[DISC] Rewind button?

[WillLem]

If the purpose of adding a feature is to improve quality of life, then it should not be locked.

Admittedly, I'm struggling to think of examples of games that provide QOL features as rewards, but I'm sure they do exist. One that springs to mind is Super Mario Sunshine, which allows the player to use Fludd on subsequent plays of the 'platforming challenge' levels once the main quest is completed. In this context, Fludd can absolutely be seen as a QOL feature, because it makes these levels significantly easier to traverse.

I'll come back later with better examples.

You wouldn't have attempted it if it were impossible.

Have you met me?? Attempting the impossible is my jam!

Are you going to set up a vetting system so that levels by other designers must pass this threshold before they're allowed to be published?

Definitely not. Anybody is welcome to make any levels for RetroLemmini that they wish. We could even put the decision of whether or not to lock the player-assists in the hands of the level designer. I did originally think that, and now regret not including that detail in the idea suggestion.

My 'standards' are not so unique, either; they reflect the strong opinions of other Lemmings players. However small, there will always be a group of players who want the game to be presented more or less as it was originally. RetroLemmini is for that group.

levels that don't meet your standards will continue to be made, and "I'd rather they didn't get made" isn't a good answer to the question of whether the engine should have better quality-of-life features.

I never said I'd rather those levels didn't get made. This is more a question of which gameplay style we want to support than a comment on level design (the original levels are, of course, an exception to this because they are the original levels, and this Forum wouldn't exist without them).

I should probably take issue with framestepping being described as a 'quality-of-life' feature here. Direction-select and assign-whilst-paused are arguably QOL features. Framestepping, on the other hand, is tantamount to cheating in a game like Lemmings. We all agree that the ability to framestep backwards immediately renders most of the original levels (which is what many players come to the Forums looking for) obsolete. We have to be careful not to do the same in RetroLemmini - that's the bottom line here as far as I'm concerned.

[Simon]

Direction-select and assign-whilst-paused are arguably QOL features.

Directional select can allow extra things. In a sufficiently stone-aged engine, you can't assign to certain lemmings in a dense pack unless you force direction. It would enable new things in L2.

Framestepping, on the other hand, is tantamount to cheating

If this means backward and forward skips (+1/−1 physics update, staying paused): You'll have to remove some cheating features from RetroLemmini. As-is, you can click to advance by 1 physics update during pause.

If this means rewind only: Then the difference between cheating and not cheating is that the non-cheater must mind-numbingly fast-forward to get where he wants, and the cheater may skip this fast-forwarding and immediately continue where he wants. Both end at the same game situation. The only difference is drudgework. This is Mindless's "It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game."

You can design the game like this. But is that good?

A player must complete the level at least once in 'Classic Mode' before the modern controls are unlocked for that level.

Don't punish/lock X, instead reward Y.

Reward pause-free playing. Framestepping enters pause and therefore disqualifies you from winning pause-free, you'll only get a normal win. That would directly support what you seem to want, and it would be a fresh take on the whole matter.

-- Simon

[WillLem]

If this means backward and forward skips (+1/−1 physics update, staying paused): You'll have to remove some cheating features from RetroLemmini. As-is, you can click to advance by 1 physics update during pause.

Yes, as I said, it's unfortunate that this is already a part of RL. It won't be getting removed, but it has been made optional by another user/developer (Charles) who seemed to have a similar opinion.

the difference between cheating and not cheating ... is drudgework. This is Mindless's "It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game."

Hm. Maybe I disagree that it doesn't make for a good game. If that's true, why are we all here? The vast majority of original Lemmings ports don't even have a replay system, let alone per-frame control over the gameplay. It can't be that bad a game if there's an entire Forum dedicated to it...

You can design the game like this. But is that good?

Maybe this is a question to which I don't think the answer should automatically be "no". If the player is punished for making a mistake, the real-time gameplay stakes are higher. Some players genuinely enjoy this. Lemmings itself was more or less built on this very principle.

And yes, it has evolved - and that's good. But, we have engines with player assists which we all (myself included) enjoy; we should also have one that presents the more traditional gameplay style.

Don't punish/lock X, instead reward Y.

Reward pause-free playing.

Yes, this could work. The Talisman system in Neo/Super is good; both players and designers benefit from it. I thought about implementing a challenge/trophy system in RL but realised how complicated it would make everything and so abandoned it (for now). I think it would only be worth the effort if it were a somewhat online feature, where players could see which trophies they (and other players) had achieved.

Counter-point, though: offering 'modern' features after a successful 'classic' playthrough is 'reward' rather than 'punish', is it not? We're saying: "well done, you completed the level without player assists, now they're unlocked for this level". Maybe it is a bad idea, I'm not 100% convinced of it myself. I'm just exploring the possibilities at the moment.

[Simon]

Lemmings was good in 1991 despite lack of action replay, not because of lack.

I'll rob you for $5000 and give you back $2000 as a reward for not telling the police. That's a good reward, $2000, it's a lot more than $1000. This is why I wrote: instead of punishing/locking. Different feeling.

Lemmings 3 happens to implement what you're considering. Solutions from an action replay don't count ("learner mode") for progression. Feature is meticulously implemented, but you're not supposed to use it until you've proven your worth. Reaction by Kieran:

using the replay feature makes the solve not count (why oh why did they do this? Idiots)

What I really hoped to see was a holistic argument. Why do all those design decisions make the best possible whole? I'm sure that, yes, you can continue to tell me nice stories about every single choice however it turns out. X is easy to implement, Y easy to understand, Z is already implemented so it would be more work to cut it and some users would act up, W is optional control feature and we'll continue to support both yes W and no W, ..., but why is this exact collection of choices/features the overall best-suited?

I'm not even arguing that you have to implement rewind at all costs. Maybe drudgework is exactly the right cost for what you envision. Unlikely but possible. Unlikely enough to seek alternatives.

-- Simon