The Lemmings Remake Topic

[Shvegait]

In general, should all (9 resp. 10) styles be allowed to be used or only the one ones for Lemmings resp. (in case we even get so far) ONML?

This is a good question as two models have been proposed. I feel that if we separate the remake into two parts, we will have to dilute in some sense the quality of the project, or perhaps it will never get finished. 220 levels is quite a lot. In the original Lemmings and to some extent ONML, many levels are introducing concepts and tricks for the first time. But to offer an experience on top of this, of course new concepts and tricks would be explored more fully. New levels that are very similiar to original Lemmings/ONML levels offer no value in my opinion (since people would be playing the remake *after* they played at least the original Lemmings, and probably ONML), so it would be more of a challenge to reach 220 now than when they were originally working on it... if that makes sense.

There could also be a problem in that some levels using original Lemmings terrain may build off levels based on ONML terrain (in terms of the tricks or concepts used), yet it would be impossible to order them in a proper way if the remakes were divided.

I think, though, that the route we take will become more clear when we decide which levels are eligible to be included. If we wind up with a ton of levels that we want to include (roughly equal in terms of which use orig. Lemmings vs. ONML graphics sets), it might make sense to divide the remake. If we see that it's best to trim them down to 120 (or 150 with 5 ratings - I remember ccexplore saying this was easily supportable), then maybe a combined remake would be best.


(By the way, what is "resp."? Actually I looked it up, and found this interesting link: Resp. and other non-existent English words. However, I still don't understand what you mean by it.)

[geoo]

Sorry for getting off topic now, but the article you provided is certainly interesting. I noticed this abbreviation a couple of times in a context similar to the German 'beziehungsweise (bzw.)' and therefore I thought it would be some kind of synonym for it.
In fact, the example

Classes A, B, and C will start their exams at 9.30, 10.00 and 10.30 respectively.

implies for me that I guessed the meaning of it correctly, however I don't know whether my version (i.e. the position of 'respectively' and the abbreviation 'resp.' itself) of this sentence would be gramatically correct:

They will start their exams at 10.00 respectively (resp.) 10.30.

or

Classes A and B will start their exams at 10.00 resp. 10.30.

I leave out the third element because I just realize that the sentence would sound somewhat strange with three elements.
I my first version, having assumed that it was ok that way, I even left out the subjects the times were related to, which is apparently even less correct. So did I in the sentence of mine you quoted.
A most likely grammatically correct version of it would be:

In general, should all 9 or 10 styles (not counting the XMas style or doing so respectively) be allowed to be used or only styles 0 - 4 and 5 - 8 for Lemmings and (in case we even get so far) ONML respectively?

Still sounds somewhat strange, so could some expert tell whether this is correct, and whether 'resp.' is a valid expression (which it doesn't seem to be)?

One interesting point is that the German 'beziehungsweise', according to the meaning its name implies, is even misused in German just standing for and/or, without a proper relation it should have (as it actually should mean 'each separately in the order mentioned' as well).

Overall, if you find grammatical mistakes (or errors?) in my postings, feel free to tell me, in fact, I'd appreciate that.

[Shvegait]

A most likely grammatically correct version of it would be:

In general, should all 9 or 10 styles (not counting the XMas style or doing so respectively) be allowed to be used or only styles 0 - 4 and 5 - 8 for Lemmings and (in case we even get so far) ONML respectively?

The first part of your sentence sounds very odd, you should probably drop "respectively" there and just say something like: "Should all 9 styles (10 counting Xmas)..." The second part of your sentence is the technically correct usage of respectively, but it still sounds odd, probably because of the parenthetical expression that comes in the way and the fact that it's a question. I'd rephrase it in some way like: "...or only the respective styles of each version?"

I would say, "Should all 9 styles (10 counting Xmas) be used in one combined remake, or should we make separate remakes for Lemmings and ONML, using only each version's respective styles?"

But you could say, "Should all 9 styles (10 counting the Xmas style) be allowed to be used, or only styles 0-4 and 5-8 for Lemmings and ONML, respectively?" I would avoid the parenthetical there if you wish to use "respectively".

Overall, if you find grammatical mistakes (or errors?) in my postings, feel free to tell me, in fact, I'd appreciate that.

I tend to ignore little mistakes, but the reason I pointed it out is because I didn't know at all what you meant. Actually I'd say the word "respectively" isn't used very often, which is probably why it is not usually abbreviated in English... But it's also used differently, which was the source of confusion.

[ccexplore]

So now we have:
Section 1: Elementary
Section 2: Puzzling
Section 3: Cunning
Section 4: Berserk
Section 5: Wacky
Section 6: Absurd

Ah ha, we're definitely getting somewhere!

I'm ok with either "Elementary" or "Basic", although I have to agree Basic is shorter and easier to fit into the screen.

I also think "Puzzling" and "Cunning" don't differentiate the difficulty of the two ratings enough, although if no one comes up with better alternatives, I'm happy with them.

[STT]

How about "Sane" for section 1?

I don't see any reason why all the GFX sets souldn't be included.

[Fleech]

First off, hello :wink:

I play Lemmings using the windows version and this remake idea sounds very interesting. At the moment I have to decompress the level packs then insert each level separately into the game, which is rather tedious to say the least. Even more so when the level isn't solvable with the lower fall limit. To have all the best ones in one easily-playable place would be very nice indeed  :smiley:

I've just finished a 9-level set and uploaded it to the lemmings portal (SgBPack01). If there's anything there you'd like to use then great, no worries if not. They're probably Taxing-Mayhem I guess.

IMO all the graphic sets should be used, the more variety the better. No point limiting it and missing out on loads of good levels...

Anyway, good luck with this thing, it should be great when it's finally done. If I can help in any way I'll try, but I've not played nearly enough levels to be able to really recommend any.

[tseug]

I've just finished a 9-level set and uploaded it to the lemmings portal (SgBPack01). If there's anything there you'd like to use then great, no worries if not. They're probably Taxing-Mayhem I guess.

Looks good. Just upload them to the "remake" section of the portal if you want them to be used.

_________________________


What are we going to do for backroute checking?

[Mossaic91]

Just uploaded 2 of my 10 level packs to the remake section of the file portal, the first one is the moss91 pack from the levelpaks section, but the second one has new levels. None of them are Oh No! style however.

[geoo]

I didn't want to post only off topic again, and apparently overlooked tseug's comment, so this posting appears a little later than it was actually supposed to do. Erm, anyways...

I agree, SgB's levels look very good, I wouldn't sort any of those below Mayhem, for sure! I had a short glance at them, and while giving every one a few tries, I only solved the first one by now. I like them very much.
Btw, I know the Winlemm process for trying new levels. I think there's a LevelAdder somewhere out there, but there's still a lot of differences in the mechanics of WinLemm. My recommendation for now would be using EricLang's Lemmix with its PlayTest feature. Or alternatively, requiring you at least renaming the packs and partly typing in codes for half of the levels if you don't solve the previous one, using CustLemm.

As for backroutes, I think the ones of easy and medium difficulty are not too hard to check for backroutes by the respective authors themselves; the more difficult ones however, whether they are new creations or not, should be extensively checked by the players here, and fixed if necessary, as this seems to be the only possibility to get aware of backroutes I see for now.

Back off topic, grammar talk:

The first part of your sentence sounds very odd, you should probably drop "respectively" there and just say something like: "Should all 9 styles (10 counting Xmas)..." The second part of your sentence is the technically correct usage of respectively, but it still sounds odd, probably because of the parenthetical expression that comes in the way and the fact that it's a question. I'd rephrase it in some way like: "...or only the respective styles of each version?"

I would say, "Should all 9 styles (10 counting Xmas) be used in one combined remake, or should we make separate remakes for Lemmings and ONML, using only each version's respective styles?"

But you could say, "Should all 9 styles (10 counting the Xmas style) be allowed to be used, or only styles 0-4 and 5-8 for Lemmings and ONML, respectively?" I would avoid the parenthetical there if you wish to use "respectively".

With that overly complicated sentence I was sort of trying to explain/justify my thoughts why I had used repectively in that case. Thanks for your suggestions anyway, sounds a lot better than any of my previous versions.

I tend to ignore little mistakes, but the reason I pointed it out is because I didn't know at all what you meant. Actually I'd say the word "respectively" isn't used very often, which is probably why it is not usually abbreviated in English... But it's also used differently, which was the source of confusion.

Ok, thanks for clarifying this. Again, learnt something new. 
Anyway, I don't mind any correction of my mistakes, on little side notes maybe, as it can only help improve my English.

[tseug]

I looked through SgB's pack, and managed to do all except for level 3. My first idea didn't work so I skipped it. :winktounge: I think my solutions to half of the ones I did were backroutes... for the remake it would help if the author of any levels taxing/mayhem included the solutions in some form.

EDIT: I did level 3. No backroutes that I could find... (unless my solution was, which I doubt)

[Fleech]

Thanks for the comments, glad you like them :smiley:.

I was worried there'd be some backroutes in there somewhere. I removed what I could find but I obviously didn't check hard enough.

tseug, I don't suppose you could PM me the levels you think you've backrouted and your solutions? I'll try to get them ironed out if and when you do.

Cheers.

EDIT: Thanks for the advice geoo89. The play-test in Lemmix doesn't work at the moment on my PC, the paths are set wrong and I'd need to move a everything around. Think I'll have a go tomorrow and see if I can fix it.

[tseug]

Is it ok if I just send you Lemmix replays? (that would have to be email though)

[Fleech]

As I've just edited in my previous post, I'm having a little trouble with Lemmix at the moment. I'll PM you my e-mail anyway and try to get it sorted.

[Fleech]

Just when I thought I'd had it worked out and managed to get the play test to work, it won't load the replays...

'invalid replay header different mechanics'

Anyone know what I've done wrong?

[tseug]

You have the wrong style loaded. Set the style to custom lemmings and it should work. You have to specify a path to the custlemm directory.

EDIT: It should work if you just open the pack.