What's needed here is a list of each gimmick and what they do. It seems there are far more than I realised!

In general, I'm more in favour of those that affect game physics rather than skill assignments, and I'm not in favour of combining gimmicks anywhere except in the final rank - so, giving each gimmick its own rank definitely seems like a good idea. If nothing else, it's in keeping with the structure of original Lemmicks.

That said, I'm happy to expand on the structure of original Lemmicks by pretty much insisting that at least levels 1, 2 and 3 of each rank are no more than Fun/Tricky difficulty to allow the player time to get used to and explore the gimmick.

I'm repeating myself a lot here. Let's get on that list! We just need each one and a simple description of its function. I'll start it off in the next post with the ones I know...

the reason Lemmings was so compelling to me is that I like being 'locked' from just selecting levels at any time until a map is beaten,  and also having no way of cheating myself through it... I like the feeling of 'If I want to progress, the only way is to play. Does anyone else actually completely understand what I am getting at, or think it's silly?

I totally understand this. I think it's similar to wanting to play the game without Framestepping/Skill Shadows/other player-assists: it's a different sort of challenge, and adds another dimension to the game.

Removing the need to execute a perfect builder placement, for example, or indeed beat a level in order to progress to the next, removes a valid part of the game's aesthetic, and therefore removes a reason to enjoy it. However much it may serve the game's other aspects, some players are undoubtedly going to notice the absence of these things.

It's ok to say that you just want it more like Lemmings, then at least you make it clear and honest that the problem for you is primarily Lix not evoking enough of the nostalgia you'd like to have when playing any lemmings-like games, versus other possible reasons.

It's not always about nostalgia - sometimes it's simply about "no - don't get rid of that, that's a good part of the game!"

Since this will always be subject to debate, it's easy for people to back up an argument to remove certain elements of the game by claiming that any argument to keep that element is merely related to nostalgia. I've encountered this a number of times, and it's very rarely the case. I don't play NeoLemmix, SuperLemmini or Lix for nostalgia - I've got the Amiga emulator for that. If I make a suggestion for any of the modern engines, it's because I genuinely think they will improve that engine!

In the case of Lix, for instance, it's more that being presented with an end-of-level screen including options to return to menu or progress would genuinely be a preferable UI experience than always going back to the main menu each time. Not because Lemmings does this, but because it's a useful and enjoyable game experience. Anyways, probs best to continue this particular discussion here.

More generally, most games do something to celebrate the user's success; even the games that don't have a separate screen or dialog, will generally still enact some "end-of-level sequence" (like Mario with the flagpole and entering the castle and sometimes fireworks, in Super Mario Bros 1)...
Ultimately different people will also feel differently.  For some people, the mere fact that they finally solved the level, or finally got some improved solution or challenge to work out, is plenty enough satisfaction, they don't need the game to then go out of its way to stop and congratulate.

I like being congratulated, particularly if it was a difficult level! Lemmings is a game which has a lot of potential to take on the flagpole-and-fireworks idea. At the very least, it's good to see the stats and reflect on your performance. Lemmings needs it downtime, as well: it can be quite an intense game.

One idea I've had is that the end-of-level screen could involve a gif animation of the Lemmings/Lixes arriving home, maybe having a picnic, or a party, or a rave, whatever! Maybe there could be different ones on some sort of rotation. This could, of course, accompany the usual stats/what-to-do-next options.

I certainly agree with ccx that number of clicks is absolutely not a factor for this sort of thing. Sometimes, I'm in no rush to move on to the next level and I might even just close the game screen and do something else. Other times, I'm in a hurry to move on and I spam click to get through the screens! (This is perhaps more relevant to the Amiga version, which takes its sweet tie loading the screens and moving on at its vintage pace.......!)

What is a truth for you, what entities are able of being true or false?

I suppose that one mark of truth is constancy - i.e. if something cannot be changed by time, perspective or physics, then it is "true". However, it is also possible for something to be true right now, but false tomorrow. However, such things are subject to the question of whether they were ever true, a question that can only be reconciled by evidence. And, such evidence needs also to be "true".

It's a great question though, and one I can't easily answer.

Imagine there is exactly one pencil lying on the table at a certain point. Would you see the sentence: "There is exactly one pencil on the table at that certain point." as true or as false or as neither? Is such a sentence for you able to be true or false?

Yes, but it would need to be verified. It's possible to see what appears to be a pencil on what appears to be a table seemingly in the present moment, but that requires three things to be confirmed: that what you're seeing is in fact a pencil, and that what it's on is in fact a table, and that you're seeing it now rather than remembering it later. For these, we largely rely on our senses, as well as prior knowledge of what the objects are, and awareness of the passage of time.

Quote from: WillLem on May 21, 2020, 04:43:12 AM

Pangea theory was developed in support of Plate Tectonics theory. However, ask yourself (if it's) plausible (that) all of Earth's continents were once joined together on one side of the planet, whilst all of its water made up the other half.

Specifically, plate tectonics do not actually posit that the Earth started off as Pangaea.  Instead, the continents of today were the result of the breaking apart of an earlier supercontinent that geologists named Pangaea, but other stuff happened well before you got to Pangaea.

Whether or not Earth's land masses started off as a super-continent is not what's in doubt here: Expanding Earth Theory questions whether they were ever in such a formation on one side on Earth at the size it is now whilst all of the water was on the other side. It seems to be more plausible that the continents were in fact joined on all sides, which of course would only be possible on a smaller planet, with or without water.

At the times in Earth's history when continents did come together, their old boundaries were effectively erased by great, violent force as the continents collide and smoosh together.  It's like if you take two balls of play-doh and smoosh them together into one, in the process the touching parts of the original balls' surfaces fuse together and effectively disappear as distinct surfaces.

I just want to take a moment to enjoy your use of the verb "smoosh" twice in as many consecutive sentences.

Smooshing, as I understand it, is what you do to dogs, cats or other small animals that are particularly cute, displaying extreme physical affection. i.e. "come here so I can give you a smoosh!"

The "Butterfly Dream" alluded to for example, basically boils down to the question:  "Is it the man dreaming he is a butterfly, or is it the butterfly dreaming he is a man?  Can you really tell which is which?"  If you consider that a dream is a mind's simulation of the "real" world, then effectively you have a form of simulation theory in another guise.

That's true, I hadn't thought of it that way: dreams are, in a way, a simulation of reality. Descartes attempt to reconcile this with his oft-quoted "Cogito, ergo sum" - existence is certain as long as there is awareness. However, the nature of that existence is still, indeed, up for investigation.

Coders use a pre-existing or self make set of rules to create a system and are then bound by that system/must play within the rules of that system. "God"(s) are not bound by any system or anything at all.

Aren't they?

That's what really limits us; if you didn't/can't think of it; it's not going to happen. Even if it's something really simple. If it doesn't occur to you; you can't do it, except by stumbling upon it by accident.
...
When you have a thought it is an image, voice or feeling that is a mixture or regurgitation of previously collected stimulus. The images in your head are "real" in that they are there, they exist.

Is thought, therefore, God?

In the 'real world' there is no such thing as pi and there is no such thing as circles.

I disagree here: the observable world is full of naturally-occurring circular and spherical objects. I'd probably prefer to conclude that the shape came first, and pi is our way of understanding and measuring it. But then, it could also be reasoned that pi is the "natural code" that allows circular shapes to exist in the first place... hence the question.

Yes, you may never find a perfect circle in the real world. But you do find plenty of slightly imperfect circles that deviates slightly from pi, and the mathematics tell you how the amount of geometric imperfection translates to an amount of numeric deviation... It kind of makes the question of whether the abstract thing is "real" or not almost a little irrelevant?

How so? (i.e. how does it make it irrelevant?)

I will point out that simulation theory has an obvious built-in weakness, in that the theory being true can also very well mean it can never be proven. Just like there's no way for the lemmings to escape your computer into the world outside, most simulations would effectively trap their inhabitants within the simulation, possibly with zero observable interference from the "outside", making it impossible for the inhabitants to come to any definitive proof that they are in a simulation.

If you could enter a simulated world of your own making, design it to be exactly as you want it to be, but with the caveat that you would either:

a) Not be aware that it was a simulation after entering it, but if you ever realised it was then you would immediately leave and never be able to return to it.

or

b) Be aware that it was a simulation, but be unable to leave after you entered it.

Would you enter the simulation under either of these conditions? If so, which one, and why?

Is only the text in the level selection tree affected, or also all other texts displayed elsewhere in NeoLemmix (excluding of course the ones based on the Lemmings graphics)?  How about other texts in other programs running on that laptop?

It affects any and all programs that run in lower resolutions. The computer upscales these using a basic Bilinear filter, and they appear particularly blurry alongside the neat, HD-quality of Windows itself (plus any other apps that run in basic HD or higher).

All menus and dialog boxes in NL are affected by this scaling.

Please keep the screenshots coming, people. It's really a big help!

Yeah - WillLem made new animations for them, but I didn't realise this would impact physics (I thought they became useable as soon as the exit started opening, not only when it finished doing so). I'd have rejected the modified existing ones had I realised this at the time, but V12.9 (and the associated styles) were already out in the wild by the time I realised this.

I already released an updated version of the level to address this difference, though.

I thought that locked exits became exitable as soon as the button was triggered - maybe this ought to be the case, so that people's levels aren't broken by the longer animation?

Great to see that these have been included btw!

Here's my video LP of Rule 1!

Once I've got my new laptop up and running I'll do LPs for Rules 2 and 3 as well.

After filming this, I managed to solve Icho's Stachenblochen via a more refined version of the solution attempted in the LP. Probably wasn't intended though as it uses a lot of backroutey techniques. (EDIT: Replay only works for V1 as it was indeed a backroute.)

Also managed to solve DireKrow's Traipsing About Tombs after filming - turns out that I had most of the correct elements of the puzzle figured out, but I just had to put them in the correct order!

Solved JRT's This Month's Tribute To M.C. Escher whilst filming the LP. This one felt like a backroute to be fair, but I did like the fact that the abundance of skills offered plenty of solution possibilities, and it was good to get one for the LP

Meanwhile, I haven't got a clue how to solve Armani's, (Icho's), Mantha's or NieSch's levels. I did have another look at them, and they're just crazy hard. Onto Rule 2 methinks, hopefully I've have a better shot at those...

Successful replays attached.

Also, note that deadly edges work differently in 1.43: The lemming looks like he walks into a fire trap (frier animation), so he might die slightly earlier than he would in New Formats from walking off the map

Hmm. In that case, I'm not sure... maybe take it on a level-by-level basis and see what works. Obviously, the wrap ones won't be a problem. It could also be that we keep solid sides but just always have stuff around the edges of the level so it's never an issue anyway.

Finally, I've added one more question to the starting post, and that's the question of whether ghosts should appear in the pack again, and if so, in what form .

I'd say only if they're never used in a confusing way!

You actually get feedback to your performance below the preview screen where else the level information is written and the checkmark indicates that you've won the level. But I agree that this information could be made eye catchier. Improvement for LastGameStats is discussed in connection with problems with smaller resolutions.

Ah yes, fair enough - I didn't notice that straightaway. Making it more prominent would be a good thing, for sure. It would be good if it could show time taken/best time as well.

Having said that, I noticed that Lix doesn't have a timer - I've posted my thoughts about this here to keep it topic-relevant.