different way than the "map". So, if I was forced to guess I'd say there was not a way to include invalid tiles the way MSCC allows, since there was probably only one "level".That's my theory too. I think the map only contained the static tiles, and the creatures were all defined in a creature list.
Somebody who understands Perl might be able to figure it out from the c4 script - since that can actually convert Lynx ROM files.
- Madhav.
Most difficult levels in existence? - jblewis - 26-Mar-2012
Wasn't it postulated that there is only "one layer" when non-creature tiles are involved and two layers whenever a creature tile (Chip, monsters, blocks) sits on top of a non-creature tile?
Most difficult levels in existence? - KeyboardWielder - 27-Mar-2012
Quote:Wasn't it postulated that there is only "one layer" when non-creature tiles are involved and two layers whenever a creature tile (Chip, monsters, blocks) sits on top of a non-creature tile?
That's the way you'd try to think about it when mapping to the MSCC file format. But in reality, (perhaps) there was only layer and the creatures were "positioned" at various locations on that layer.
- Madhav.