Should overlapping multiple hatches, such that it simulates a non-standard spawn order, be considered "unfair"?
No
most arguments in favor of it are "because I'm recreating... DOS / Amiga"
I am very much
in favour of new engines interpreting old levels differently - that's why I love making remix levels! However, I can also see why some players wish for the game to conform to a set of rules/principles/mechanics/whatever that they prefer and feel more comfortable with. Whenever I use the "Amiga did it" argument, it's not because I value the Amiga version as some sort of irrefutable gold standard, but more that
it has been considered a good idea previously, so why not now? There is a subtle difference, and it always comes down to discussion of
what we think today. I can side with either argument, and whilst I may have voiced the "legacy content" argument quite a lot, it's by no means my only viewpoint.
Ultimately, I'd say that when it comes to
gameplay, go with the new engine - any mechanics or whatever can and should be dictated by the platform. If those mechanics can be tweaked and updated to suit the preferences and requirements of an active community, so much the better!
Meanwhile, overlapping/hidden objects (with or without the presence of a helper graphic/CPM) are absolutely fine
as long as the level itself is playable. If I'm constantly getting confused by it, I'll probably just skip it anyway, but if it's generally easy to figure out what's going on (like it was with my
Wraparound levels*), then sure - bring it on.
(*Incidentally, the reason I chose to remove these levels from
Lemminas is because my makeshift "wrap" was problematic and only worked at certain trigger points around the edge of the level. The level idea itself was totally fair, but the implementation was far from ideal.)
As I've said before many times, I believe these elements can be used tastefully within the context of an otherwise more standard set of levels in order to switch things up a bit and keep it interesting. It can be fun from both a design perspective and when playing the game, and it's got nothing to do with the fact that "original Lemmings did it"; in fact, the irony is that NeoLemmix offers up so much more possibility for these types of levels to be created!
Although NeoLemmix philosophy currently aims to move things in a different direction (having experimented with and ultimately rejected "unfair" elements previously), I still think that the best way to handle such elements is not to outright ban them, or "frown upon" them, or otherwise shun them, but to
encourage better use of these ideas: if someone has designed a level with unfair elements but it's a good, playable and enjoyable level - great! A level should always be judged on its overall merit, not instantly dismissed for having "unfair" elements. New creators will always want to do this kind of thing anyway, so surely it's better to guide them towards better use of these ideas rather than alienate them by telling them they shouldn't do it and nobody will want to play their packs if they do. I still think a community-made
NeoLemmix Guide To Level Creation topic is long, long, long overdue!
I would, however, consider it an issue to stack 20 hatches on top of each other so you can spawn 19 floaters and make lemming 20 splat/glide/whatever
That's not a bad idea!
then stacking the hatches is preferable to slightly moving one to create a visible but very weird-looking double hatch (as in WillLem's suggestion for Havoc 12, over in the Redux thread).
Stacking hatches is the best idea, I only suggested
slightly offsetting them because it's less messy than placing them so they appear to be randomly plopped on the map (
even if the latter method preserves lemming placement). It's not a method I would ever use personally, and in fact I'm more than happy to withdraw the suggestion or at least be disassociated from it.
hatch order is always hidden information and the player is encouraged to let the level play a little to see what the order is. ... We could change this with order indicators: "A", "B", etc... I wouldn't say that such indicators are a top priority or something we need, but they seem to be a good idea
I've highlighted a particular part of this comment because I think it touches on an important point that I've previously brought attention to: how much do we want Lemmings to become a "picture puzzle"? The more information a player is given before they actually have to play the darn level, the more like a picture puzzle it is.
Lemmings is a video game. Press play: see what happens!My final comment on this (for today!) is the issue of how messy the levels can potentially look with helper icons and information everywhere. Whilst generally being in the "it doesn't matter, it isn't unfair, let the player play the level and see what happens" camp, there are ways to make the "picture puzzle method" tidier, less visually intrusive, and clearer to the player. It seems that most people are ultimately concerned with the possible "bloating" of the helper stuff, so maybe we ought to look at how this can be minimised, or presented more cleanly.