i tried writing helpful lyceum articles for all 3 formats but ended up being more confused than before.

the easiest thing would be to wait until puke is back online and just ask him about his thoughts, but maybe.... maybe i should start the war here and make it a public discussion. thats always a fun thing, right?


so, first of all: dont refer to the lyceum articles for the moment, they're a mess / outdated / confusing.


allgear is the simple one i guess. its "music" and thats it. use everything. do everything. youre good to go. can be chip, acoustic, daw, noone cares. for ohbs, everything that follows the rules is fine. as long as it is a piece of audio.

wildchip..... was the "fakebit" format.. at least until now. because now we have fakebit!! lets take a look at fakebit first, because its easier.
fakebit is "everything that sounds like chiptune", which is usually: simple waveforms or fm. its not limited to it, but most people usually say it "sounds like chiptune" as long as you can hear square waves in a track lol
you can still add samples and post processing, because noone cares as long as it has the "chippy sound". okay easy. dont submit real instruments only to this format or you die. its simple.

now.... wildchip -w-
wasnt wildchip the fakebit-format for years now..? it was used as one at least. if i had to draw a line between fakebit and wildchip, i'd say the difference is that wildchip needs to make use of an actual soundchip somewhere. its a chip gone wild. its not 100% fake. does this make sense? put your favorite soundchip in a new environment, combine your favorite chips, multiply soundchips (2x2A03, 3xSID, 4xSN7, 56xChannelF....) or add guitar and vocals on top of your zxbeeper track. maybe use it for a chip that doesnt have its own format on here... probably this stuff....?
u can still do this for fakebit, but fakebit is less restrictive in the stuff u can do.

so my point is: if you're creating a chiptune completely in a DAW and there's no bit played back on a real soundchip, its fakebit and u cant submit it to wildchip.
but thats just my own guess and personal opinion.
i just dont like the idea of saying "wildchip and fakebit are the same" because that defeats the purpose of having 2 different formats imo.

in terms of restrictions, it feels like its the following:
wildchip < fakebit < allgear
with allgear having almost no limitations.


well that needs to be discussed imo, soooo: DISCUSS!

Wot, fakebit? wasn't wildchip that already!?

Anyhow, sounds cool and I agree with what kleeder said about the restrictions and the other stuff.

And as with anything, whatever the host says is the rules for that compo, regardöess of format imo (obviously the host is stupid and silly if they host a wildchip and tell to use only recorded audio)

From what I've understood Wildchip means it can be anything as long as it has chippy sounding elements in it* (e.g. could be a full orchestral piece with an FM lead and it would count as WC). I think as long as WC has existed it's been allowed to submit real chiptunes e.g. LSDJ, NSF etc.

Whereas fakebit means it sounds like real chiptune but it can be made in a modern DAW. (Definition of "sounding real chip" might be vague, for example, could you make a sampled tune with poor resampling and limited effects, and pass it as "SPC700 fakebit"?)

These are the definitions for those terms how I've undestood them. I might be misinformed though.

*E: It seems what I've understood to be the definition of "Wildchip" is back from when the article said "anything remotely chip is allowed". The article has since changed to exclude this part. (I might have read all Lyceum articles back when I joined and accepted these as the constitutional written-in-stone definitions)

Fakebit: An MP3 or OGG audio file that generates high consensus among BotBrs to be "fakebit". If you get sub-par scores and haeit comments it may not be "fakebit".

Wildchip: An MP3 or OGG audio file that generates high consensus among BotBrs to be "wildchip". If you get sub-par scores and haeit comments it may not be "wildchip".

Use Reinforcement Learning to discriminate the categories. Be aware that they may overlap.

Grumskiz: https://i.imgur.com/8qPVgWZ.jpg

At first I was like wat? Fakebit? Srsly? It's a highly controversial term who's main purpose is to create flamewars. But on second thought I think it's a chance. Because now we can change the meaning of Wildchip to mean "must be made for actual 8/16 bit hardware". So basically it would act as a catch-all format for chip formats that aren't included in a battle, and for works created with multiple sound chips.

So if I got it right, you suggest redefining WC to something else and defining Fakebit as the thing WC previously meant?

I'm not really opposed to any changes as long as the "high consensus" is there, but if the rules change too much, that can potentially make massive amounts of pre-change entries retroactively illegal, which may cause confusion. So that's my main concern.

back in the days, nsf was used for expansions as well before nsf+ was added, and it technically makes old entries illegal but that stuff happens. i dont see a big problem with changing format rules like that.

I think it's definitely a valid concern. However I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Theoretically we could also rename Wildchip to something else. But then again that name's great so hmm maybe not.

Is there a reason not to leave Wildchip as is and have Fakebit be the one with the new ruleset, or is it just the way people prefer them to be named? (Sorry if this was already addressed and I missed it)

Well that'd be really confusing since the point of the "new" wildchip would be "realbit", not fakebit. Hmnmmm... realbit. How's that for a name?

fakebit is a slur and should be banned from God & Country

when I originally created Wildchip it was meant to be a category for combining things with real chips. So more chips with a chip or a live band with a chip or whatever. I would say Wildchip should continue to kind of be that... or a place to submit a chiptune that isn't available among the formats in a battle.

Fakebit is.... uh..... not really caring about traditional chiptune limitations whether that be the low pitch resolution of very early chips or a limit on channels. It allows the use of any and all effects on your instrumentation (so if you want an nes triangle with lots of delay and reverb cool!). But also you could use fancy 8-pole filter on a 8-note chord voicing with each of those voices having 6 sawtooth waves. Perhaps this format is superfluous. Perhaps it should give mixist points.

wild chip was retroactively decided to incorporate real chiptune at the exact same moment I earned my badge for drawing pulse waves in renoise

I absolutely understand what your original intention was. I also stand behind the fact that wildchip can be perfectly used for (obscure) formats that aren't available on BotB, as well as for fakebit (i.e. chip music — "authentic" or not — with (or without) effects and such as one sees fit).

HOWEVER

I'd like to point out the following:

As I have observed over the years, wildchip has been especially prone to being (ab)used as means for submitting an entry with already existing formats on BotB, which happened not the be available in a battle. Just look at the sheer amount of past (high placing) wildchip entries that are just plain NSF+ (maybe with some EQ or very basic FX). (((Sidenote: I have no problem with chip sounding S3XMODIT submitted to past wildchips.)))
It's hard to combat this because people don't follow strict rules if they're not strict in the first place. Besides, if it sounds like chip music, how could it be a problem, right?
Now that fakebit is (sorta?) extracted from wildchip, it (wildchip) has become an ever bigger excuse for these kind of submissions. Doesn't that kinda enlarge defeating the purpose of chosen formats in a battle?

Essentially what I'd like to be cleared up is:
• What stops a person from submitting wildchip to fakebit or vice versa?
• Is fakebit a superset of wildchip or are they actually much different? (For example, you speak about having a band play alongside stuff in wildchip, does this still count in fakebit?)
• Does "authentic" chip music with basic FX fall under wildchip or fakebit, or perhaps even both?

To me there's no clear line drawn and I'd like to understand the situation better please.

vaguebit

As many, I find there is too much overlapping between these formats. Fakebit makes wildchip irrelevant, unless fakebit is not allowed in wildchip. That is to say:

allgear: all gear

wildchip (chiptune wildcard): all chip formats + mp3 for legit chiptune (several chips at once, generative music on hardware etc.)

fakebit: sounds like chiptune, but isn't

That's what makes most sense to me.

+1 to that. For wildchip, also "chip + other stuff" as originally intended by puke7. In other words, wildchip = must include real chips. I think that'd be a simple and clear rule that's easy to enforce.

it's the current year +5 and people are still buttmad about being called out for being fakebit at the same time other people get to enjoy fakebit at face value.

Also ishkur's guide labels heosphoros/yerzmyey/4mat etc. as fakebit LOL

make fakebit format choose at random whether to give mixist or chipist every time points are awarded for it

it just gives fake points. they arent added to your actual points, its just a message "you earned 120 fakeist points" thats it

ah damn the thread reached the meme-phase

I like YQN's interpretation of Allgear vs. Wildchip vs. Fakebit.

i like the random point type thing
also i agree with YQN

gonna have to take "anything remotely fakebit" outta the description

If wildchip requires a legit chip now, then the source file (e.g. an .nsf for a 2a03 composition) ought to be submitted somewhere as part of the process, else there's no proof.

The trouble I can see here is that if we go with the "real chip + other stuff" interpretation, then with BotB's current code, the MP3 render and the source will not represent the same thing, and the render will effectively the judgeable entry, not the source.

That's... maybe probably OK? I dunno if that's a big deal in practice, just something to point out.

[QUICK-EDIT]: Might also be worth clarifying how much "other stuff" is allowed to be done to the resulting chiptune. Or maybe it should be left up to the "judges?" i.e. as long as the flow is something like "create real chiptune -> render chiptune -> do whatever post editing and additions you want with the rendered chiptune" then the entry is legal, then it's up to the voters to decide if there's not enough chip, as they say. :P

for remix format theres also no proof that someone used only the samples provided in the pack. i dont see the problem here.

gonna update the lyceum soon ~

We should always be eligible for proof from the song author if there's a reasonable suspicion of them having broken rules.

In this case, that means showing/sharing the project file so everyone can verify that the song doesn't use outside sample sources (remix) or doesn't consist exclusively of chip elements that are actually Fakebit and non-replicable on a real hardware chip (nu-WC).

Otherwise a cheater could just do something really unfair like use a SID-style sound producing VST for their advantage, then deny all accusations and go "I didn't cheat, trust me bro!", and nobody wants that to happen, right?

So yes, there is proof and if not, BotB would just be a huge playground for rule-evaders. A decision to split WC into two formats was made, let's not fuck up this change with carelessness.


What's still left kinda ambiguous is how much are we allowed to add to WC entries in addition to the "real hw chip compability" part? Lyceum currently says vocals and post-processing is fine, how much can we use accompanying instruments? If we're not actually recording from HW but are emulating the chip with computer software, can we define what satisfies as "accurate enough" when it comes to emulation? Perhaps create a list of programs that are "certified" as accurate for Wildchip use.

i don't think it's reasonable to create an environment where people feel like cheating is on the table in the first place. if we're actually going around wondering whether someone cheated on an entry by not following some inscrutable rule that makes no difference to the ear anyway, then the site fucked up, not the contributor. the idea that we need to maintain sanctity in wild chip entries undermines the reason the format exists in the first place. it's wild, it can sound like anything. a playground for rule-evaders is endlessly more fun than a playground for people who abide by strict delineated rules about what exactly does and doesn't fall under wild chip.

If you're asking "how is that fair?" - it's fair because it's wild chip. it's one particular format that's barely defined by its relation to fakebit. there is no codified difficulty level for it, and trying to create such a difficulty level wouldn't be fun. every chip format has different challenges associated with it; the entire draw of wild chip is that it's up to YOU what hurdles you want to jump on the way to creating your song.

I agree with you. It also seems that kleeder agrees. Now again, what's the actual distinction between Wildchip and Fakebit if we agree WC is in no way restricted to real hardware chips? Are we going to leave things ambiguous until someone comes up with more distinctive definitions and updates the Lyceum page or what?

There's an extreme feel of indecision in the air.

I think the best thing we can do is come up with a clear, short description on the format that won't confuse people. If no post-processing is expected, it could be "Any chiptune at all! :D/". but if we do allow other instruments and processing, we could try "Make anything you want, as long as it contains some kind of real chiptune! :D/"

updated the wildchip format description

uh.... i really opened a can of worms here, huh? :D

is this where we punch boxes?

So let me see if I have this correct:

Allgear = Anything goes

Wildchip (as of now)= Can be any format but has to sound like a chiptune.

Fakebit = Doesn't have to be all chiptune, but as long as there's some chip it's fine (which I think is what wildchip used to be).

you have them switched

For the wc lyceum, should it be SCX or today's edit that marks the Official Date where there's a split between older entries which fell under "format for any and all chip-sounding submissions. " and newer entries under the new definition?

hahahahahaa, the description of Wildchip on the submission page doesn't help the situation xD
"Explain instrumentation in the description.
Entry should be very chiptuney! Layer chips and samples and instruments or whatever! " <--- That would be FakeBit.

this was a mistake! this all was a mistake! roll it back! ROLL IT BACK

all chiptune is fake you write it in A COMPUTER!!!

BUD ORIGINAL HARDZWARS ARE COMPUTREZ??? IS EVERYTHING FKAE?

F for Fake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIVgUjj6RxU

So.... the formats are identical, and Fuk Da Rulez. Got it. :P

I think what Zillah said is the most correct:

Allgear = Anything goes

Wildchip (as of now)= Can be any format but has to sound like a chiptune.

Fakebit = Doesn't have to be all chiptune, but as long as there's some chip it's fine (which I think is what wildchip used to be).

Just to be sure, can a person can use Wildchip as a "wild card"?
Like, if there's a format they want to make that isn't part of the battle, could it be used to replace it?

eg: NSF Classic isn't part of the battle, there is Wildchip available, is it legal to use for that purpose?

I've used Wildchip as wild card so many times….. so if that is not legal,
then I have cheated massively for the past 10 years and no one told me ;)

Perfect, I just wanted to make sure in case I were going to make a huge mistake.

strobe, everyone knows that u cheated massively for the past 15 years. AABBLRLR Start Select Select to win another major battle

why not leave WC alone and go create a new format so it's legacy is unchanged?

has its legacy really changed?

i mean nothing I've ever submitted as wild chip has ever matched that definition but I'm flexible

For what it's worth, I think the current explanations in the Lyceum for both clarify sufficiently. Having two formats for those approaches is sick as hell and I love it.
Hoping to pop back in here and make use of both!

what's the deal with this "NSF" format?? how is ANYONE supposed to know what that is?

just because i like linking related threads, here's an old thing about the same topic hehe

NSF is a generic format for anything that is

Not a Sound File

seems very obvious to me but again, not everyone has my IQ...

so for all intents and purposes, all

of

these

songs

that

I've

linked

constitute

fakebit?

Real talk though, I'm pretty sure "fakebit" has always meant "sounds like chiptune but isn't actually", so the decision that it has to incorporate real chiptune is so confusing. I really think you have wild chip and fakebit switched.

just make both of them identical formats in specification and leave the idiosyncrasy at that for much less harm done imo

Ah, Fakebit. I get that we're far enough along into the codification of the word that there's no changing it now, but I just hate calling it "fake." On the one hand it is very reasonable to argue that a chip tune should have the authentic ability to play on a sound chip (hence the name). Thems the the rules, and that's ok because ultimately you don't want someone to load up one of these songs on a chip and get thrown an error because it's not an authentic chip formatted song.

But the term "fake" which is synonymous for counterfeit, or a forgery. It's not that (unless it's, like, actually plagiarized). These songs are genuine articles in their own right, but simply have different compositional rules.

You can joke that it's a slur, but it's an ugly word and an ugly association. I don't think what I do is fake, the genre is fake, or the format is fake... yet it's called Fakebit. Why not call it "Nonchip"?

The only slur I want to be associated with is legato 😭

nonchip implies allgear, while fakebutt sounds like chiptune aesthetically. if it's a slur, we're reclaiming it

I suppose for lack of a better term ("IllegitChip"?) all we have is "fake" to define what it is. I still hate it.

It IS a counterfeit and forgery. Hence the name.

Forgery is a crime where I'm from. Is FakeBit a crime too?

yes

"What happened to all the conversation?"
Well the thread was locked previously, but I guess it's open now.

"wildchip..... was the "fakebit" format.. at least until now"
That's not true; it was often times also used for "chip format otherwise not allowed in the compo" and "hardware playable chip + something else", in addition to the "chip not accurate to any hardware whatsoever."

"you can still add samples and post processing, because noone cares as long as it has the "chippy sound". okay easy. dont submit real instruments only to this format or you die. its simple."
This sounds like a contradiction. What about samples of instruments? What about using pcm/dpcm/adpcm channels for post processing fx like reverb?

" Just look at the sheer amount of past (high placing) wildchip entries that are just plain NSF+"
One important thing to note here is that for those using wildchip as an extra slot for a 2nd nsf+, the song submitted to the nsf+ category only has to go up other nsf+ entries while the song submitted to wildchip can have much beefier competition. This was an understood risk of doing that strat (I like to call this the WildCARD usage)

"If wildchip requires a legit chip now, then the source file (e.g. an .nsf for a 2a03 composition) ought to be submitted somewhere as part of the process, else there's no proof."
I think this is the HUGE dichotomy we have on our hands. One route is to go by What The Entry Actually Used, in which case, proof of source is required to validate an entry. Which many botbrs will hate. The other route is to go by What The Entry Sounds Like which means it's up to a consensus of the ever changing votes based on 1) Who's even voting 2) What their knowledge of chips' limitations are 3) personal interpretation of the above and of anything else. Which many botbrs will hate.

YQN's definitions were very concise and eliminated confusion
" allgear: all gear.
wildchip (chiptune wildcard): all chip formats + mp3 for legit chiptune (several chips at once, generative music on hardware etc.)
fakebit: sounds like chiptune, but isn't. "

Zillah's definitions feel very ambiguous and even outright wrong
"Wildchip (as of now)= Can be any format but has to sound like a chiptune.
Fakebit = Doesn't have to be all chiptune, but as long as there's some chip it's fine (which I think is what wildchip used to be). "
That wildchip definition completely omits the requirement for it to contain real chip, and therefore makes it fakebit.
That fakebit definition does have the requirement of a real chip, and therefore makes it not fakebit.

That Puke agreed with Zillah's defintion and not YQN's and that that was the last Authoritative Word on the matter, makes this a shitshow again.



The only thing I can offer is that we have a selection of songs already submitted to the site and we all collectively vote and agree which category they go to. Or even just identify all the scenarios that exist and then categorize them
1) Real chip playable on hardware submitted to it's own category
2) Real chip playable on hardware submitted to a wildCARD category
3) Real chip playable on hardware playing along with other real chips that would otherwise not have a way of being played together
4) Real chip playable on hardware with non-hardware accurate effects added (stereo, reverb, etc.)
5) Real chip playable on hardware playing along a chip-sounding instrument that is not a real chip.
6) Real chip playable on hardware playing along other non-chip instruments
7) A chip sounding instrument that is not a real chip.
8) A chip sounding instrument that is not a real chip playing along with other non-chip instruments
9) Non-chip instruments only.

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever run out of "well this is new and there's no precedent, so where would it fit?" entries.

i locked the thread temporarily (until the the summer chip entry period ended) because i was fearing a post like that.
well, im definitely not reading it or participate in the discussion even further. if you have fun wasting your time like this, go on

my previous understanding of the terminology was:

- allgear: the biggest umbrella category
- chiptune: (for these purposes) music made strictly with/for extant soundchips
- fakebit: music capturing a chiptune aesthetic* that doesn't fall under the above strict definition of chiptune, either because it isn't made for a particular soundchip or because extra processing/effects were used
- wildchip: umbrella category encapsulating chiptunes and fakebit

*this is the part that i'm now realizing is probably vague enough to cause problems

i really like yqn's definitions, though. i think we've settled on a fine solution, and xyz touched on all the points i was going to bring up re: using wildchip as a secondary/wildcard chip format even under the definitions i had been using

I put fakebit in the xhb format blocklist. I don't plan on using it again in the future right now either. I thought this would be a fun joke format, but its just an annoyance at this point.