From a design standpoint, what's the rationale behind no fall damage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiero Glyph

Isn't that what I just stated by adding a recovery animation?

Also, even if only shields were affected by fall damage would provide enough of a penalty, although I would prefer to have the recovery animation as well.

---

Sorry it wasn't clear but I was effectively agreeing with and adding to what you said.

Fall damage would be fine. A healthy compromise is that the shields drop (overload) from the pressure) when you hit.
I'm always amused when people oppose immersion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciannon

Probably because nobody in the show is going g to die from falling?

---

I like this ^

three words: Suspension of Disbelief

problem solved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenic_Touch

Fall damage would be fine. A healthy compromise is that the shields drop (overload) from the pressure) when you hit.
I'm always amused when people oppose immersion.

---

At least I -understand- why they oppose it. Back when I was playing City of Heroes it was fun to be semi-invulnerable and be able to jump off cliffs without dying. Of course my characters there were in fact superheroes. I see no obvious reason why my characters in this game should be able to pull off the same stunts unless there's an EXPLANATION for it (like shield damage or wearing anti-grav boots or the like).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JadrianN7

three words: Suspension of Disbelief

problem solved!

---

The problem IS there's no adequate explanation for why I should suspend my belief in gravity.
'Just because' doesn't really cut it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TearsInRain

'Just because' doesn't really cut it...

---

Too bad?

I mean really, that's the most you're actually going to get.

As I said earlier, maximum fun (across an aggregate of the gaming population) does not necessarily mean maximum immersion.

I find it an error that gamers have been using the immersion argument as a way of describing quality. But that's a different rant for a different time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kommissar Kaede

Too bad?

I mean really, that's the most you're actually going to get.

As I said earlier, maximum fun (across an aggregate of the gaming population) does not necessarily mean maximum immersion.

I find it an error that gamers have been using the immersion argument as a way of describing quality. But that's a different rant for a different time.

---

Think of it in terms of the Uncanny Valley. A game that looks so close to being realistic yet lacks a key element (like the proper accounting for gravity) can actually be considered MORE annoying than another game that's far from real looking. It's easier to enjoy the unrealistic game because its far from being perfect anyway.

I suppose we'll just have to accept your idea that what makes a game "fun" is not universally accepted. *shrugs*

I wish this thread would die from fall damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TearsInRain

I suppose we'll just have to accept your idea that what makes a game "fun" is not universally accepted. *shrugs*

---

Epiphany in five, four, three...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TearsInRain

Think of it in terms of the Uncanny Valley. A game that looks so close to being realistic yet lacks a key element (like the proper accounting for gravity) can actually be considered MORE annoying than another game that's far from real looking.

---

The thing is, in this sense, gaming as a whole rests within the Uncanny Valley as the entire experience is largely detached from our perception. So unless you have an Occulus Rift setup and are not telling us, there are already plenty of things that are going to place this game on the other side or in the Valley than just gravity or its lack thereof.