How many types of enemy in a game?

[16-bit Fighter]

Putting a lot of types of enemy is good way to avoid a boring play. But could there be too much types? I mean, the player needs to understand enemies patterns little by little through stages. So is there a sort of maximum types of enemy we can't go beyond otherwhise the fun factor could decrease? And globally how to insert a lot of different enemies (like 15 or more in the game, not in an enemies group) without giving headache to the player?
Sorry if I'm unclear.

 

[DCurrent]

@16-bit Fighter

You're sort of looking at from the wrong angle. This marks the second time you asked this sort of question, and the answer hasn't changed. Worrying about putting in too much variety of something from a quality standpoint is nonsensical. It doesn't work like that. Instead, it's a facet that is necessary in some amount, and then starts to show diminishing returns.

Nobody will ever say: "Oh, this game would be so great, but it just has too many types of enemies.", and conversely they'll never say "This game would have sucked, but it had a ton of different enemies, so that saved it!", but they WILL say "This was a great game, but it did get kind of repetitive after a while - should have had more enemies to fight."

In other words, you have to have some variety, and after that it's gravy - more may not add much, but it won't hurt unless you do it at the expense other necessary things. I could write a whole lot more, but that starts to get into design theory, which could easily become a book. The short version is no one property exists in a vacuum. What's your whole goal and how do you intended to reach it?

HTH
DC

 

[Smart Kitty]

DC is right. Personally I think that no game is bad; As they say "never judge a book by its cover".

Whether a game has a lot or a little (content, mechanics, etc) Your game must seem cool to at least one person, that is, no matter how bad a game is, if it entertains you just a little bit, that game would be fulfilling the main objective of any game that is to entertain and amuse whoever plays it; so you don't have to give much importance to other people's criticism, because by doing so your game would end up being the opposite of what you wanted it to be.

I can only say that I wish everyone luck in their projects, to each and every one who reads this message. have a nive day everyone

 

[Bloodbane]

So is there a sort of maximum types of enemy we can't go beyond otherwhise the fun factor could decrease?

I don't know the correlation between fun factor with enemy types. If many enemy types could give high fun, then why not?

And globally how to insert a lot of different enemies (like 15 or more in the game, not in an enemies group) without giving headache to the player?

Maybe you could watch this video:

to get some hints. Although it's about Doom, the lesson could be applied elsewhere.

And even if you do have various enemy types, you'd need to test enemies combo to see which fits and which doesn't. Bikers and anti air enemies might work together but grenaders and shooters might give headache.

 

[Weoooo]

The key to enemy variety is variety. Visual variety, unless you're a particular type of person, only goes so far. If everyone just walks up and punches, you haven't really created a lot of variety. You still approach every encounter the same because the characters all move and fight the same. Each enemy should bring something to the table that causes you to think a little differently, or otherwise variety really isn't what you're doing. You're creating clutter and bloat.

That being said, theming and a sense of progression isn't worthless. If the walk up and punch guys in your streets level are punk dudes and when you travel to the bad guy tower they're well-dressed buff dudes, you've created a feeling of travel and place. This can be a nifty thing to do. Visual enemy variety can also make the player want to see what's next, the explorer's instinct can still manifest itself in games like these. If they're interesting and different, you can push the player through your game because they're interested and surprised by what they find. Fun animations and designs are a big part of why we like brawlers, a game's art is part of a game's play.

You want your player to be engaged and interested in pushing forward cause they're havin' a good time. Fighting enemies is, for many brawlers, the only thing you're doing. Making that experience fun, varied, and new is the goal, and enemy variety is only part of that goal.

But no I don't think there's a hard limit.

 

[16-bit Fighter]

Thank you very much for answering guys!

@16-bit Fighter
Worrying about putting in too much variety of something from a quality standpoint is nonsensical. It doesn't work like that. Instead, it's a facet that is necessary in some amount, and then starts to show diminishing returns.

Nobody will ever say: "Oh, this game would be so great, but it just has too many types of enemies.", and conversely they'll never say "This game would have sucked, but it had a ton of different enemies, so that saved it!"

I don't know the correlation between fun factor with enemy types. If many enemy types could give high fun, then why not?

My concern is about the chances after a certain amount that more is less because the eyes and memory of the player struggle to make out who is who and to remember who does what. It's a matter of mental load. In Bloodbane's video, the number 5 seems to be very efficient. Each enemy is very different visually and in terms of behaviour and parameters. In a beat'em up we can have more enemies since the speed of observation factor is less important but if most beat'em ups have around 10 (really different) enemies maximum I wonder how difficult is to add more without making things worst instead of (little) better.

In other words, you have to have some variety, and after that it's gravy - more may not add much, but it won't hurt unless you do it at the expense other necessary things.

So you think that might happen too.

 

[DCurrent]

Thank you very much for answering guys!





My concern is about the chances after a certain amount that more is less because the eyes and memory of the player struggle to make out who is who and to remember who does what. It's a matter of mental load. In Bloodbane's video, the number 5 seems to be very efficient. Each enemy is very different visually and in terms of behaviour and parameters. In a beat'em up we can have more enemies since the speed of observation factor is less important but if most beat'em ups have around 10 (really different) enemies maximum I wonder how difficult is to add more without making things worst instead of (little) better.


So you think that might happen too.

I think maybe we're talking about different things. I was referring to the total variety of enemies in the whole game, not on screen at any one time. Those are different discussions.

There is certainly a human limit to what we can perceive and process at once, and I am no fan of flooding the screen. That reeks of poor design and is one of the most common mistakes fangames make. Of course different design goals and gameplay setups have a huge effect on what that limit is. Ex: You can safely fill the screen with activity in SHUMPS because the player's only mental load is mash the trigger and dodge. In a platformer where just moving about is a challenge or beat em' ups with individual combat mechanics your limit of activity is significantly less.

Again, this falls into a lot of intricate design theory that would just get TLDR'd if I tried to address it all.

DC

 

[16-bit Fighter]

I think maybe we're talking about different things. I was referring to the total variety of enemies in the whole game, not on screen at any one time. Those are different discussions.

I'm kind of talking about the two parts because variety of the whole game has a impact on the number of possible combinations for each enemy group appearing in the screen. If there are four types of enemy in a screen, it's not exactly the same if the game has a enemy roster inclunding 10, 15, 20 or more types of enemy. In any case, I don't think I'd go beyond 15 enemies.

Again, this falls into a lot of intricate design theory that would just get TLDR'd if I tried to address it all.

Okay but any trick, thought and link would be welcomed anyway!

 

[O Ilusionista]

Here are some things I usually follow when developing games - based on my opinion, not rules or anything like that:

- Variety is key. You can have a game with only 4 types of enemies, if they vary enough what they do. See the TMNT games.

- Make different level entry animations - a great example is Foot Soldiers or any Konami game. Avoid the engine's native spawn (where enemies fall from the sky) - you can even use this on one or the other enemy, but using it on everyone makes the game feel cheap and lazy.


- Color variations are important, they help that enemies don't look like simple copies. If possible, different names (alias) also help.

- When I put color variations, I always try to put some different attack, that only that color variation will do. In the Avengers game this happens constantly and you can solve it with a simple script. See the attack below - only if the enemy is using the green color it use it:


- I like to try to match the enemy's style to the stage. I find it strange that you are in a bar and an enemy appears dressed in a karate kimono, and vice versa.

- Make the player feel that there is progression in the game. Place fewer enemies at the beginning of the level, more enemies towards the end. And, over time, change which enemies appear in the stages - you don't have to (and shouldn't) place the same enemy throughout the game.

- Subbosses give this feeling of progress, for example Andore in Final Fight. And he doesn't show up all the time.

 

[Wombat2112]

@16-bit Fighter I personally like as much variety as possible. Nothing becomes more dull than the same old enemies that perform the same old attacks. One good thing about OB is it gives tremendous opportunity to take a game that feels rushed and improve upon it. There was a Superman game I think for the Sega Genesis. Except for bosses you fought the same guys the whole game and the only difference would be color palettes. That worked okay for Sub-Zero, Scorpion and Reptile from MK. But not most of the time.
Most games progress in difficulty as the player advances. There are so many aspects to a good game. I would say as bad guys go try to give the player a different and diverse battle with each type even if just simple changes. There was this cancelled game can't remember it eventually got released somehow on SNES which looked great the problem was you fought the same 2 enemies for most of the game. Sub bosses and Boss characters are what make a game for me. They usually require a completely different and specific approach and usually much more unique than standard level enemies. If I were going to make a beat em up I'd like as many different opponents as possible with a variety of attack moves. This requires much more work of course. Different level environments are a good way to add diversity in attacks if the sprites are there. I don't see where this engine couldn't handle it you just want to balance the difficulty. I always hated games that had the most challenging part midway through the game and then at the end a weak final boss or challenge that I beat the first time after spending hours or days on a previous part.