Lemmings Boards > Level Design

Immediate turn-offs

(1/15) > >>

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 :evil: . Too many "insider references" in level titles to me feel like repeated attempts at cracking jokes which nobody else understands.
* if the level is a no-brainer 10-of-everything level which just takes up unnecessary time to click through - rather than a challenge arising from skill 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! :thumbsup: 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. :evil:

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 :sick::sick::sick::sick:

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 :P

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 :P

IchoTolot:

--- Quote from: Proxima on July 21, 2018, 08:44:48 PM ---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?

--- End quote ---

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. ;P

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page