• Editorial: What's Wrong with Direct Damage?

    A complaint that I'm seeing here and there is that some people really hate direct damage in this game.I actually really don't understand this at all. In fact, direct damage is probably more thematic in this game than it is in many other games.

    I don't mean that other games can't justify it's inclusion - I mean that direct damage is so closely tied to super heroes that it would be silly to not have such a huge focus on it.

    Some heroes are like Wolverine. They're going to walk up to you and punch you in the face. They can't help it - it's just what they do.

    But others? They're shooting lasers. Cyclops doesn't need to punch you - he's going to look at you and shoot you.

    And there are lots of heroes who do this! Even those who are very melee focused still have some ranged attacks up their sleeves. Batman is more than willing to punch you in the face, but there's a good chance that you'll get knocked around with a Batarang as well.

    Superman can literally knock you into the middle of next week - but he's not averse to using his laser beam eyes as well. Have you ever heard a villain say, "Aw, Superman, the direct damage again? So overpowered." Of course not.

    And why wouldn't it be effective? If I decide to run at you and punch you, there's a lot more time for you to thwart my attempt than if I simply throw a fireball at you. It's just good strategy.

    A superhero game without strong, effective direct damage would be an enormous thematic miss.
    This article was originally published in blog: Editorial: What's Wrong with Direct Damage? started by Dave