How many distinct types of enemies should an RPG have minimum to be satisfying?

[octopod]

Counting anything that can attack you, and not counting NPCs you can attack but can't attack you.
Also not counting reskins, stronger versions, or otherwise modified versions of the same enemy.

For reference:

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild has 16 enemies, 4 mini-bosses, and 8 bosses (more if you count colors and elemental versions)
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker has 37 enemies and 8 bosses (more if you count elemental versions)
Kingdom Hearts II has 99 enemies and 49 bosses
Dark Souls 3 has 111 enemies and 19 bosses
Skyrim has around 200 enemies including bosses (more if you count all the different weapon configurations for human enemies)

I would say at least 20 is OK but if the game is supposed to last at least 100 hours then I think the game should go for at least 40.

[Resonant]

What an odd question.

[Socram]

This is 100% the worst way to approach game design. Fun isn't defined by numbers of enemy types...

[octopod]

I know this. Number of different enemies shouldn't be the focus when designing a game. The question was intended to be made in the perspective of the person playing it.

Take BOTW, for example. Easily one of the best games I've ever played, but if I had to pick one thing I didn't like, it would have to be the lack of variety in the enemies. Even if they were to just add a few more like that man-eating plant or whatever it was called, I think it would go a long way. Especially since that game can last at least 100 hours.

Am I wrong in thinking that?

[DrVincentWolf]

Interesting question!
While it is true that game design should start with a solid foundation and a few simple enemies, visual variety counts for a lot. i actually had the same feeling of repetition when it came to enemies as OP when I played Breath of the Wild. In games, at least action-oriented ones I really like if there are some sort of area-specific throwaway enemies you can fight but would be a complete idiot to actually die to. Snapping plants in a jungle area for example. Makes the place seem more like an actual ecosystem, too!

[Noob©]

Enemy (variation) designs are not fillers, they are made to challenge and engage specific aspects of player skill and/or mechanic.
AI Opponents are often optimized to be predictable. Predictable opponents are easy to beat once you have one or two solid strategy.
Once a player figures out their most efficient way to overcome an enemy in different common scenarios, they quickly become exhausted.
Enemies with stat tweaks and timings that doesn't challenge the player in different ways are often expandable. You see them for one or two region and they are gone.
If an opponent is difficult, and the game's core mechanic allows for inventive ways to beat them, a single type of enemy can last for the entire game, by setting them in interesting arenas.
If the player can beat any opponent by shooting them in the face while stealth, having a lot of enemy variation probably isn't going to help much.
Therefore, once an enemy type start to become nothing but nuisance, time to have the player learn to beat something new. Pace > numbers.

Much like systems and mechanic themselves, depth matters more.

[StratoSlug]

I have 600+ hours in a game that only has about 3 different enemy base types and they're all just zombies that walk or run toward you so, I don't think a lack of huge variation really effects enjoyment IMO.

[Curls]

To add to this

The biggest reason some games get away with having a diverse number of 'unique' enemy types is a robust combat system that allows it to have that variety to begin with. That, and the enemies themselves have to require unique strategies to take down.

Dark Souls for example, you have light, heavy attacks, and they can be further changed by rolls, running, backstepping, special attacks, parrying, stances, dual wielding, and combining different weapons (Ultra greatsword + side dagger etc). And that's on top of the bow system in Souls 3, the magic system, and combining 5 melee weapons with a catalyst or bow, items, and every stance those combos produce. You can defeat any enemy with any weapon however they all have their own results.

Zelda also has a pretty good. It's not nearly as 'big' and 'grand' however. Link carries a bag of items that work within the rules, and the player can combine items with fighting in a way that really flows well. Dungeons are always build around using a specific item with skill.

Witcher 3 has a fairly well laid out combat system, even if its not as good as the above. Witcher 3 has a small variety of unique spells and a limited ranged system. Enemies require great preparation and thought in order to defeat.

Skyrim on the other hand, the logic behind weapons are way too laid out, it almost feels like its "slower, more damage... faster, less damage". Dual wielding just speeds attacks up, and the AI isn't smart enough for strategy to matter with magic. And then the bows, they're basically a giant shit post, even worse than DS1's bow system.

Skyrim has this huge variety of enemies but because the combat isn't built on a strong foundation, it just feels unbelievably shallow. You have -200 enemy types- and yet most of what you kill are either bandits or the elder scrolls rebranding of 'zombies'. You may as well have five enemy types, being melee, ranged, animal, poorly written children and charizard.

You have to build a system based around timing, reaction, and enemies who need unique strategies that amounts to more than using the correct elemental attack, healing between damage, and sprinting around. Skyrim has none of these things.