contact damage in action games

[deleted35362]

do you generally approve of it, or not? you know, taking damage just by touching enemies(or getting hit by a parked car). i mean of course you don't like taking damage in the games, but do you prefer the mechanic to be there?

personally i prefer it, because the game will be designed around having that property. if it's not there, i feel like they have a freepass to throw more enemies at you while i have to keep track of a mess of attack telegraphs. gunstar heroes...that's a good example of why i prefer there to be contact damage because that game gets ridiculous early on. that game is just not for me.

[Jedi]

I personally don't mind it, maybe that's just because I am old school though. I feel it makes you more careful and can make some moments more tense, also it tests timing depending as well

[Magical CC]

I understand why you lose hp or die by crashing with enemy in rail shooter games or racing games. But why some platform games, especially the old ones....the moment you touch your opponent, you die or lose hp. Now that is weird. You are Belmont, the vampire killer, you just happen to touch a skeleton and...and you lose hp? Even falling from 15m didnt faze you at all...just...why?

Edited December 24, 2013 by Char

[Elieson]

Oh noes, Megaman got hurt because he ran into the immobile turret!

I think it's a silly.mechanic

[Tables]

Oh noes, Megaman got hurt because he ran into the immobile turret!

I think it's a silly.mechanic

Reminds me of http://brawlinthefamily.keenspot.com/2009/02/20/141-bluebombervsblueblur/

I personally think the mechanic worked in a lot of retro games, but with technological advances, it needs more justification to be included. If you're going for a retro style game, it makes sense, but if I just touch something in a modern game, there should be some reason I'm hurt.

[deleted35362]

I understand why you lose hp or die by crashing with enemy in rail shooter games or racing games. But why some platform games, especially the old ones....the moment you touch your opponent, you die or lose hp. Now that is weird. You are Belmont, the vampire killer, you just happen to touch a skeleton and...and you lose hp? Even falling from 15m didnt faze you at all...just...why?

it's not about how much sense it makes realstically because well...again, "getting hit by a parked car", but i'm talking about from a game design standpoint, because it does make it a lot clear where the hitboxes are, because i know not to touch anything. if they don't have contact damage, there's more justification to flood the screen with enemies.

[Zera]

What I find weird is that most games that have contact damage don't let YOU hurt enemies by touching them. May as well make it fair, right?

In all honesty, it depends entirely on the kind of game. If a game has few enemies, that don't have strong attacks, it may be a good way to keep it challenging.

[BrightBow]

I don't think that it would be worth it if let's say Castlevania would bother to have a Medusa head gnaw at your face for a few seconds just to get the point across that this is how you receive damage.

It's better to keep it simple: You get hit and get knocked back. You try not to regain control of the situation. You continue to proceed. Face gnawing would just disrupt the flow.

And as weird as getting hurt by touching a turret is, it's easier for the player.

If touching some enemies would hurt you while others wouldn't, then you would have no choice but to guess which do. And getting a Game Over because of Trial and Error gameplay is very disheartening.

[Jedi]

What I find weird is that most games that have contact damage don't let YOU hurt enemies by touching them. May as well make it fair, right?

In all honesty, it depends entirely on the kind of game. If a game has few enemies, that don't have strong attacks, it may be a good way to keep it challenging.

More recent Sonic games kind of have you running into contact knocking out enemies but then again that's due to a super sonic boost