Immediate turn-offs

[Strato Incendus]

I just noticed there are some immediate turn-offs for me when facing a new level, and I wanted to ask what these are for you .

Things that make me reluctant to play a level are:

• 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 . 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 restriction
• a level with a really repetitive solution, i.e. that requires 30+ of one and the same skill
• on a similar note: fiddly crowd-control where you have to keep spamming builders, or just a lot of the same skill in general, to stall lemmings until certain tasks have been completed
• 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.
• and another related issue is what I would call "relative pixel precision": Pixel precision is fine as long as it affects single lemmings. If a builder has to go in one specific spot, e.g. to cross a gap, allow a climber to still climb up out of said gap from the other side, and make the builder turn around or not, then fine, that's what framestepping is for! 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. Pixel precision therefore becomes exponentially worse the more lemmings are required for a given maneuvre. But it's also annoying enough if just a couple of pixels decide whether a lemming slips by or not, harking back to the stalling issue.

A lot of packs I've started playing recently seem to go "no-brainer, no-brainer, no-brainer, WHAAAT?!", starting with lots of back-to-back 10-of-everything levels before stumping you right away with the first actual puzzle that shows up.

I'm exaggerating a little here, but putting lots of pointless any-way-you-want-it 10-of-everything levels first, basically creating an entire rank worth of filler levels, and starting out with actual puzzles only from rank two onward or so, is the best way of creating a sudden difficulty spike - which is usually unwanted. Think of ONML, where the entirety of the Tame rank is "whatever you want", and then Dolly Dimple (Crazy 02) just catches you off-guard.

As the Tame rank clearly demonstrates for me, these early X-of-everything levels without a tight skill restriction teach the player jack sh*t. Resource conservation, or the necessity for it in the first place, in my opinion is best taught through puzzles where the most required skills are heavily restricted or even completely absent, so you need to come up with a more creative, different approach to achieve the same goal. Once acquired this way, these skill conservation tactics can then be applied later on to levels with a larger skillset, but where still all the skills are accounted for.

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. But I've talked about that sufficiently in my "case against X-of-everything levels" already .

[Gronkling]

huge levels with loads of skills that have one specific solution

and MEMES

[Proxima]

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

Generic titles: I agree that it's preferable for a title to have some connection to a level, its looks or its solution, but the level is a pretty small unit, and when you have to title every individual level, they can't all be outstanding. As you say, this is particularly the case in the lower ranks of a pack, where most levels don't have a specific trick to use as a "hook" for the title. So I appreciate it when a designer makes an effort to come up with good titles, but I really wouldn't describe lack of them as a "turn-off".

Obscure references: if you don't get the reference, how do you know the level is making one at all? I guess that if you don't get it, it can feel like just a generic title (like many in the original game -- "Careless clicking costs lives" and "You've lost that Lemming feeling" could go with any levels). In my own levels, I at least try to make the title have some connection with the level as well as being a reference, e.g. "Seven Pillars of Lixdom" obviously matches the level terrain; "Beauty School Dropouts" has a splat fall under the hatch; "The Hotel in Hell" and "The Ersatz Elevator" are both built in horizontal layers like the floors of a building. 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?

* * *

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.

There is a separate discussion that could be had here. After the topic about using talismans to make packs easier, I had a thought that I wanted to put into a post, but never got round to doing so. 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 don't have an answer to that. But it does feel that most of your gripe with early ranks is that they are too basic for you, even though these ranks are aimed at players at a lower level. Of course, this topic is "what are your turn-offs", so that's fair enough. But lumping all 10-of-everything levels together and calling them all "filler" -- that's unwarranted.

* * *

After that lengthy reply, I realise I should post about what my own turn-offs are, but that will need more thought, and I want to post this so I don't lose it. I'll reply to the actual question another time

[IchoTolot]

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.

Of course there are packs out there that are built with the expansion idea in mind, but I intent my work to be able to stand alone even if a player only has my pack at their disposal they should still get a decent learning curve and enjoyment out of it and maybe even become a master in the end.

For the general topic:

My turn-offs:

- Hidden stuff -  may it be traps, objects or secret levels
- Glitch/bug levels
- Disjoint unions
- Extremely fiddly levels
- Unnessesary tight timers.
- Any kind of gimmicks or timed bomber stuff.
- Tiny levels where everything feels really cramped together.
- Bare levels with near to no decoration - a clear theme or style can also make up for missing decoration.
- Extremely huge levels with tons of skills.

And generally everything I just solve in a few minutes can be a nice/good level, but won't get stuck in my head. Let's just say you get a thumbs up, but no LOTY/contest vote from me.

[Proxima]

...but you didn't disagree with anything I said.

Sure, you can design your packs that way. I was doing that too, until I abandoned my pack. My point is that there's really no reason why every pack has to be like that. In other communities, such as DROD, this is not the case. I'm really curious now about why it's become the case in the present-day Lemmings community, and why we never really noticed before now how odd this is.

[IchoTolot]

...but you didn't disagree with anything I said.

Of course. For me I don't create an expansion I create a game and for that I also cling to the idea of sorting by difficulty ranks.

My point is that there's really no reason why every pack has to be like that.

Not every pack has to be like that yes, but this way has proven itself over time. + I won't call it odd.

[namida]

It seems to have been something that crept in over time. Back in the days of DOS L1 / Lemmix, the usual form of a pack was a DAT file containing (usually) 10 levels, sometimes a few more or less. There were a few packs even back then that did indeed sort into ranks. However, I suspect the impact of Lemmini (primarily designed to allow playing the official games, so followed their structure) and NeoLemmix (initially didn't get much attention so ended up just following my preferences until it got a bit more popular; by which point the pack > rank > level structure was already well ingrained - although new-formats actually loosens this a bit) was what changed the status quo towards that which we see now.

[nin10doadict]

Kinda funny because I see myself creating a lot of levels that are doing just these things people seem to hate.
I am trying to earn a reputation as "that jerk that makes the troll levels" though. Why, I'm not even sure myself. Perhaps so it will make my levels that aren't hot garbage look better by comparison. Don't get me wrong, I know troll levels are awful. That's why I tend to limit them to one or two in a pack, and try to be creative about how I do them. (Misdirected effort at its finest ) The Troll rank in Casualemmings was just me getting pent-up trash out of my system.
I do tend to make levels that are smaller and feature only a few obstacles, with fairly small skillsets. They just feel far less overwhelming, and it's not like it's impossible to make hard levels with these conditions. Plus, they're easier to decorate. I usually don't like leaving too much empty space in the level because that feels sloppy.

[Nessy]

The first thing that caught my eye in this thread was "Generic Titles" because I personally take level titles very seriously (let's just say that the fact that "All New World Of Lemmings" doesn't have level titles like in Lemmings 1 was a HUGE turn-off for me personally). So let me go into detail about it, shall I? I take them so seriously that sometimes I have levels that don't get a name assigned to them until weeks after they are created. I'll even be honest and say that sometimes I still don't have a title so I come up with something random. I can admit that. This is the case even with my later rank levels. I feel like level titles can be just as important as everything else about a level. Level titles are sometimes the first thing that a person may see about a level. I tend to always get hooked on a level just be someone telling me the name of it even BEFORE seeing any other type of preview of the level. Not always, but I have experienced this at one point.

What the level title is or means is also very subjective in my mind. I don't really mind if a level title makes an obscure reference and in fact I prefer it as learning the meaning later on down the line one way or another gives the level a whole new meaning in my eyes. Even if a person doesn't understand the reference they won't really lose anything through it and it will just be a regular title for them. In fact, when I come across a title that seems to be a reference and I never figure it out, I would still think that the title is so unique and it would stand out more than a reference to something more popular. Of course, I am NOT saying that is a bad thing. I'm just saying that a level with a title referring to something I have never heard would stand out more in my head than a title that references popular expressions let's say.

Another thing that I disagree with is that level titles need to always relate to the level somehow, but this is a very gray area for me. A more proper way of explaining this is to just say that I basically don't like making my level titles relate to the level directly. For example, I'll use one of my own levels as an example: "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?

But anyway getting back on topic I don't really have any turn-offs when it comes to other people's levels. I know that probably isn't the best attitude sometimes, but I honestly haven't encountered anything that has made me go as far as to post it here.

[Strato Incendus]

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

Haha, thanks! Yeah, I was certainly expecting you to disagree with regards to X-of-everything levels (see below).

Generic level titles are something I'm guilty of myself, especially with regard to Pit Lems, because mechanics were pretty much the only thing driving this one. That's why I wanted to have an overarching theme for my next pack, and that's how the idea to Lemmings World Tour was born .

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.

Far from it, I was very aware of your post when writing this . It should be noted that my criticism was pointed mainly towards the X-of-everything levels I get to see in custom packs. If you like the 10-of-everything levels specifically how they are done in the Fun rank, I can see where you're coming from; most X-of-everything levels from custom packs however unfortunately remind me more of Tame than of Fun.

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.

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?

That's not what I'm proposing; I certainly don't want there to be an authority on what's "hip" enough, hence my comments about individualisation and a smaller degree of overlapping knowledge among users . Take the biblical quotes for example that make up a majority of the level titles in the "Basic" rank in "Lemmicks": Arty understood them, of course, but overall, in the more secular world we live in today, there are going to be less people who understand those references than a couple of decades ago.

I simply suggest: When you're picking a level title, and you're deciding to include a reference to anything, ask yourself how high the chance is for anyone from our comparatively small community to get that reference.

For example, with the Game of Thrones-allusions I included in Paralems, I thought that probability was reasonably high. There have still been people who didn't get those references, and that's completely fine; I simply didn't want to refer to anything from my more "niche" interests that was bound not to be understood to begin with.

Other creators have made Star Wars- and Pirates of the Carribbean levels, too, and those are easy to identify as such.

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 .

While the latter would have been a great way to visit lots of "places" and put many different flags in my levels, not only would it have turned Lemmings World Tour more into a "Lemmings Europe Tour", but also the whole purpose of having song-based titles would have been defeated, because to the majority of players, these simply would have been generic titles like on any other level.

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.

But perhaps this is just because, since I'm generally more on IchoTolot's page with regard to "a pack should be able to stand on its own", that translates to the level titles for me, as well .

I do agree with Nessy that strange level titles can open up the doors to spark your interest in new things. But whenever that is my goal, I try to actively invite the player into "my world". Unexplained insider references often have an "excluding" aspect about them.

SEB Lems is a good example of this. From the pack name to the choices of the ranks to the level titles to the music choice, everything makes sense if you know what it's about, but if you don't, at least to me, it just seems like a bit of a random mess - not with regard to the level quality, Flopsy , just with regard to the overall structure of the pack, especially considering the bonus ranks with removed levels, and levels added in from other packs. For example, the rank names don't have that typical "increasing intensity" fashion, they're a seemingly arbitrary mixture of nouns and adjectives.

And since what this pack is actually about is kept a secret until the very end of the pack, when the shoe finally drops, at least for me, it was a bit like: "Really? That's all?"
(I actually found out about it by accident while typing a forum post.)

But lumping all 10-of-everything levels together and calling them all "filler" -- that's unwarranted.

I've said in the other thread you linked to that my main gripe with these levels is how they are created :

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.

Making an easy 10-of-everything version of an initially more restricted puzzle requires just a couple of seconds of additional work for the creator (basically just setting the 8 standard skills to "10"), while taking the player disproportionally more time, forcing him to click through a - usually very large - level that barely has anything interesting to offer or to teach, there's little to be lost and little to be taught:

One reason for the difficulty spike in Tricky is that Fun reinforces "noob strategies" in these 10-of-everything levels, mainly by providing an abundance of blockers and builders: New players become completely dependent on the idea of trapping the crowd with blockers, because it's always possible in Fun, and then they don't know what to do when it's suddenly not possible anymore .

Why are we still clinging onto the idea that every pack should have difficulty ranks and that the first should be beginner level?

Well, that sounds like you advising against X-of-everything levels now, doesn't it? Because they usually take exactly those beginner level spots in the larger packs, sometimes they make up an entire rank. So if you leave them out, the density of X-of-everything levels is going to be reduced drastically.

The simple answer is: We certainly don't need to have beginner levels in every pack, and smaller packs like "Lemmings Migration" or "Raylems" get started with more puzzly stuff right away.

"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?

I'm completely on-board with you here, Nessy ! Actually, "Climber Accidents" would be the more generic title to me, simply because that feels like forcing a game-mechanic word into it. Instead, you picked one which clearly had some relation to the level (I was just thinking of a mine or steel work, due to it featuring the Machine tileset), but at the same time didn't give anything away about the solution.

The Troll rank in Casualemmings was just me getting pent-up trash out of my system.

@nin10doadict: Actually, some of these levels can be quite fun when you have to rapidly spam one specific skill over and over again. I take more issue with repetitive levels when they're very slow on top of that.

The classical example would be builder fests, because you have to babysit the builders and constantly hammer on the spacebar, waiting for them to finish. Or where you let climbers climb into a shaft and then bomb - you always have to wait for the next climber to arrive first. So it's actually more levels like that one massive sewer shaft level from CasuaLemmings, with a bunch of crocodiles and 50+ stoners, that tend to get dragging for me here .

In contrast, when I just need to select a skill and then frag my mouse to bits, I can pretty much do all these clicks quickly, back-to-back, and continue immediately.

Generally speaking, a level becomes more dragging and boring the more time there is between figuring out the solution on a conceptual level, and putting that solution into practice. That's the whole point of the NeoLemmix community trying to reduce execution-based difficulty.



I do have another turnoff though:

• terrain that's deliberately visually confusing (again relating to ergonomics here), lots of small, repeating elements that are intentionally designed to make the player's eyes hurt - specifically: Mazes of tiny terrain stripes where you can barely spot where the lemming is going to walk or fall through.

Contrary to "easier versions of later levels with X-of-everything", the burden is equally distributed here on creator and player: These huge mazes are usually just as tedious to create as they are to play. I had to create one such level for the Groupie rank, because imitating what other people have done is the whole point of that rank, but I still despise these levels in general, both as a creator and a player.

I've spoken before about "hiding in plain sight" vs. "hiding in obstructed sight": Puzzling is about "which piece goes where". A level is a map with several obstacles, where you're cycling through in your head how to overcome each of those obstacles. My greatest admiration has always gone to levels where you think "This looks so simple, how is it possible that I'm always one skill short?" (Examples: Nepster's "The Block-Store" or "A Study in Scarlet")

Mazes of tiny, pixel-thin terrain stripes however are designed to make your eyes lose track every time you look elsewhere in the level.

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).

Hence, these levels are the exact opposite of the aforementioned, admirable ones:

They pretend to be complicated, but actually aren't.

Genius levels look like they're simple, but actually aren't.

And thereby make the player feel rightfully stupid for not being able to see the solution .

[Proxima]

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!)".

All three of those levels can be done without the tricks you mention, and indeed that's how I originally solved them when I was a kid

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.

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.

I think here, as in the "Levels relying on tricks" topic, you underestimate most players' ability to work out new tricks by getting stuck and then trying things out, or just thinking about an impossible situation and realising what must be the solution. I know I've solved several levels that way, and these have often been the most satisfying and memorable ones, like "Attack of the Subconscious" or "The Gr8 Escape".

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 .

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.

Also, at least for me, sometimes a title is just so right for a level that it doesn't matter if no-one gets the reference, I just have to use that title:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"In the Gallery of Frost"

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.

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.

[Strato Incendus]

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.

Hey, that's not bad at all, actually! I'm certainly not aiming for every player to know all the songs, I'm aiming for maximum possible overlap, considering the comparatively small size of our community. Plus, just like you, when a specific level absolutely calls for a certain name, I'll use that one, even if the related song is not very widely known.

For example, I don't know of any famous song called "Munich", but there is one called like that by The Fray, which are a little more famous for other songs, and Munich is a place which I was able to capture in level form - so in this case, the "geography" criterion trumped the "famous" criterion.

I have just decided not to use any titles in the main pack that are not references to any songs at all. Meaning: Even if you don't know a song, you don't have to keep guessing what I'm referring to; you can be pretty certain that if you simply put the level title into YouTube or the iTunesStore , you're going to find it, rather than having to scour the entire web for an answer via Google.

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?

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.

Okay, that's a fair point: DMA probably thought they would have spoiled the solution if they had introduced this trick in an earlier level.

My main issue with tricks is when the player can't even know they're possible, or is even led to believe the opposite.

For example, digging and building to turn a lemming around is something you can figure out for yourself by putting 2 and 2 together: You quickly learn that building into a wall turns a lemming around, and a digger obviously creates a wall to both sides of himself.

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.

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.

That's a great idea, actually! I did a list of music tracks for Paralems a year ago, for people who wanted to play the levels privately with the copyrighted music I had intended for each level, but I still kept the allusions somewhat secret in that post.

In the case of Lemmings World Tour, though, that list of references would probably contain the entire level list ...

For your example level: Yes, the reference escapes me, but I can still see why the level is called that way - those two sections on the outsides look like paintings frozen over, and the little frame with the water inside could be a small panorama picture. There's simply no further explanation needed here, and the title still doesn't feel generic. It actually reminds me of Arty's level building style, where I often just think "hey, cool idea to paint something like that with level tiles!", and then the title usually falls into place anyway.

I hope you're going to continue on GemLems some time in the future, these snapshots certainly look promising!

[Proxima]

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?

"A. T." was the "Total Director" of the Genesis version. You get to find out in the credits, which is only one more level after "I am A. T."

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.

That's an interesting point. It's all very hazy now, but I'm sure that when I first played Lemmings, now and then I "deduced" things about the game mechanics that turned out not to be true. I can't remember any specific examples right now

I also don't remember when I first learned about the three-builder wall. Probably in the days of the old forum, Cheapo, and challenges on the original levels. It makes sense, because the lemmings run into a stack of 7 pixels; but "lemmings can ascend 6 pixels but not 7" is also a trick that the original game never teaches.

For your example level: Yes, the reference escapes me

"Take This Waltz" by Leonard Cohen. For bonus points, the loop of balls represents the "garland of freshly cut tears".

[nin10doadict]

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.

[Nepster]

My biggest turn-offs are:
1) Hidden information. It doesn't matter it it's traps, exits or anything else. A level should give me all the information they need and as directly as possible.
2) Unnecessarily huge level. And "aesthetic reasons" do not count here in my opinion, because we are creating levels to be played not pictures to be admired. Instead I am talking about: If a level's solution would have worked with half the space just as well, then I am fed up. This goes especially for vertically scrolling levels.
3) Levels that don't tell me that a certain approach doesn't work. It is totally fine if I need two or three tries to determine that a certain approach doesn't work. But if there are two dozen ways to place three builders in a pit to get out of it, most of them fail only by one or two pixels, but none actually succeed, then this is bad! Because in such a case the level tells me "you are on the right track", which is actually not true at all. My typical reaction to that is: Why isn't the pit slightly deeper, so that I didn't have to waste all my time there?
4) Drops that are almost or just deadly, gaps that can almost bridged, ... While I will know it after testing it once, I do have to spend time determining that. If I can see a reason why this is necessary, then fine. But otherwise this comes back to point 1): I want to be able to extract all necessary information easily. 
5) Builder heavy levels.

• 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 . Too many "insider references" in level titles to me feel like repeated attempts at cracking jokes which nobody else understands.

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:
1) I may not use generic titles
2) I may not use the references I know, because they are usually pretty obscure
3) I can not use any pop-culture references, because I simply don't know them. For example out of all the titles in the "Lemmings World Tour" thread, all except two are totally mysterious to me. Another example are "Pirates of the Carribean", "Star Wars" and "Game of Thrones" you mentioned earlier - I have seen none of these "classics" so am really missing out on opportunities for pop culture references here.
So I really ask myself: How I should name levels in the future?

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 restriction

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.

Mazes of tiny, pixel-thin terrain stripes however are designed to make your eyes lose track every time you look elsewhere in the level.
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).

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.

[Strato Incendus]

So I really ask myself: How I should name levels in the future?

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.

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.

It's hard for me to pinpoint what makes a level title feel generic to me, and this perception will obviously vary among individuals. But for me personally, Duudu's levels tend to have the most generic titles. "Introducing", "45 seconds", "10/10", "A normal level", "Starting your teacher career"... these are very unspecific, either they don't tell anything about the level at all, or they merely describe the level's game mechanics.

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.

Indeed, you can approach this from two sides:
A) Only four or five different skill types, but then ten of each of those skills. These levels are probably going to be defined more by which skills are missing than by which are present.
B) Eight skills, but only five or three of everything. I outlined in the "case against 10-of-everything levels" thread why X-of-everything levels become exponentially less interesting the higher the X is. 3 to 5 is probably the sweet spot; 1-of-everything levels, while most people seem to enjoy them, can be a little too restrictive sometimes, e.g. by making it too obvious where the builder has to go.

Interesting, because I love mazes with thin terrain (you probably noticed that there are several of them in NepsterLems ).

Yes, a general pattern I noticed about your levels is that they have a lot of repeating elements. This is not only true for mazes, but also for stuff like "Smile if you love Lemmings", "Tomb Raider", "Diagonal Disarray", that Earth-Platform level etc. These are the type of levels I specifically tried to imitate in "Pit Lems", for example with "You had it coming", which is not a maze, but still a bunch of repeating chambers with various objects in them (hatches, stompers, fire traps, water, etc.).

When it comes to mazes, there are different degrees of tolerance for me. "Tomb Raider" for example is still nice, because, even though the screen is still cluttered with stuff, the paths the lemmings can take are not so small that identifying them becomes strenuous on the eye. It's not so narrow that it makes your eyes lose track of the path.

"Don't cross me" has a very symmetric structure, which makes it easier to work with as well. In contrast, Arty's "Labyrinth of Lucifer" or "Ensnared in a sticky maze" have practically nothing regular about them. That of course is the point of a maze, but this can be made a lot more convenient with thicker terrain pieces, as in Nessy's "Just dig (some more)!" from Lemmins Migration, than when each terrain piece is only 1 or 2 pixels in width.

[Nepster]

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.

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.

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.

[Proxima]

Anyway, time for me to list my own level turn-offs, some of which will match things already mentioned.

- Trajectory manipulation. Gliders, swimmers in vertical water, batters, fling-bombers, trampolines: they can all get really fiddly because it's not at all clear from looking at the level where you can reach and where you can't. This is even more true if other skills have to be used to reach a starting-point, so that ideas take a long time to try out and adjust if incorrect.

- Very large levels, especially vertical scrolling ones, with tight solutions. These tend not to be very satisfying because there is no main theme or central idea behind the solution. I'm happy with resource management levels (lots of skill types, no main solution) if they are less tight; finding ways to save skills in one area so you have enough for another and putting it all together can be satisfying in itself. But a single intended solution with nothing left over, spread over a sprawling level, often crosses the line into frustration.

- Levels with lots of lemmings / lix and a high death toll, so that you can never be sure you've saved the maximum possible. (Sure, on puzzle levels you don't know for certain whether there's a different solution that saves more, but with this type of level you don't even know whether you've saved the maximum for your solution.)

- Visual clutter. You've worked hard on the level's appearance; I don't want to play with clear physics mode constantly on so that I can't appreciate it! But if there's too much clutter -- particularly if I can't tell what's background and what's terrain -- then that's what I will have to do.

- Levels that require a lot of pausing and framestepping to assign skills close together, or near the start of play. I'm happy that framestepping tools exist, but I want the majority of my play to be normal speed.

- The icicle trap in the Snow style.

[Strato Incendus]

I think I have another sub-category to add: Things that pointlessly waste the players time. The main criterion for this is repetitiveness:

- builder fests (platformers obviously also count by extension)
- we all fall down-type levels like "Private Room Available" where you have to assign lots of separate diggers (call them "digger fests", if you want to)
- 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.

[namida]

- 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.

With A Twist Of Lemming Please is the worst example of this. You have 50 lemmings and 50 floaters and must save 100%; obvious solutions involve making literally EVERY lemming a floater, as there is no obvious way to create a safe landing place and still complete the level. Some very creative solutions get away with less, but still need to give a very significant number of lemmings floaters - and whereas the "assign floater to everyone" solution allows for doing that first before trying to solve anything, the "use less floaters" solutions very noticably require multitasking between solving and floatering. And it's quesitonable whether the developers intended for such solutions to exist, given that the level appears to be set up to not allow splatforming. (And the worst thing? Take the needless floaters out of the equation, and it's actually a very good level.)

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.

Steel Works is a case that worked well for the original game, which had just as much focus on execution as it does on solving; but under modern standards, using an engine like NeoLemmix that minimizes execution difficulty, it no longer holds up.

Bitter Lemming is an early level, where either option is viable - build a splatform, or assign lots of floaters. I do think a better way to handle that level would've been to, eg, require 20 lemmings saved and give 20 floaters (not 50). Then, new players might discover the splatform option while trying to save 100% - while they may have already discovered the concept in general on Fun 27 (depending on what solution they used, and possibly what platform - eg. on Master System, a single miner solves Fun 27, but that doesn't cut it on DOS / Amiga), Bitter Lemming is the first case of a splat directly out of the trapdoor.

[Proxima]

- lemmings falling to their death right from the hatch

Heh. That's actually one of my favourite devices. I always avoid making such levels click-heavy, though. If the level is intended to be hard, then I only give one floater (or two if two workers are needed), and allow a certain number to die -- the puzzle is then to build the landing bridge quickly enough not to lose more than you're allowed. For easier levels, I just set the save requirement low so that you can make one or two floaters and allow lemmings to die, but you can also go for 100% if you like. The best example is "The Lion, Lix and the Wardrobe" where it's a 5-of-everything level, so only 5 floaters, and it's actually possible to complete the landing platform in time to save 100%, so the level ended up being a multi-layered puzzle.

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.

One of my favourite Orig levels too. Although the solution I used as a kid was indeed to build up from the bottom

Steel Works was a decent puzzle by Orig standards. It wasn't obvious a priori how to construct landing platforms under both fatal falls within the limitations of the skill set and save requirement. (Somewhat spoiled because the first fall is only fatal by one pixel, but since I didn't know, I went for a solution that didn't depend on this.)

while they may have already discovered the concept in general on Fun 27

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!)

[namida]

One of my favourite Orig levels too. Although the solution I used as a kid was indeed to build up from the bottom

Actually, I vaguely remember doing it this way myself back in the day, including on DOS. I know on the Master System, a splatform built from the bottom is completely viable, but a while back I tried to do so on DOS and I couldn't find any way to do so and still complete the level.

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!)

And Master System strikes again in my case. The Master System version of Fun 17 gives no floaters (and doesn't have steel glitches in the same vein as DOS, or at least, didn't that I knew of when I encountered this level), so a splatform is not an option. This actually happens a lot on the Fun levels in that version - instead of being 20 (sometimes 10) of everything, they're just 20(/10) of most, with floaters being the most commonly cut. However, it DOES have a much thicker ground under the trap (yeah, there's only one trap on Master System - technical limitations, it can only handle one triggered trap per level; no limit on constant hazards like water / fire though), which enables a different alternate solution: Dig and bash under the trap. IIRC, this even works on the repeat.

[Strato Incendus]

Okay, I got another one - something which is used in healthily low amounts in original Lemmings, but rather frequent in custom packs:

- endless lines of Fire tileset letters!

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!

But still, every now and then, there's a level where the main task is building from one "blood letter" to the next one, only occasionally mining or bashing to get out of an N or an H shape.

I'm fine with reading a long text ahead of the level in a pre-level screen - but I don't want my lemmings to actually walk through such a novel!

[namida]

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!

Not Fire set, and the lemmings don't actually interact with it, but...



...how's that for tedious to create? (Doomsday Lemmings, Plauge 1 "Cycle of Undeath")

[Strato Incendus]

Well, at least you don't have to build from letter to letter! So in that case, it's more effort for the creator than for the player (unless the difficulty of the level makes up for that, of course! )

Here it seems to have some significance for the hidden meaning of the level, though. Some people just seem to write completely random stuff all the way over their level terrain. Meaning, you still don't have to build across the whole mess, because the letters are placed on other terrain, but then you wonder even more what the purpose is .

[namida]

It's just to add to the creepy vibe. The translation is something like "When the end comes, every lemming will painfully die one by one".

[WillLem]

Just seen this topic (Icho linked to it from the 20th skill discussion). Wow! It's eye-opening to say the least.

Just to weigh in on a few of these points:

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.

Probably agree on this. I put a lot of thought into my level titles, and I always try to make sure they either allude to the solution in some way, or are at least suitably decorative.

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.

Agree on this, too. I think the only exception I'd make to this is when it's a level with precise timing, and the extra few pixels is needed to slow a lemming down - or, if the lem needs to turn around and you need a partial bridge to achieve that. But yeah, when it just feels like the author hasn't even tried to measure it out it is quite annoying.

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.

Totally disagree with this. Having to keep close track of two or more lemmings at the same time can be great fun (as long as you know what the solution is!), and is very satisfying to get right.

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

I'd say this one depends very much on the design of the level. I particularly enjoy playing through easy X-of-everythings, but more so when the design of the level is such that you have to think your way around a specific set of obstacles. A good example off the top of my head would be Konbanwa Lemming San - a much easier version of It's Hero Time, sure, but the layout of the level and the situation that it presents makes you think. Even with the abundance of skills, it's not a gimme by any means.

Don't underestimate the power of an X-of-everything level to welcome players into your pack by offering them the opportunity to create a solution.

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?

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. Maybe they want to show the pack to someone who has never played Lemmings before, or at least not for a long time, and they want the person (or people) to be able to get some enjoyment from playing it. Or maybe they just want to try their hand at making good easier levels (which I think can be just as much of a challenge as making difficult ones).

Furthermore, even expert players want to be able to relax and enjoy the game now and again and not be bombarded with an endless stream of impenetrably difficult puzzles.

Whenever I play Super Mario Bros. after not having played for a while, I always start from World 1, Level 1. And I enjoy it immensely: it gives me a chance to warm up and get back into my game before taking on the more challenging levels. And I'm damn good at Mario!

Similarly, when it comes to Lemmings (sure, I'm by no means the best in terms of solving puzzles, but I can beat the original game) - sometimes it's nice just to make your way through a beginner rank for the Fun of it!

Also, I'd say this is particularly true when playing a brand new pack - it can be useful to have the opportunity to play through some easier levels by that author: it's a way of just getting to know their style, flavour, and what they're about when it comes to general design.

I've had the idea recently of going through as many packs on the forum as I can and just playing the first rank; mainly because I've tasked myself with getting good at making easier levels and so it's a research thing ostensibly, but also because if a designer can do easy levels well, I'll be that much more likely to want to see what their more challenging levels are like.

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.

Yes, exactly! It's good to know that someone who makes levels as difficult as yours also has an appreciation for the other end of the spectrum.

- Unnessesary tight timers.

I still haven't really got my head around the community's general feelings about timers, this one could probably be a topic in itself. I love the feeling of getting those last few lemmings in just before the time runs out, always have done. I thought timers in lemmings levels were a staple of the game, but I'm learning otherwise on this forum...

A number of people have said things like "timers are only justified when the solution demands it". But... if the timer is there, then the solution demands it! i.e. you have to work out a way to not only solve the level, but do it in a timely fashion. I have absolutely no issue with timers in levels whatsoever. If I solve a level and then time runs out, I just think: oh, OK, I need to release the crowd earlier, or maybe: ah, I need to make sure I assign the skills such that the solution happens at pace. I know people on here hate this, but for me it's a perfectly acceptable part of the game of Lemmings.

I don't really have turn-offs, as such, when it comes to levels. I've noticed that I tend to skip over levels that are too difficult early on in a pack, as I generally like to make my way through the first few levels in a pack quite quickly. I always appreciate it when level designers give you the opportunity to do this.

[ccexplore]

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 (though I suppose it's somewhat impossible now, since you already played through them once and it might not be the same to replay them again now), because 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.  It's possible my memory could be slightly biased, but it's fair to at least say that running out of time isn't common enough to leave me a memory of it being a common experience playing through the levels.

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.

For the rest of the 120 levels, the time limit is not challenging.  Sure, in some levels you need to crank up the release rate to 99, but generally it's safe to wait until after you've carried out the last skill assignment of the solution.  And most people would've done that anyway at that point in the level solution, just so they don't have to wait forever for the level to complete.

So sure, the timer is always present, but it also rarely matters for most levels.  It does, however, hinder exploration of the level to some degree--unless you frequently pause the level (and then you can only plan things out in your head during those pauses, and not try things out), you may run out of time over the course of trying to work out the level before you even have the complete solution.  Being forced to restart the level at those times is admittedly a little disruptive.

[WillLem]

This is where it might be interesting to watch you do a lets play of Lemmings

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!

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

To be fair, it probably isn't that common, but there are enough levels across Lemmings and Oh No! (you've already come up with a decent list of the ones from the original game) that I would definitely describe it as a feature of the game, even if it's not one that's used very often. Compression method and flow control are also features, and they're used even less. I suppose that these are features that are more unique to Lemmings as a game, whereas time limits are a more generic feature.

I have to admit, I don't think that most levels lose anything by having the time limit removed, but I also don't object to there being a time limit, even arbitrarily, quite as much as some players.

To be honest, when it comes to creating levels it's something I'm probably over at this stage really. I'm happy enough that I can encourage time attack in my levels by implementing it as a Talisman and leaving the main level to have an infinite time limit; this seems like an ideal compromise, and I'll probably start to use it more sparingly as I progress.

[ccexplore]

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!

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.

The timer actually doesn't bother me too much, maybe because I pause a lot when playing the original games, maybe because for most levels I can figure out the solution quick enough.  And certainly with NeoLemmix's rewind, it's a bit less disruptive to deal with running out of time.  But I do recognize why many other people seem to feel so strongly against it, and plus also the original games never trained me to appreciate a tight time limit like it seems to for you, because most of the time the limit is not tight at all.

It's perhaps also worth pointing out that time actually runs a little faster in the Amiga version compared to some other popular versions like PC DOS and Mac.  For example, I think on Amiga it's 15 walker steps per second in-game, while on PC DOS it's 17.  Even on a short 1-minute levels like Just a Minute Part 2 and It's Hero Time (which I guess also qualifies to be added to my list above of levels where the time limit matters, though more as a core part of the puzzle I'd argue), that difference is actually quite noticeable.

[Dullstar]

From what I remember, other than a few select levels, the time limits are really only a major issue in ONML. Still, though, in the majority of cases, it's more "forces you to increase the release rate and release the crowd earlier" and less "forces you to rethink your solution."

I do think that for the most part the game is MUCH better without them, and consider them to be one of my turn offs.

[Proxima]

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.

Absolutely! I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but I was absolutely not saying that beginner-style ranks are bad. On the contrary, I think it's great that as a community, we are producing content at a wide range of difficulties, so that everyone can find levels they enjoy playing.

I just think it's a bit strange, the habit we've gotten into where everyone wants to produce a pack with a range of difficulties starting at beginner, even though there are not many actual beginners in our community. 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.

[WillLem]

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 feel I should re-iterate at this point that I really do love NeoLemmix and all of the various conveniences it has brought to the game of Lemmings. Let there be no misunderstanding about my appreciation for the platform and its developers: you guys are awesome!

If I was to record such a video, it wouldn't be a which-is-better, because they're so different that it would be pointless to compare them that way. I guess it would just be interesting to see how far the way the game is played has come, and it would be a way to perhaps bring back some appreciation for the execution difficulty of the original levels.

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.

I wouldn't say I constantly go on about it, it's just been a bit of a surprising issue to me. I basically walked into the room thinking "Oh, sure, timers are part of the Lemmings game. I can remember a handful of levels where time has definitely played a big part. I have no doubt that they will remain a staple of the game on whatever platform they appear." And then people said "Yeah, we don't like time limits. Don't use them unless it makes absolute sense to do so, and even when you think it does, most other people probably won't!"

It's fine though, like I said - I'm pretty much over it, it just pops up every now and then. Most recently when my time-related Talismans were being questioned.

From what I remember, other than a few select levels, the time limits are really only a major issue in ONML.

It may be the Oh No! levels that left me with the impression that they're a big part of the game then, perhaps more so than the original levels.

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.

This is almost certainly the case: it's a tried and tested method that's familiar and inviting to people.

I can think of a few packs that don't have that learning curve though, and pretty much hit you with quite difficult puzzles right from Rank 1. Off the top of my head: Lemming Plus Alpha, NepsterLems, and (to a lesser extent) Yippee! More Lemmings and Lemmings Destination, both of which begin with Ranks that are "easy-ish" by a lot of people's standards, but are no means beginner standard at all, and in fact are quite challenging.

[Proxima]

And I believe that other than NepsterLems, all of those postdate this discussion

[WillLem]

And I believe that other than NepsterLems, all of those postdate this discussion

But... we're having the discussion now!

Unless we've warped back in time as a result of all this talk about time limits...

[Proxima]

My post that you originally replied to is from July 2018. So yes, things have changed and having a beginner rank in your pack isn't quite as ubiquitous as it once was, but I didn't know that change was coming when I wrote it

[namida]

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. On the other hand, if we look at packs where that wasn't the case - Lemmings Plus VI which was meant to be a bit easier, or Lemmings Plus 3D, there's a beginner rank in each. Or Lemmings Plus Omega II, which is known for being one of my hardest packs, but wasn't an outright deliberate "be as hard as possible" effort - just that in general I was getting capable of making nastier and nastier levels over time - also has a beginner rank, even if it's one of the harder beginner ranks out there.

[WillLem]

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.

Exactly - that was my point: it doesn't contain a beginner Rank - it stands as an example of a pack that doesn't follow the usual Easy>Medium>Hard>Ridiculous formula, instead it goes Ridiculous>Division by Zero>(Error: there has been a problem processing this data. Please contact your software vendor or service provider).

[WillLem]

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.

Some more examples of tight time-limits in the original game:

Every Lemming For Himself - you have to release the crowd whilst your builder is over tricky rocks & water; not a problem in NL, but becomes more of an issue when played on Amiga
The Ascending Pillar Scenario - again, far more noticeable when playing on the Amiga because releasing the crowd is trickier and must be done more or less after your worker lem has finished.
Hunt The Nessy - amazingly, when going for a 100% save, this time limit is surprisingly tight! You either risk freeing the crowd whilst your worker is vulnerable building over water, or wait until the worker has finished but have only just enough time to get the crowd home. Obviously, the normal blocker/bomber solution is nowhere near as time-precise.

[ccexplore]

Ok, I've tried those 3 levels in the original game (but PC DOS version) to refresh my memory.  My findings:

Every Lemming For Himself:  yes, it looks like with the normal solution, you will need to release the lemmings quite a bit before finishing all the building.  That said, on DOS Lemmings, if you put the blocker at the right tip of the "ship" instead of the more usual location, and okay with losing 2 instead of just 1 lemming, that puts the waiting crowd closer to the exit such that even if you release them only after the final builder finishes, you still have about 20 seconds to spare.  That won't work on the Amiga though because with its faster timer, you will still run out of time.

But bottom line, although I didn't recall this, I expect running out of time to indeed be a common experience for most people on this level.

The Ascending Pillar Scenario:  I did a fully normal solution and started releasing the crowd only after the final builder reaches land, and ends up with 1:10 on the clock.  On Amiga that translates to about 0:47 on the clock.  So not a generous time limit by any means, but certainly not down to the wire like "Every emming For Himself" is.

Hunt the Nessy:  this is interesting.  On DOS with its slower timer, I ended up with 1:05 on the clock when sticking to only releasing the crowd after the hero finishes.  On Amiga's faster timer, that does translate to only about 0:09 left on the clock, so definitely a bit tight there.

Using the blockers/bombers (ie. forgo 100% saved) shouldn't affect the timing much for most people?  Most people would probably still be keeping the crowd just on the starting island, just using blockers instead of a digger or similar to hold the crowd.  You could imagine holding the crowd twice (ie. release them way early to get them to an island closer to the exit, and then hold them there again to wait), but that's a bit involved and implies some multitasking, so I don't see that being something people would likely try on this level.

The DOS version also has all water removed.  So there are maybe 2 or so gaps that you could get away with using just 1 builder instead of 2, which I guess further makes the timing less tight on DOS compared to Amiga.

I will say one thing, this is probably the worst kind of level for a tight time limit.  At least "Every Lemming For Himself" can't take more than 3 minutes.  Here each time you run out of time, it means you lost 8 freaking minutes of your time, most of which was spent waiting for the builder to build faster, dammit.  (And then later cursing at the crowd of lemmings to walk faster for pete's sake. )

[Dullstar]

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.

Examples from original game: From the Boundary Line, Pillars of Hercules, Poor Wee Creatures, Cascade intended solution (the 100% one seems pretty frame precise and I suspect it wasn't intended, though it wouldn't surprise me if the devs were at least aware of it based on the skillset)

[WillLem]

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.

At last! Something Dullstar and I agree on!

Well said, brother.

[kaywhyn]

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

To add to your list and ccexplore's:

The Crankshaft Besides Tightrope City, probably the first level with a time crunch, although that should go to Heaven Can Wait. Not a problem if you send multiple climbers, but time was usually a problem only because I kept sending one worker. Even with this, I think I would always have about 30 seconds or so left, so maybe not too much of a problem despite that time can be tight.

If at First You Don't Succeed I guess it depends on the solution you use, but generally I would release the crowd when the worker lemming finishes building over the last gap. When I dig under the pillars, the lemmings would have a long way to walk back and forth in the pit, and so I would have anywhere from a second left to a few seconds remaining.

Mary Poppins Land The timer was a huge problem only because I have always used the solution of sending only one worker lemming instead of two. If using my solution, when releasing the crowd, it has to be done before the second splatform to the diagonal platform is done in order to still have enough time to pass. If I remember correctly, they have to be released by the 40 seconds mark.

Take a Running Jump I usually use the solution of making a splatform, and if my memory serves me correctly, you need to up the release rate a bit before the timer reaches the 2 minute mark. The lemmings do have a lot of walking to do in this solution and so the timing can be tight.

One Way or Another I've always taken the route on the right. I think I usually release the crowd by the time the last gap is built over and it's usually about 20 seconds or so left. I don't remember the skillset, and so I'm not sure if the left route is possible, but if it is I would imagine that it's way more time consuming since they have much farther to walk.

The Far Side At least if you do the normal solution of going around, because I do believe there's a video where it's possible to bash the top on Dos and therefore time will not be an issue. Almost every time I play this level, I release the crowd as soon as the worker lemming seals the hole with the wall on the right or possibly even when the worker lemming seals the gap going to the left after already sealing it to the right and I think I would finish the level anywhere from just a second to 10 seconds left. In other words, I think as long as you release the crowd by a minute left or even 55 seconds left then you'll still pass.

Pea Soup Surprisingly, this can be a time cruncher. At the same time, not too difficult to see this, since pretty much the entire level is spent building really long bridges. I think I usually release the crowd by the time the worker lemming falls off the right side of the bowl, i.e, when the worker hits the floor where the exit is, and usually will have about 10 or so seconds left.

Save Me Maybe not that big of a problem on time despite that it can be tight, but it at least was for me when I was a child. There have been times when I have released the crowd too late.

From ONML, a lot of them. In Crazy, I say the most notable were Digging for Victory and No Problem, and I guess The Stack, Keep on Trucking, ON the Antarctic Coast, and Rocky VI can be too. For Wild, definitely Onward and Upward. Also It's a Tight Fit and Snow Joke and Lemmingdelica. For Wicked, Rocky Road, Spam, Spam, Spam, Egg and Lemming, and Up, Down, or Round and Round (only because I always up the release rate after bashing through the two pillars at the bottom). Finally, for Havoc, definitely Welcome to the Party, Pal, but I say other notable ones are Race Against the Cliches, Lemming About Town (at least when the climber gets to the top, as it apparently always does on Dos despite the bridge being at the edge), Synchronised Lemming, and Where Lemmings Dare.

edit: Forgot Lemmings in a Situation too.

[ccexplore]

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.

[kaywhyn]

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.

For those two levels, yes, of course you can save way more time by sending multiple workers. At the same time, it is indeed unfortunate that the solution of sending just one worker still works for both, although time will be way tighter this way. This was what I used as a child, and I still do even though I realized years later that I could had made both levels way less tight on time by sending more than one worker. Time isn't too much of a problem on Crankshaft, but I definitely remember running out of time on Mary Poppins Land due to bombing the blocker too late. If it's not clear from this, I'm one of those people who don't mind timers, being a math and numbers lover myself.

[Dullstar]

Aesthetic turn-off:

Blurry backgrounds. It's a popular way of differentiating background from not-background, but I hate it. I guess the idea is that the stuff might be less focused if it's further away, but in practice, with properly corrected vision, I don't find this to be the case - in fact, if you told me that you thought the blur effect was realistic, I'd implore you to go get your vision tested. Because, honestly, that's kind of what it looks like - a nearsighted person looking at something far away without their glasses/contacts (this can be observed really well if you have bad, but corrected vision, because then you can put on/take off your glasses for a quick comparison). Of course, technically you can't focus on something close and something far at the same time, but it's not really noticeable IRL, because if you shift your attention from something far away, your focus will adjust, and the fact that the stuff you're not focusing on isn't super clear isn't all that noticeable, because you're not focusing on it. If you try to compensate for this via a graphical effect, the problem is that it doesn't change if the user shifts their attention from the play area to the background, which means the background just looks like garbage all the time.

My suggestion: Prefer differentiating background from not-background via color contrast as opposed to blurring.

Bonus turn-off points: the menu background in NL has a blur effect. On one hand, there's not much going on in that background, so it at least doesn't draw attention to itself, but once I notice it... cannot... unsee...

[WillLem]

My suggestion: Prefer differentiating background from not-background via color contrast as opposed to blurring.

+1 for this. Brightness up, contrast down does the trick

[Shmoley]

I hate X of everything levels and large levels with limited skills are “turn-offs” for me as well. A good example of this is the level I’m currently stuck on in Colorful Arty’s Sublems. It’s just too overwhelmingly big with too little skills! (No hate towards the creator or the level itself though, it’s just not my kind of level.)

[Strato Incendus]

I hate X of everything levels and large levels with limited skills are “turn-offs” for me as well.

Amen! Finally someone who agrees with me on that!

That said, as stated before, I mainly hate X-of-everything levels when the skill supply is so abundant that the level feels pointless (and when it is a large landscape on top of that).

If somebody manages to create an X-of-everything level that seems like it's any-way-you-want, but actually all or at least some of the crucial skills are exactly accounted for (like Nepster's "Final Frustration"), that is something I quite admire. But of course, those levels are few and far between. Thus, when I'm making an X-of-everything level, I usually try to reserve that slot for another attempt at creating a Final-Frustration-like experience, instead of plastering my lower ranks with pointlessly easy X-of-everything levels.

Proxima has correctly pointed out how the X-of-everything levels in the Fun rank actually are still worthwhile because they teach you other things about the game.
Tame in ONML, in contrast, is so open-ended and trivial that it just becomes boring. And sadly, most of the time when people "just" make an X-of-everything level in order for it to be easy first-rank filler, it becomes a Tame level, not a Fun level (literally).

[Shmoley]

Yeah I agree with you on the pointlessness of most X of everything levels. I’ve never played Nepster’s Final Frustration level before but it sounds interesting. This is why I decided to leave X of everything levels out of my level pack due to them being nothing but filler in my eyes. I also agree with it being worse when there’s an overly long level that doesn’t need to be there like that level from the fun rating from the original lemmings. I believe it was called Take Good Care of my Lemmings or something like that. What’s the point of making the lemmings walk such a large distance only for them to build one long staircase? It would be better if the level was just shortened a bit but it would still just be one long build to the exit like in the fun level Don’t do Anything too Hasty. I’m pretty sure that’s what it was called.

[Dullstar]

From a designer perspective instead of a player perspective: styles where the pieces are sized inconveniently. Examples: Steel pieces in the original game, original game's Pillar set's various blocks. Aesthetically the set is quite nice, but it's kind of a pain to work with. With both examples I mentioned, the main problem is that the sizes of smaller versions of various pieces are such that it's hard to make tile patterns. For example, using the NL tile names, block_07 in Pillar is two pixels wider than two side-by-side block_06s, and block_08 is 4 pixels less tall than both, 8 pixels wider than 2 block_06s, 6 pixels wider than a block_07, and 12 pixels shorter than 3 block 2's. This makes it kind of hard to make nice-looking large terrain chunks, and the problem exists with every set of blocks in the set.

Later I should check how L2 handles the stricter grid: for the most part, L2 classic looks the same if you're not comparing things side-by-side, but the designers might have had to resize some of those pieces to work better; if we added those variants to NL, the set would be a lot easier to use.

[Shmoley]

This one will definitely vary between people but what I dislike are levels with very specific timing. Where you have to do the the same thing over and over and over again until you get it. Like assigning a skill in a very specific way so something specific happens when another lemming uses another skill at a specific time to make something very specific happen.. Dang I said the word specific like 10 bajillion times..

[WillLem]

Another one to add to this list:

Unusable Bombers!

So, the save requirement is 100%, and there are 10 Bombers.

Why?

I can think of only 3 possible reasons:

1) To deliberately annoy/distract/confuse the player
2) Because it was originally an X-of-everything level and the designer forgot to remove them
3) To copy L1, because L1 did it

Pretty much every custom pack I've played so far that centres around the classic-8 does this (notable offenders: DoveLems, GeoffLems, Lemmings Plus III). If there's anything that even I'm happy to leave in L1 where it didn't belong in the first place, it's unusable Bombers. Grr

Rant over

[Crane]

I admit I've added "Schmuck Bait" bombers in my levels before.  My most famous one, I think, is from Crystal Caves.  Usually I have three good reasons to include them:

- It's an X-of-everything level, whether or not the Blocker is used in the solution.
- To pair with a Blocker tool (e.g. 1 Bomber, 1 Blocker), since it's tradition, I guess (also to test to see if the player is paying attention).
- Neatness.  This is my later reason for including it in Crystal Caves, as well as to mimic a classic Mayhem level.  With the Bombers, the tool arrangements where 5 1 20 - 5 1 20 (5 Climbers, 1 Floater, 20 Bombers, 5 Builders, 1 Basher, 20 Miners).

True, including the bombers for no reason is a little irritating.

[kaywhyn]

Another one to add to this list:
Unusable Bombers!

This was often the first thing I noticed when I was LPing Seb Lems. Admittedly, I found it amusing the first few times, but later on it just loses its amusement value. At the same time, there have been some cases where they're not automatically useless, since for example some of them happened to have cloners. In those cases, it's important to not jump to the conclusion of the bombers being useless so hastily Otherwise, without cloners and on those where you need to save 100%, then yes, the bombers are pointless.

I admit I've added "Schmuck Bait" bombers in my levels before.

Ah, you must be a fan of the Tv Tropes site

As for the topic itself, I have some, but I will write a post answering that at a later time  

[Dullstar]

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.

[namida]

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.

The 3 levels (click to show/hide)

Lemmings Plus III, Fierce 1, "Dead Is The New Black"
Lemmings Plus Omega II, Sharp 7, "Odyssey"
Lemmings Plus Alpha, Decimation 4, "Oh Blast..."

The change would not prevent such levels from existing, as they could simply be reworked into non-100% levels that still overall require the trick in question.

[ericderkovits]

Here are those 3 levels solved by Icho on his Youtube channel

Lemmings Plus III: Fierce 1 (Dead is The New Black)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuUQytSsHcI&list=PLKR1N9oJTTlLYdPI-ILkJJhnjrZ-gINsy&index=60

Lemming Plus Omega II: Sharp 7 (Odyssey)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvOxJMYCrtM&list=PLKR1N9oJTTlJ-7nY4WKPTVhVeXNSDhVkc&index=57

Lemmings Plus Alpha: Decimation 4 (Oh Blast...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASvnyFULRdw&list=PLKR1N9oJTTlI6CFD0N0cRO_nbW8d005XV&index=19

[kaywhyn]

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.

You're right, so my statement saying bombers are completely useless on 100% levels isn't accurate. I didn't think about it carefully enough and especially the one from Lemmings Plus Alpha completely escaped me In that case, what's more accurate is saying they might appear to be useless at first on such levels, but of course it depends. Sometimes they're absolutely required (like with the three you mentioned in the spoiler), sometimes not. There's 2 levels in United that I now just remembered that also meet the "requires 100%" and needs a "bomber/stoner" to solve. They both happen to be timed levels as well. One of them doesn't have cloners, but the other one does, and you still need to save everyone, including the clone(s). So, that makes at least 5 levels that exist to require a bomber(s)/stoner(s) on 100% levels.

[Dullstar]

Huh. I would have expected that to be impossible based on the fact that direct drop doesn't work.

[Strato Incendus]

It has nothing to do with direct drop.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh-noers are still able to exit. We only recently had a change that made it so that Oh-noers would always drown when falling into water, even if they were Swimmers, because they "need their arms" to oh-no.

[WillLem]

Huh. I would have expected that to be impossible based on the fact that direct drop doesn't work.

Direct drop does work as long as the fall distance is below splat height.

The original "direct drop" bug was caused by the "splatter" and "faller" states being exitable, when really they shouldn't be. The lemming should be able to transition to "walker" first.

[Dullstar]

Right, it's because splatters (fallers as well in some versions, but I don't think all ports with direct drop are affected) can exit. A splatter is actively dying, and I would expect an ohnoer to have similar behavior, i.e. not being able to exit.

[namida]

A splatter is actively dying, and I would expect an ohnoer to have similar behavior, i.e. not being able to exit.

I'd think of it like this: Someone who has fallen a long distance and hit the ground is probably already dead. Someone who is sick and about to die can sometimes be saved, we can assume that inside the exit is a very good team of medics with the Bomber antidote.

[WillLem]

we can assume that inside the exit is a very good team of medics with the Bomber antidote.

+1 for this

[mobius]

-big or huge sprawling levels
-levels which have or appear to have very complicated/involved many multi-step solutions.
-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. Of course most of the time doing that (with anything other than bomber) runs risk of inserting a back route, why it's so rarely done.

[WillLem]

-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.

[mobius]

-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.

good point. Keep in mind this was the era where this sort of thing was common place. Take a look at games like Chips Challenge or Milon's Secret Castle or Zelda 2. "Gotcha" moments weren't shunned in game design like they are (in many cases anyway) nowadays. [What I call "fake difficulty]
However they're attempt at irritation never worked on me, in this regard anyways! It worked in plenty of other ways...

[Swerdis]

Having played and solved a considerable amount of level packs in the meantime, I give my 50 cents on this topic.

My turn-offs:

1. Boring and uncreative titles.

I dont' know how many "Bubble Bath"  levels or something like that exist....For my taste, titles often stick too close to the level itself, sometimes even spoiling the solution. I like good puns. And I like references to the real existing world outside. Be it literature, architecture, music, sports, natural science or whatever. "The pit and the pendulum" by Geoff comes to my mind in this moment.

2. Vertical scrolling levels

I've got two problems with these. First, these levels often require a lot of jumping back and forth. Secondly, and more importantly, these levels often come along with a lot of Bridge Building. Going from the bottom to the top is self-explanatory since it's the only way to gain height, but it's also true the other way round when bridges have to be built to save Lemmings from being splat. There ARE great levels of this kind like "Gravity Coaster" by Flopsy, but most of them are not.

3. Levels with more than 100 Lemmings

What's the point in that? I just can't see it. For me, even 60 Lemmings would be enough for any puzzle. I've never seen a +100 Lemming-level that wouldn't be as good with a siginificant number of Lemmings less.

4. Levels with more than 4 hatches

That's especially true when this goes along with huge levels and therefore a wild jumping back and forth again. It's even worse when all (or most of the Lemmings) are in immediate danger. I find these levels not fun to play.

5. Lemmings with terrain-removing skills that have to cancel out or pass through each other

This falls into the "easy to spot, but hard to execute" section. It should be the other way round.

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.

7. Confusing backgrounds

Not a direct turn-off, but I prefer a simple, traditional black or dark-blue level-background over all these landscape-like alternatives. It looks clearer and it makes it easier to tell terrain from background-objects.

[NieSch]

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.

Haha, maybe you play Lemmings too much?

Joking aside, I agree with most of your points. But there are always exceptions to the rule. (For example point 3: I'm fond of my own "Yippee Finale" that features 250 Lemmings. )

[Armani]

Ah interesting post! I've read all of these in the train going home.
I can definitely see something to keep in mind whenever I make a level.

For me, I enjoy every kind of level so there's nothing that really make me turn off immediately.
But if a pack contains so many 10+ of everything open-ended levels, I tend to lose interest quite quickly.
And I also don't like levels with a lot of animated objects. My old laptop simply stop working when I open those kinds of levels.

[Swerdis]

But there are always exceptions to the rule. (For example point 3: I'm fond of my own "Yippee Finale" that features 250 Lemmings. )

Hey, I remember this level and yes - it's a good one. I give you credits for this.

[MASTER-88]

I think im not really have much hate levels. I am managed frame perfect things on console conditions like sliding glitch in Boiler room. Its might one most frustrating thing ever can made on lemmings without tool assist. I just hear most peoples dislike those frame perfect timings.

IMO lemmings have several style levels. Some endurance levels have long lenght, much skills, but are quite easy to completed. Sharp element levels requires sharp timings, but those are mostly shorth. Puzzle type levels which are cunnings, but releativily short. Speedrun type levels, which have hard timelimit.

I´ll mostly try build all type levels my packs.

I think if you make long pack its some good you will show some harder tricks in easier difficult with easy setups. Neolemmings contains a lot tricks you maybe never are see, so when trick like this goes later levels and you not have any idea about it, its goes impossible to completed level. I´ll techinically like all type lemmings levels. Though i only are good build level using orginal boards. How ever i usually play neolemmings using clear physic mode only, so its not matter much is there special boards or not. Special boards are some messy to navigate without clear physic tool. So i´ll personally favor orginal type levels.

Im not really have hate type levels myself. I can always change level if i cannot figured out it and will back it later when i have more fresh ideas.

I am quite patient player myself. So im not really goes mad if i have to reback level over again. Yeah i´ll know its might be very nasty if level have 20 minutes to lenght and your skills end right before goal line. I usually used tons practice replays so i can easily navigate it through again with better and also used tons pen and paper. No trouble for me. I am throw much harder and frustrating things with console conditions without tools. Neolemminsg luckily have replays and tool sets. Yeah that was some really painful make on SNES system when i make those max-% min skills challenge. For example this Boiler Room pixel perfect slide setup at end. Its take me over 8 hours attempts.

[MASTER-88]

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.

LOL That was nice thing i totally forget mention. Most lemmings themes are luckily quite good there is only few really bad ones. But i have some pain time when i play Christmas lemmings. I simply turn music off. I hate those themes way too much like all Christmas music.

About neolemmings. If some level have so crap theme, i´ll play it through with lemming editor and change some my favorite theme. So its never are that trouble. I´ll also like most regular lemmings music too. Orig 4 & 10 maybe my favorite funs. I still used those themes my levels sometimes.

About NES lemmings. This version like bug about music and sounds effect, so i´ll turn always music off if i have to throw some sharp things. That when i did pause free solution some hardest levels and i have hear build warning effect and etc.... That most console lemmings trouble.

I currently loved freedomplanet music my own levels. For sure all peoples not like.

But its little bit trouble add music zip. There is size limit what i can to post. I usually have to make 3-4 post add some special music zip. So i´ll recommend you are loaded my music zip when i am post those. Then i not have post those again.

[MASTER-88]

Armani tolde me my pack i´progress is overall good. But few levels he told me is list which he hate.

All Step 5 levels.
-Speedbuilding 2023 ( This level is pixel perfect) Yest it is.
-Just a Minute MASTER edition (Another quite pixel perfect level, but this actually allow few frame errors (But its just a minute NEO Lemmings, SNES version if also pretty naughty) Thats not horrible hard. I havaf to play it thorugh 5x, because broke my replay with backroutes, but its always take some good amount time find correct setups. I think its allow few frame errors here and there. Also level is short
-Impossible Staircase (This level is PURE hell) Armani give up. I myslef spend 2h 30 min with this manipulation. I first plan make it even harder, but when i work 2h 30min. I think its hard enought and for sure it hard enought. Impossible Staircase might be hardest level to completed my pack.

Most my levels not contains those shit things. Like Armani say. Only few your levels are piece of shit and rage quit, most are very nice levels. I´ll make list those levels when my pack are done. Rage quite levels might some fun challenge when you are bored and want make some great.