Not just because of how weirdly clunky it is (I actually kind of like that: it adds a more awkward, keep-your-elbows-in-to-stay-warm kind of feel), but for the atmosphere of the game in general. It's as if they had this wonderful first-person adventure game and then shoehorned in whatever the hell those screeching zombies/madmen are at the last second.

I think the combat could have been better, but I wouldn't say it would be better off without it. To make it interesting without combat they would have needed a lot of good puzzles, and I think there's only so much they could do with the environment they created. I think the mix of combat and 'adventure' worked well. 

No the game dont have good enough puzzles to hold on its own without combat, but I like it any way, it helps making the game harder, and keeps you  more on edge because you know you can easily die, reminds me a lot of the first resident evil where you knew tha every encounter  with an enemy could be the last. The game is good the way it is. 

Maybe...I've never actually thought of it that way. Personally, I think the game had a reasonable amount of varied combat - it wasn't excessive and it didn't get in the way of anything else. It definitely would have made it scarier though; there were only a few parts which I felt were genuinely scary (the underwater part near the beginning, the spider...thing, the dog area). 
 
Anyway, I don't think the enemies were exactly unwarranted - they all had their own symbolism and they made sense in terms of both stories.