Hidden objects in NL, part 2

[Simon]

Split off from 3 things I don't like about neolemmix.
Related: Hidden Objects in Backroutes: OK?

Original statemet by WillLem: I'd say the biggest irony of the NeoLemmix philosophy is that, via its player-assist tools, it makes things like precise skill placement and hidden objects a complete non-issue, and yet it still vehemently rejects these things as being an occasionally valid part of the game.

I (Simon) happened to reply first:

precise skill placement [...] a complete non-issue, and yet it still vehemently rejects these things as being an occasionally valid part of the game.

When a design absolutely requires precision, well, let the solution be precise.

When a design doesn't need precision, why force the player to be overly precise?

and hidden objects

The puzzle will never gain anything from hiding, thus don't hide.

-- Simon

[Proxima]

I'd say the biggest irony of the NeoLemmix philosophy is that, via its player-assist tools, it makes things like precise skill placement and hidden objects a complete non-issue, and yet it still vehemently rejects these things as being an occasionally valid part of the game.

No irony, just being consequential with the philosophy.

Consider, for example, action commands in Paper Mario. If you press a key within a certain window, you deal extra damage. Early on, these are very simple; later in the game, the windows get more precise, and the prompts get harder to read; for instance, early on it's a row of buttons that light up one by one, while later there might be a swinging line and you have to press a key when it points at a target.

It feels good to get it right, because the game immediately rewards success. You get the extra damage you wouldn't have got if you missed it, and it might just be enough to turn the tide of a difficult battle, or at least take out one enemy so there are fewer threats remaining.

NeoLemmix has chosen to add visual aids so that precision moves are easier, and framestepping so that if you get a move wrong, you can immediately retry and adjust your placement. That means there is no reward for first-try success any more, and that means you can't get the same feeling of satisfaction when you pull off a precision move. Some satisfaction, sure, but nothing like how great it feels in a game like Paper Mario where it really matters. And yes, this is a loss, but it's one we're okay with because it makes the overall experience so much smoother and allows us to focus our efforts on the puzzle-solving process and easily test out ideas when we have them.

Another way to put it: a game should concentrate on its strengths. The satisfaction of precision moves was part of the original game, but it was never a strength of the original game --  it didn't come into play very often, and it often interfered with other aspects of enjoyment, particularly the satisfaction of getting a new idea for how to solve a level, trying it out, and finding that it works.

I'm beginning to understand the distinctions between NeoLemmix and other Lemmings platforms: it's far more about custom content than playing the original game. This is perhaps NeoLemmix's best feature.

CustLemm and Cheapo were entirely about custom content in their day; so was Lemmix for a long time, although now it survives mostly as a tool for challenges on the original levels. Lix is still around and is even more custom-content focused; the original levels are no longer playable on it without going to the effort of remaking them. There's nothing unique about NeoLemmix here; it's just the current end state of a long evolutionary process.

[namida]

precise skill placement [...] a complete non-issue, and yet it still vehemently rejects these things as being an occasionally valid part of the game.

When a design absolutely requires precision, well, let the solution be precise.

When a design doesn't need precision, why force the player to be overly precise?

and hidden objects

The puzzle will never gain anything from hiding, thus don't hide.

-- Simon

WillLem is coming from a different position here: One where he's interested more in the action / exploration aspect, rather than the puzzle.

In that context, while it doesn't appeal to me, and doesn't fit NL's (or for that matter, Lix's) philosophy; it's not impossible to see where he's coming from.

[ccexplore]

I'd say the biggest irony of the NeoLemmix philosophy is that, via its player-assist tools, it makes things like precise skill placement and hidden objects a complete non-issue, and yet it still vehemently rejects these things as being an occasionally valid part of the game.

It's not entirely accurate to say the tools make precise skill pacement and hidden objects completely non-issue.  While framestepping can make precise skill placements easier to achieve, it still takes effort to press the key multiple times to move to the precise time/position, not to mention sometimes needing to retry multiple times just to discover/work out the precise correct location.  And with the tools available, you can't even argue that the precision is enhancing execution aspect of gameplay either.  So it's still quite fair to demand an avoidance of unnecessary precision.  Even with all the tools available, it's still possible to create a level where the pixel-precise location you need to assign some skill can be some random unremarkable point on a platform (rather than some more obvious locations like the endpoints of the platform), and even with all the tools available, it's not hard to see how such a case of finding that one random magic location can still become a chore and is literally precision for precision's sake.

Occasionally, the precision may come about more as a side effect of the puzzle idea rather than intentionally inflicted.  The tools may make it more forgivable, but it's also fair for the level designer to worry that it unnecessarily frustrates the player when they're still trying to find the right solution.  When you don't know what the solution looks like, there will be times where you can get stuck not knowing whether this solution idea that just doesn't quite seem to work out is perhaps failing merely due to imprecision, versus just the wrong idea altogether.

The bottom line is, one of the popular philosophy leans towards no unnecessary precision.  The tools may make violations and the occasional necessary precision less painful than otherwise, but that's quite different from saying the philosophy no longer matters (for the people who believe in it).

As for hidden objects, let's just turn things around and ask, if nothing's truly hidden anyway given clear physics mode exist, what's the point of still insisting on hiding it?  Why not just make it obviously outright being there?

I'd generalize people's philosophy around no hidden stuff as more an express desire to not be visually misled or surprised.  Perhaps you don't agree or don't feel as strongly about it as others, sure that's understandable.  Clear physics mode will definitely take away the lie or the surprise, but then whatever you wanted to accomplish by hiding the thing, you are not accomplishing it anymore since it isn't hidden anymore.  So what exactly did you accomplish?

[namida]

I'd generalize people's philosophy around no hidden stuff as more an express desire to not be visually misled or surprised.  Perhaps you don't agree or don't feel as strongly about it as others, sure that's understandable.  Clear physics mode will definitely take away the lie or the surprise, but then whatever you wanted to accomplish by hiding the thing, you are not accomplishing it anymore since it isn't hidden anymore.  So what exactly did you accomplish?

One case here can be where hiding is a side effect of something else - perhaps for example, the level creator wants a setup where you must dig a tunnel to the exit. However, in such cases, usually you can make the exit (or other object) at least partially visible, enough that its presence will be noticed (but the trigger area itself remains buried). For example, LPIII's once-per-rank level - the exit is buried in terrain, but the top of it sticks out so you can see where it is.

(Ironically, this level also gives an example of bad use of hidden objects which is preserved for historical reasons - it contains a hidden teleporter, hinted at only by the existance of a not-hidden-but-VERY-hard-to-spot receiver).

[WillLem]

When you don't know what the solution looks like, there will be times where you can get stuck not knowing whether this solution idea that just doesn't quite seem to work out is perhaps failing merely due to imprecision, versus just the wrong idea altogether.

This is a very fair point, and I'd have to agree.

As someone who appreciates and enjoys the execution difficulty of certain Lemmings levels, even I'd have to say that it's less enjoyable when the solution isn't known to me already, or obvious by virtue of the level's design.

If, however, the solution is right there in front of you and the challenge is clearly "get this just right!", I'm game!

The tools may make violations and the occasional necessary precision less painful than otherwise, but that's quite different from saying the philosophy no longer matters (for the people who believe in it).

No irony, just being consequential with the philosophy.

That's fair, I guess hadn't thought of it that way: the tools aren't there to make execution difficulty/hidden objects or whatever easier to deal with, they're there because such things are seen as unfavourable. That's quite clear to me now.

As for hidden objects, let's just turn things around and ask, if nothing's truly hidden anyway given clear physics mode exist, what's the point of still insisting on hiding it?

I can think of two positive reasons to hide objects in levels:

1) It encourages exploration and, ideally, the joy of discovery (if it's a desirable object like a pickup, teleporter or exit).

2) It reminds the player not to take anything for granted (if it's an undesirable object like a trap or flamethrower).

EDIT: I also think it's possible to do these things tastefully and not in a lazy, trollish sort of way.

However, I do want to make it quite clear that I wouldn't enjoy hidden objects in every level: it would start to become a bit predictable if that were the case. But, I do enjoy occasionally encountering these elements, and I see them as being an acceptable part of the game.

Ultimately, I guess I just appreciate variety. If a level pack is just level after level of hidden objects, then I'm going to get bored of it quite quickly. The same is also true if every level is breezy and open-ended, never presenting a decent challenge. The same is also true if every level is just difficult 1-of-each puzzles which demand the unlocking of a very specific solution.

It's been suggested recently that if I want to design levels with hidden elements, that they should be kept to a single rank or pack. I agree to some extent, because then players know what to expect from the getgo. However, I also think that this may detract from the potential variety that a pack with a mixture of levels can provide. It's a thought process that I'm only just beginning with really, I'm still formulating my thoughts on this.

(Ironically, this level also gives an example of bad use of hidden objects which is preserved for historical reasons - it contains a hidden teleporter, hinted at only by the existance of a not-hidden-but-VERY-hard-to-spot receiver).

It's interesting that you were once happy to design levels with such elements (and so you understand the impulse to do so), but are now firmly against them. I'm curious to know what made you change your mind so conclusively?

[Strato Incendus]

It's interesting that you were once happy to design levels with such elements (and so you understand the impulse to do so), but are now firmly against them. I'm curious to know what made you change your mind so conclusively?

Probably other level designers who did the same thing until it got old...

Everyone enjoys trolling the player initially, until they start playing other people's packs and the shoe is suddenly on the other foot...

[WillLem]

Everyone enjoys trolling the player initially, until they start playing other people's packs and the shoe is suddenly on the other foot...

Why does it always have to be about trolling the player?

I believe that hidden objects can be done tastefully and with good intentions.

[Dullstar]

Hidden stuff can work in some games, but I think there's a concept in game design where some ideas just inherently clash with each other; a puzzle game isn't really a good match for exploration/hidden stuff mechanics.

Plus, it's very hard to do hidden stuff well. Metroid games do it well... but try playing Metroid ROM hacks without a guide sometime (or the absolute trash that is the original NES game - I'm sorry, but it has not held up), and it's common for stuff to be too well hidden, so you just have to bomb every accessible tile and hope you uncover something.

[WillLem]

a puzzle game isn't really a good match for exploration/hidden stuff mechanics.

Why not?

[grams88]

I think WillLem makes some interesting points. I have to admit I like the hidden exit ones too, usually in the hidden exit it is probably made obvious to where it is located like the tricky level, even though that did trick my Dad big time in the past. I think there might be more of us into the hidden exit one but majority seem to be against it if that is fair to say. I like using the term trial and error and that was the way I thought of lemmings in the past, you experiment with your skills and see if you get far with that, you try different attempts, solution till you get the right one. I admit too many hidden exit levels would probably be a bad thing just like too many instant bombers levels or too many where you have to use the framestepping tools a lot. We could probably make it so physics mode doesn't tell you where the exit is.

I don't think we should think of hidden exits levels as bad just because most of us here on the forum do. That's bad logic and could probably be classed as a fallacy. I think dovelems had a few hidden exit levels, mazulems did as well but it was more of a phantom exit rather than a hidden exit. Tim Foxy did as well, I like his pack a lot. Variety is always the spice of life with anything too much of the same thing can get you bored.

I like exploration type puzzles in lemmings where you don't have many skills but that gives you a clue right away, the exit is probably not going to be on the other side of the map.

I still believe they are a group of people on this forum who like hidden exits but are not speaking up about it.

[Proxima]

Why not?

Because the player is trying to solve a puzzle. If there's a beneficial hidden element that's necessary to solve the puzzle, then the player is stuck until they find it, and when they do find it, it feels being cheated of all the time they wasted trying to solve the puzzle as it was presented to them. (If the element is helpful but not essential, then hiding it is less bad, but it also means the puzzle works fine without the hidden element, so why bother?)

Equally, finding a baneful hidden element on a route you thought was a valid solution feels like being cheated of a victory you had rightfully earned.

I still believe they are a group of people on this forum who like hidden exits but are not speaking up about it.

Lost something?-style hidden exit levels are much less bad than hiding things in a puzzle level, because here at least you communicate to the player up front: there is no visible exit; every level must have an exit; therefore there must be something hidden. They are still not very well liked because it's tedious to search all the accessible terrain, and not really an engaging challenge.

[ccexplore]

a puzzle game isn't really a good match for exploration/hidden stuff mechanics.

Why not?

You can't plan a route ahead of time effectively if the level is actively misleading you or withholding vital information.  I mean, you can try, and then the game would punish you when your lemmings finally get to the location where the hidden hazard lies.  Gee, how fun it is to have wasted N minutes of planning, now I had to start over because turns out this entire route actually can't work with that hazard, it's not just a small tweak to get around it, I now actually need to find and plan a different route altogether so even with all the player assist tools in the world, it is still effectively a restart.

For games that don't allow you do much planning (eg. you can't see very far ahead of where you are at) so that it's much more about exploring and reacting to what's coming, hidden stuff is only slightly more surprising than the many other things you already don't see ahead of time, things that you'd have to react to anyway as you get there.

Lemmings also tend to move too slow and indirectly to encourage effective exploration.  Sonic or Mario can cover a few gaps in seconds of running and jumping.  A lemming often takes a bit longer even with fast forward.

================

I'd actually like to turn things around and ask:  maybe let's look at examples of hidden stuff in other games very different from Lemmings.  Let's get a sense of what they are doing that perhaps make them work there.

It's quite common in game to have hidden stuff that's optional but either increases your score, or opens up some secret route that unlocks new levels or maybe let you warp to some levels much further ahead.  So we're clearly talking about games that have heavy emphasis on exploration.  Note also that you can completely be unaware of such things and still pass the level, the hidden stuff being optional.

I'm curious about cases where the hidden stuff is not optional and directly in the primary path the player must progress through.  I feel such cases are far less common even in most non-Lemmings games  And when they do occur I'm suspect they are still more controversial, with some people not liking them as much as others.

=================

It seems like a lot of people here had been burned by "bad" hidden-stuff levels in the past apparently, and so hidden stuff had gotten a pretty bad rap around here.  WillLem mentions in good taste but we know also tastes will differ from person to person--for example, WillLem also mentioned at one point he likes Amiga's multi-colored texts in the level preview screen, while Dullstar found the same colors there too much and too childish-looking.

In the end, different people like different things, and it seems like a fair number of people here had turned to mildly or strongly dislike hidden objects.  If you've tasted fish and don't like fish, further repeated exposure to fish dishes isn't likely going to change your mind on it, you'd prefer to just order other things on the menu instead.  And I don't think you'd be too amused either if the chef tries to hide the fish underneath a piece of lettuce or something.