Many men and their dogs

[naossano]

The Fallout series seems to be fond of the man's best friend.

In Fo1, you could have Dogmeat, or the dog in the demo.
In Fo2, you could get Dogmeat, the Pariag dog, K-9, Robodog, Laddie, Smoke and the Yellow dog from Klamath.
In FoBos, there is a perk that replace the Mysterious stranger by a dog.
In Fo3, there is Dogmeat again.
In FoNV, you could recruit Rex and Roxie.
The FOT single-player mod seems to be the exception, but you can have a dog in multiplayer.

Seems like all Fallout devellopers think that there can't be any episodes without at least one dog.
They even seem to consider their recruitment as canon, as seen in some bibles or slideshows.
I am aware of the reference of "A man and his dog", but i tend to get tired of it.

I was okay with this in the first game, as it was the first dog.
In Fo2, you can get many follower, so it doesn't seem an issue. Beside that, you get K-9 who can be interacted with and has a personnality.
But in the last games, they chose to limit the number of followers availables to 8, which make the dog take a slot that could be used for a more interesting character.
It's even worse in FONV as Rex is the reason i can only say the followers are ALMOST all great. (i like all the other seven)

I can accept non talking followers, as i found Bess, EDE, Christine were good followers.

But with dogs, they seems to not make any progress. They just take the same follower and copy past it in each episode, sometimes changing the name or the appearance, but in the end, all interactions are the same.

So i was wondering, are dogs some so needed elements of the Fallout universe ? Or could they be avoided in future episodes ?
If they keep appearing, are they some features that could make them better ? I am not talking about combat efficiency, as i don't care much about Fallout combat. (especially in new episodes) And i also find pacifist run quite exciting.
But more about gameplay, storyline, greater interactions, exciting backstory, involvement in some crazy quests, making npc react in a different way when they see the dog...

 

[King_Rocket]

My reasoning for the dogs constant inclusion is this.

Fallout 1 = Mad Max
Fallout 2 = (Let's add more of all good things from FO1 people like)
Fallout 3 = Copypasta
FalloutNV = Fan Service

As for fixing the dog I think NV proves that you can have a dog like companion and have it be interesting i.e.. ED-E. Maybe we could just have new concepts like that.

 

[Emperor]

Apart from references and fan service, I think they put a dog companion to be that companion who are a loyal and don't question yours actions ( and don't have a voice actor) so if in the end you betray every faction and companion you still have one thing at your side. Of course this role can be filled with a robot companion but they still have some intelligence ( and a voice actor). The best course of action is to be have this role at all and put a something exotic at its place or another intriguing companion.

I vote for a smaller CBR-S without a city limit and with a wrong AI on it's core.

 

[mobucks]

Are there some features that can make them better?
Well, I can name a few uses other than combat. Like an explosive trap sniffer (bomb dog) Or hidden item/npc sniffer. Or a danger ahead warning via low growl. Detect evil NPC via low growl.
There are tons of things a dog would be useful for other than combat. It just depends on the developer adding content to support those aspects of gameplay.

Dog ownership has never been a required component of fallout's gameplay. They have always been optional. Therefore I don't really see any reason not to include them in future episodes. Dogmeat is an icon, no denying that. It's not like including a dog is going to take away from the development of more fleshed out companions.

 

[naossano]

It become a problem when the number of follower is limited to a specific number. (8 in Fo3 and FoNV)
It remains boring if they put no efforts in that characterization.

 

[zegh8578]

I am working on a little post-apo comic book concept - and one of the first "random ideas" that hit me, was that dogs and cats should be abundant among people. Relativily so anyway, their total ammount tied in percentage part of human populations.
As world populations suffer a huge drop, so do all domesticated animals, horses, cows, sheep, cats, dogs, all these animals are quite helpless without us (yes, even cats will usually fare worse when without their owners. Feral populations would not survive well in cold climates, etc). Sure feral variants exist (especially horse) that survive away from human interaction, but most of these domesticated species would succumb. As populations once again find a basis to grow on, around these domesticated animals would flock, both naturally and being brought there, almost like a stone-age sped up: Rodents would gather around human waste, dogs and cats would chase the rodents, pigeons would return to breed on our rooftops, sheep would provide wool, horses transportation, bulls work force in the field, cows milk, etc

cats and dogs are just two of several animal species closely tied to humans - where humans go, these follow

 

[Wumbology]

Dogs everywhere, but no cats. Seriously, there's an awful lot of NPCs that seem like cat people.

 

[BigBoss]

My reasoning for the dogs constant inclusion is this.

Fallout 1 = Mad Max
Fallout 2 = (Let's add more of all good things from FO1 people like)
Fallout 3 = Copypasta
FalloutNV = Fan Service

As for fixing the dog I think NV proves that you can have a dog like companion and have it be interesting i.e.. ED-E. Maybe we could just have new concepts like that.

So... for Fallout 3 its copypasta but for Fallout NV its a fan service?

 

[Oppen]

So... for Fallout 3 its copypasta but for Fallout NV its a fan service?

Well, the ones who did NV did know the fans. However, I do think the intention in F3 was to do fan service, that's exactly why it's called Meatdog and not just some other random name.

 

[Atomic Postman]

My reasoning for the dogs constant inclusion is this.

Fallout 1 = Mad Max
Fallout 2 = (Let's add more of all good things from FO1 people like)
Fallout 3 = Copypasta
FalloutNV = Fan Service

As for fixing the dog I think NV proves that you can have a dog like companion and have it be interesting i.e.. ED-E. Maybe we could just have new concepts like that.

So... for Fallout 3 its copypasta but for Fallout NV its a fan service?

It's copypasta because it is the same dog, same color and it has the same name and even a similar background.

Whereas Rex has a vibrant and different history, has a different name and is half-robot.

 

[King_Rocket]

My reasoning for the dogs constant inclusion is this.

Fallout 1 = Mad Max
Fallout 2 = (Let's add more of all good things from FO1 people like)
Fallout 3 = Copypasta
FalloutNV = Fan Service

As for fixing the dog I think NV proves that you can have a dog like companion and have it be interesting i.e.. ED-E. Maybe we could just have new concepts like that.

So... for Fallout 3 its copypasta but for Fallout NV its a fan service?

Yes, they couldn't even come up with a slightly new concept or name.

 

[Yamu]

I think Rex's bells and whistles all serve to underscore the problem, though: for all they tried to do to dress him up and differentiate him-- making him a cyberdog, giving him a degree of customizability through his brain quest, attempts at injecting personality via his mentioned-once-and-immediately-dropped hat hatred, tying his backstory in with major figures of the Mojave-- at the end of the day, he was still just a generic wasteland dog, indistinguishable from any other in the series by all but cosmetics. Even his companion ability was mostly useless.

I agree that he was just there because they thought (knew?) that certain people wouldn't feel like a proper wasteland hero without a dog. I've personally never met anyone who kept him around ten seconds longer than the time it took to complete his associated quests. It was enough that Dogmeat was Dogmeat in the first two games, but in the immersive environment the new ones are seeking to create, you can't just expect "here's your trusty mutt" to be enough to hold the player's interest when the game's not modeled for any of the benefits of owning a dog. I actually give Bethsoft credit-- in giving Dogmeat the ability to go out and "find" items for you, he actually simulates the canine experience a little better than Rex, IMO, even if he's completely indistinct in every other way.

Reasons for a Wastelander to keep a dog (none of which are generally provided for in the Gamebryo engine):

*Companionship (I suppose they could implement yet another Survival meter to track Sanity/Morale, only oh God no please no. They could also make companion dogs a pleasure to have around through unique reactions/animations and in-the-field behaviors, like the real thing, but at the risk of sounding jaded there is almost no way of pulling that off in Gamebryo.)

*Utility as a small game hunter/combat flanker (A hunting ability could make a useful addition to Hardcore mode if handled correctly. Unfortunately, the AI and combat aren't well set up for flanking, sic-em tactics, or setting up ambushes.)

*Use as a sentry/early alert system. (Unfortunately, a dog's senses aren't any keener than any other companions. They don't seem to grant any bonus to sighting distance or tip you off to ambushes/suspicious situations any better or sooner than a human would, and since you can't be ambushed while you're sleeping/making camp (unlike in other rpgs/real life) they're not of much use there either. It would go a fair way towards making dogs more desirable companions if their protective/sensory abilities were somehow modeled in-game.)

 

[naossano]

That's kind of a double-edged sword, though. You include something just for the sake of tradition, people are going to complain. You don't include it in the name of progress and realism, people complain. The inverse of this can be seen in the general response to the vault jumpsuit and PipBoy Doc Mitchell gives you at the start of the game (or, in an extreme case from elsewhere in the franchise, Harold).

Rex has grown on me on reflection, even in the few months since I first weighed in on him here on the boards, but most of my complaints about him still stem from the fact that they tried so hard to stress that he wasn't Dogmeat and he had his own super-unique identity. A dog is a dog is a dog, especially without a text box or unique animations to drive home its quirks in a way that doesn't seem forced. I'd probably sooner have no dog at all in the next game. (A more generic one with a more useful companion ability than "lets you see stuff on the ground" would be fine, too.)

Another option could be having absolutly no dogs in the regular companions. There would be humans (normals/ghouls/SM) or robots with they own quest, backstory & incredible dialogs. They could be 8 or more.
On the other hand, you could buy regular & expendables cheap dogs to many traders. They would have no background, no quest, no personality, and would die easily, but cost less than a stimpack.
They would still occupy a party slot, so you better take regular companions that are stronger, but if you insist, the game allows you to have a dog, just that he wouldn't be taken into account in the quality of companions.

Anyway, let's never again have a dog called dogmeat.
They hexausted it far too much.

 

[FOvet]

No! I love Dogmeat, and would love, even if they did like FO2 and made it a special thing, the name Dogmeat to live on! I am fond of that furry companion (and I'm also a huge dog lover). I'm also against cutting dogs from the future FO games. It is possible for them to make a dog with it's own distinct personality, so why not? Maybe we don't need a literal dogmeat clone, but I personally love trekking through the wasteland with a real flesh and blood dog. Never been too fond of the robodogs (and Rex reminded me a lot of K-9), but I was really fond of Dogmeat. I'd have liked the Pariah Dog too if it weren't for the freakishly bad luck the lil bastard brought you

I like the idea of being able to buy dogs from traders and such, actually. But instead of them all being weak little useless things, why not allow them to level up and get strong? In Fo2, dogs have a damn good amount of AP, and Dogmeat himself can do a significant amount of damage, especially as he levels up. Why not implement a leveling system for companions (including dogs), where they gain attributes, AP, health, etc--even if they start out weak. THEN add to it the predatory skills as was mentioned earlier (possibly early warning skills too, to alert you to enemies nearby), keep the find weapons/ammo function as well. Then you have a useful canine companion, AND one that isn't just a dogmeat clone! If you have to buy your dog, your imagination as an RPer will bring to life a history for your pet

 

[SnapSlav]

But instead of them all being weak little useless things, why not allow them to level up and get strong? In Fo2, dogs have a damn good amount of AP, and Dogmeat himself can do a significant amount of damage, especially as he levels up.

The important distinction to make with the dogs found in FO2 is that the ONLY canonical full-canines encountered in the game don't level up and are always quite weak. The 2 companions Dogs are, of course, cyborgs, so their robust and deadly capabilities can be attributed to their not being mere dogs. Dogmeat in FO2 was a non-canonical special encounter, so like the Solar Scorcher, or the Holy Hand Grenade, or the other unique items that could be obtained from special encounters, Dogmeat's power shouldn't reflect that of an actual dog as found in the game to join your cause. The same is true of Pariah as well; he was supposed to be a manifestation of bad luck based on several real-world legends, a Special Encounter that you did NOT want to get.

I think dogs leveling up is still a fine idea, but they shouldn't be particularly strong companions. They're fast and they should possibly provide a HUGE visibility boost (or something similar) because dogs are naturally very gifted trackers, if they can be trained to use their natural biology to the benefit of their masters. But no dog should be able to shrug off a sawed-off shotgun shell to the face from some raider. A particularly ferocious dog could subdue said raider if it got the jump on him, but that's a best case scenario. If dogs could offer frail but replenishable (via aforementioned purchase from traders) services such as being able to incapacitate humanoid targets and some form of increased target acquisition, then that would be dandy. Just don't make them tanks; they shouldn't be.

 

[FOvet]

Oh yeah, I never meant to insinuate I wanted them tanks. Dogmeat is freaky scary in FO3, hooooly crap! Although, I did lose him to a giant radscorpion--even tanks can get killed by venom! But I'm totally agreeing with you here, I had kinda the same thing in my mind. A "powerful" dog character insofar as dogs go. What I meant was I would like to see them to where they could have hire survivability then those stupidly weak caravan dogs, which are freakishly easy to kill!

I'd even say a ferocious dog could *kill* a raider though, not just subdue or incapacitate. Look at dogs today, they *can* kill, especially the larger ones or the breeds known for their ferocity. But like you said, they should NOT be tanks

 

[SnapSlav]

Well one thing to consider is that dogs that kill nowdays don't typically kill men at their prime, let alone armed men with nothing to lose. I wouldn't expect that any wasteland dog, no matter how well trained, would really be able to tackle and kill a prepared and seasoned raider with ease, especially if the raider knew it was charging him. Being freakishly easy to die via shredding from splash damage during caravan runs are, of course, a bit of an anomaly. That's just up to luck of the draw, but in that sense they were no more prone to easy deaths than Ian (god damn that fool), and that was what made much of the original games so edge-of-your-seat unnerving; your characters weren't gods by any means. Dogmeat was so loved because he WAS so frail, and unlike the other 3 companions you could not dismiss him; reaching the end of the game without Dogmeat getting killed was a massive undertaking. It was taking all of that time to find ways of reaching the ending slides without Dogmeat biting it that made him so endeared to players (and the inspiration for his canonical end as of the Vault Dweller's recollections in his/her Memoirs in FO2). Players didn't love Dogmeat because he was so tough to kill, at best he was just WAY tougher to kill than any other dog in the game (woe was I when I tried to solve that Junktowner's problem by KILLING the dog, cause he massacred me!) but in the grand scheme of the game, quite frail. I'd want any companions to follow that model, unlike the damage sponges of FO3 or the exceedingly deadly help found in FONV. Dogs especially.

 

[Yamu]

In the heat of battle, it might be kind of tough to get a shot off at a target moving as fast and as low to the ground as an angry dog (or even to realize that one is about to be on you until it's too late, under the wrong circumstances), especially a medium breed like a Pit Bull or a Blue Heeler. Most handguns aren't that accurate at range, and close-in, a human target with a knife can close from ten yards away and inflict a fatal wound in less than two seconds (and in fact, American police are trained and authorized to shoot to kill any melee-armed assailant that gets within 21 feet)-- and dogs are a lot faster than us. I don't imagine any wasteland dog would survive too many combats simply by the law of averages, but in any single fight they might represent a very lethal threat.

I'm totally with you on the survivability, though. Glass cannons all the way. Speed-tanks, at best, but not very good ones.

 

[FOvet]

You know, Snap, I never really thought about that, but you are right, of course--Dogmeat was special in many ways, because he was so FRIKKIN HARD to keep alive in FO1, omfg. I never did keep him alive throughout the very end (then again I didn't play FO1 as much as I played FO2 either). I still have to disagree on the lethality argument though--I mean a medium-large dog can really screw a person up and/or kill them. I've seen what dogs are capable of (I've grown up my whole life with pit-bulls. Amazing dogs, not nearly as mean as people make them out to be--but they *can* be). Now, one to one, I'd give the dog the edge in combat any day, especially if the guy doesn't know the dog is comming. Even if he does, the dog is so damn fast, it'd be hard to line up a shot! So, I really do feel that dogs in FO should be lethal to humans.

But I agree with you and Yamu in that they shouldn't be super hard to kill, absorbing rounds like effing Giant Radscorpions from the Console FO games. I like what Yamu said there, calling them "speed tanks." This actually meshes well with the feral dogs and wolves from FO2--they had a mad number of AP, but were pretty easy to kill I'd say maybe make follower dogs similar to those, give them high speed/ap but make it to where the right weapon will kill em fast (even 1-hit them in some extreme cases).

 

[SnapSlav]

Yamu said it well when he called it "law of averages". I'm not arguing that a dog SHOULDN'T deal fatal damage, but there are several reasons I don't think it's practical for them TO be very fatal adversaries. Contrary to what popular belief will have it, guns are wildly inaccurate tools, so the concept of "critical hits" is quite appropriate to firearms because of the huge disparity in locations affected by bullet wounds. From crippling wounds to flesh wounds to instantly fatal shots to eviscerating shots to slowly and painfully mortal wounds, any single shot fired from a gun can yield all manner of differing results, and naturally the same can be said of an attacking canine. Where the dog targets and how successful it is in its charge differs drastically in all encounters, and I wouldn't peg your average wasteland raider to be at all comparable to your modern thug equivalent, nor would I count on any dog being able to close in on a single target without any assistance from another one nearby. These are hardened survivors who have amorality to add to their unhinged and hair-trigger survivalist-based combat senses. But a dog being ABLE to close the distance and chomp down I am more than aware they are very, very capable of reliably accomplishing.

It's that line of thought that makes me think that their combat purpose, as far as a game ought concern it, would be "incapacitation", with a chance to deal serious harm and/or fatal injury. Tearing tendons or clamping down on and crippling limbs would be what you'd expect of a trained dog, but I wouldn't expect them to consistently award serious injury every time- assuming they survived every encounter. 100lbs. of charging muscle can easily topple a person by grabbing an arm or a leg, but unless they're disarmed in the process I wouldn't see them getting their face bitten off nearly as easily (and needless to say, I wouldn't see those dogs leaping up to make a face-bite from their starting charge). Possible for them to kill, absolutely, but shouldn't be considered reliable or consistent to occur, I feel.