Enemy Variety vs. Enemy Depth

This is a question that’s been raised a lot recently in many discussions about Skyward Sword: Which is better, having a lot of enemies or having complex enemies? Skyward Sword obviously took the latter approach, offering very few enemies (I got 29 in a casual count, excluding all alternate versions of the same basic foe, though it would be significantly larger if I were to include them all). Is it best to have a huge variety of foes that do very little or a handful of foes that do a lot? Before I say how I feel on the matter, here’s some food for thought regarding the argument against Skyward Sword:

Most modern Zelda games have between 35-45 enemies. My casual counting has turned up 36 unique enemy types for both Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The Minish Cap has 42 and Twilight Princess has the most at 48, passing above the norm for the modern games. Excluding Twilight Princess, these counts are not a great deal larger than Skyward Sword’s 29, and Skyward Sword should be noted for having more alternate versions of the same enemy than most other games in the series. Even more interesting is The Wind Waker, which is under the average ratio of enemies and is even under Skyward Sword, having 26 unique varieties. Even the beloved Ocarina of Time has only 38, not quite even 10 more than Skyward Sword.

With these numbers in mind, I question the legitimacy of the arguments against Skyward Sword, because a game that’s received no complaints about its number of enemies (The Wind Waker) had even fewer, and the games that barely do any better don’t receive those criticisms at all either. I suspect what bothered people was actually other elements of Skyward Sword’s bestiary, and not the actual number of enemies. Perhaps an over-prevalence of Bokoblins? Now, back to the question itself…

Looking at both ideas on their own merits, which is better? For me, I don’t think either can be said to be objectively better than the other. A Link to the Past had a colossal enemy count, but most of them did exactly one thing. That was fine, because you’d encounter several different types — sometimes at the same time — providing the needed variety. This is an almost arcade game sort of format, where the variety and challenge comes from the enemy formations, not from the individual foes; single, challenging foes would be bosses.

The opposite is more like a fighting game or an action game, where every foe is treated like a fully capable fighter and the bosses are either even tougher and more intimidating enemies, or differ from the rabble in some way (traditionally, they’re much bigger).

It’s basically Galaga vs. Devil May Cry, and neither way of doing things is right or wrong. I think that within the Zelda series, it’s best to see a balance between the two; some enemy variety but with as much crammed into a foe as possible and with a respectable — not massive — enemy count. I think that is the best fit for the series, but seeing single games go more one way or the other is fine.

But what do you think? Variety vs. depth. Which is better? Do you think one inherently has more benefits than the other? Do you personally prefer playing one of them? Or can they both work just as well in different settings? How about in Zelda? And what about the criticisms Skyward Sword has received? Tell me in the comments!