Can a game stand on combat alone?

[Mittens The Kitten]

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.

 

[KissofKetchup]

I would say that Counter-Strike fits into this category for the most part, and therefore yes. However this is still and very well should be few and far between

 

[NightHawk21]

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

 

[Blueruler182]

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

 

[jobobob]

Just cause 2 comes to mind here, story doesn't matter when I just hooked an elderly woman to my plane and go on a high flying adventure to a rave in the sky.

 

[KissofKetchup]

oops double post

 

[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.

 

[mrm5561]

id say yes. bionic commando took forever to load, really no plot, and stupid ai but i still had fun with it due to the combat and swinging around

 

[crudus]

Yes. I played Devil May Cry 3 long after I had grown bored of the story. Also there are games like Counter-Strike and fighting games.

 

[trooper6]

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!

 

[burgbrand22]

Dudes, if such a game exist, give this gamer a holler cause I don't know exactly know if the guy who started this thread is talking theories or reality.

 

[LittleJP]

I've spent over 500 hours in Mount and Blade. Definite yes.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

LOL.

I've played tons of beat 'em ups, so I'm inclined to agree. I was just amused by the example.

 

[Eldarion]

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

This. Even though I'm a huge blazblue fan and that has a great story. You play a fighting game for the gameplay.

Also, beat em ups like devil may cry don't have much more than a setting and a simple plot but they are huge fun.

 

[Judgement101]

Fighting Games in general. I have never seen one with a story.

 

[face_head_mouth]

God Hand. Really, everything in that game is purposefully shoddy and ridiculous except for the amazing combat system.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

Shakespeare is incredibly enjoyable, if you understand what's going on. The problem is that modern readers, even highly educated ones who are capable of understanding it, have a layer of translation between reading or watching his plays, and truly grokking them. I've had exactly one experience where Shakespeare truly came alive, and that was when my freshman lit teacher in highschool had us reading it aloud, encouraging us to point out any double entendres as we went along, and without stopping every couple of sentences to "translate" the material, regardless of difficulty *cough*sophomoreteacher*cough*. You have to have both understanding and delivery down to enjoy his plays, but believe me when I say they were the low-brow entertainment of the day, and people turned out in droves to be entertained.

OT:

Sure, combat alone can carry a combat focused game. Similarly, gameplay alone can easily carry a game regardless of the genre. It it couldn't we wouldn't have classics like Tetris, Super Mario Bros., or Street Fighter II.

 

[FalloutJack]

Nothing but combat... Isn't that what Doom did?

 

[Judgement101]

Nothing but combat... Isn't that what Doom did?

No, Doom also had key card fetching.
(Also, my Captcha is LIMITED IMPACT! yes with the exclamation point, I feel accoplished)

 

[Bearjing]

Here is proof that a game can stand on combat alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntDyECvmnIo