(09-09-2015, 08:00 PM)Koh Wrote: I don't disagree with that though o.o. As I've already said, it makes sense in some scenarios. Touching an enemy covered in spikes, touching an enemy made of fire, getting hit by an enemy that's rushing you with a charge attack, getting squashed by a bouncing heavy enemy...those all make sense. What doesn't make sense is getting hurt by touching an enemy that's just standing there, casually walking back and forth, or just flying aimlessly.
I'm gonna be honest, I think "doesn't make sense" is a bit of a lazy argument. Mario is a plumber who jumps on sentient mushrooms with legs and hits floating blocks that produce coins. You can't tell me that in such a universe contact damage "doesn't make sense".
In a realistic game, that is trying to be realistic, then yes the mechanics should ideally be realistic and make sense. But in a lot of games (if not most), simply "making sense" is not a large concern.
I agree with TomGuycott, it really does depend on the game. Art style, gameplay, design. Also, even if hardware isn't as restrictive nowadays, budget and resources still are, especially for indie developers. Sometimes you just don't have the budget to hire an animator, or the engine you use just works best with contact damage (e.g. if you use a platformer engine that already has built-in enemy mechanics).
Seriously, just like any aspect of a game, there are so many factors that affect whether contact damage is acceptable or not. Sometimes people will use it badly, but that doesn't mean the mechanic itself is bad.