[DISC][PLAYER] Side-quests in levels

[WillLem]

∫tan x dx posted the following as a suggestion:

Consider a special talisman item that can be placed within a level. If a lemming collects this item, similarly to collecting a pickup or activating a button, then this satisfies a talisman criteria.
The criteria itself may be defined as "Collect [N] talismans".

The object itself would have no impact on gameplay, other than encouraging players to go out of their way to find a solution which sees the item being collected.

This opens up possibilities for level creators to encourage "thinking outside of the box" when it comes to interesting (but totally optional) solutions.

From a certain viewpoint, this is already technically possible. Consider one or more cloner powerups placed at certain points around a level. If the normal save requirement is, for instance, "Save 50/50", then a talisman may require "Save 53/50". However, such a solution may cause unintended backroutes due to the power of the cloner skill. Further, if a level already has all its skill slots used up, then this is infeasible.

The suggestion was unfortunately dismissed. However, I'd be interested in having a general discussion about in-level side-quests, and ways to make them possible.

"Go get the Cloner pickup" is indeed one I use frequently, however I agree with ∫tan that it's not exactly ideal. Certainly not as ideal as (for example) a Star Coin in a Mario game - it takes up a skill slot, and opens up backroute potential. However, I would consider this the best option (that I know of) if done carefully.

Multiple Exits is the most obvious one. It doesn't have quite the same sense of achievement as collecting a talisman, but if you know that you have reached both exits in a particular level, then there is some satisfaction that came come from that. This option can impact gameplay more than you might think, since one of the exits could be a not-so-obvious red herring which has the player trying to reach it when it is, in fact, impossible. This makes it actually more of a problem than most of the other suggestions on this list.

Get to the teleporter rather than the exit is an idea I had a while ago that I have yet to try. Basically, there would be a route to the exit as normal, but also a more obscure route to a teleporter which effectively teleports the lemmings to the same (or a different) exit. It's slightly different from simply having a "multiple exit" level, since there could be other actions or puzzles to complete on the other side of the teleporter, which the teleporter itself could impact (since teleporters usually spawn lemmings facing in both directions).

Unlock the exit is another way to do it, since the player must get to all of the buttons. However, this also tends to impact regular gameplay, to the point where it is often the only way to solve the level, as opposed to being a side-quest. It also doesn't really completely get rid of the possibility of using a regular exit as a red herring.

Using a Time limit talisman creatively could work, since there could be a solution which is only possible within a certain time limit, and the player then has to find that solution. This is much more difficult from a design point of view than, say, collecting a Cloner pickup. However, it is a viable way to ensure that a certain route is taken through a level if done very carefully.

Anybody have any other ideas?

Incidentally, namida mentioned that ∫tan's suggestion is one that has been shot down previously. Whilst I am used to certain ideas not being popular within the community, this one surprises me - it seems an obvious way to build replay value/alternative solutions into a level whilst not necessarily opening up potential for backroutes...

[WillLem]

I thought of another idea after posting, which I'll definitely be trying at some point:

Have a save requirement of X, and a Talisman of X+1. There is a neutral pre-placed lemming in a difficult-to-reach place, and a nearby teleporter (which the neutral lemming cannot reach without assistance), which leads to the exit. This way, the worker must reach the lemming and then simply guide them to the nearby teleporter (as opposed to necessarily all the way through the level).

It's an idea that opens up backroute potential due to the necessity of having (an) extra skill(s) to allow the neutral lemming to reach the teleporter, but it's another one that could work if done right.

[IchoTolot]

I really see no point here as we already have talismans.

And they don't make a lot of sense as they can already be simulated:

- Go get the Cloner pickup: Add a button

- Multiple Exits: Make exits limited so that all have to be used

- Get to the teleporter rather than the exit: Make the teleporter the exit

- Unlock the exit:  Make it a seperate level in the first place

Have a save requirement of X, and a Talisman of X+1. There is a neutral pre-placed lemming in a difficult-to-reach place, and a nearby teleporter (which the neutral lemming cannot reach without assistance), which leads to the exit. This way, the worker must reach the lemming and then simply guide them to the nearby teleporter (as opposed to necessarily all the way through the level).

Make a version of the level where this is in the intended solution.

[grams88]

Hi guys

The multiple exit idea does sound somewhat not bad. It reminded me of the X marks the spot level where I think there was a hidden exit to the right of the map. I would be more of a put it in the original level rather than make it a side quest but anyway it does sound not a bad idea for having it as a side quest if the author does decide to do that.

[Proxima]

Incidentally, namida mentioned that ∫tan's suggestion is one that has been shot down previously. Whilst I am used to certain ideas not being popular within the community, this one surprises me - it seems an obvious way to build replay value/alternative solutions into a level whilst not necessarily opening up potential for backroutes...

I don't quarrel with namida closing the topic, because we've decided on "no new physics suggestions", but I do think that "this idea has been shot down in the past" is a misrepresentation of what happened.

Old NeoLemmix had secret level triggers, which were an invisible object that, if a lemming touched them, would immediately end play of the level and take you to a secret level. This concept had some good features -- the excitement of unlocking secret content, and the extra challenge of finding and reaching the triggers -- but they were rarely used; there was a general feeling against secret/locked content in general; and the triggers being invisible was an extra annoyance -- especially as you could think a level was solved and then have your solution invalidated by running into a secret level trigger.

At the same time as the gimmicks cull, namida asked whether secret level triggers should also be culled, and they went down without much of a fight.

How this links with the current discussion is that there could be talismans for finding a secret level. I did suggest that an obvious solution to the annoyance of invisible triggers was to make them visible -- but by then the cull was already decided. Also, I was mainly making the suggestion because I wanted to find a way to preserve secret levels -- the idea of keeping a (visible) trigger object specifically for talismans, entirely separately from secret levels, simply never came up in the discussion.

[namida]

I don't really feel like digging through the closed topics, but I'm pretty sure that the "talisman unlock object" has been suggested much more recently than the gimmick / secret level cull? (As in, during the new-formats era at least.)

[Proxima]

I had completely forgotten this, but you're right about the suggestion being made. My apologies.

Still, after reading through the topic, I still don't feel that "shot down" is a good summary. Only a few people contributed to the discussion, but of those, all were at least somewhat in favour, except Nepster. Most likely, Nepster being against it is why it was allowed to quietly slip off the radar until it got forgotten.

[WillLem]

And they don't make a lot of sense as they can already be simulated

"It can already be simulated" is an argument you use a lot, and it doesn't always necessarily fit. Also, simulating something is usually not as good as getting the real deal.

- Multiple Exits: Make exits limited so that all have to be used

Great idea, but then it wouldn't be a side-quest, which is what I'm attempting to explore here. This response can also be applied to your other suggestions; the whole point here is that I'm looking at adding things to levels which are not part of the main solution. There currently aren't a lot of options for this.

I would be more of a put it in the original level rather than make it a side quest

At least in the case of an alternative multiple exit, putting it in the original level is making it a side-quest, I would've thought. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a "side-quest" actually is...

To my understanding, it's anything that can be done in a game which is not part of the main objective/storyline but which can be done alongside it (hence the term "side-quest"). So, Star Coins in Super Mario Bros., secrets items in Tomb Raider II, and indeed Talismans in NeoLemmix.

If I'm wrong about this definition, please let me know and I'll change the OP/title so it's clearer.

Old NeoLemmix had secret level triggers, which were an invisible object that, if a lemming touched them, would immediately end play of the level and take you to a secret level.
...
an obvious solution to the annoyance of invisible triggers was to make them visible ... I was mainly making the suggestion because I wanted to find a way to preserve secret levels -- the idea of keeping a (visible) trigger object specifically for talismans, entirely separately from secret levels, simply never came up in the discussion.

Secret levels are a great idea, and I'm sure that the fact they became associated with "invisible stuff" played a part in their demise.

Then again, how else could you make something secret other than by hiding it? Maybe something that was visible, but could be hidden behind terrain, would've worked better (but also runs into the same argument against hidden/invisible objects).

Personally, I think hiding things is nowhere near as bad as making them invisible. At least if something is hidden, it can be found (and there is often the joy of discovery that comes along with it), whereas invisible stuff is mostly unfair, even I can admit that.

A Talisman object in-game would be a great idea for NeoLemmix. It's a familiar concept, we already have the graphic, and there could even be Bronze, Silver and Gold ones - each harder to reach than the last. I think namida was too quick to dismiss the idea, in all honesty. I understand that he's looking to get things wrapped up for NL, but surely that means that now more than ever is the time to comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents.

I do think that "this idea has been shot down in the past" is a misrepresentation of what happened.
...I still don't feel that "shot down" is a good summary.

I was actually quoting namida, who pointed out in response to ∫tan's suggestion that the idea had already been "shot down".

Only a few people contributed to the discussion, but of those, all were at least somewhat in favour, except Nepster. Most likely, Nepster being against it is why it was allowed to quietly slip off the radar until it got forgotten.

Yes, I can certainly see how one of the "big boys" being against something makes it far too easily dismissable/forgotten. That's why I try to keep discussions going: I dislike easy, undiscussed dismissal of ideas especially by established long-time community members.

Having said that, I can understand the frustration of the same ideas coming up again and again and so having to have the same discussions. The flipside of this, of course, is that if an idea is coming up again and again, it's probably because people like it. Ideally, this should make people re-think their stance on it (and often does, thankfully), but it can also have the affect of strengthening people's resistance to it. I guess it depends on what sort of person you are and how strongly you felt about the idea in the first place.

[namida]

I think namida was too quick to dismiss the idea, in all honesty. I understand that he's looking to get things wrapped up for NL, but surely that means that now more than ever is the time to comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents.

No, it means that (as far as physics are concerned) the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" has passed and it is now time to focus on implementing the remaining ideas that have been accepted (or at least, discussions on have been opened), so that NL's physics can be declared finalized eventually.

Now would be the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" for UI features, if that's what you want to call it, on the other hand.

[WillLem]

No, it means that (as far as physics are concerned) the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" has passed and it is now time to focus on implementing the remaining ideas that have been accepted (or at least, discussions on have been opened), so that NL's physics can be declared finalized eventually.

Now would be the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" for UI features, if that's what you want to call it, on the other hand.

I thought you'd called time on UI suggestions as well...?

[namida]

No, it means that (as far as physics are concerned) the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" has passed and it is now time to focus on implementing the remaining ideas that have been accepted (or at least, discussions on have been opened), so that NL's physics can be declared finalized eventually.

Now would be the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" for UI features, if that's what you want to call it, on the other hand.

I thought you'd called time on UI suggestions as well...?

I've set cutoff dates for them, but those dates have not yet passed.

[IchoTolot]

"It can already be simulated" is an argument you use a lot, and it doesn't always necessarily fit. Also, simulating something is usually not as good as getting the real deal.

It is not the real deal, but if the simulated behavior doesn't require extreme adjustments then why add all the extra functionality and overload the game with it. We already got talismans for this secondary stuff anyway!

Great idea, but then it wouldn't be a side-quest,

Why does it 100% needs to be a side quest?

Make a bonus rank and do these as challenge levels for example. We don't need an extra bunch of implementations for this!

Also, let's say side-quests are not really fitting for puzzle games in my opinion and even in other games they can be really really badly designed.

Lemmings / Puzzle games: 

Your goal is to solve the puzzle. We got the possibility for talismans which require the fulfillment of further optional objectives.
If we want a completely different objective to be the goal then it is no problem to make a dedicated version of the level which is much cleaner as to clutter the level with even more mechanics. Those side quests often don't aid with the main goal on top of that. They are a seperate matter from the main puzzle and should therefore be handles in a seperate puzzle.

In summary: We got talismans and those suggested side-quest should rather be their own level or a talisman. We don't need extra clutter for that. Instead we can choose better things to add in the final version!

Yes, I can certainly see how one of the "big boys" being against something makes it far too easily dismissable/forgotten. That's why I try to keep discussions going: I dislike easy, undiscussed dismissal of ideas especially by established long-time community members. ...  The flipside of this, of course, is that if an idea is coming up again and again, it's probably because people like it. Ideally, this should make people re-think their stance on it (and often does, thankfully), but it can also have the affect of strengthening people's resistance to it.

In a lot of cases the main argument is a simple: It would be cool!

There are more factors than pure popular vote though!

In the case of Nepster/Namida for example they can see the rough effort it takes to implement this inside the code and we always need to consider the ammount of complexity we add to the game to the actual gain we get from the new features.

So a bunch of people simply cheering "Yay we want that!" is not automatically an automatic implement. The code, gain in functionality and complexity issue needs to be examined as well and this a seperate matter from the popular vote.

Recent example: Grenader/Spearer. A lot of people were for the addition, but bug-affinity was the downfall.

There is a point where concerns about the code, program complexity and too little gain from the new features - or simply redundancy of features - needs to overrule pure popularity!

This is not just my own opinion here, I've heard whole lectures about this topic!

Example: The terms software evolution and software maintenance

"Maintenance is continued development, except that (...)
existing large software is never complete and continues to
evolve. As it evolves, it grows more complex unless some
action is taken to reduce this complexity."
from Lehman et al., 1997

The achievement of evolution: Changing software in a controlled and effective manner.

The topic introduces a lot of laws and problems like "Increasement of complexity" and the "Conservation of Familiarity" for example.

It also describes a dilemma:

- Not changing at all is problematic (aging due to lack of movement)
- Changing is problematic (aging due to "ignorant surgery" - aka just changing stuff regardless of the original design goal with much understanding and also adding redundant features)

Complexity/redundancy in code and mechanics is a serious issue!

As a result, new features must bring serious improvements to usability or need to introduce new bahaviors fitting to the game which cannot yet be easily replicated. Otherwise we just make the program more complex without having much return as a result.

Maybe now you also understand a bit better why I am more on the sceptical side on new additions. For UI improvements/options like https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5317.0 you suggested I am more open, but here you really have to convince me!

And let's say with talismans and the ability to make seperate challenge versions of the levels I am not sold. It is by far not a nessesity to have challenges as side-quests!

[Proxima]

In summary: We got talismans and those suggested side-quest should rather be their own level or a talisman.

As I see it, that's the point of the current discussion. How can a "get to point X" goal be made into a talisman? If we can come up with a satisfactory solution, then we (WillLem, ∫tan and those of us in favour of the proposed talisman object) have something we can use instead. If not, then maybe we should petition namida to say that we think this does come under the heading of "unresolved existing suggestion" rather than "new suggestion".

So let's talk about the "how".

Cloner pickup: As already mentioned, this allows saving one extra lemming, so there can be a talisman for saving R + 1 (where R is the original save requirement). The problem is that the cloner is a very powerful skill and could enable backroutes -- although with careful construction, getting to the cloner pickup could use up enough skills that the cloner can't be used to break the level.

Button: If the main exit is unlocked, you could have a button that unlocks an exit in an isolated part of the level, where there is a pre-placed lemming. The talisman would then, again, be for saving 1 above the normal requirement. The only drawbacks are that this can't be used if the level already has buttons and a locked main exit; and it requires a construction that's not at all typical of Lemmings levels and so draws attention to itself.

Walker pickup: If there is a pre-placed blocker or the main solution requires a blocker, a walker pickup could be used in conjunction with a talisman for (again!) saving 1 above the requirement. As before, this could potentially be awkward from the backroute point of view.

Limited-number exit: This seems to be maybe the "cleanest" solution. The level's main exit could have a limit of R, and there is a talisman for saving R + 1, requiring a lemming to navigate to another exit. To prevent backroutes, the second exit has a limit of 1. The only drawback I can see is that it doesn't allow the designer to require "get to point X and get back", which the talisman object would.

[WillLem]

In the case of Nepster/Namida for example they can see the rough effort it takes to implement this inside the code and we always need to consider the ammount of complexity we add to the game to the actual gain we get from the new features.

So a bunch of people simply cheering "Yay we want that!" is not automatically an automatic implement. The code, gain in functionality and complexity issue needs to be examined as well and this a seperate matter from the popular vote.

Absolutely, which is why namida (and other devs) ultimately have the power of veto.

Some ideas are less valuable than others, this we can agree on. If an idea keeps coming up again and again though, whilst it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be implemented purely on popularity (we can also agree here), it perhaps does mean that it's worth further investigation into its complexity:reward ratio, as opposed to outright dismissal.

It also describes a dilemma:

- Not changing at all is problematic (aging due to lack of movement)
- Changing is problematic (aging due to "ignorant surgery" - aka just changing stuff regardless of the original design goal with much understanding and also adding redundant features)

This seems an unnecessarily negative view of the concept of progress. It's possible for things not to change and to remain beautiful and relevant, whilst it's also possible for things to change very much for the better (where a lack of change would have resulted in stagnation). These things can't be held up to a universal standpoint; rather each idea must be taken upon its own merit.

As a result, new features must bring serious improvements to usability or need to introduce new bahaviors fitting to the game which cannot yet be easily replicated. Otherwise we just make the program more complex without having much return as a result.

Agreed. Further to this, discussion and testing is often necessary to establish usability; unique concepts that can be simulated often bring about their own un-simulatable side-behaviours, advantages (and disadvantages, sure) as well.

with talismans and the ability to make seperate challenge versions of the levels I am not sold. It is by far not a nessesity to have challenges as side-quests!

Not necessary, sure; but - a lot of fun, and builds enjoyable re-play value into a level/pack. It's not for everyone, of course, but those of us who enjoy it are bound to notice when it's missing (hence the repeated suggestion and subsequent support in favour of it).

"Keeping the game clean" is important as well, I totally agree. Thankfully, when designing levels we have the option (and indeed the luxury) to make them exactly as we see fit.

Button: If the main exit is unlocked, you could have a button that unlocks an exit in an isolated part of the level, where there is a pre-placed lemming. The talisman would then, again, be for saving 1 above the normal requirement.

Brilliant idea

Walker pickup: If there is a pre-placed blocker or the main solution requires a blocker, a walker pickup could be used in conjunction with a talisman for (again!) saving 1 above the requirement.

Trickier to implement, but could also work!

Limited-number exit: This seems to be maybe the "cleanest" solution. The level's main exit could have a limit of R, and there is a talisman for saving R + 1, requiring a lemming to navigate to another exit.

Another brilliant idea

This could be used where navigating back to the main exit isn't part of the Talisman.



I still think that collectible Bronze, Silver and Gold in-level Talismans would make a neat idea for NeoLemmix, without presenting too many (if any) of the "complexity" issues alluded to by Icho.