CustLemm Level List Game

[ccexplore]

Well, I didn't mean to imply that it was a bad thing at all. It just seemed odd to mention as a good (or bad) thing, I guess. I don't know. You said yourself that size doesn't matter, so why mention it?

I was just providing counterpoint for interest, and inserting a side comment about size in general.

For the most part, when you see " "s in my post it means you don't have to take it too seriously.   (Or you could, whatever floats your boat.  )

[ccexplore]

Incidentally, I must say, it's admirable how Shvegait is willing to spend so much time and words even when faced with a subpar level.  Definitely a dedicated reviewer.  I mean, if I were faced with a level that didn't really interest me much, I would probably just summarize and condense things down to something like "solution too straightforward, fake steel adds little value to the level, precision far too punishing" and move on to the next level (well, at least if the next one is better).

It's also funny that one inadvertent effect of Shvegait's lengthy comments is that, it actually made me spend time trying to make sure the only possible solution is really what the review presented.  Sadly, Shvegait does seem to be correct here, sorry Tim.  

[Proxima]

Comments on Lemmings in general:
One reason that I believe Lemmings is such a superior puzzle game is that you can be shown every piece of information that you could possibly need (the level terrain, tools, etc.), and figure out the solution just from that. There is no discovery *necessary* in order to solve a level. Of course, you learn tricks and such as you play through levels, see if certain timings work out, and all that good stuff. But you can put all obfuscation that you need to hide your solution in the terrain itself. The best levels are always those that show you all the information, look like they must be impossible (or, in some cases, simple), and cause some puzzling looks as nothing seems to work. There is a consistency throughout Lemmings that the player starts to rely on, and when that is broken, it is a violation of what you thought you knew. OK, so there's steel there even though it looks like normal terrain. Now, do I want to keep playing the level and guessing to find out where all the steel is, and to exactly where it extends? No, I want to spend my time thinking about how to take the tools I have and combine them to form a solution. I don't want to be spending an hour trying to time bombers and trying to remember exactly where that steel area ends. I'd much rather need to use my brain to think about a problem than use it to focus on precision. And I don't think that's just me!

I do largely agree with this. However, if it comes to that, the designers of the original levels don't meet your very exacting standards; there's "Lost something?" and there are several levels that need bomber timing.

I think what's great about Lemmings is precisely the mixture of precision elements and brainwork. Can't get a lemming going the right direction to build the crowd out of a holding area? Work out a trick so you don't have to. Need some precisely timed bombers? Work out some landmarks, and try to calculate where you need to set them off. That's why I don't mind making bomber-timing and other "annoying" levels; but I try to mix them in with more puzzle-oriented levels, and of course many levels combine both elements.

However, the one thing I distinctly don't like is when a level is unfair. A hidden exit when there's no visible one is fair because you know the point of the level is to look for it. I think a couple of hidden traps, so long as you don't overdo them, should also count as fair, because the excitement of discovery and never being certain is one of the joys of the game. I don't like hidden steel or fake steel, because steel is always an area, and it can be really tedious if you have to work out the exact limits of the area. (Traps are technically also an area, I know, but one small enough to be thought of as a point; and also, you know the size of the area because it's the same for all traps of that type.) I think the opposite to this level -- diggable areas that look like steel -- is even less fair, because it's part of the set-up that you expect such areas to be steel, and you aren't even going to bother trying. It's like a chess-player looking for the best move; the brain edits out illegal moves so you don't even see them.

Incidentally, I'd also like to say that I loved the design of the level we're discussing; I can't see why you don't like it. You can say that it's all unused, but there has to be a balance -- some level ideas just don't require much space. I think it's better to leave decorative terrain unused in such cases than to lengthen the level for no other reason.

[Timballisto]

O_O ...uh...I think my lemmings levels might raise an angry mob if everyone was Shvegait.

Selhajek Arbenition. &#A0;Yes, this was one thing you didn't like right? &#A0;Well, I'll tell you now it has no real meaning. &#A0;Those syllables put in that order just happened to sound appealing to me, and I used it as the level title. &#A0; It was inspired by recent history classes and the Seljuk Turks ("Selhajek") .

As for the steel areas, I forget why I didn't put in steel on top of it, but I doubt it was for the confusion of the player. &#A0;I think it was for reasons involving scenery. &#A0;Oh, speaking of which, there are levels in my 4th pack in which there are steel areas that are unmarkable. &#A0;Please read the readme for it. &#A0;I believe I said that earlier. &#A0;I'll tell you where "QUICK EVACUATION"'s steel area is right now. &#A0;It under the right wall. &#A0;If you've played the level you should know where this is.

The other thing is, about the set solution. &#A0;Yes I realize that there is only one way to solve the level. &#A0;Yes I realize that all the logic falls into place itself. &#A0;However, is it not one of the goals of making  lemmings levels, to create a level without backroutes? &#A0;As ccexplore said before lots of lemmings levels are mostly precision based. &#A0;This was the case with this level. &#A0;For some reason I like precision levels.

I liked this level because of how you did the solution, not how you found out about it. &#A0;Oh, and the falling bomber thing gives reason for the gaps , and the gaps give reason for the builder. &#A0;Without gaps, the falling climber thing would work and then I would have a backroute. &#A0;Also, the gaps give incentive to build, as you stated earlier. &#A0;Because of this, the lemmings get those few extra pixels of height they need to get into the miner's tunnel.

If you don't like the level, that's fine. &#A0;I don't think I've ever seen someone go off on a lemmings level like that though. &#A0;O_O

[JM]

Timballisto I like your levels, they have good designs, they have good title names, they are challenging and they use some good tricks.

[Shvegait]

O_O...uh...I think my lemmings levels might raise an angry mob if everyone was Shvegait.

No no, you aren't to take it personally. It's not your levels, it's this particular level.

Selhajek Arbenition.  Yes, this was one thing you didn't like right?  Well, I'll tell you now it has no real meaning.  Those syllables put in that order just happened to sound appealing to me, and I used it as the level title.   It was inspired by recent history classes and the Seljuk Turks ("Selhajek") .

Well, that was in the "Other comments" part. It was supposed to be separated from "Bad". I was just curious what it meant, since Google came up with 0 results

As for the steel areas, I forget why I didn't put in steel on top of it, but I doubt it was for the confusion of the player.  I think it was for reasons involving scenery.

I'm not saying you had bad intentions, but you should at least consider the process in which players will think about your level.

The other thing is, about the set solution.  Yes I realize that there is only one way to solve the level.  Yes I realize that all the logic falls into place itself.  However, is it not one of the goals of making  lemmings levels, to create a level without backroutes?

The problem wasn't so much that there is a set solution. The problem is that the level is laid out in such a way that you can't even try any other method whatsoever. You must build, then you must climb (x4), then you must bomb (x3), then you must mine, then you must bomb. It is so plainly laid out that it is frustrating, because you must follow this rigid pattern that you can see by just playing the level once (assuming you know where the steel is).

As ccexplore said before lots of lemmings levels are mostly precision based.  This was the case with this level.  For some reason I like precision levels.

Well, I will just say that it's best to create a balance of puzzle and precision. That's just my opinion (and Ahribar's too it seems). I will say that one of the levels in my first pack was like this: extremely obvious solution, all precision. But I scrapped it as soon as I realized it became just a hoop to jump through.

Oh, and the falling bomber thing gives reason for the gaps , and the gaps give reason for the builder.  Without gaps, the falling climber thing would work and then I would have a backroute.

Huh? I'm talking only about the gap to the right. And the falling climber backroute is VERY easy to fix. Just add steel areas over the black areas next to the terrain. The fallers will have steel under the feet and won't explode.

Also, the gaps give incentive to build, as you stated earlier.  Because of this, the lemmings get those few extra pixels of height they need to get into the miner's tunnel.

Actually you only need a one-pixel height to be able to reach a miner's tunnel starting from the right-most area possible, so I don't think this is true. I wouldn't say you have an "incentive" to build. It's more like, you have NO CHOICE but to build with your first lemming.

Whenever I first look at a level that gives you a small amount of builders, I look for gaps that you must pass that give you no choice but to cross with a builder. Then subtract them from the amount you really have to work with. In this case it's 0, and in a lot of other cases it's like that too, but here it very clearly must be the first move with the first lemming.

If you don't like the level, that's fine.  I don't think I've ever seen someone go off on a lemmings level like that though.  O_O

Hehe. Well, one of the reasons was that I had to complete the level in order to review it, but the precision was pissing me off. So some of the rant may have been unfounded, but I don't think most of it was. I'm only trying to help. That's why we have this thread in the first place, right?

[Shvegait]

I do largely agree with this. However, if it comes to that, the designers of the original levels don't meet your very exacting standards; there's "Lost something?" and there are several levels that need bomber timing.

Eek, I don't want to come off sounding like some haughty Lemmings connosieur. (Really, I'm not.) There are exceptions, and these levels can be fun, for sure... But would you still play Lemmings if *every* level were that way? Besides, "Lost something?" gives you a hint in the title about the theme of the level. Plus it is the first and only level like this in Lemmings, so it is novel. There are no cheap tricks involved here. I wouldn't say "Lost something?" is a real brain-buster though...

Bomber timing isn't always bad. I use it in a few of my own levels and would be hypocritical to say otherwise. But bomber timing CAN be tedious and difficult.

And about my list of "bad things", there's no problem if a level has one or two of those, but if all four are present, I don't see how the level could possibly be fun.

I think what's great about Lemmings is precisely the mixture of precision elements and brainwork. Can't get a lemming going the right direction to build the crowd out of a holding area? Work out a trick so you don't have to. Need some precisely timed bombers? Work out some landmarks, and try to calculate where you need to set them off. That's why I don't mind making bomber-timing and other "annoying" levels; but I try to mix them in with more puzzle-oriented levels, and of course many levels combine both elements.

Yes, there are tons of neat little tricks you can do that require precision, and this is one of the coolest things about (DOS, etc.) Lemmings. But when there is a level that is ONLY precision AND there is repetition invovled, it instantly becomes tedious. One or two precise moves? No problem. 10 precise moves and no puzzle? X_X

However, the one thing I distinctly don't like is when a level is unfair. A hidden exit when there's no visible one is fair because you know the point of the level is to look for it. I think a couple of hidden traps, so long as you don't overdo them, should also count as fair, because the excitement of discovery and never being certain is one of the joys of the game. I don't like hidden steel or fake steel, because steel is always an area, and it can be really tedious if you have to work out the exact limits of the area. (Traps are technically also an area, I know, but one small enough to be thought of as a point; and also, you know the size of the area because it's the same for all traps of that type.) I think the opposite to this level -- diggable areas that look like steel -- is even less fair, because it's part of the set-up that you expect such areas to be steel, and you aren't even going to bother trying. It's like a chess-player looking for the best move; the brain edits out illegal moves so you don't even see them.

Exactly! This (steel on non-steel terrain) is what gave me a bad impression of the level to begin with (after playing it only the first time). The other stuff was just my rant because it was taking me too long to pass when it shouldn't have.

Incidentally, I'd also like to say that I loved the design of the level we're discussing; I can't see why you don't like it. You can say that it's all unused, but there has to be a balance -- some level ideas just don't require much space. I think it's better to leave decorative terrain unused in such cases than to lengthen the level for no other reason.

It's a matter of opinion. I don't care so much that so little of the level was used (all levels in this pack are like this, and it's the style of many of the original Lemmings levels)... The design of the level just didn't appeal to me I guess (compared to his other excellent designs).


Sigh... Now I can only imagine what scrutiny my own levels will be put under if we ever review them X_X


Out of curiosity, how long did it take anyone else (besides Timballisto) to pass the level? I'm curious what experiences other people had with the level.

[Timballisto]

Haha!  Don't worry about your levels.  If we review them, just because you hated this level so much doesn't make me want to jump on your levels every chance I get.  I give people a lot of breaks during lemmings play because I feel like it's hard to make a good level, so you get what you can think of.

For me, to beat that level in playtesting it took, about....um....30 to 40 tries or so.

[Proxima]

Eek, I don't want to come off sounding like some haughty Lemmings connosieur. (Really, I'm not.) There are exceptions, and these levels can be fun, for sure... But would you still play Lemmings if *every* level were that way? Besides, "Lost something?" gives you a hint in the title about the theme of the level. Plus it is the first and only level like this in Lemmings, so it is novel. There are no cheap tricks involved here. I wouldn't say "Lost something?" is a real brain-buster though...

No, it isn't. The exit's only in the most obvious place possible. But I have to defend "Lost something", because my forthcoming new Cheapo levels do include hidden-exit levels, one of which is much more difficult. (Still no cheap tricks, though.)

And no, I wouldn't want every level to be that way. Like I said, it's the variety that makes the game.    I've done two hidden-exit levels for my sets already, so I won't make more.

And about my list of "bad things", there's no problem if a level has one or two of those, but if all four are present, I don't see how the level could possibly be fun.

You won't like my level "The Lemming Tower of Pizza", then; it meets your points 1, 2 and 4, or nearly so; there is a bit of a puzzle in that you have to work out how to do various things so as to meet the time limit. But as I said, I feel much more strongly about your point 3 than about the others, so I wouldn't ever make a level that meets all four. Nor would I bother to keep playing one; as you say, just no fun.

[Shvegait]

You won't like my level "The Lemming Tower of Pizza", then; it meets your points 1, 2 and 4, or nearly so; there is a bit of a puzzle in that you have to work out how to do various things so as to meet the time limit. But as I said, I feel much more strongly about your point 3 than about the others, so I wouldn't ever make a level that meets all four. Nor would I bother to keep playing one; as you say, just no fun.

Oh, the 3rd point is definitely the biggest for me as well, they're not listed in any particular order. Combine it with the 1st point, and it's as if you're insulting the player's intelligence. The 2nd point just makes it annoying to pass, so you're spending more time on the level maybe than you want to, and the 4th point, for me, is the straw that breaks the camel's back, and it's the reason why I'll never finish Conway's "Back and Forth" (Cheapo LemEdit remake. His LemEdit version is shorter.)

By the way, "The Lemming Tower of Pizza" is a great title for a level

As an aside, I have several levels that break 2 or 3 of these points (Floating to safety...), but never #3. Well, OK, there is a hidden trap here and there, but they are in such positions that you'd know there must be a trap there or else the level would be too simple (or the title hints at the traps). Hmm, actually, I do have one level that breaks #3 in a different way (the direction selection issue), and it's a level I've wanted to replace, but haven't gotten around to it.

Well, enough of this How about we move on? Who wants to review Level 6?

[guest]

I'll review level 6, after I pass it.(I haven't even tried it yet, but it shouldn't be too hard.)

Some comments related to  the ranting:
Hidden exit levels can have a puzzle, if you wan't to get the level over with as quickly as possible, you have to use an efficient method for finding the exit. Levels that have no puzzle and are just precision ARE annoying. Things like bomboozal and that one that looks like fun 6 but has no bockers are pointless.(Maybe they do have a point, they could make the player scream profanities...)

[guest]

Timb03 - Level 6: Box of Lemmings-Econo Size
   
60 Lems  
100% to save  
RR: 75
Time: 5:00
Skills: 19 builders

Good: Lots of nice-looking scenery. Good title.

Bad:
1)Obvious solution.
2)The time limit. (I finished with 2:34 left.)
3)Too much strait building. (1-2 minutes!)
4)The end is a bit annoying.

In fact, the only real challenge is containing and releasing the crowd, and that's not hard at all. [Sorry about all that, I just didn't like the level.]

[Shvegait]

The stair thingamajiggy on that level looks pretty cool. And I'd imagine that a fool would try to build to the top without thinking about height Perhaps it is a bit too similar to "Lemmings in the attic", though.



Timb03 - Level 7: The Box of Tranquility...or not
   
80 Lems  
47% to save  
RR: 0
Time: 5 minutes
Skills: 1 floater, 10 builders, 1 digger

Good: You have to think about the best way to save and group the lemmings with limited tools. It's possible to save quite a bit more than needed.

Bad: Well, the box isn't symmetrical (the right side is narrower), but whatever.


Other comments: It's the only level without scenery!

[ccexplore]

Things like bomboozal and that one that looks like fun 6 but has no bockers are pointless.

You call that precision bombing?!?  ::

When I think of precision bombing, I generally think of something where if you're off by one pixel you're screwed.  Bomboozal and Diet Lemmingaid are not precision bombings.

More importantly, since they're just about timing walkers, it's pretty easy to measure out the distance and then adjust on your next try.  On your first try you assign the lemming a bomber at the position you think is good, and use your hand [finger "A"] to mark the position the lemming was at when you assign the bomber.  Then use your other finger ["B"] to mark where the explosion occurs.  Now shift your hand right or left until B moves to where you want the explosion to occur.  Look at A, that's the position you should've start the bomber from.  This method does break down slightly when the path the lemming takes goes back and forth (as in Bomboozal, where at some point the lemmings will be at a place where they will turn around at least once before exploding no matter where they were assigned the bomber), but you can still use it to some extend.

I think of all the levels in original Lemmings, "Time To Get Up" is probably the least forgiving one in terms of timed bombing, and even there it's hardly a business of being screwed by a pixel (not counting the optimal solution of course).

[Proxima]

In fact, the only real challenge is containing and releasing the crowd, and that's not hard at all. [Sorry about all that, I just didn't like the level.]

Hmm.... since I can't play the level I don't know, but wouldn't the "Time to get up" solution work? Or would there not be enough builders?

By the way, "The Lemming Tower of Pizza" is a great title for a level

Hey, thanks!