It depends. If you think of player health as a cushion of foregiveness against mistakes, it'd make sense for the entire game to be beatable without ever taking any damage. If you think of player health as a resource to be spent, then it's fine if you have to take a lot of damage and manage it so that you just barely survive. Spelunky would be a good example of the first type of design; most RPGs would fall into the second category.
I replayed an old NES game called Faxanadu recently, and it stuck out to me that there were a lot of places where I took unavoidable damage. Enemies were sometimes placed haphazardly in such a way that I'd take a hit as soon as I came through a door, with no way to dodge it. This is something I don't normally see in a modern action game. It was a surprisingly jarring problem in an otherwise excellent game.
Maybe the distinction is the type of skill the game asks of the player? If it's a game of reflex, making all damage avoidable makes sense. If it's a game of planning and strategy, unavoidable damage might just come with the territory.
Thank you for good answer. In my game... player can get a skills where he could easily dodge at least few of attacks with limited amount of mana. If I take this approach.. It will have more of strategy aspect. I think this will be fine then? The the boss attacks are easy dodge but when he gets in second state.. He will attack and do some projectiles at same time.. This part how it becomes hard to avoid his attack... So using skill in this section would be more useful. Yeah I dont like the old game design approach where they put enemies in very narrow space and then yoU will get hit almost automatically. They had plenty of this stuff in games such Alundra and even in links awakening. I will try to get rid of unfairness as possible.
Developer
