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.

I'm currently playing Hades II on the Nintendo Switch.

I have already cleared Hades I some years ago when it came out, and Hades II is a "more of everything" sequel, which is perfectly fine to me.
If you do not know those games Hades I and II are "roguelite" action games : you start a run and try to clear the game with your character. This run consist of a series of rooms in which you encounter various ennemies that you have to clear to access the next room. Sometimes you encounter boss, friends, story events and more. Sounds simplistic and it is, but more than enough to keep you on your toes.
At first you do not succeed in clearing the game and get a gameover, but you have gained more knowledge of the game mechanics, gather materials that allows to unlock character and weapon improvment, and meet more characters who will help you on your journey. Then you start another run and repeat.

The whole setting of the game is in the Greek Mythology which is both really well respected and sometimes made fun of. All characters from the mythology have interesting background, picturation and voice acting.

The game is still very engaging, gameplay and its loop are perfect and rewarding, story unfolding is great, the numerous combat and bosses phases are expertly crafted and clearing foes is addictive.

Very high recommend if you love action games.

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).