Can a game stand on combat alone?

[DarthFennec]

Yeah, Doom.
... oh wait that had key cards too, never mind. So no.

 

[Omega 380]

I spent hours in Prototype, so I'm inclined to say yes.

I agree with you i really like the game's combat, so many ways to kill people. And God Hand's combat is one of the best i played.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well.
How about those shoot'em'ups or side-scrolling brawlers.

I mean, it's all pew pew pew ... *goes off to play some bullet hell games*

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

There is no universal answer. It depends on the player.

If you are a player that values combat highly, then yes.
If you are a player that values something different more highly, then no.

I'm the sort of player where, for me, games can't stand on combat alone. I don't like fighting games. The lake of story or puzzles bores me. But I recognize that for other people it is great. I can deal with RTS--even the sort of Dynasty Warrior thing that is mostly combat, because there are tactical question involving squad choice and management. But I'm not the sort of player who values combat system or graphics above all else.

But I'm also glad that fighting games exist. I think there should be games for all sorts of players.

Axl loves Fighters? Awesome.
Basil loves RPGs? Bravo!
Clara loves Shooters? Chill!
Donald loves Barbie Horse Adventures? Dayum!

It is all good!

I'd argue that that's less a case of how well the game holds up, and more which audience it's aimed at. For example, I'm not a fan of RTS games because I think the real time element detracts from the strategy, but I recognize that they can stand on the real time mode alone, and don't need to shoehorn in a turn based option just to please me. I'll go play a game that was meant to be turn based from the start instead.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Can a game with poor dialogue, atmosphere, charactarization, graphics, UI and plot still be a great game?
I argue yes, a well-made combat system can carry the almost any flaw.

Pokemon?

Duke Nukem?

Assassin's Creed Multiplayer?

 

[conflictofinterests]

Oh wait, I forgot one bit about the OP.

The UI bit.

Can you really call it good combat if it doesn't have a half-decent user interface?

 

[realslimshadowen]

If you have a bad UI, the entire rest of the game had better well be special, otherwise the game is by default shit. (This doesn't mean a tricky or complex UI; it means bad.)

 

[Feylynn]

What about any fighting game that exists. Core of those games has to be the combat, not much else really matters.

I dispute that. Gameplay in a fighter has a threshold with skill.
I'm bad at fighting games, they aren't my favorite gameplay, but I play them because you find some of the best art and most interesting characters out there. (See Blazblue, Guilty Gear, and Soul Calibur)

I do agree that some people, likely the majority, value gameplay higher.
I won't ever play competitively, I'm there for the characters.

So as my answer to the op, I say any single mechanic has the ability to shine to someone, gameplay isn't 'usually' mine but that's largely because of how poorly most games manage to mix their mechanics with their characters, visuals, audio and story.

Ultimately lacking any element is a disadvantage, I wouldn't play a game that had only game play.

 

[Flying Pilgrim]

Can a game with poor dialogue, atmosphere, charactarization, graphics, UI and plot still be a great game?
I argue yes, a well-made combat system can carry the almost any flaw.

If you want an answer to that, just look at any Call of Duty game. It fits all of those criteria's and yet, people still buy the same game over and over again. Not a single gameplay mechanic has been introduced or taken since Modern Warfare.

 

[Squilookle]

It all depends on whether story, atmosphere and characterisation is attempted or not. You look at a game like Mashed or Battlefield where they aren't even attempted and it doesn't matter. You look at a game like Crysis or Homefront, where they have been attempted and executed poorly, and yes, it does matter.

 

[joebthegreat]

Short answer to your question, look at Minecraft.

Longer answer:

Do multiplayer games need plot, characterization, or dialogue? No, so then games in general do not need those things.

I'd argue that you DO need atmosphere, UI, and graphics* because those things inherently enhance the gameplay, which is the combat in a fighting/shooter. Without a decent UI you can't figure out how to do what you want to do, which limits gameplay. Without decent atmosphere you can't figure out what it even is you should be doing or why. Without decent graphics you can't figure out what is happening in the game. These three elements I would argue are part of the "gameplay" core of any game.

-

*when I use the term graphics I do not mean "top of the line" or "new" or "shiny". Good graphics refers to the ease of distinction between elements in the game. Mario has excellent graphics because you can easily distinguish the player character from the background, and the enemies are immediate and obvious. TF2 has excellent and well thought out graphics as well. Superman 64 has terrible graphics because it is not obvious where you need to go from objects in the world, it is not obvious what will or wont hurt you, or what it is characters in the game are even doing at any given time.

 

[kickyourass]

Hell yeah, I mean out of all the arcade style shooters, beat'um ups, and fighting games (Along with several others I'm probably not thinking of at the moment), there are probably thousands excellent games that are literally nothing but combat.

 

[Saelune]

Go to an Arcade in the 80's and you will find your answer.

 

[acosn]

Short Answer? No.

Long Answer? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Objectively speaking I'd pay maybe 10 bucks (That's how I review games- how much I'd pay for them, where 60 bucks is a game I'd put over 40 hours into) for a game with nothing going for it but a good combat system.

Comparatively I'd pay 30-40 bucks for a game with a passable combat system, but a good story line.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

Some games, yes, but it depends on the genre. A fighting game can throw out plot and rely on the combat system much more effectively than, say, an RPG.

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

What about any fighting game that exists. Core of those games has to be the combat, not much else really matters.

Fighting game and any other game that relies on combat alone.

 

[Mittens The Kitten]

you should rephrase "combat" into "gameplay", since what you said is a truth about gameplay in general, whether it be combat-based or not.

However, when you use the term "great" game, do you really mean a masterpiece, or something that's really enjoyable? For instance, a person might argue that Shakespeare created masterpieces, but they aren't necessarily enjoyable. On the contrary, some people really enjoy silly tv shows which are enjoyable (Wipeout), but are not artistic masterpieces.

Gameplay mechanics are the defining aspect of video games, and I believe that a masterpiece work of gaming can be made by that aspect alone.

 

[zehydra]

you should rephrase "combat" into "gameplay", since what you said is a truth about gameplay in general, whether it be combat-based or not.

However, when you use the term "great" game, do you really mean a masterpiece, or something that's really enjoyable? For instance, a person might argue that Shakespeare created masterpieces, but they aren't necessarily enjoyable. On the contrary, some people really enjoy silly tv shows which are enjoyable (Wipeout), but are not artistic masterpieces.

Gameplay mechanics are the defining aspect of video games, and I believe that a masterpiece work of gaming can be made by that aspect alone.

Can a game with fantastic gameplay with only 2-bit graphics be a masterpiece?

 

[ValentineUK]

There a certain games that can (ie. Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2, etc.) However, I do prefer to have a good story in a game. I still play games like CS and TF2 quite frequently, but the bulk of the games I play are RPGs. So to me, story in a game is pretty big.