Pets in Project Eternity, can they be done better and what would you like to see?

[Stiler]

Pets have been done before, in rpgs, action games, and mmo's. However I have felt that many games have simply not taken the time or want to do pets with any real meaningful impact for the player.

 

Many classic style rpgs treat pets more of a "combat" mechanic. Where you either summon a pet (or familiar for mages) which can only last "x" time or until killed. These kinds of pets are usually quite generic/throw away and serve more of a "combat" move or something similar.

 

MMO's on the other hand (especially when it comes to ranger/hunter type of classes) have went further and allow players to actually find and "tame" rare animals found in the worlds, some that can be unique and have their own specific skillsets. While also allowing you to rename them and things. However the drawback to mmo pets is that well, they follow you and play a role in combat, but outside of this they have no character or personality really.

 

The main thing that I find lacking in almost any game with "pets" is the lack of character or story-elements that reflect that pet.

 

I mean when I think of a ranger who has tamed an animal and had it for years you would think, just like real life, that the pet and ranger would get to know each other better and developer a relationship with that pet having his own personality/character. I mean for anyone here who has pets IRL, you know just how different dogs can be from each other or cats.

 

As well in games, if a character has a pet they are usually strictly based for combat, and have no purpose within cutscenes/story elements. You don't really "interact" with them outside of combat. Howevear a few games have did this somewhat (IE fallout, and the Fable series toa degree).

 

I mean think about Baldur's Gate for example. Minsc and Boo were two of the fan favorite characters, and Boo would have been so much less memorable without the story elements and banter between Minsc. That added to the character and provided persoanlity to them both, which is almost non-existant when it comes to players and any pets/familars they have.

 

There are also plenty of examples of characters in novels/films that have animal companions that are treated this way. Such as the popular Jon Snow and Ghost for a more current one or the classic Lone Ranger and Silver, etc.

 

In PE I'd love if pets or familiars were treated as a more meaningful CHARACTER and less of an "object" or combat tool. Where a wizard actually had a quest/storyline that revolves around finding his familiar/picking one, or for a ranger that finds his pet and tames it or such. Then seeing these "pets" throughout the game in cutscenes/story elements where they have some developer and personalities that come out.

[Karkarov]

I am a bad ass adventurer killing machine. Unless my pet is able to tear a bandit limb from limb I don't want him around in the first place, he can just hang out at the house and chase mice instead. After all they are my cherished pet buddy, why would I want to risk their life in combat with a giant ogre or fire breathing drake if they were not able to be a legitimate threat on their own? I would be sending my supposedly loved cuddly little companion into certain doom!

 

That said.

 

Minsc and Boo were great, but Boo was a pet in name only. It was the writing and the voice acting that made them so cool. Boo if you didn't notice... never actually did anything other than squeak. The only game I have seen a pet done right (as an actual in game entity) was Dragon Age: Origins where they Mabari Hound literally is your pet but also serves as a stand alone party member. Like I said before if my pet is not capable of standing on their own 2 to 4..... possibly more feet/paws/claws, then they aren't worth having around outside of some players for RP purposes.

 

So if they want pets to be something you keep with you, either go the Boo route and make it an NPC and be all in the writing while the pet never actually "exists" in game terms. Or make the pet a stand alone creature that is equal to any other party member. Otherwise just make them things that hang out at the player house and maybe have some funny little side missions or mini game like activities based around them. Such as tracking it as it sniffs for buried treasure in your back yard, or bringing it a collection of weird animal bones it can gnaw on which results in it fetching you a "adamant long sword +22 of slaying death and such" if you bring it like a hundred of em.

[Nonek]

Might be interesting to see Totem animals for Druids, not actual existant creatures but emanations of their soul. To the extent that a Cipher might look at a Druid and see at his side a wolf glaring back, perhaps it emerges at times when their might waxes or their ire is peaked, a shadowy and indistinct form that tears and bites.

[Umberlin]

Bad AI, pathing issues, unintelligent use of abilities, too weak, too strong, too fast, too slow, not mobile enough, outright cheating the set systems and more are all issues I've seen plague pets. In a way, and I know some people won't get what I'm saying, the best 'pets' I've seen in games were not pets at all, but, characters, like Alyx from Half Life 2, especially from Episode 1, and the Vort from Episode 2. They're guilty, and not just a bit, of 'cheating the system' but they did function, and do interesting things. Now, again, people won't get what I'm getting at because 'well they aren't pets and that's a single player games, and not RPGs, with set pieces that the developers could better predict' and other things . . . which are all true.

 

Still . . . let me justify why I bring up that game, and those two characters:

 

1. Because they were actually beneficial to have around.

2. Because they were interesting to have around, and not annoying on a character level.

3. They were characters with some iota of matter in the world.

4. They did interesting things, at times, with the environment (kicking/blasting things open, like doors, picking stuff up and using it [the shotgun]), and character during battle/actual gameplay (like ALyx wincing at the light)

5. They could actually go with you, and do things with you, without getting stuck or being a pain.

 

And so on. Now, again, people will rightly bring up some issues with all this (and rightly so), but, let's set those issues aside and get to why I'm bringing them up. Because, when I have a pet, in a game, be a summoned pet or a dog or whatever . . . I always compare them. Especially when they get stuck on a bit of terrain. I always judge the ones that are less interesting against the ones that 'do' things that make me think about them, make me care about them, and, most importantly, make me remember them. In Torchlight II I easily forget that the pet even exists. That's a bad thing, and, to me, makes the pet feel like a bad implementation.

 

I want a pet to matter enough that I remember it's there, but never stand out, especially in a negative way, to an extent that detracts from the game or its gameplay. I want it to be interesting and entertaining to watch, to do things, interact with the environment and my character. and so on . . . but why? Because when it's just another pet I summoned that goes away after a time, or dies, I rarely care. In some cases that's how it should be (a Necromancer type summoning throw away minions that he or she may randomly explode). In other cases, especially (and this is 'why' I'm writing this) in the case of a 'Familiar' type character, it feels wrong. A familiar styled pet just needs to be there for more, and have presence and personality, even if it doesn't have dialogue. Alyx is a great wya of putting this, because, outside of her character/dialogue she has countless little moments of personality that don't require a line of dialogue.

 

The other case, besides the familiar, is the actual pet, again, like a dog, and, again, it's not right if it feels like just this throw away thing. If it gets hurt or damaged you should care, and you should care because of it reacts to these situations. A pet, contrary to popular belief, is not an animal, if you really are a pet person, and get to know that dog or cat, you can pick out personality quirks as intricate as any Human being might have. A person. With personality (this applies to the Familiar too).

 

-

 

Still, none of that matters. Even a faceless/soulless pet can work in an RPG, my main gripe with that style, isn't their lack of character, but, again, the first thing I said - 'issues' like bad pathing, bad ai, bad/limited/no use of abilities and so on and so forth. Regardless of the style, regardless of whether they have character, or not (they don't have to, not all pet types fit with such a design style), they still need to 'function' . . . function and not hinder. Good pathing. Good AI. Good use of abilities. No getting stuck on things. No shooting at a wall that an enemy is behind, an enemy not even aware of them. Blah blah blah . . .

 

As always with me, it's not about 'what' they decide to do with pets, if they have pets at all, it's the quality of them. If they're not in the game, no harm done. If they are in the game the quality has to be there or they too easily become the sort of pet too many games present, the type that hinder, rather than help, to the point you are better of never using them. This goes double for the type that block you in hallways/caves/corridors.

[Ieo]

I've never really dealt with pets in the I.E. games compared to MMOs. The mage familiar was more like a pocket pet that I pulled out sometimes. I rarely ever summoned creatures, if I could help it, because I wasn't fond of not being able to micromanage them well (lack of skillset, AI, pathing, whatever) and/or I simply didn't feel attached. Or something.

 

I guess my problem is that "pets" should necessarily be of less value than a party NPC, especially when party NPCs have significant writing, in which case--why bother having "pets" around at all besides as battle fodder? (Which then kinda feels wrong.) Mechanically, such pets would require significant combat ability and/or (can't be both if Obs is putting a ton of resources in the party NPCs) writing. I'm betting the former would make more sense.

[Osvir]

Posting first, reading after [done], just wanted to put in this input.

 

Pets and Familiars should be important. The Wolf I tame as a Ranger (if that is possible to do) should be a part of the "Mortality". There should be a limited amount to how many "Pets" I can have at a time (based on Class Level).

 

A Wizard having a Familiar should also be important in this way in my opinion, though lesser Familiars (Some minor demonic entity or whatever) could possibly be summoned "abundantly" (they are infinite, if one dies you can summon another one)... but being able to summon a nasty Demon which you have learned its true name should be a part of the Mortality System (imo) or some Air Spirit akin to Appa or Momo. EDIT: Get your own Boo Foo'.

 

Likewise, perhaps you could get tame an eagle as a Ranger (temporarily, if they exist in the area) that you can manage as its own unit exploring the area you are in *whistles* now with this feature... if implemented... postal service? (or am I taking it way too far?) Temporary Pets depending on area/spells

 

Perhaps even being able to name your tamed Pets & Familiars yourself, so that they get some sort of personal value. This gives us, the players, the ability to have our "Dogmeat" in the party (I managed to keep Dogmeat alive all game <3 honestly though, lots of saving+reloading).

Edited December 19, 2012 by Osvir

[jivex5k]

I want a pet cat in my stronghold!

[rjshae]

A pet could potentially be useful if it can detect an ambush (particularly when traveling cross country). Maybe it can act a little flighty when undead are near, or shake its head when something smells odd. Perhaps during battle the pet can help detect a rogue sneaking up on a party member? It could have an aura that provides some protection against a sneak attack. Otherwise, I mostly want it to avoid getting slaughtered; standing in the back barking it's head off.

[Maltry]

Personally I would love to see pets with some personality and interaction, but from the perspective of developing the personalities of your own pets it seems relatively unlikely. If the player has any significant choice in the nature of their pets, even what species they are, that makes a large number of potential reactions to any given situation. So, either they would need to limit the scope of the pets that you can choose to something very small, or make the personality of your pets very generic. Clearly this applies only to the character's own class-related pets, companion pets or storyline pets can have fixed personalities and 'dialogue' without removing player choice.

 

There's another potential problem I see with this in PE lore. With no form of resurrection, and the potential loss of a pet that is gained through a class ability writing dialogue/reactions for *any* given pet becomes extremely problematic in any but the most generic sense. We know from the most recent ( #36 ) update that wizards have familiars they can summon, who can die and then be resummoned after resting. Now if that familiar is a new familiar every time then the personality of the familiar would change, unless that character is so generic it's a 'fill in the blank' set of reactions.

 

Depending on the lore you might work around this by saying that a familiar or even animal companion is a manifestation of the character's own soul, a sort of spirit totem or projection (similar to what Nonek mentioned, but in a more tangible sense). This could explain away the similarities in their reactions, and allow for the re-summoning of a 'dead' pet, it was simply dispersed. I could see that *possibly* being used to implement in depth interactions, with only a small amount of variance based on type. I won't be holding my breath though. In the end I agree with Umberlin, in an rpg of this type we will most likely see pets that function primarily (or solely) as walking game mechanics. Hopefully that at least will be effectively implemented and not hindering, anything past that would be icing on the cake.

[kabaliero]

nice try with the dog in DA:O, but still not "it" yet, imho

my fav pet in all rpgs is, of course, Dogmeat

not a pretender, without "deep" dialogue options,

he's a classic character and fits the world perfectly

 

just a lonely dog in the wasteland

just like you

 

but the time goes on, and we, ofc, want something more

besides our rich and helpful imagination

[Kurumi Morishita]

I'd also love to see some more rp involvement.. why not use a pet as some kind of "messenger" for example or some pets could make you aware of dangers you don't/can't notice.. not to mention.. why not create one/some quests around those pets, too?

[Umberlin]

Depending on the lore you might work around this by saying that a familiar or even animal companion is a manifestation of the character's own soul, a sort of spirit totem or projection (similar to what Nonek mentioned, but in a more tangible sense).

 

Not really a reply to your post, but that highlighted section made me think of some related, but not really, things . . .

 

I'm getting minor flashbacks of His Dark Materials from reading this portion of your post, and, discounting the movie, I rather liked those books . . . so that's not a terrible thing. The portion where Lyra is nearly severed from her Daemon, and how heart breaking it is, just how hard it can yank on the heart strings, alone justifies such an approach if (and I must stress if) such a thing were a focus of a narrative. However, without it being the focus, I wonder how much it can possibly mean, without the quality necessary to make it work being lost. I like the idea of a pet meaning more, in theory, but, as always, the quality has to be there to make it work. Can something usually made to be a minor side portion for 'some' characters carry such quality? I suppose anything is possible, but my answer is that I simply don't know.

 

I'd have to see it in action, well done or otherwise, to know whether it could really, honestly, work.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Umberlin

[Lephys]

It's a very similar dilemma, mechanics-wise, as in the examples of bad dual-wield or even just combat skill implementations. What is your Ranger's wolf (for example) bringing to the table that simply adding damage, attack speed, and abilities to the Ranger, himself, isn't? That's the important question.

 

Pets need to provide something unique to the mix, rather than simply boosting values that already existed and splitting player control between two entities. I'm all for them being almost a part of your character (it would definitely fit with the... soul... of the game? *chuckles heartily whilst adjusting monocle*), but they need to be more than simply a fraction, or a multiplier.

 

I really don't want to see another "my pet is an ability with hitpoints" situation, haha. I'm pretty excited about what was said about Wizard's familiars in update #36. If they die, the Wizard suffers damage and cannot re-summon them until the encounter is over (pretty D&Dish, but a good means of having a reason to care what happens to them). AND, a Wizard can cast spells using the familiar as the spell origin (meaning you can be 50 feet away from a group of bandits, and hit them with a 10-foot-range spell if your familiar is close to them.) AND, it seems their presence will passively affect friendlies (positively) and hostiles (negatively).

 

Boom... useful pet, and one I care about keeping alive and using strategically. If they can work in some pretty cool "personality" (for lack of a better word) and some story relevance (as opposed to just background lore about Wizards having familiars), I'll be ecstatic. But, they're doing a pretty good job with familiars already. I have to assume they're at least going to try to implement all pets this well.

[AGX-17]

No.

 

Get a real pet.

[Lephys]

No.

 

Get a real pet.

 

But it's heavily frowned upon to train my REAL pet to aid me in my adventuring and slaying of bandits! -____-

[Monte Carlo]

Pets. LOL.

[Stiler]

I am a bad ass adventurer killing machine. Unless my pet is able to tear a bandit limb from limb I don't want him around in the first place, he can just hang out at the house and chase mice instead. After all they are my cherished pet buddy, why would I want to risk their life in combat with a giant ogre or fire breathing drake if they were not able to be a legitimate threat on their own? I would be sending my supposedly loved cuddly little companion into certain doom!

 

That said.

 

Minsc and Boo were great, but Boo was a pet in name only. It was the writing and the voice acting that made them so cool. Boo if you didn't notice... never actually did anything other than squeak. The only game I have seen a pet done right (as an actual in game entity) was Dragon Age: Origins where they Mabari Hound literally is your pet but also serves as a stand alone party member. Like I said before if my pet is not capable of standing on their own 2 to 4..... possibly more feet/paws/claws, then they aren't worth having around outside of some players for RP purposes.

 

So if they want pets to be something you keep with you, either go the Boo route and make it an NPC and be all in the writing while the pet never actually "exists" in game terms. Or make the pet a stand alone creature that is equal to any other party member. Otherwise just make them things that hang out at the player house and maybe have some funny little side missions or mini game like activities based around them. Such as tracking it as it sniffs for buried treasure in your back yard, or bringing it a collection of weird animal bones it can gnaw on which results in it fetching you a "adamant long sword +22 of slaying death and such" if you bring it like a hundred of em.

 

Ah yes, the dog in DA:O was great. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Where they are treated more like a companion/npc, with their own personality and story-elements in cutscenes, rather then just a usual cheap summon combat role that you let die and resummon and don't really know nor care about them the same as a party member that you get to know over the course of the game.

 

Basically I think it'd be nice if pets just felt more like traditional party members then "throw away" objects, like the hound in DA:O. However it'd be nice to have choices different then a dog, for a ranger they could have like a wolf, a bear, or a hawk/ferrets or something cool (lol totally makes me think of the Beastmaster films with those two ferrets).

 

Wizards could have basic imp's and things, and as mentioned above powerful Demon's that you get to know and learn about. It could even tie a LOT into the whole "soul" aspect of the game and provide some great story elements.

[Osvir]

To be honest, I wouldn't want a pet, but something that forms in narrative as a companion unlike Forton or friends. I did like the Mabari but it was lacking too, Dogmeat wasn't some majestic dog or war-creature, but a rather frail dog in the wasteland. It didn't matter too much how Dogmeat was presented to us, Dogmeat could've probably have been found at the Bandit Camp, in the Glow or wherever, Dogmeat was a favorable companion in a way that he could be implemented at any point in the game or in any area. Whilst the Mabari was stuck with you as a part of "Lore".

 

Dogmeat was a choice.

 

This is how it could be (brainstorming/trying to be innovative):

If the Ranger has the ability to tame an animal for an indefinite period of time, you could tame that bear, or that wolf, to fight with you. For this to be feasible Bears need to be a tough opponent in a fight, and so would wolves (who fight in a pack). Getting a Wolf would be an advantage but at the sacrifice of another skill set. Taming the Wolf would have it with you, but it should be part of "Mortality" like Dogmeat, so at any point in the game where it gets rough your Wolf or Bear dies. If an animal could serve some sort of "Mini-Companion" role where they don't take up a party slot and you can't equip them anything that'd be cool. Just as it would be cool to be able to equip items onto pets. I think that animal (tamed) companions might be easy to handle because they are already in the game, it is a matter of coding the animal to become "Friendly" and last either for "X" amount of time or indefinitely. Perhaps the animal could even gain some sort of "morality" changes depending on your actions, and/or you could use specific [Command] skills to keep it alive longer, [speech] should be a part of it too.

 

Oh yes, you'd be able to get 1 tamed animal companion at any point in the game, affecting your story differently from someone else.

 

"Get a real pet", that argument works on companions as well "Get a real friend". As getting a companion is acceptable in P:E, then simply make "pets" = companions.

 

EDIT: There doesn't need to be any dialogue for it and little to no interaction with it just as well. But maybe a slight change in texture or something as your character with the [Tame] Skill and grows in level.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Osvir

[JFSOCC]

Maybe a soul-sharing mechanic like "the Wit" from the farseer universe? (Robin Hobb)

Where you can share experiences and senses and subtle emotions with your pet.

 

For instance, you're in a tavern getting drunk, all of a suddn your pet becomes restless, POISON!

This time it was just the alcohol, but good that he's paying attention

This dog smells fear, this bird can scout without being seen, the rat can enter houses without opening locks and scout inside. this horse comes when called without me needing to direct it, because it knows I need it's presence.

I know it's a fairly utilitarian look at pets, but why else would you bring them along, you're an adventurer after all.

[jivex5k]

Maybe a soul-sharing mechanic like "the Wit" from the farseer universe? (Robin Hobb)

Where you can share experiences and senses and subtle emotions with your pet.

 

For instance, you're in a tavern getting drunk, all of a suddn your pet becomes restless, POISON!

This time it was just the alcohol, but good that he's paying attention

This dog smells fear, this bird can scout without being seen, the rat can enter houses without opening locks and scout inside. this horse comes when called without me needing to direct it, because it knows I need it's presence.

I know it's a fairly utilitarian look at pets, but why else would you bring them along, you're an adventurer after all.

I dig something like this for a ranger class.

[rjshae]

You're in a tavern getting drunk, all of a sudden your pet piddles on a patron. Bar fight!

 

You're in a store and the pet runs wild and starts knocking over the pottery; you break it, you buy it!

 

You're in a temple and the pet piddles in the holy water. Divine curse!

 

Mmm, lots of potential for unplanned fun...

[Atreides]

Pet panda, caretaker of the bamboo zen garden at my stronghold.

[Dragoonlordz]

Sock Puppet or imaginary pet only your character can see.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[Heresiarch]

I think pets are a great idea. There are so many games out there, where the pets have been thoroughly explored, where they have been made valuable companions, which are not in any way inferior to other party members. Those pets have a lot of depth of character to them and really shine on numerous dialogue and character situations.

 

For instance, the mabari hound from DAO, which had numerous interesting things to add to the gameplay outside of camp dialogue. Dogmeat, the traditional companion from Fallout series, which lead to more reloads than all raiders, slavers, and super mutants combined. How about ranger's pets from DnD? Or the fabled Necromancer's pet skeletons in Diablo 2? These were truly the stuff of legends!

 

So I say, let's totally have pets in PE, because it worked well so many times, that it could go wrong just this once, right?

 

P.S. Just to make it clear, I was being sarcastic. I think pets in RPGs are even worse than sex-centred romances. It's like the western fanservice equivalent of huge boobs in jRPGs.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Heresiarch

[Lephys]

This thread is getting really confusing, because "pet" is a commonly-used term now for "summoned/tamed creature companion that factors into your class's skill set somehow," much like a Wizard's familiar or a Ranger's... menagerie.

 

So... are we talking about feed-em-and-buy-em-chewtoys pets? Or are we talkin' just-a-tag-for-extremely-common-RPG-mechanics pets? Because if you take the latter completely out (however you implement it and whatever you call it), you end up with a pretty unnecessary design restriction.