Icho says "That's the way of video games for me: Start out easy then get harder and harder until the player has mastered the game." But we're not making a game; we're making expansion packs for a game that already exists. Everyone who plays our packs is at least intermediate level already, and most are experts. Why are we still clinging onto the idea that every pack should have difficulty ranks and that the first should be beginner level?
...but you didn't disagree with anything I said. ???
My point is that there's really no reason why every pack has to be like that.
Your level design posts are always excellent food for thought, and start some discussions that are well worth having, even if I usually end up disagreeing with most of what you say :P
10-of-everything levels: We had a topic on this, and you completely ignored my posts. I agree, the Tame levels don't teach the player the skills they need for solving more complex or restricted puzzles. But the Fun levels do. I gave a breakdown in this post. Most Tame levels have one to three obstacles, each of which is overcome separately by a single skill; in other words, Tame 2-20 teach you nothing more about putting a solution together beyond what you already learned in Tame 1. The Fun levels present much more varied obstacles, requiring much more varied solutions, and you end up learning a lot about how to overcome different types of situation.
I grant that one specific thing the Fun levels don't teach is conserving resources or dealing with the lack of specific skills. But because the Fun levels lay a good groundwork in how to get through the situations the game presents, when you reach the first levels that cut down the available resources, it's a relatively small leap -- whereas, as you said, the leap from Tame to Dolly Dimple is huge.
But most of all I take issue with the idea that there's a set of books, songs and games that are "pop" enough to make reference to, and if I like different things, I'm not in your cool club. Why shouldn't I have fun as well?
But lumping all 10-of-everything levels together and calling them all "filler" -- that's unwarranted.
Why are we still clinging onto the idea that every pack should have difficulty ranks and that the first should be beginner level?
"Six Days Without An Accident". On the surface the title has NOTHING to do with the level, but under the surface? The "Six Days" part is 100% random, but the level deals with climbers that can easily climb over obstacles and die. This is the "Accidents" the level is referring to. I think it stands out more decent without having to relate it to the level too literally. Too literally would be naming the level "Climber Accidents" or something. Which one do you think has more of a punch?
The Troll rank in Casualemmings was just me getting pent-up trash out of my system.
That said, one thing I keep pointing out repeatedly which Fun doesn't teach the player either is standard skill tricks. The three builder wall has to be figured out by the player himself on "I have a cunning plan", which also does a terrible job at isolating that trick, because it is also possible to block and free the blocker with a miner (which is how my father and I always tried to solve the level back in the day, running into execution difficulties easily, even though we knew it was possible). So you can't even claim the redeeming factor of "the player is bound to figure it out at some point" here. Digging and building to turn a lemming around has to be figured out on "Postcard to Lemmingland"; trapping lemmings in a digger pit on "Heaven can wait (we hope!)".
And sadly, many packs waste the player's time with standard tutorial levels for the different single skills - a type of level which you get to play loads of with every new pack you attempt - but then proceed to demanding obscure tricks from the player; some of which most of us probably know less from actual playing, and more from browsing the forum or from watching replays.
Hence, I selected the level / song titles for Lemmings World Tour by the criteria of overall popularity, the degree to which the title matched the level mechanically or visually, and only afterwards came personal preference. Many of the titles are songs I have never listened to; but if I had based the titles on my personal favourites, it would have been full of lesser known metal bands and Eurovision Song Contest entries :) .
A little mystery can be nice, of course, but I usually disperse it at the latest in the post-level text as a "reward" for solving the level. It's quite weird to have to go to a YouTube LP of the pack you just played and look for the creator's comments under some video, just to get all the secret references.
I glanced again through your preview topic to see how many titles came from songs I'm familiar with, and my success rate was a little under 50%. And that doesn't bother me at all.
Then again, when original Lemmings was released, it was a one-off, not a ground for ongoing puzzle creation. Tricks we now call "standard" like the three-builder wall didn't need a better teaching level, since that was the only level using the trick.
If I were to finish a pack, I'd post a list of references either in a spoiler tag in the first post, or an attached text file. Namida does this too.
I'm still a little salty that I couldn't figure out what "I am A. T." from the Sunsoft rank is supposed to refer to. Unless it's a really stupid word-play for "80", which is the number of lemmings you have to save. But in that case, why "I am"? Why not simply "Save A. T." or something along those lines? :D
The three builder wall however is different, because in the beginning you learn that lemmings can go through staircases, and even if you put two staircases perfectly behind each other, they also still manage to slip through that. So you could just as easily believe as a new player that builder staircases were permeable from below in general.
For your example level: Yes, the reference escapes me
In the case of the Fun levels, most of these are "pre-runs" of later levels which were deliberately made easier. So actually, the more difficult version was created first, and then reducing the difficulty just to have another level for a lower rank really just seems like filler to me. As if the creator couldn't be bothered to come up with separate easier puzzles and decides to go for a 2-for-1 instead, simply because they don't know what else to do for the first rank.I like to avoid that. I tend to create the easy version of a level first, and then think "hey, if I tweak this and this and change the layout a little bit, now I can try to come up with a harder solution." I try to avoid having repeats that are exactly the same layout-wise, just similar enough that you can tell they were based on the same level. "Do it to it" and "Get me outta here!" in Squared are one example.
This is very interesting, because I myself rarely read level titles and don't care about them at all. However your second point puts me in a very difficult spot:
- first of all: a generic title ;) . This just gives me the impression that the creator merely created something random without putting much effort into it. Sometimes you get surprised and a generically-titled level has a great solution. But I mainly encounter generic titles on the lower ranks, where these really just feel like filler levels.
- or a title that makes some obscure reference to something very niche, where chances of other people getting the reference are very low, compared to e.g. a pop culture reference. I make some of these occasionally, too - and with growing individualism in society, there's probably going to be less and less common knowledge to allude to in this regard ;) . But there's a difference whether a pack is full of e.g. references to movies, songs, or well-known places - or just to, say, some random anime game instead :evil: . Too many "insider references" in level titles to me feel like repeated attempts at cracking jokes which nobody else understands.
if the level is a no-brainer 10-of-everything level which just takes up unnecessary time to click through - rather than a challenge arising from skill restrictionAll this discussion about 10-of-everything levels gave me one idea: Would 5-skills-with-10-of-each levels be better? At least it would provide a bigger variety regarding the skill selection available. Otherwise I would be hard-pressed to create levels that fill the gap between "X-of-everything" levels and actual puzzle levels.
Mazes of tiny, pixel-thin terrain stripes however are designed to make your eyes lose track every time you look elsewhere in the level.Interesting, because I love mazes with thin terrain (you probably noticed that there are several of them in NepsterLems ;)). As long as they have some kind of structure, I don't find them confusing at all. I would have much more objections when everything is two or three times as big... But good to know about your preferences.
Making terrain visually deceptive this way to me really isn't much better than making traps visually deceptive.
Oftentimes, these levels even look more complicated than they actually are (I'm going to cite Colorful Arty's "Labyrinth of Lucifer" from SubLems or Nepster's "Don't cross me!" as examples here).
So I really ask myself: How I should name levels in the future?
All this discussion about 10-of-everything levels gave me one idea: Would 5-skills-with-10-of-each levels be better? At least it would provide a bigger variety regarding the skill selection available. Otherwise I would be hard-pressed to create levels that fill the gap between "X-of-everything" levels and actual puzzle levels.
Interesting, because I love mazes with thin terrain (you probably noticed that there are several of them in NepsterLems ;)).
In fact, you already did make pop culture references in your pack ;) - just off the top of my head, the two "Tomb Raider" levels come to mind. That's a game that was popular enough to have several movies made based on it.Funny that you should mention them as examples: The title "Tomb Raider" was there before I realized that it is a pop culture reference. On the other hand I thought that "A Study in Scarlet" would be by far the most recognizable pop culture reference. ;P
But generally speaking, I don't take any issue either with levels which are merely "accurately descriptive" - like "The Block-Store", "A Study in Scarlet", "A Stroll on the Lawn", "Five Do Not Survive", etc.
- lemmings falling to their death right from the hatch, either a fatal fall or dropping into a trap like in one Wafflemm level that I remember quite clearly. Often you have to keep assigning certain athletic skills (floaters, swimmers etc.) as a form of stalling until there is safe ground beneath the hatch.
In either case, you have to do a bunch of click-heavy, totally obvious stuff first before the actual level can get started. "Bitter Lemming" isn't so bad, but "POOR WEE CREATURES!" and "Steel Works" are more annoying examples of this.
- lemmings falling to their death right from the hatch
Poor Wee Creatures is actually a really good level IMO, because while it does involve creating a safe landing place from the entrance, part of the puzzle is how to build that safe landing place - it's not just a matter of "build up from the landing spot", nor does the level expect you to keep assigning floaters in the meantime.
while they may have already discovered the concept in general on Fun 27
One of my favourite Orig levels too. Although the solution I used as a kid was indeed to build up from the bottom :P
I misread that as Fun 17, which by sheer coincidence is another level where one solution is to build a landing bridge under a fatal fall. (Although Fun 17 gives you enough floaters to meet the save requirement. Then again, so does Fun 27 on DOS, thanks to the nuke glitch!)
For me, this is another case of "just as tedious to play as it is to create (and vice versa)". Since you cannot actually type inside the level editor, you have to place every letter in the landscape by hand. That should be enough to deter people from doing it excessively - one would think! ;)
first of all: a generic title ;) . This just gives me the impression that the creator merely created something random without putting much effort into it.
levels with an unnecessarily "unergonomic" terrain shape: If you constantly need additional builders just to cross a couple more pixels, rather than the gaps being measured out for a specific number of builders; or if you have to build close to oddly shaped ceilings where the lemming is constantly turning around and coming back just to add a couple more bricks, etc.
relative pixel precision": Pixel precision is fine as long as it affects single lemmings... The problem arises when two or more lemmings have to be in very specific spots relative to each other, so the skill assignment becomes a game of Mikado.
Levels with an abundance of skills rarely feel rewarding to me, because whenever I solve one of these it feels like I couldn't really fail on that level to begin with
Icho says "That's the way of video games for me: Start out easy then get harder and harder until the player has mastered the game." But we're not making a game; we're making expansion packs for a game that already exists. Everyone who plays our packs is at least intermediate level already, and most are experts. Why are we still clinging onto the idea that every pack should have difficulty ranks and that the first should be beginner level?
I disagree with that. My own packs are intended to be games that can stand alone. Technically there are expansions, but even a new player should be able to get into it and be able to solve at least a part of it. They should be able to learn the game even if they only have my pack.
- Unnessesary tight timers.
I love the feeling of getting those last few lemmings in just before the time runs out, always have done.
This is where it might be interesting to watch you do a lets play of Lemmings
I struggle to remember much levels where the timing is that tight. You made it sound like running out of time (or getting down to last few seconds on the timer) is a very common experience and that just didn't seem like the case for me
Interestingly, I've been thinking of doing this: the idea I had was to choose a handful of levels and then play them both on the Amiga emulator and NeoLemmix, if only because I often wax lyrical about the differences and yet, I do love both platforms equally. I thought it would be interesting to do a direct comparison and document the actual experience via an LP. So... I might actually do this at some point!
This is one I feel quite strongly about:
Firstly, I'd say that this is totally down to the designer of the pack: if someone wishes to build a beginner-style rank into their pack, there could be many reasons for doing this.
You're welcome to do so, but obviously there's no denying that NeoLemmix took different stances on certain matters. There is no denying that the original game do have things like hidden traps, ubiquitous timers and timed bombers, and lacks things like framestepping and rewinds. It was a natural progression driven by the tastes of the community that things evolve the way it did for NeoLemmix.
I'm just particularly curious about the matter of timers and you constantly waxing lyrical about squeeze in the last few lemmings in last few seconds. I just don't remember it being like that back when I played the original games, but it's also a long time ago and maybe it did happen more than I actually remember. So I thought it might be interesting to see how you play the levels. It would also let me observe whether there are major difference in playing style like the use of pausing and so forth.
From what I remember, other than a few select levels, the time limits are really only a major issue in ONML.
There are certainly good reasons why a designer might want to include a beginner rank, but why is it every pack? I don't really know the answer, except that maybe we're all imitating something that was definitely good about the original games.
And I believe that other than NepsterLems, all of those postdate this discussion :P
I should also note that Lemmings Plus Alpha isn't really a fair candidate for considering "are beginner ranks standard", as Lemmings Plus Alpha is very specifically targetted at the highly-skilled players.
Off top of my head I remember these levels where running out of time is a common mode of failure for many:
- Just a Minute (both part 1 and part 2): Yes, but figuring out what you need to do extra to get everyone out in time is a core part of the puzzle. It's not just a matter of when to crank the release rate to 99 (though you definitely will need to do that too).
- The Fast Food Kitchen: The tight time limit [at least on versions like Amiga; the DOS version is a bit neutered and I think can actually be done without multitasking] forces you to execute both sides at the same time, rather than just handle one side first and then the other.
- We All Fall Down (Taxing and Mayhem): You need to play these levels with the release rate above the default of 1, otherwise the last lemming won't even come out in time.
- Heaven Can Wait (We Hope): You want to release the crowd as soon as possible, though I don't rememer how tight exactly the timing is.
- The Crossroads: The tight time limit together with the 100% save requirement basically serves as a way to enforce making no mistakes in execution--roughly speaking, if any lemming ever turns around then you screw up. [Aside: the DOS version of this level is also neutered--it doesn't even require 100%.] Generally for most people, once they realize the implication of the time limit on execution accuracy for this level, they wouldn't need to wait for timer to run out anymore, they'd instead simply restart the level immediately as soon as a mistake occurs. And the level already starts you on release rate 99.
It's not a total turn-off, but a minor pet peeve of mine is levels where a bunch of lemmings die in vain. Bombers are a useful destructive skill that can often justify the loss of the lemming, and sometimes a lemming performs a task but can't turn around to save itself because the skills necessary to do that would create backroutes. But then there's levels where you lose a bunch of lemmings off a cliff simply because they slip through gaps before they can be closed, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Off top of my head I remember these levels where running out of time is a common mode of failure for many:
- Just a Minute (both part 1 and part 2)
- The Fast Food Kitchen
- We All Fall Down (Taxing and Mayhem)
- Heaven Can Wait (We Hope)
- The Crossroads
Some more examples of tight time-limits in the original game:
Every Lemming For Himself
The Ascending Pillar Scenario
Hunt The Nessy
I'll go through some of those levels later over the next few days. It is interesting though that you brought up levels like Crankshaft and Mary Poppins Land. It's been a long while but I specifically recall learning to send over multiple workers for those levels. It seems obvious strategy to me, considering there's no obvious telling that even releasing the crowd at the soonest moment would be sufficient time if you only use one worker, whereas multiple workers working on different parts at the same time can clearly save a lot of time. I think at least such cases are better use of time as a factor compared to those levels that boil down solely to how soon you release the crowd. It is almost slightly unfortunate that those two levels apparently don't quite force the use of multiple workers, but I guess they also don't want to make it too hard for the ranks the levels are in.
My suggestion: Prefer differentiating background from not-background via color contrast as opposed to blurring.
I hate X of everything levels and large levels with limited skills are “turn-offs” for me as well.
Another one to add to this list:
Unusable Bombers!
I admit I've added "Schmuck Bait" bombers in my levels before.
Personally, I dislike unusable bombers enough that I wouldn't mind an engine feature to automatically remove such bombers from the skillset. Sure, there's edge cases with cloners, but they're not hard to account for.
It is possible for a level to exist (and at least 3 such levels exist in practice, possibly more) that require 100%, do not give any cloners (or require 100% including the cloners), and require the use of a bomber or stoner to solve.
Huh. I would have expected that to be impossible based on the fact that direct drop doesn't work.
A splatter is actively dying, and I would expect an ohnoer to have similar behavior, i.e. not being able to exit.
we can assume that inside the exit is a very good team of medics with the Bomber antidote. :P
-big or huge sprawling levels
-when the terrain appears to have been thrown onto the level without much planning or artistic input.
unusable bombers never bothered me one bit; I always chuckled a bit at them then moved on. While they may be the most used case of a skill you don't need in a puzzle level; any extra unnecessary skill can be inserted into the level to throw the player off
-big or huge sprawling levels
I disagree; I love these sorts of levels as long as there are plenty of skills to craft out your own solution, or as long as the solution is relatively obvious. Conversely, large maps that are also complicated puzzles: yes, yuck!-when the terrain appears to have been thrown onto the level without much planning or artistic input.
Agreed.unusable bombers never bothered me one bit; I always chuckled a bit at them then moved on. While they may be the most used case of a skill you don't need in a puzzle level; any extra unnecessary skill can be inserted into the level to throw the player off
Having recently completed a speedrun of L1 on Amiga, I've come to the conclusion that the unusable Bombers were put there deliberately so that it would be possible for a player to accidentally assign a Bomber instead of, say, a Blocker or Floater (the adjacent skills). Since I have done that a couple of times whilst going through the run (mostly due to relying on arrow keys for skill selection, in real-time, at speed), I would say that this is almost certainly the reason they're there.
Levels like All Or Nothing, Stepping Stones and even (to some extent) We All Fall Down prove that the designers knew that the game had a layer of difficulty that had more to do with the controls than the puzzles, and putting random Bombers in there as another way to add execution difficulty seems like just the sort of thing that they would have found amusing at the time L1 was designed.
The thing is, since NeoLemmix has removed that element of difficulty from the game, it no longer has the same effect, it's just annoying.
I just can say that I can't listen to the original tunes anymore, so I'm happy with every pack that uses custom music.
But there are always exceptions to the rule. (For example point 3: I'm fond of my own "Yippee Finale" that features 250 Lemmings. ;))
6. Bad music
Ok, that's highly subjective. I just can say that I can't listen to the original tunes anymore, so I'm happy with every pack that uses custom music. I admit I have a soft spot for Arty's packs, especially Sub Lems, for he used different tunes for every single level. Considerung tunes, I'm not a big fan of loops too - that's too predictable for my taste.