I know that the wood elves got something like this in oblivion but im talking about actually taming an animal, training it, feeding it. I cant believe im saying this but i actually really like how WoW has done this. When you first get your animal it could be disobediant, not obey you alot of the time and occasionally lash out at you, but as you spend more time with it and keep it well fed it could become more faithful. Obviously you would have to be at least the same level as an animal to tame it. What do you think?

They did this in Fable 2, it was fun, up until my dog died... :shakehead: RIP:Jasper
It worked well in Fable, one of the best aspects of fable i think. You could play fetch with him and do other stuff (find buried treasure, feed etc), it was the only character i liked.
I wouldnt mind it in TES, you could have more than just a dog (daedroth anyone?). But Id rather they focus on more important things first. Put on the http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=1019615 so your voice may be heard. (make sure credit goes to Necool)

Yeh it worked really well in fable 2, also beth did it in fallout 3 and it was successful so i hope they continue it into TES V. Btw off topic supermage you can get your dog back in fable 2 from knothold island :D

Voted no. Doesn't add anything to the game other than LARPing possibilities and I personally am not interested in that. Also, since there never were any pets/domestic animals in the previous ES games, the addition would be off I think, unless the ES Lore can explain it.

But as far as gameplay mechanics go, I'll vote no. Not really a role playing aspect like I said.

I dont know, I got knothole island. But Jasper hasnt come back...
The wierd part about your dog dying on fable 2is if you need to perform a dog trick to one of the talking walls, your dog will come back as a ghost, only to do the required trick...
Jasper [starts sniffling] :nope:

Thats not true actually. I think it was in chorrol their was a women who had dogs as pets, they followed her around and everything. And i think i remember something about a guy with a dog in one of the fighters guilds quests, the one with the mountain lions in the womens basemant.

I just think it would be a good idea to have a companion, it would make combat more interesting plus they could do what they did in fallout 3 and use the dog to find food etc.

I will always remember my trusty and cute guar from Morrowind and I want future games to have something like that too. It should definitely be connected to a quest and very hard to get though. It would also be nice if there was a variety of some sorts. Some creatures are more fit for a knight, others for a mage. I think a horse should be a companion creature too. This way some could travel by horse, others by more fun creatures (i don't like horses...).

Say what?! Have you played Morrowind or Oblivion, or are you basing this only on previous TES (which didn't have companions most likely because of technical difficulty)? In MW there was Rolly the guar that you could get and another guar that followed a npc, there were also buyable pets in Mournhold. In Oblivion you had horses...and some npc's had dogs.

Well a companion is different than a pet. If you meant an animal who might follow you around, then that's OK. But a pet which you have to feed or play with and do all those chores you should be doing to a pet, then no.



Those were companions, not pets. Read my reply on top of this quote.

Just because the game didn't force you to do all that stuff doesn't mean you wouldn't have to in the real life. There's really no difference between a pet and companion unless you talk about game mechanics and as far as it goes in this topic, I don't really care. Although I don't see a TES game ever having such indepth(read:pesky) realistic features since it's an evergoing discussion on these forums, but without any resolution. To put it bluntly I think Devs think about it the same as me: if you want to bothered by a game, because you don't have anything to be bothered by in real life, go make a mod.

So my point is pets/companions were always present, but the interaction with the player was limited. I personally want to see that aspect of TES games develop.

But if we have pets, then why not marriages.

Well it would probably be optional, so if you couldnt be bothered feeding it all the time you could just ignore it and go off and play the game your way. Thats the beauty of TES. As soon as you come out of that tutorial you are free to do whatever the heck you want.

That type of stuff has never really been introduced in TES, but theres a first time for everything i suppose. It worked well in fable 2 i dont see why not.

That just opens a can of worms. Pets will offer the same things as companions do in Oblivion, yuo can get mage to follow you and fight with you, and that should be replicated in the pets but with relevant social options. With marriage its difficult, there would be more exlpicit social options, and it would be difficult to add this in.

Theres already a post, but im for only certian classes

Ya just gave me two argument that I despise and spit on.

"Its optional" its more that either follows one of these three wonderful scenario:
1. It not optional. Seriously, I can see that many players end up using it on the long run as meat shield.
2. Its would be half asses. The point where the situation fail itself, it become wasted space. The "Pet would be "stuck" or do not do anything ya tell it to or it run through a door and the game suddenly bugs.
3. I do not use it, but it feel that many part of the game is gone. When adding something into the game, something must give.

And then there the "Fable" did it. Just because "fable" did doesn't mean anything other then "fable" does it. Ya talking about two completely different game here.

There have been several threads on the subject that explain why not. One word: resources. They get drained if you're going to do the thing properly. I don't want a gimmicky Fable mechanic that is completely hollow and provides no real weight. Nor do I want the same amount of resources for a faction quest-line go towards being able to get hitched to random NPCs.

As for pets, if it's going to be a "feed and care for it" type of thing, then no. That's quite a bit of AI and options that could translate to better use somewhere else. If it's a companion simply using AI packages that already exist, then OK.

I actually think that this may be the one and only concept from Fable II that would work and work well provided that you had to buy a pet from a pet store so that you could just go without a pet all the same. More available choices is always a good thing IMO.

If I chose to have a pet:

1- I'd want it to seek out treasures and kill those insignificant creatures like Mice and Crabs that are hiding around but not actually after me and keeping me from FT.
2- It can't Die. Being unconciousness and needing to be healed is ok, but I don't want to be going though pets like a inattentive 3rd grader.

I would never use it even if it was added into the game. Waste of time in my opinion.

I have to disagree with that totally on principle; I do not want any non-killable entities in TES:V. Having a "It's just knocked unconscious" implementation for anything in the world just removes all the consequences attached to trying to keep it alive. It's an RPG, which is about consequences.

1. It is optional. You can choose to go get your pet or you can choose to forget about it and go assassinate people in the DB or whatever, that means its optional.
2. I dont really understand what your trying to say, if your trying to say that it will prob bug then thats down to beths programing.
3. If you dont want to use it, then you shouldnt feel bad about losing out on a part of the game. If you feel your losing out on it then go get the pet. Simple.

Fair enough maybe you have a point here, fable and TES are different games. However if youv played F3 there is a dog companion there and they are both made by beth and are both very similar, despite the different setting.

He means that any "option" you include in a game is not really an option by the fact that it takes a certain amount of resources to implement. For a player who has absolutely no desire to use an option, it's not just a simple "don't use it and no harm done." Instead it's a "here's an option you care nothing for in exchange for resources that could have gone into improving something else that you would have found more to your liking." The player who doesn't care at all for an option still loses something by that option's inclusion.

Hence why "It's optional" is a fallacious argument.

Yeh i see now. But what if there was an alternative. Like if you didnt want to the pet there was a rare item you could have, or a new ability?

It would be nice to have a pet, so I am fully for it!
And it would be nice if he/she can advance and level up us well with the main character, and if we can then decide which abilities would be dominant it can develop as fighting beast or magical creature...

That would be an even bigger waste of resources, because now they are creating an option for the option.