• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Enemy Variety Vs. Enemy Depth

Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Some of you probably know about the editorial I posted on this topic earlier this week. You can read that if you want to know my in-depth thoughts on the subject but...

Basically, which do you think is better? Having a lot of enemies, or giving each enemy a lot of depth? I myself don't think either is objectively better... they're just different and I think a balance works best in Zelda.

This also relates to a criticism Skyward Sword has received; people say it didn't have enough unique enemies, with too many copies or variants of the same enemy design... even though Skyward Sword had close to as many enemies as most other Zelda games, and even had more than some.

Thoughts? Discuss!
 
While I do agree that Skyward Sword featured a plethora of any enemies for a Zelda game and more variations of specific enemies such as Bokoblins, Deku Babas, and Chuchus these enemies were poorly designed aesthetically and stifled progression up the difficulty gradient very quickly. In my opinion the Stalfos Warrior is the toughest non boss foe in Skyward Sword and it is introduced in the Ancient Cistern. That leaves the entire second half of the game with no truly heavy duty enemies. I find it perplexing that Nintendo forwent inclusion of Iron Knuckles or Darknuts. Every 3D console Zelda game prior featured one or the other and they provided for a healthy challenge. It would appear as though the company didn't wish to alienate core segments of its target audience by pairing these creatures with motion controls.

You highlight Ocarina of Time and its enemies profusely in your article, Axle, and even though the game quantitatively features not many more enemies they're design is superior and increasingly diverse. There are insects with the Gohma Larva and Skulltula, undead creatures in the forms of Redeads and Gibdos, traditional dangerous denizens along the lines of octoroks, keese, and likes likes, and aquatic enemies like Biri and Bari. Ganon's arsenal of minions covered all fronts and nearly every foe was recurring. Also reading Seth Taylor Moore's comment on your article I must agree that progression across connected regions in games like Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess contributed to a more natural progression and a fuller view of the grand schematic.
 

HyruleLove

Twilight Princess
Joined
May 9, 2011
Location
Puerto Rico
Both options sound great. Can we have both? xD Who doesn't like variety, and who doesn't like a good challenge? I have the say that Skyward Sword enemies did make you think a bit before attacking, which is good and different for a change. Thats what I would think the fans would want, but now I think they should work towards improving it.

As for Skyward Sword not having a variety of enemies, I dont know, I kinda have to agree.We saw way more bokoblins than any other enemy. Of course there were a few minor tweaks in each region, but in the end they still were bokoblins. Even though I have to agree that they could have had more of a variety, it really is not that big of a deal to me.

If I had to choose over variety or a lot of depth, Id have to choose enemy depth.
 

Lord Death

Bichon Frise
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Location
Chicago, IL
I think I'd choose variety. In games, especially towards the end, I like to see the fruits of my labor, so if I can easily and quickly bring an enemy to the ground, that doesn't necessarily bother me. I would, however, be bothered by facing the same enemy (or small variations of them) over and over again. That actually was one of my main gripes about Skyward Sword. After the first two minutes of the final descent towards Ghirahim, I said to myself, "Am I really only going to see Bokoblins?" It didn't matter what kind of Bokoblin they were, I just wanted to face something else. Really balancing the two would be perfect, and we all want that, but until then, I'd have to pick variety over depth.
 

Mr.Verto

爆発物マネージャ
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Location
Not in the SB ;-;
I do believe SS enemies aren't the best in the series, and they could've been improved greatly.

The design is hardly an issue...I really don't understand why people have trouble with that. What I do understand is that most enemies (Bokoblins) look exactly the same with few varying differences between areas.

We saw no "new" enemies and if we did they were few and would be hard to notice. They were re-used in each area, and after the first area they seemed bland and easy as they were used for tutorial.

It is understandable that a basic enemy unit (Bokoblin) can be find anywhere everytime. But being what they are "basic" they should be made for a swift kill. Instead we get huge crowds of these guys who do nothing but block, this makes the game seem tedious (like a crocodile smashing game) and much less fluent.

Stalfos, in SS case, a rare enemy, is ok to give it a decent difficulty with a few tricks here and there. But they were so rare (or any other enemy who did need skill to kill for a purpose) that they just blend in with the mess. While Bokoblins, Babas and Chu Chus where so common (an enemy that doesn't any skill to kill, but in this case that does) that they make big enemies seem like just another stone in the road.

In my opinion, what we do need is a balance of variety and depth. We don't need a thousand enemies if they are all fought the same and neither we need 10 enemies that are everywhere everytime that take ages to kill.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
I prefer variety of enemies over depth of enemies, though both combined is superior by far. Also note that Skyward sword really didn't have that much enemy variety, having about 30 unique enemy species.

Skyward Sword's enemies really weren't really as deep as they are given credit for , deeper than previous installments in the series, but still rather shallow, the strategy shared by nearly all enemies was spending most of the time blocking either vertically or horizontally, and then after an unnecessary amount of preparation and buildup, executing a move from their arsenal of one or two possible attacks.

Enemies in previous games also tended to have one or two possibly attacks as well, but this was not as big a deal as (at least) I was focusing more on what type of enemy I was fighting. The variety of enemies in previous titles allowed a wide range of possible combative abilities. Also, some enemies, such as Twilight Princess's Darknuts, were very Dynamic and felt far deeper than any enemy or mini-boss in Skyward Sword, with the flow of the battle changing drastically near the end of each encounter.

I really wish Skyward Sword had included deeper versions of the classic enemies, but instead we got enemies that focused almost entirely on blocking, and far top many varieties of a single enemy (I'm looking at you, Bokoblins).
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
I'd much rather have enemies with depth. One of the reasons ALttP is my least-favorite Zelda game is the enemies. They're all so simple and nearly void of strategy, something the previous two titles had significantly more of. If I'm gonna play a game with arcade-like enemies, I'll go play a Metroid title, or something, where the combat is based off of "run 'n gun" action. In a game like Zelda, enemies without strategy feel empty to me, making their interactions bland. That's not to say that I don't want action involved in the fights, but when all enemies do is throw defense to the wind just so they can attack like madmen in a Zelda game, I feel somewhat shortchanged. Same sort of situation in TP, but at least that game had the Hidden Skills to keep the action fluent.

On the other hand, enemies that require thought and on-the-fly reaction skills really get me pumped and keep me wanting more. That's a big reason I like SS's enemies (and it actually did have a pretty decent amount of variety). They were exactly that. I wouldn't mind a balance between the two, but I honestly thing variety only degrades the enemies' potential in the end. Variety can be a good thing, but it doesn't really help the enemies if they're all hack and slash.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom