Should RetroLemmini have a Rewind button? I'm currently about 50:50 on this.
On the one hand, RetroLemmini has a replay system which can be used to backtrack when the player makes a mistake anyway; from one point of view, it seems unnecessary for the player to have to wait for the replay to fast-forward to the part of the level they're trying to get to.
On the other hand, RetroLemmini currently represents the best way to experience the original games on a modern PC (in my opinion), and the replay feature is there as a pleasant bonus rather than an integral part of the way the game is played, like it is in NeoLemmix. I'd be wary of beginning to introduce the ability to fine-tweak replays, and essentially ending up with yet another 'Lemmings replay editor'.
If we do include any sort of 'Rewind' feature, it certainly shouldn't be a frame-by-frame backstepping sort of feature. The possibilities I imagine are these:
1) 'Fast-rewind' (similar to the current fast-forward but moving in reverse)
2) A checkpoint system, which allows the player to jump back to the most recent checkpoint
3) Jump back to the last skill assignment
All of the above provide a way to quickly undo mistakes without introducing the kind of granular replay editing that NeoLemmix and Lix offer (which, again, I'd much rather avoid).
I'm very hesistant to do even this to be honest, because I like the fact that RetroLemmini has higher gameplay stakes. However, it's difficult to ignore the fact that the replay system already exists and already means that players can just fast-forward to the part of the level that they need to redo. Why not, then, allow them to get there a bit more quickly.
One other possibility here is to implement a super-fast-forward, which allows the player to advance very quickly through the replay; as fast as the rendering will allow, I imagine.
Please share your thoughts.
I need feedback on this. If I don't hear back from anybody, I'll assume that people are happy with RetroLemmini as it is and I won't take any action.
I vote yes on a rewind button. The thing I dislike about SL/RL is having to start the level over from the beginning when making mistaks especially on large levels or levels where precise skill assignement have to be done. This would be nice to have so I can get the precise skill assigments done quicker without restarting the level from the beginning.
I don't think a Rewind feature is completely necessary, I don't want to ruin the classic feel of this engine either and I think it should be preserved.
I think having to restart when making mistakes about 4-5 mins deep into a level is a little bit annoying because the fast forward is currently not fast enough to get there quickly and it occasionally results in me having to restart the level again because I don't even notice the fast forward reaching the point where I need to re-attempt. This has only become apparent today when making solve replays for my tougher SEB Lems converted levels for RetroLemmini.
1. Faster Fast Forward - this is the feature I'd support most, it kind of addresses the slowness of the current fastest fast forward speed.
2. Checkpoints - this is kind of moot if you are saving your replays at regular points anyway in case you accidentally click to cancel the replay too early or right at the start of the replay. This is probably a separate thing and it's never really been an issue for me personally.
3. Rewind to last assignment - this is the 2nd best option for me, there was a level where precision was ultra high and I think diggers are harder to place precisely on RL than on NL. Being able to return to the last assignment is a useful feature personally.
Again, I'll re-iterate. I am a native NL/Lix player but I don't wish the NL/Lix editing/frame stepping features to be brought into this. Rather something to fast forward through replays faster.
I vote YES for a rewind button!
I don't play RetroLemmini, but here's my opinion:
Once you've added action replay, you've already removed most of the punishment for making a mistake. All that's left is for the player to replay and fast forward, which does not require any skill. It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game.
Many thanks for the responses!
Maybe we could implement this in stages.
We could start off with a checkpoint system. The game state could auto-save at some arbitrary interval (15 seconds?). 'Rewinding' would then simply jump back to the most recent checkpoint.
If we can get this working, there may be the possibility of then utilising the checkpoints as places to jump forward from to reach a particular frame, similar to NeoLemmix's savestate-based framestepping system.
To be clear though: such a measure would be used as the basis of a fast-rewind control rather than a backwards framestepping system, which I do not want to add to RetroLemmini (for the reasons given in the OP). The goal here is simply to make it quicker for the player to move back to some point in the level before a mistake was made, not to grant fine-tuning control over the replay.
Also, this is a long-term goal. There are a few other things that need to be sorted out in RetroLemmini before we can get to this.
It's good to have the feedback, though. Thanks again :lemcat:
Perhaps it could be a box that you tick that adds it or not, i dont think id use it and dont really like the idea but i'd probably be ok if it was added as a mode you could turn on and off
Lix savestating/rewinding internals (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=7553) from today.
Golems savestating/rewinding (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?msg=102337) by Mindless from 2024.
These backbones/algorithms are interesting regardless of how much power you'll eventually expose to the user.
RetroLemmini supports assignments during pause that keep it paused. You can also advance by 1 physics update and keep it paused, even without assigning a skill. This is already full control that removes all execution difficulty. Given full control, if you withhold precise rewinding even though you could offer it, you'll introduce artificial annoyance. That won't feel well.
The game design sets the entire stage. Execution difficulty yes or no during forward-only play? Timed bombers suggest yes, the existing control features say no.
The appropriate rewinding power follows from that and shouldn't be a standalone design decision.
-- Simon
Quote from: Simon on August 22, 2026, 11:37:03 AMThe game design sets the entire stage. Execution difficulty yes or no during forward-only play? Timed bombers suggest yes, the existing control features say no.
The appropriate rewinding power follows from that and shouldn't be a standalone design decision.
Agreed, but I don't want RetroLemmini to become another replay editing machine. If anything, it's a shame that forwards framestepping was added. I accept it because even Amiga
Lemmings has a pseudo 'forwards-framestep' (pressing and holding pause causes the game to repeatedly step forward one frame at a fixed rate).
Adding the ability to step backwards one frame at a time allows replays to be finely edited (thus inviting all of the UI quirks we're currently wrestling with in NLCE), and - worse - allows for levels which
require framestepping shenanigans as part of their solution. RetroLemmini demands that levels can be solved in real-time, with a minimum of player-assist tweakery. I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Having said that, a way to hop backwards to a point before a mistake is a good compromise that most users do seem to want. Having said
that, hrb264 has expressed that she would prefer RetroLemmini not to go down this route, and as an actual user her viewpoint is of particular importance.
I'm still 50/50 on it. And, having looked at the code briefly to see if the replay system could be leveraged to make Rewind possible, it's
not trivial given the current state of the Lemmini codebase. Yes, it could be offered, but at present it would take a lot of work and the question of whether or not we should do it at all hasn't been fully resolved.
Quoteto step backwards one frame at a time [...] allows for levels which require framestepping shenanigans as part of their solution.
That's
allowed already from the forwards framestepping after a restart (= a rewind to the beginning of the level). It's merely annoying to see how different variants of an assignment play out.
How does the culture demand/reward unassisted solving? Might be worth investigating the design issue from this side instead? I'd imagine everybody still pauses all the time.
Quote from: WillLem on August 23, 2026, 01:43:12 AMit's a shame that forwards framestepping was added. I accept it because even Amiga Lemmings has a pseudo 'forwards-framestep' (pressing and holding pause causes the game to repeatedly step forward one frame at a fixed rate).
You're aware of the game design issues, and you're aware of the costs of implementation. I agree that there is no clear route forward.
-- Simon
I'm still of the mindset that rewind is not needed. Just having a faster fast forward option is preferable for me.
I like that RetroLemmini preserves the classic Windows 95 Lemmings which I experienced and allows custom content, I couldn't ask for much more from this engine.
Quote from: hrb264 on August 20, 2026, 08:00:17 PMi dont think id use it and dont really like the idea but i'd probably be ok if it was added as a mode you could turn on and off
Quote from: Flopsy on August 23, 2026, 10:50:27 AMI'm still of the mindset that rewind is not needed. Just having a faster fast forward option is preferable for me.
I like that RetroLemmini preserves the classic Windows 95 Lemmings
Yes, preservation of this gameplay style should be RetroLemmini's main goal, given that the other engines/clones already provide a wealth of player assist tools to make the game easier and significantly refocus the play style.
I can think of 2 possibilities (of a Rewind system that preserves traditional gameplay style):
1) Don't add Rewind, just add a 'Nitro' fast-forward speed which can be used to blast through the replay to the desired point. This is essentially what backwards framestepping actually does, but we add it as a manual control for the player to master.
2) Add Rewind, but lock it behind a 'Modern Mode' along with forwards Framestepping (which Charles made optional in SuperLemminiToo for some of the same reasons that are being discussed here; he saw the need to preserve the traditional gameplay style). A player must complete the level at least once in 'Classic Mode' before the modern controls are unlocked
for that level. The player can choose to keep them locked, if desired.
(2) is much more work. I'd prefer to go ahead with (1) for now. We can trial this in the next RetroLemmini update and see if it's sufficient enough that we don't need (2).
Quote from: WillLem on August 23, 2026, 04:35:28 PM2) Add Rewind, but lock it behind a 'Modern Mode' along with forwards Framestepping [...] A player must complete the level at least once in 'Classic Mode' before the modern controls are unlocked for that level.
This seems like very much a "worst of both worlds". You put yourself to all the trouble of coding the feature
and you prevent the player from using it. What's the point?
QuoteAdding the ability to step backwards one frame at a time allows replays to be finely edited (thus inviting all of the UI quirks we're currently wrestling with in NLCE), and - worse - allows for levels which require framestepping shenanigans as part of their solution.
There is, of course, no such thing as a level that requires framestepping shenanigans. Rubix has a Lix level that requires text-editing the replay file, because there is no other possible way of inputting 95 climber assignments in a single frame (unless this has changed in later Lix versions; I haven't been keeping up with developments), but if same-frame assignments are forbidden then anything that can be done with framestepping can be done without.
I'm not trying to be snarky; this is leading into a serious point. I think what you meant was on the lines of: "We don't want levels that are really annoying and fiddly to play without framestepping." And I approve of that thought. But there is no system in place that stops people creating such levels. People
did create such levels, back in the Cheapo/CustLemm days before any engines had framestepping. And people came up with challenges on the original levels that required incredible precision. Besides, what counts as "too annoying and fiddly" is hugely subjective.
QuoteI can think of 2 possibilities
What happened to the checkpoint and jump-to-previous-skill possibilities mentioned in the first post? Unless those have been taken off the table for some reason, we have at least four possibilities (five if we count the "add nothing" option).
I don't play RL so I'm not going to vote for my preferences, but I'd like to suggest one more option: instead of time-based checkpoints, add a savestate key so that if a level is 8 or 9 minutes long, you don't have to go all the way back to the beginning for every mistake. Restart + fast forward achieves a similar thing but is a more annoying way of doing it; as Flopsy mentioned, it's easy to FF past the point you wanted and have to start again.
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:03:53 PMThis seems like very much a "worst of both worlds". You put yourself to all the trouble of coding the feature and you prevent the player from using it. What's the point?
It's basically a reward system (many games lock features behind progress - this is normal), and one which specifically says 'we want you to solve the level without using framestepping', which - let's be really clear about it - is what we're aiming for here. Other player-assists could be encompassed here as well, although I'd probably draw the line at just framestepping; even Windows '95 Lemmings has assign-whilst-paused and direction select.
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:03:53 PMThere is, of course, no such thing as a level that requires framestepping shenanigans...
The first
Lemminas (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4679.msg80165#msg80165) pack and (particularly)
Lemmings Recurring (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4668#msg80067) both feature levels which are basically impossible to complete in real-time. I've tried.
After making those packs and realising that I actually disliked playing that way (and that NeoLemmix's player assist tools had made such levels possible to create and solve in the first place), I resolved to only ever create levels that can be solved without even using assign-whilst-paused. Obviously,
all levels are made easier with the player assists, but when a level more or less demands that you use them, it's a bad thing (IMO).
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:03:53 PManything that can be done with framestepping can be done without.
A level that requires assignments on frames X, X+2, X+4, X+6, X+8, etc. would be near enough impossible to complete without using framestepping.
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:03:53 PMI think what you meant was on the lines of: "We don't want levels that are really annoying and fiddly to play without framestepping." ... what counts as "too annoying and fiddly" is hugely subjective.
You're right that opinions will differ on this. IMO, if a level requires an assignment on frame X, and another at frame X+n where n is less than about 10, it's too fiddly and annoying. Obviously, the closer to 1 n is, the more fiddly and annoying it is.
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:03:53 PMQuoteI can think of 2 possibilities
What happened to the checkpoint and jump-to-previous-skill possibilities mentioned in the first post?
I meant 2 possibilities of a Rewind system that could possibly preserve traditional gameplay (as opposed to a Rewind system in general). I've updated my previous post to reflect this, apologies for the miscommunication. At this point, all ideas being discussed in this topic are still on the table (including, of course, "do nothing").
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:03:53 PMadd a savestate key
Yes, this is another possibility for sure. If anything, any Rewind system that's implemented would need to be savestate-based anyway, so this step would arrive sooner than a Rewind button anyway.
Quote from: WillLem on August 23, 2026, 05:37:36 PMIt's basically a reward system (many games lock features behind progress - this is normal)
Features, yes. Solve the hard level, get the snazzy new costume or ability card or wave gun or whatever.
But not
quality-of-life features. If the purpose of adding a feature is to improve quality of life, then it should not be locked.
QuoteThe first Lemminas pack and (particularly) Lemmings Recurring both feature levels which are basically impossible to complete in real-time. I've tried.
That proves that the task is difficult. You wouldn't have attempted it if it were impossible.
QuoteI resolved to only ever create levels that can be solved without even using assign-whilst-paused. [...] If a level requires an assignment on frame X, and another at frame X+n where n is less than about 10, it's too fiddly and annoying.
Right, that's where
you have decided
your threshold for "too annoying" is, and
you have decided that all
your levels will be solvable without assign-while-paused.
Are you going to set up a vetting system so that levels by other designers must pass this threshold before they're allowed to be published?
If not, then levels that don't meet your standards will continue to be made, and "I'd rather they didn't get made" isn't a good answer to the question of whether the engine should have better quality-of-life features.
(Sorry if this comes across as aggressive. I'm mostly annoyed at myself for not having expressed my point well enough in my previous post.)
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMIf the purpose of adding a feature is to improve quality of life, then it should not be locked.
Admittedly, I'm struggling to think of examples of games that provide QOL features as rewards, but I'm sure they do exist. One that springs to mind is Super Mario Sunshine, which allows the player to use Fludd on subsequent plays of the 'platforming challenge' levels once the main quest is completed. In this context, Fludd can
absolutely be seen as a QOL feature, because it makes these levels significantly easier to traverse.
I'll come back later with better examples.
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMYou wouldn't have attempted it if it were impossible.
Have you met me?? Attempting the impossible is my jam! :lemcat: ;P
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMAre you going to set up a vetting system so that levels by other designers must pass this threshold before they're allowed to be published?
Definitely not. Anybody is welcome to make any levels for RetroLemmini that they wish. We could even put the decision of whether or not to lock the player-assists in the hands of the level designer. I did originally think that, and now regret not including that detail in the idea suggestion.
My 'standards' are not so unique, either; they reflect the strong opinions of other Lemmings players. However small, there will always be a group of players who want the game to be presented more or less as it was originally. RetroLemmini is for that group.
Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMlevels that don't meet your standards will continue to be made, and "I'd rather they didn't get made" isn't a good answer to the question of whether the engine should have better quality-of-life features.
I never said I'd rather those levels didn't get made. This is more a question of which gameplay style we want to support than a comment on level design (the original levels are, of course, an exception to this
because they are the original levels, and this Forum wouldn't exist without them).
I should probably take issue with framestepping being described as a 'quality-of-life' feature here. Direction-select and assign-whilst-paused are arguably QOL features. Framestepping, on the other hand, is tantamount to cheating in a game like Lemmings. We all agree that the ability to framestep backwards immediately renders most of the original levels (which is what many players come to the Forums looking for) obsolete. We have to be careful not to do the same in RetroLemmini - that's the bottom line here as far as I'm concerned.
QuoteDirection-select and assign-whilst-paused are arguably QOL features.
Directional select can allow extra things. In a sufficiently stone-aged engine, you can't assign to certain lemmings in a dense pack unless you force direction. It would enable new things in L2.
Quote from: WillLem on August 23, 2026, 06:25:19 PMFramestepping, on the other hand, is tantamount to cheating
If this means backward
and forward skips (+1/−1 physics update, staying paused): You'll have to remove some cheating features from RetroLemmini. As-is, you can click to advance by 1 physics update during pause.
If this means rewind only: Then the difference between cheating and not cheating is that the non-cheater must mind-numbingly fast-forward to get where he wants, and the cheater may skip this fast-forwarding and immediately continue where he wants. Both end at the same game situation. The only difference is drudgework. This is Mindless's "It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game."
You
can design the game like this. But is that good?
QuoteA player must complete the level at least once in 'Classic Mode' before the modern controls are unlocked for that level.
Don't punish/lock X, instead reward Y.
Reward pause-free playing. Framestepping enters pause and therefore disqualifies you from winning pause-free, you'll only get a normal win. That would directly support what you seem to want, and it would be a fresh take on the whole matter.
-- Simon
Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMIf this means backward and forward skips (+1/−1 physics update, staying paused): You'll have to remove some cheating features from RetroLemmini. As-is, you can click to advance by 1 physics update during pause.
Yes, as I said, it's unfortunate that this is already a part of RL. It won't be getting removed, but it
has been made optional by another user/developer (Charles) who seemed to have a similar opinion.
Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMthe difference between cheating and not cheating ... is drudgework. This is Mindless's "It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game."
Hm. Maybe I disagree that it doesn't make for a good game. If that's true, why are we all here? The vast majority of original Lemmings ports don't even have a replay system, let alone per-frame control over the gameplay. It can't be that bad a game if there's an entire Forum dedicated to it...
Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMYou can design the game like this. But is that good?
Maybe this is a question to which I don't think the answer should
automatically be "no". If the player is punished for making a mistake, the real-time gameplay stakes are higher. Some players genuinely enjoy this.
Lemmings itself was more or less built on this very principle.
And yes, it has evolved - and that's good. But, we have engines with player assists which we all (myself included) enjoy; we should also have one that presents the more traditional gameplay style.
Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMDon't punish/lock X, instead reward Y.
Reward pause-free playing.
Yes, this could work. The Talisman system in Neo/Super is good; both players and designers benefit from it. I thought about implementing a challenge/trophy system in RL but realised how complicated it would make everything and so abandoned it (for now). I think it would only be worth the effort if it were a
somewhat online feature, where players could see which trophies they (and other players) had achieved.
Counter-point, though: offering 'modern' features after a successful 'classic' playthrough
is 'reward' rather than 'punish', is it not? We're saying: "well done, you completed the level without player assists, now they're unlocked for this level". Maybe it is a bad idea, I'm not 100% convinced of it myself. I'm just exploring the possibilities at the moment.
Lemmings was good in 1991
despite lack of action replay, not because of lack.
I'll rob you for $5000 and give you back $2000 as a reward for not telling the police. That's a good reward, $2000, it's a lot more than $1000. This is why I wrote:
instead of punishing/locking. Different feeling.
Lemmings 3 happens to implement what you're considering. Solutions from an action replay don't count ("learner mode") for progression. Feature is meticulously implemented, but you're not supposed to use it until you've proven your worth. Reaction by Kieran:
Quote from: kieranmillar on July 17, 2023, 10:54:20 PMusing the replay feature makes the solve not count (why oh why did they do this? Idiots)
What I really hoped to see was a holistic argument. Why do all those design decisions make the best possible whole? I'm sure that, yes, you can continue to tell me nice stories about every individual choice however it turns out. X is easy to implement, Y easy to understand, Z is already implemented so it would be more work to cut it and some users would act up, W is optional control feature and we'll continue to support both yes W and no W, ..., but why is this exact
collection of choices/features the overall best-suited?
I'm not even arguing that you have to implement rewind at all costs. Maybe drudgework is exactly the right cost for what you envision. Unlikely but possible. Unlikely enough to seek alternatives.
-- Simon
Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 09:24:47 PMLemmings 3 happens to implement what you're considering. Solutions from an action replay don't count ("learner mode") for progression. Feature is meticulously implemented, but you're not supposed to use it until you've proven your worth. Reaction by Kieran:
Quote from: kieranmillar on July 17, 2023, 10:54:20 PMusing the replay feature makes the solve not count (why oh why did they do this? Idiots)
They did this because using the replay system to solve a level was probably considered cheating (or at least contradictory to the spirit of the game as it was intended to be played) by the developers. Otherwise, of course they wouldn't have implemented it in this way.
Part of the original challenge of Lemmings was to be able to solve the level in one single playthrough. If you could do that, you'd beaten the level good and proper, fair and square. And, of course you could pause the level to take a moment to set up your next action, but all assignments had to be made in real-time: that was a legitimate and enjoyable part of the challenge. I
can't be the only player that thinks like this.
Anyway, RetroLemmini has already sacrificed some of this by having a replay system. So did Windows '95 Lemmings (which also allowed assign-whilst-paused). And yet, it never felt like it was getting in the way or completely ruining that aspect of the game because it wasn't used for fine-tweaking.
Most of the time when playing in RetroLemmini (which is currently my preferrd engine for actually
playing Lemmings), I click to cancel my previous replay because I want to mostly do the solution over and don't care about sacrificing a few assignments; a fresh start is preferable. Again, I cannot be the only player who thinks like this.
Conversely - when I'm playing in NeoLemmix/Lix, I use backwards framestepping, of course - why wouldn't I. But, it makes the game feel totally different. Specifically: there are no real-time stakes at all. Nothing I do really matters because I can just skip back and redo it
immediately. It feels like I'm editing a video clip rather than playing a video game. This is fundamentally a different way to play, and it matters.
Is that closer to the holistic argument you were hoping for? I'd be happy to unpack my thoughts on this further. And make no mistake: I would
never want the player assists to be removed from Lix, NeoLemmix or even SuperLemmix. I just want to be very careful about adding them to RetroLemmini.
Quote from: WillLem on August 23, 2026, 06:25:19 PMFramestepping, on the other hand, is tantamount to cheating in a game like Lemmings.
There is no such thing as cheating in a single-player game, unless it has some form of player-player interactivity (such as achievements, online leaderboards, etc).
QuoteWe all agree that the ability to framestep backwards immediately renders most of the original levels (which is what many players come to the Forums looking for) obsolete.
Out of 120 levels, there are
five timed bomber levels in the entire game. ONML has only two out of 100.
QuoteHm. Maybe I disagree that it doesn't make for a good game. If that's true, why are we all here? The vast majority of original Lemmings ports don't even have a replay system, let alone per-frame control over the gameplay. It can't be that bad a game if there's an entire Forum dedicated to it...
I'm here for the custom levels (making, solving and discussing), the challenges, and the community most of all. I haven't played original Lemmings for years.
Of course, I loved it when I played it as a kid. I loved saving the cute creatures, the music, the graphics... but most of all, the feeling of being challenged to work out how on earth it was possible to solve these levels, and feeling great when I got those moments of insight that made everything fall into place at last.
It's true that the original game didn't have any kind of replay system, whether because it would have been too tricky to code given the limitations of the time, or because it wasn't a common feature in games, or because the developers simply didn't think of it. Still, if it had had replays from the beginning, I can't see that anything I liked about the game would have been changed or diminished.
But I finished the original games decades ago (not counting ones like L2 and L3 that didn't interest me enough to look into them), so the only reason I'm interested in modern clones at all is their ability to support creating and playing new levels.
I know that maybe it's not my place to say these things. I haven't played
any Lemmings content for a long time now, and when I do come back to it, it'll be NL for sure. So my opinions shouldn't have much weight in the direction RL takes. I'm mostly contributing because I hope this discussion can help you reason out the decision, so that whatever decision you end up making, it's done for good reasons.
QuoteConversely - when I'm playing in NeoLemmix/Lix, I use backwards framestepping, of course - why wouldn't I. But, it makes the game feel totally different. Specifically: there are no real-time stakes at all. Nothing I do really matters because I can just skip back and redo it immediately. It feels like I'm editing a video clip rather than playing a video game. This is fundamentally a different way to play, and it matters.
This reminds me a lot of things that were said before the decision to add unlimited undo to
Deadly Rooms of Death. Specifically, I remember one poster who was vehemently against UU because he wanted moves to feel "consequential". And then UU got added, nothing really changed, and it was still the same game, just easier to play.
It might surprise you, after the things I've said, that I actually
don't use UU in DROD myself. But it does have single undo and checkpoints; if the choice were between enabling UU and having to restart the room every time I made a mistake, then I would have enabled it from the moment it was possible to do so :P
But anyway. In a game like Lemmings or DROD where levels (or rooms) are distinct units of play, there are no "stakes" in any case. The only possible consequence for failure is loss of time. And that matters a lot more to me now that half of my life is behind me, and so much of my time is lost through feeling exhausted. I want the games I play to respect my time, and if I feel a game doesn't, I'm much more likely to close it and find one that does.
And while I appreciate that you prefer to play without replay features, that in itself isn't an argument for not adding them. If those features are there, people who prefer to play without them can still do so, while if they're not, everyone is forced to play without them regardless of what they prefer.
Quote from: Proxima on August 24, 2026, 02:06:39 AMThere is no such thing as cheating in a single-player game
Fair enough. A better way to put it is probably "it undermines a big part of the game's challenge", which - in the case of L1/L2/L3 - was to solve the levels in real-time as much as possible
as well as solve the puzzles.
Quote from: Proxima on August 24, 2026, 02:06:39 AMQuoteWe all agree that the ability to framestep backwards immediately renders most of the original levels (which is what many players come to the Forums looking for) obsolete.
Out of 120 levels, there are five timed bomber levels in the entire game. ONML has only two out of 100.
Did I miss something? We're not talking about timed bombers here, we're talking about framestepping. The original point stands: a lot of L1 levels feature challenges related to general timing and crowd control, which are rendered trivial by the ability to framestep.
Quote from: Proxima on August 24, 2026, 02:06:39 AMIt's true that the original game didn't have any kind of replay system ... if it had had replays from the beginning, I can't see that anything I liked about the game would have been changed or diminished.
...
And then UU got added, nothing really changed, and it was still the same game, just easier to play.
Fair enough. There's a very good chance that adding the ability to jump backwards a bit (possibly via savestate loading) won't ruin RetroLemmini's general gameplay and will just save the player time, which is an important consideration and the reason for this topic in the first place.
Any Rewind feature will no doubt be a balancing act between making the game better to play, and retaining as much of the old school 'charm' as possible.
Quote from: Proxima on August 24, 2026, 02:06:39 AMI know that maybe it's not my place to say these things ... I'm mostly contributing because I hope this discussion can help you reason out the decision
This is much appreciated. All feedback is good, all opinions are valid and helpful to the outcome one way or another. Thank you for taking the time to contribute your thoughts! :)
Quote from: WillLem on August 24, 2026, 02:27:44 AMDid I miss something? We're not talking about timed bombers here, we're talking about framestepping. The original point stands: a lot of L1 levels feature challenges related to general timing and crowd control, which are rendered trivial by the ability to framestep.
Right. I mentioned timed bombers specifically because those are the clearest example where the
entire level is trivialised. Other than that, I can think of specific activities in levels that become not an issue any more (such as precisely placing a miner so that it outputs where the crowd can climb into the tunnel), but those levels still have puzzle aspects. I guess there are levels like "The Crossroads" that are are entirely an execution challenge, but still a small minority of the levels in the game.
I don't personally find it very necessary. The replay feature already lightens the weight of most execution-based mistakes. It's really slow on longer levels, yeah, but I'd rather have a faster speed up button than a rewind.
Quote from: Kapus on August 24, 2026, 11:48:18 AMI don't personally find it very necessary. The replay feature already lightens the weight of most execution-based mistakes. It's really slow on longer levels, yeah, but I'd rather have a faster speed up button than a rewind.
Agree there