I was reading a blog post a few days ago. The author made a comment that there are basically just three types of combat in games. I thought it was an interesting observation – and one I’ve never really thought about.
1. Combat is the game. The combat has to be interesting and strategic. This includes strategy games and fighting games (e.g. Street Fighter).
2. Combat acts as an obstacle or speed-bump to completing the game. This includes games like Mario Brothers and Zelda. Most of the combat in those games (against, say the turtles and mushrooms) is easy, and it acts as an obstacle to rescuing the princess.
3. Combat is used to get experience or items – in other words, it improves your game character in some way. Role-playing games follow this pattern. The blogger made the comment that his friend got bored of combat once his game character was maxed-out in experience.
I do have to wonder, though, how many games include mixtures of all three game elements? Does it make for a better game? I guess the original Zelda does have mixtures of all three: lots of easy enemies that do little more than act as obstacles, a few “boss” monsters that requires some strategy, and they often drop important loot.