cases where you need to get things really precise at one point for timings to work out later; or when frequent scrolling between opposite ends of a large level becomes necessary; or when there's too many lemmings ... to keep track of
For me, it depends on the
type of level as to whether these things are annoying. If the level has an extremely limited skillset and only one possible solution, and requires any of the things you've mentioned, then yes - it's a bad level. However, if the level offers many skills and invites the player to craft their own solution (which may still be difficult depending on the layout of the level, etc), then this can be an interesting and engaging kind of level to play through IMHO.
reduce the impact of seeing a time limit on other levels where it might actually be relevant.
I've come around to infinite timers for most levels tbh, mainly for this exact reason; it's better to be clear to the player when time is a relevant factor.
That said, I do still enjoy those moments when you realise that there's more to the level than crafting a solution, and that other steps must be taken to also beat the timer. It's part of the
experience of playing through a pack, a little bit of cheek from the designer can be compelling if done tastefully and in good spirits.
Release rate, I absolutely understand where Lix is coming from on that
---
either (a) reduce the number intermediate steps between slowest and fastest, or (b) instead of allowing free adjustment, only allow switching between the initial RR and 99
Why? Honestly, the latter sounds like a terrible idea (and one that doesn't remove the "get the RR to 99 just to beat the time limit" issue). The former could be workable but seems unnecessarily restrictive.
Sometimes, variable spawn can be useful for more than just switching to RR99. You may want a couple of lems to be closer to each other than the spawn rate (but not quite RR99), and variable spawn is a quick, easy way of achieving this that doesn't cost any skills. It gives both the designer and the player more options than just those presented by the skillset.
I can understand most of the arguments against "non-NL/Lix-friendly level design" even if I don't always agree, but the RR thing is something that genuinely baffles me. I really don't see why Simon is against including it, and I have read and re-read his reasons multiple times. I think I'd need a practical demonstration showing that it isn't needed, but even then it's so easy to counter things like "use Jumpers instead" with "yes, but then you're using up skills". I really just don't get it at all
Execution difficulty (where it's done for the sake of execution difficulty, rather than because the solution needs a trick that's inherently difficult to execute) is the only one of those things that I'd say is always bad design
I can understand why some players don't like this tbh. NeoLemmix (and indeed Lix) have done a great job of making the game far less execution-focused, at the cost of (perhaps) increasing the prevalence of fiddly pixel-precise stuff.
As for limited skillset puzzles, there are always ways to add more variety to this. In particular, some limited skillset levels - even very hard ones - with multiple solutions, do exist
Whilst I don't doubt that this is true, my issue is more with
every level in a rank or pack relying on limiting the skillset to increase the difficulty of the level.
It's also worth noting that limited skillset doesn't always mean "exactly the skills you need"
I know, I guess I'm just using it as a shorthand for any level which enforces a particular solution by limiting the skillset. And, whilst these levels are sometimes amongst the best any pack has to offer, too many of them back-to-back can start to feel repetitive and off-putting.
Lemminas pack was quite well received despite having very few "specific solution" levels.
True, I appreciate the reminder
I guess the community was ready for something a bit easier and I tried to deliver that with
Lemminas. I'm hoping the sequel will be even easier, but more solid in terms of overall quality.
I think you are missing a big point here: People are already creating and playing the packs they want to create or play! Even if they go against guidelines that usually don't hold them back anyway trust me.
Just go ahead and create what you want ... Nobody is stopping you! If people enjoy that type of content they will come.
Fair enough, that's a good point. Supply and demand is definitely a good gauge for these things.
I guess I just get a bit disappointed when I dive into a new NL pack only to find that the designer wants me to find just that one solution to every level in the pack. I need a bit more persuasion than that to spend the time that it takes, and I find that a few easier levels or ones which test skills other than puzzle solving can be just the ticket.
How about the other way around: Why must every engine cater to the execution centric side? Why can't there be two engines that divert from it?
There can, clearly! And I personally use NeoLemmix more than any other engine as my go-to for Lemmings gameplay generally, so I'm not
completely averse to the "no execution stuff" mentality. However, since I
also enjoy that kind of gameplay from time to time, I'm the one who must be running two or more Lemmings engines side-by-side (I currently run 5!). The ultimate solution (for me) would be one engine which caters to all, and both NeoLemmix and SuperLemmini have the potential to do just that in user preferences.
In NeoLemmix, in fact, it is now possible to remove all player-assists and play in a much more old-school way thanks to namida implementing requests for these to be toggled off if the player so wishes. If Superlemming and Frenzy were still a thing, then it'd be the complete package! But, we can't get everything we want
In Lix and NL I can mostly be sure that the focus is on the puzzle
---
Not every engine must include execution centric ideas! Here I would advice for the variety by saying that NL and Lix should mostly stay free from it.
Well, you got your wish! Both of these engines are ideal for more finely controlled, puzzle-focused gameplay. The only thing I would say is that the cost of this is pixel precision, which is now way more of a problem than it ever was on Amiga or Windows, even if the level designer doesn't intend for it to be.