Nepster's rants about NeoLemmix styles

[Nepster]

Warning: This will be a pure ranting thread. So always keep in mind that all this is coming from a frustrated player, who cannot even recognize the clearest designs and has no freaking clue how hard it actually is to come up with proper sprites.

So if I rant about your amazing new style here, please keep in mind:
- This is just the opinion of a single misguided human being, not necessarily the view of the majority of the players or even absolute truth.
- Whatever I criticize, I am sure that - at least partially - I am at fault as well.
- Nothing here is meant as a personal attack on you.
- I will try to spread my wrath evenly between all style designers, so you won't be alone
- and you can always improve your style

Today's victim: The city style

Background OBJECTS
The style still doesn't use background images, but honest background objects! The attached image was taken with "disabled backgrounds" in effect - notice how very well this setting works? So there is simply no way to escape the madness of the distracting background. NO WAY AT ALL, because even the clear-physics mode keeps these background objects!
Only redeeming factor: It isn't a movable background...

Where are my hatches?
Easy test questions: How many hatches has the attached level?

 Solution:

FOUR hatches: Top left, bottom left, top right and... bottom right!

Hatches at the very top or at the very bottom of the screen are pretty well visible. But the farther they wander towards the middle of the level, the harder seeing them becomes. To the point of almost vanishing in the very center.

(In)visible updrafts
Ok, to be fair: With the constant animations of updrafts, it is easier to see them in the actual level than in the screenshot. But given the information that the attached level does contain updrafts, can you find them? Another of these typical cases of background-screws-you...

One-way-walls a.k.a. the laser trap
Look at the black circle at the bottom right or at the right half of the zoomed image. It has only two frames, which swap the yellow and the red pixels. This reminds me very strongly of... laser and fire traps! Reddish-yellowish theme - check. Flickering instead of linear movement or waves - check. But wait: Why does this "trap" appear only on terrain? If it would have been a fishthekiller-level, then this only-on-terrain trap wouldn't be suspicious at all. But the designers of this level actually care about the user, so it probably is something else. Perhaps a one-way-wall?
But this only leads us to the next question: Does the one-way-wall face right or left? Or down? Or up? Or does it change its direction each frame? I have literally NO clue.

The signpost - finally a honest one-way-wall?
After successfully identifying the one-way-wall at the bottom right, it is time to consider the signpost: You can see it in the second black circle or in the left half of the zoomed image. One would probably think: Finally a terrain piece that hints at the direction of the one-way-wall placed on it. Unfortunaly this only holds true if the level designer was nice. There are two pitfalls here:
1) Signposts and one-way-walls are two different pieces. So there is no guarantee at all that the direction of the signpost has anything to do with the direction of the one-way-wall.
2) There is an object that combines both the signpost and the one-way-wall. There is not a single pixel difference! But of course none of the pixels are solid now. And it gets even better: This object is not - I repeat NOT - a one-way-wall at all!!! Ok, perhaps it is a force field then? "One-way-wall minus terrain equals force field" makes kind of sense, no? Wrong again: This f***ing piece has, believe it or not, NO effect at all!

Dear city style designer: What did you smoke when you created these one-way-walls and signposts?

[Simon]

Awesome.

This set comes from the dark age of tileset design Lemmini, don't know the author. With the recolored brick exit and hatch, City looks like a pure rip from a different game, without original tiles. And because the other game isn't Lemmings, the gadgets don't look like typical Lemmings gadgets.

But this doesn't explain the incosnsistency with the signposts.

Your critique of jump'n'runs vs. Lemmings applies here. Nice visuals at a high cost of clarity.

-- Simon

[ccexplore]

even the clear-physics mode keeps these background objects!

This seems like an issue with clear-physics mode.  Background objects that have no effect on physics should simply not be displayed in such a mode, otherwise what's the point?

Easy test questions: How many hatches has the attached level?

I didn't have any trouble spotting them in the screenshot.  I think the bottom-right one may be slightly harder to spot due to the background objects behind it, in which case it is more problem #1 above.  (Or, you can argue the level designer could've come up with better placements for the given level.)  Also, I expect the hatches to be more spottable once they are opened, since they will show more variety of colors then.  Granted, that's not very helpful since players usually do want to locate the entrance hatches at the very start of playing, pausing the game before they've finished opening.

-------------

The one-way-wall thing does seem like mistakes and oversights, especially the "laser-trap" one.  Almost makes you wonder if they simply messed up the graphics there (or the apparent conversion process might have messed something up), as I can't imagine why it wouldn't just show some sort of arrows.

It does raise an interesting general point that arrows in graphics, especially if they are animated (eg. in no-effect background objects), have the potential to be confused with one-way walls, especially since unlike L1, custom styles yields the possibility of having unique one-way-wall graphics (ie. like how steel is consistently shown as steel plates rather than overlaying graphics over varying normal terrain pieces).  Personally I think I would prefer one-way walls to be depicted very close to how they were depicted in L1, rather than trying to get overly creative with those, given their very functional nature.  So personally I probably wouldn't have assume initially those signposts to be one-way walls (especially when they don't make sense as such in the context of the level).

I don't think I'd go as far as saying no arrows for anything not one-way wall.  Even L1's dirt style do have a few literal signpost terrain pieces.  There's no risk of confusion in that case since they are individual single arrows rather than featuring a repeating pattern of arrows.  Ultimately level designers will need to use sound judgment and common sense on this area I guess.

[ccexplore]

Only redeeming factor: It isn't a movable background...

Actually, I suspect I'd prefer a parallex scrolling background when there is no option to simply turn the background off (or if I don't want to turn it off), it makes it much more obvious what's background when it scrolls differently from the level proper.  People who find it annoying probably wouldn't be much better served with a flowery stationary background that scrolls the same way as the level proper, and are instead better served by some form of clear physics mode that simply hide those cruft away.

[namida]

This seems like an issue with clear-physics mode.  Background objects that have no effect on physics should simply not be displayed in such a mode, otherwise what's the point?

This change has already been implemented for the next update. I don't know if it applies in the current released V1.48n-exp, it definitely should in the latest source code.

In regards to the background, IchoTolot is maintaining the City set so I'm quite surprised if he hasn't changed it to a proper background image. Have you got the latest version?

[IchoTolot]

I can confirm with the GST that the background is marked as a static background in the latest version! So no blame on me here!

So if it is included in the pack itself Flopsy/Wafflem have included an outdated version. ---> not my fault

Link to the lateset version: https://www.dropbox.com/s/95xv3obvtpbbhs3/Lemmini%20Conversions%20V%201.2.zip?dl=1

There is still another background which is not used in this level marked as an regular object. It will be marked as the 2nd background after the next NL patch.

To sum it all up:
- Hatches are clearly visible once opened  + bg can be turned off soon
- bg is not my fault and is actually properly marked  + bg can be turned off soon
- animation makes updraft clearly visible + bg can be turned off soon
- OWW wall faces to the right and I still cannot see why anyone should confuse this with a laser trap
- animated sign on stilts ----> decoration object.  animated ---> decoration object. I can see an argument against the stilts though.

I did not create this tileset and I only did the NL conversion, but still to keep this a rant post let me fire equally back to the "frustrated player, who cannot even recognize the clearest designs and has no freaking clue how hard it actually is to come up with proper sprites":
What did you smoke when you wrote this post?

[Nepster]

even the clear-physics mode keeps these background objects!

This seems like an issue with clear-physics mode.  Background objects that have no effect on physics should simply not be displayed in such a mode, otherwise what's the point?

Even then background images are preferrable to background objects, because the NeoLemmix code is optimized wrt. background images. Using background objects leads to lots of unnecessary redrawing of the background.

I can confirm with the GST that the background is marked as a static background in the latest version! So no blame on me here!

Great to hear that.

- OWW wall faces to the right...

In the attached image I put both types of one-way-walls next to each other. The only difference is that one type has the two combinations
- dark pixels on the left + slanted to the left
- dark pixels on the right + slanted to the right
while the other direction has the two combinations
- dark pixels on the left + slanted to the right
- dark pixels on the right + slanted to the left
Moreover the lowest row is exactly the same.
Could you please explain how one can reliably determine which of them faces left and which faces right? Even when putting them directly next to each other and being able to compare them, I cannot determine their directions!

...and I still cannot see why anyone should confuse this with a laser trap

I already gave you my reasons: High-frequency flickering + Red/Yellow + no arrow design recognizable => Danger!
Granted, when used in the signpost, there is almost no danger to mistake it for a laser trap. But put it on some rough terrain (possibly of some other style) resp. a 2-pixel high bar and you get a nice fire resp. laser.

- animated sign on stilts ----> decoration object.  animated ---> decoration object. I can see an argument against the stilts though.

Not sure what you are arguing here: Having an animation certainly does not imply being decoration.
What I am criticizing is:
- Use of the same sprite for both a terrain piece and a non-solid object.
- Use of the same sprite for both a one-way-wall and a no-effect object.

I did not create this tileset and I only did the NL conversion, ...

Yes, and that is why my last question in the ranting post was not directed at you, but the original style designer.

[namida]

I would think that the left one (in your image) is one-way left and the right one is one-way right, but I can definitely see how confusion would arise without another cue (such as movement).

[IchoTolot]

The OWW are forming a slightly shifted > or < in red/yellow in both cases so for me it is clear visible with animation that it is a OWW and not a laser trap.

The lowest row is cut of as it is mostly the case with OWW.

[ccexplore]

I already gave you my reasons: High-frequency flickering + Red/Yellow + no arrow design recognizable => Danger!

I can see that the arrow design could perhaps be improved (maybe a little too small/low-resolution for some in current form?), but I don't believe the other criteria given will hold anywhere near universally for other players.  Heck, I don't think they even hold up that well within the confines of official Lemmings games.

[ccexplore]

This set comes from the dark age of tileset design Lemmini

Jestings aside, is it really though? Custom tilesets are not exactly new, I believe they existed as far back as Cheapo (which probably pre-dates a good number of current active members here).  Yet it seems there have been very little complains back then.  It seems one or more of the following must explain the discrepancy:

1) There are far fewer custom tilesets and far fewer levels actually making use of them.  Or perhaps far fewer people actually playing such levels?
2) Perhaps the custom tilesets at the time tend to more closely mimic the official ones?
3) People complained less back then?
4) People had fewer assumptions about the visual appearances of various types of objects?  And perhaps more willing to learn by trial and error?
5) There are fewer types of objects in the games and therefore less potential for confusion?

I'm honestly curious.

[Simon]

3) People complained less back then?
4) People had fewer assumptions about the visual appearances of various types of objects?  And perhaps more willing to learn by trial and error?
5) There are fewer types of objects in the games and therefore less potential for confusion?

I believe these are the main causes.

Nepster and I are averse to trial-and-error in tilesets. UI design theory suggests to design for recognition instead of for recall, there is even a theoretical background for Nepster's rage. But these problems aren't immediately obvious to the uninitiated. Maybe it's exciting to try walking into animated gadges, see if the gadgets fries our lemmings, and restart if necessary? People can endure surprising amounts of pain if the pain seems normal.

When custom tilesets became possible, the rant-prompting drawbacks didn't matter. Custom tilesets were cool, you could do anything imaginable and impress fellow players. Good visuals catch attention, UI-theory drawbacks don't.

-- Simon

[Nepster]

I think there is one more reason:
6) Older lemmings engines had lots of other more important problems like missing frame-stepping, times bombers, weird steel mechanics, glitches,... Now that these big problems are solved, we can deal with second-class problems like badly designed styles.

I remember that when I started playing custom levels, I got annoyed a lot by precise assignments, misaligned steel, ... though most of the time I didn't voice my complaints, simply because there was noone who could do something about these problems. Now for the current NeoLemmix version, it happens to be that styles are the biggest cause for frustration, so I rant about them. And once the styles are perfect, I will certainly find something else to complain about

[Wafflem]

This set comes from the dark age of tileset design Lemmini, don't know the author. With the recolored brick exit and hatch, City looks like a pure rip from a different game, without original tiles. And because the other game isn't Lemmings, the gadgets don't look like typical Lemmings gadgets.

Yes, that is correct. The City set comes from Route 99 of Sonic Advance 3. The conversion was by Prince Jamie the 7th / PacGuy765. Many Lemmini tilesets such as the Ancient/Digital/Machine also come from the Sonic Advance series. The tilesets also have the same problem: they have reused the Orig/Oh No exits/hatch.

The Castle tileset is also based on Nicky Boum and was converted by Pieuw. He reused the Lemmini Fire trap and hatch, as well as the Dirt exit.

I had plans to convert the missing Lemmini tilesets to NeoLemmix, but now I am reluctant due to these issues that everyone has mentioned. I am not sure if the Future Tileset that I converted is based on a video game. I recolored most of the NeoLemmix objects and animated the locked exit, but my animation skills are extremely limited.

[ccexplore]

I had plans to convert the missing Lemmini tilesets to NeoLemmix, but now I am reluctant due to these issues that everyone has mentioned.

But if you don't ever convert, how will such issues ever get identified and fixed?

I realize there's a bit of a risk in terms of having outdated tilesets floating around, but I don't think we want a culture that ends up discouraging tilesets just because they may not start out perfect.  It'd be like completely avoiding using your computer because it can't be 100% secured 100% of the time.

Granted, in this particular case, perhaps a reasonable solution is to start off with screenshots from Lemmini of levels making use of the tilesets you are planning to convert, and see what people think.  It's not entirely sufficient though since you are missing animations that are often crucial.