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, 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.

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

It's IN!
Sunday 4.10.26, 11:43 am UK time!

Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 06:30:22 PMOkay, the typo in "Introducing" is now clear, that came from old level files. What's best for the colon though? Lix 0.10.30 renamed "Introdicing: Miners" to "Introducing Miners" (fix typo, remove colon) to align it to the colon-less "Introducing Climbers". Now both levels lack a colon.

Do both of these two have a colon in NL NepsterLems?

Yea, both level titles contain a colon in NL NepsterLems.

Agree that we can leave the level ordering untouched for now until I get through all of NepsterLix

Okay, the typo in "Introducing" is now clear, that came from old level files. What's best for the colon though? Lix 0.10.30 renamed "Introdicing: Miners" to "Introducing Miners" (fix typo, remove colon) to align it to the colon-less "Introducing Climbers". Now both levels lack a colon.

Do both of these two have a colon in NL NepsterLems?

Well done on Study in Scarlet! I haven't touched the ordering/ranking yet. I'd like to revisit this with you when you're further through NepsterLix. You'll then have experience of both NepsterLems and NepsterLix. We'll have a clearer picture before be break the equal orders between these two.

Colored Boxes: Maybe a backroute, hard to tell. Several skills left over, but about as hard as the route in Nepster's reference replay.

Blockers Forever: Backroute. I don't see an easy fix.

Lix UI: I'll continue this in a separate thread in the future.

-- Simon

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!

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.

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, 05:03:53 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 pack and (particularly) Lemmings Recurring 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 PM

QuoteI 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, 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.