Tested, and for Dos it's Yes for everything except midair exits.
Thanks for the info, I've added this to the table.
Fair enough. In that case, I would put (New Formats) or something like that after NL
I don't think that's necessary tbh. By not specifying anything, it's reasonable to assume we're referring to the most recent stable version.
If it becomes necessary due to further discussion, then I'll add version details for clarification. Otherwise, we can leave it as it is.
when it comes to the modern engines , my opinion , is strongly against direct drop.
...
And the reason for that , is because the modern engines allow the creation of very tall levels
...
Imagine spending a lot of time, to build a really, tall level, with the exit , on the bottom part of it.
And also having , a pretty complex, nuanced , and hard to find path , that the player needs to find , in order to lead the lemmings to the exit. But the player instead , just casually finds a backroute on your level , that allows them , to use direct drop to their advantage, and suddenly, you see the all lemmings your level contains , to casually falling from 1500 pixels height , to the exit, and just casually exiting, after having fallen, from the height, that I’ve just described!
Ah, the old "it breaks my level" argument. Difficult to really discuss that because yes, you're right, in that very specific scenario your level would be broken.
But that doesn't mean the entire engine physics should be tailored to that one specific scenario.
Also, a valid counter-argument might be that it actually
isn't as easy as you might think to backroute a level using direct drop. I've done tests across various platforms so far, and in most cases it's really quite difficult to contrive a direct drop scenario when the level isn't specifically set up for it. If a player has worked hard to find a route that facilitates a direct drop solution, why shouldn't they be rewarded for finding that solution?
We have 3 currently-maintained custom engines, 2 of which don't support direct drop, 1 of which does. I'd say that's fair enough in terms of level design options!
In short , very tall levels, are one of my favourite types of levels. But these levels may have their own needs , that may be different, compared to the needs of more regular levels.
The uncomfortable conclusion here is that Lix or NeoLemmix are probably better suited to those types of levels, then! For contrast, here are a few examples of level types that aren't supported by Lix or NeoLemmix (but
are supported by SuperLemmix):
- Levels requiring lemmings to exit in midair (without providing Floaters or Gliders)
- Levels featuring Ballooner, Grenader, Spearer, etc (i.e. the new SLX-exclusive skills)
- Levels allowing Shimmiers to transition to Climber
- Timed Bomber levels
- Superlemming levels
- Levels that require release rate management (supported by NL but not Lix)
- ”Classic”-style levels intended to be played without player assists (technically supported by all, but SLX actively encourages this type of level and provides features to directly support it, whereas the others don't)
- As of the upcoming 2.8, levels in which 2 teams of lemmings each have their own dedicated exit!
The list could go on... Hopefully you get the point - i.e. what one engine provides in terms of level design possibility, another doesn't. That shouldn't necessarily be seen as a bad thing, it's just part of that engine's personality. We're actually quite lucky in this community to have so much choice!
And that also makes the discussion and comparison , between older ports and engines , mostly meaningless imo! How many of the older ports/engines contained levels , that are over 1000 pixels tall?
One type of level design doesn't render an entire topic meaningless. There are many reasons why Forum users might be interested to see, at a glance, which ports behave in which ways.
It might be meaningless
to you specifically, but that doesn't mean the topic shouldn't exist, or doesn't provide value to other users.
Also when discussing how the physics should work, I think gameplay and puzzle quality, should take priority, over consistency between different mechanisms.
The problem with this is as I've outlined above:
there are infinite gameplay and puzzle possibilities, especially with a game as complex and nuanced as Lemmings; it all depends on the many possibilities that custom level design presents. Why should one design be favoured over another when it comes to deciding on engine physics? The answer is that
it shouldn't. Decide on the physics first, then design levels to suit the engine.
Or, if you disagree, how do we decide which gameplay/puzzle elements should determine physics, and which shouldn't?
I suppose it comes down to personal preference. I personally would always want to be able to drop lems directly into the exit. That represents good gameplay to me - it makes sense, and I would expect it to happen (and did, when I was playing on Windows 95 - it came as a surprise to me when I went back to Amiga and it didn't happen!)
Water and continuous traps such as fire don't represent an inconsistency regardless of how direct drop is handled
Yes, I realise that. By "traps" I mean triggered traps, not water or fire objects. I've updated the OP to clarify.
direct drop into a trap generally doesn't change things much; the lemming is dead either way and the only real difference is what goes on the death certificate
This is probably the only reason why there is an argument to be had, in fairness. DD for exits results in an entirely different and potentially game-breaking* behaviour. For traps, it makes no difference to the actual lemming themselves - although, it does momentarily disable the trap for other lems: a reason in favour of keeping direct drop for traps, perhaps.
*i.e. game-breaking either way: a level that needs direct drop is broken in the absence of direct drop, as much as the reverse is true. I’d still advocate for the engine providing consistent physics than trying to fix the level, though.
Consider the actual visual representations of objects, i.e. how they are presented to the player, not how the game sees them internally.
...
The visual design of exits is basically a building with stairs, and in official levels ... The animations and boing sound effect also seem to communicate more that the Lemmings actively leap into the exit, rather than passively get sucked in
With any given exit design, I would expect to be able to drop lemmings directly into it from above, regardless of fall distance.
I don't so much imagine that the exit sucks the lemming in as imagine that the exit itself is an entirely "safe zone" for the lemming: regardless of how they access that area, it prevents death and allows the lemming to be saved. Maybe the steps have anti-splat pads on them (another way to simulate DD in NeoLemmix).
