Support NeoGAF

[BloodFree]

This thread could be made into a series cause there's a lot of bloat in modern games, but I want to highlight petting animals here as a mini rant. What a waste of the player's time and the developer's.

Does anyone actually care about this useless shite feature? Do you regularly take your time to pet animals in video games to the point it is actually worth having this in a game ? And people wonder why games take years to make and cost a fortune to make. Useless bloat features that serve no actual purpose and have nothing to do with the core game itself.

I have a hard time remembering if I ever petted an animal more than once in a playthrough and if I do it, it's merely a curiosity thing to see the animation some poor underpaid, soon-to-be-unemployed animator spent a week (or however long) of his life making. There's apparently even an achievement in the latest AC, Black Flag to pet all animals, which prompted this mini rant. Indeed, the reason I play ASSASSIN'S CREED is to pet a dog.

Umm ... WHY ? Here's an ideea. Instead of wasting development time on this garbage, how about taking that same animator and making him do something worthwhile, like some more combat finisher animations so I don't have to watch the same damn 4 ones over the course of a 60h playthrough. But God forbid we do something that improves the core game/gameplay.

Am I a miserable bastard or am I making some sense here ?

 

[ClanOfNone]

I only pet the kitties.

 

[The_hunter]

I think it's stupid

 

[PatientGamer]

Admittedly, I do pet animals if the option appears.. but if they removed it entirely from games, I wouldn't be fussed in the slightest.

 

[Polaris]

Petting digital mascots:

 

[Gaiff]

"Yes, I like to waste my time petting pixels repeatedly"

I genuinely don't understand people who game and say this. Everything you do in games is with pixels. You're driving a pixelated car, swinging a pixelated sword, looking at pixelated characters, shooting pixelated bullets, etc. This choice in the OP is the equivalent of morons going "they're just pixelated women" when we complain about ugly chicks in games.

I'm fine with the option to pet animals. I might do it every once in a while, but I wouldn't lose sleep over its removal. it's whatever.

 

[BloodFree]

Admittedly, I do pet animals if the option appears.. but if they removed it entirely from games, I wouldn't be fussed in the slightest.

Well, yeah, that's the point. Who the hell goes out of their way or gets a game for this crap ?

 

[BloodFree]

"Yes, I like to waste my time petting pixels repeatedly"

I genuinely don't understand people who game and say this. Everything you do in games is with pixels. You're driving a pixelated car, swinging a pixelated sword, looking at pixelated characters, shooting pixelated bullets, etc. This choice in the OP is the equivalent of morons going "they're just pixelated women" when we complain about ugly chicks in games.

I'm fine with the option to pet animals. I might do it every once in a while, but I wouldn't lose sleep over its removal. it's whatever.

The point is that I do not see what is gained from it when it comes to fun or to the game itself. I can definitely see what fun is being gained by driving a car or shooting something, pixels or not.

 

[Sticks]

Just petted a couple in Black Flag lol

 

[Giallo Corsa]

But, if you pet them 5 or 10 times you usually get a trophy/achievement - that's always good and useful...

 

[Karim]

This thread could be made into a series cause there's a lot of bloat in modern games, but I want to highlight petting animals here as a mini rant. What a waste of the player's time and the developer's.

Does anyone actually care about this useless shite feature? Do you regularly take your time to pet animals in video games to the point it is actually worth having this in a game ? And people wonder why games take years to make and cost a fortune to make. Useless bloat features that serve no actual purpose and have nothing to do with the core game itself.

I have a hard time remembering if I ever petted an animal more than once in a playthrough and if I do it, it's merely a curiosity thing to see the animation some poor underpaid, soon-to-be-unemployed animator spent a week (or however long) of his life making. There's apparently even an achievement in the latest AC, Black Flag to pet all animals, which prompted this mini rant. Indeed, the reason I play ASSASSIN'S CREED is to pet a dog.

Umm ... WHY ? Here's an ideea. Instead of wasting development time on this garbage, how about taking that same animator and making him do something worthwhile, like some more combat finisher animations so I don't have to watch the same damn 4 ones over the course of a 60h playthrough. But God forbid we do something that improves the core game/gameplay.

Am I a miserable bastard or am I making some sense here ?

What I see in AC Valhalla is not petting, it's sex abuse.

 

[Sephimoth]

It was once updoot bait on social media, and never went away.

 

[Edgelord79]

The point is that I do not see what is gained from it when it comes to fun or to the game itself. I can definitely see what fun is being gained by driving a car or shooting something, pixels or not.

Doesn't really bother me either way as I just don't participate. Voted no as there was no meh option. I do find that type of interaction odd a bit though, but to each their own.

 

[Miles708]

Yes I like petting animals, sitting on chairs, grabbing and rotating 3D models of every single can of juice the shop has to sell.

I like opening doors and see if they work correctly both ways,
I like opening the bonnet of a car and see if I can use the turn signals.

In RDR2 I pet my horse at least once every 10 mins because I am not an uncultured beast.

The question to you OP is why don't YOU like interacting with stuff? The interaction is the foundation of the entire medium.
A game is not an office job, you don't need to necessarily take the most efficient way to go from A to B.

Did you play The Last Guardian? How could you possibly even enjoy that with this mindset?

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Gaming is all about player actions being acknowledged by the game. You fire a bullet at a wall? A temp bullet hole. Good. You slash your sword at an NPC and they acted like nothing happened? Game is ignoring you and that pisses people off. You do something, the game responds to it, player happy.

Animal petting is just something added because players often want to do this and developers allow it. It allows the player to enforce their will on the game. it is what it means to play games. You do, game react to what you did.

 

[GHound]

TL;DR: OP's mom wouldn't buy him a copy of Nintendogs.

 

[falconhoof]

I often do it because I think the developer might be tracking the numbers and will reward for it.

There are games that earn the emotional aspect more than just adding an interaction on something, but I don't classify that as the same thing because there can be many reasons why a narrative can build emotion. The mere act of shoving an interaction labelled "Pet" in the game feels fulled by social media bait "Can you pet the dog" — free marketing.

 

[BloodFree]

The question to you OP is why don't YOU like interacting with stuff? The interaction is the foundation of the entire medium.
A game is not an office job, you don't need to necessarily take the most efficient way to go from A to B.

It's not that I do not like the interaction (talking about this specific one), it's just that it is a bloat feature that does not support the core pillars of the game itself. It is a matter of priorities. Listen, in a perfect world where those things are satisfied, sure have animal petting. But when it detracts from the core game, why is it there ?

I specifically highlight this here:

Umm ... WHY ? Here's an ideea. Instead of wasting development time on this garbage, how about taking that same animator and making him do something worthwhile, like some more combat finisher animations so I don't have to watch the same damn 4 ones over the course of a 60h playthrough. But God forbid we do something that improves the core game/gameplay.

Why am I playing AC or what do I do in AC for 70-80% of the time ? I kill people and climb over stuff. Why is then combat, a CORE part of the game being ignored in favour of bloat ? Why am I watching repeated animations, so that I can have extra animations to pet dogs ?

I have no problem with animal petting being in Horse Farm Simulator 2028, that would be a core feature that a game like that should probably have. But in AC ? Come on, deal with the important shit first.

 

[64gigabyteram]

how about taking that same animator and making him do something worthwhile, like some more combat finisher animations so I don't have to watch the same damn 4 ones over the course of a 60h playthrough.

Are you genuinely this uneducated about game development to think that the ability to pet an animal takes away so much precious development time from the game? It's a feature that at most takes 2 days to implement.
"Oh no! they're making dog petting animations! now we'll NEVER be able to finish our brutal combat animations! Darn those digital dogs!!!!"

Look I get that you're an old crabby "get off my lawn!" boomer but have some fucking whimsy. You cannot be this miserable.

 

[Skifi28]

Nothing wrong with a little flavor that makes the game's world feel more alive. I really don't think a 5 second animation is the issue when it comes to development. Once you remove all flavor from games because it doesn't directly serve the gameplay/story etc. you are left with a sterile nothing.

 

[ultrazilla]

I think it's a fun detail that often helps with immersion. Not everything has to be slaughtered and skinned.

 

[Miles708]

It's not that I do not like the interaction (talking about this specific one), it's just that it is a bloat feature that does not support the core pillars of the game itself. It is a matter of priorities. Listen, in a perfect world where those things are satisfied, sure have animal petting. But when it detracts from the core game, why is it there ?

I specifically highlight this here:



Why am I playing AC or what do I do in AC for 70-80% of the time ? I kill people and climb over stuff. Why is then combat, a CORE part of the game being ignored in favour of bloat ? Why am I watching repeated animations, so that I can have extra animations to pet dogs ?

I have no problem with animal petting being in Horse Farm Simulator 2028, that would be a core feature that a game like that should probably have. But in AC ? Come on, deal with the important shit first.

Well, the cynical explanation is that petting animations are a quick and simple feature that make for easily shareable posts on socials.

On the other hand, especially bigger open world games, tend to include this kind of "easter eggs" to keep interest and surprise the player. It's another way to reward curiosity.
In this context, the fact that it doesn't relate directly with the core mechanics of the game actually adds to the experience.

 

[Trilobit]

Why would I hate interactivity in an interactive medium?

I hated not being able to pet the dogs in Breath of the Wild.

 

[BloodFree]

Are you genuinely this uneducated about game development to think that the ability to pet an animal takes away so much precious development time from the game? It's a feature that at most takes 2 days to implement.
"Oh no! they're making dog petting animations! now we'll NEVER be able to finish our brutal combat animations! Darn those digital dogs!!!!"

Look I get that you're an old crabby "get off my lawn!" boomer but have some fucking whimsy. You cannot be this miserable.

I'm probably more educated on this than you, unless you are a pro game dev, and I'm also probably younger than most people on this forum, taking into account one of the threads on that a while back. This has nothing to do with hate, but practicality and focus. In this example (AC:BF) it isn't just one animation, it's like 10 or something. One animation per animal type. Include sounds/voice lines, code and potentiall bugs/issues. You say all of that can be made in 2 days ? And even if that was the case, which, I'm positive it's not, that's 2 extra days to work on something that is more important to the game.

 

[bbeach123]

ACO petting is fine , hold a button to get into a locked unskippable petting cutscene is not .

 

[BloodFree]

Why would I hate interactivity in an interactive medium?

Where's the interaction, you're usually locked in place staring at an animation. There is usually also no consequence or meaningful result. Interaction to me, is a bit more than that or at least anything meaningful and worthwile.

 

[Valonquar]

 

[Trilobit]

Where's the interaction, you're usually locked in place staring at an animation. There is usually also no consequence or meaningful result. Interaction to me, is a bit more than that or at least anything meaningful and worthwile.

You must hate JRPGs.

 

[Miles708]

 

[poppabk]

Any interactivity is worth it in my book. I bet half the people who think it's a waste of time get giddy over custom animations for putting your sword away and lose their shit if the bunch of pixels are arranged to be an ugly woman.
But yeah - don't make it a mini cutscene.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Open worlds. Unless I'm playing a MMPORG, the entire concept is useless, and driven by a 'user engagement' metric leaders use in their performance reviews

 

[Hideous Snake]

Interactivity is always welcomed. There are plenty other useless features

 

[Abysse]

These are nice details, they don't get in the way at all.

GTA 6 will have many "useless" things like this and will be applauded.

 

[Miles708]

Where's the interaction, you're usually locked in place staring at an animation. There is usually also no consequence or meaningful result. Interaction to me, is a bit more than that or at least anything meaningful and worthwile.

There's the right place and moment for both high and low stakes interaction. Killing an enemy is the first kind, petting an animal is the second one.
Like listening to a music album, you can't pump high energy tunes from start to finish, you need moments of just messing with the environment and enjoy the simple interactions, and so hell yeah i'm following that damn cat and you can be sure i'm going to pet it

 

[RavageX]

I think it's only an issue if I have to do it, unless I'm playing some sort of vet game or something like that, which I wouldnt.

But, having issues that a game gives you what I consider to be one of the most important things to have in games....that thing being "options" is a bit silly.

Rather a game give you a choice than none at all.

 

[Shifty1897]

Petting an animal helps you identify with your character, by giving them the ability to do things you would normally do.

There's value in it for some players, otherwise there wouldn't be a Twitter account with half a million followers dedicated to whether or not you can pet a dog in a game.

 

[Represent.]

Agreed 1000% percent.
God bless TLOU 2 for letting me kill them instead

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

I think it's become a stupid cliche by now. I really don't give a crap.

I remember Dragon Age: The Veilguard YouTube videos all had astroturf bots squealing about how you can pet the cats.

 

[BloodFree]

Any interactivity is worth it in my book. I bet half the people who think it's a waste of time get giddy over custom animations for putting your sword away and lose their shit if the bunch of pixels are arranged to be an ugly woman.
But yeah - don't make it a mini cutscene.

Yeah, cause depending on the game, that shit matters to the core experience or fantasy.

Going back to AC:BF, I absolutely would expect an animation of Edward polishing his pistol (Heyooo) or playing with his cutlasses (hehe) or a pretty wench. That's part of the pirate fantasy. What does a pirate have to do with petting animals brother ? Again, focus in design and resource allocation vs useless bloat.

 

[64gigabyteram]

This has nothing to do with hate, but practicality and focus. In this example (AC:BF) it isn't just one animation, it's like 10 or something. One animation per animal type. You say all of that can be made in 2 days ? And even if that was the case, which, I'm positive it's not, that's 2 extra days to work on something that is more important to the game.

You can have conversations about practicality and focus for things like, adding a combo meter to the combat system, dialogue choices in character conversations, giving the player the ability to ride a motorcycle inside ancient times, or in general stuff that actually has to do with gameplay in a meaningful way, stuff that requires an amount of refinement, effort, and time that could actually be wasted money and time if it turned out poorly.

There is nothing damaging to development about adding the ability to pet a dog. No matter how many animals that is, the amount of development time that'd take from a game that already takes upwards of 3-4 years to make is NEGLIGIBLE. It's a button prompt and a couple animations, from a studio who likely has more than enough animators willing to make the quirk chungus dog animations.

The reason games take so long and so much money to make now is that development is tied up in 45 layers of corporate bureaucracy, where CEOs and focus testing groups have a greater say on the game's creative direction than the actual directors.
Any sort of concept or idea has to get run through 50 different meetings just to reach the implementation phase.
2 hour long code edits and bug fixes take weeks to get approved.
And there are extended periods of time where even with all this the developers have no direction and idea where to go.
Mocapped animations by the buttload, voice recordings and lines for EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER (usually from famous actors and celebrities too!), hyper realistic terrain and textures to sell the world.
All of this is for a game that needs to be 50-80 hours long with 300 hours worth of content so that the publisher can justify charging a fat 80 dollars for it, with extensive advertising campaigns licensing out popular pop and rap songs to play in the trailers. Billboards, subway advertisements, everywhere.
And the studios are being hosted in the most expensive cities in the world for no FUCKING REASON when there are millions of talented artists, coders, and designers in any part of the world, who don't have to get paid salaries in the upwards of hundreds of thousands because they live in a place with an actually HUMANE cost of living.

Dog petting? Negligible.

 

[EntelechyFuff]

It really only stands out or annoys me when this is the only significant interaction you can have with a pet in the game.

For some strange reason, I consider old RPGs where you can talk to animals and get a text box that just says [DOG: "BARK BARK!"] to be more worthwhile.

 

[Shubh_C63]

I like petting. It needs to include auto fetch sticks. I mean seriously we are in 2026 and I bet even GTA6 won't have this feature.

 

[hollowcupra]

What would the benefit from removing said future be?

If adding the animal petting caused the exclusion of a far better, amazing addition in the game then I guess yeah stupid decision but if not, I don't see why it bothers. I personally like to do any of the actions a game allows me to do. They are there to add depth, big or small. If you don't like petting, gardening, fishing just don't do it.

 

[Team Skoda]

Though the subject became a meme for no reason, the option should be there, yes. Otherwise it would just break immersion further.

 

[simpatico]

Devs know the chungus phenotype makes up a large portion of the influencer population.

 

[BloodFree]

You can have conversations about practicality and focus for things like, adding a combo meter to the combat system, dialogue choices in character conversations, giving the player the ability to ride a motorcycle inside ancient times, or in general stuff that actually has to do with gameplay in a meaningful way, stuff that requires an amount of refinement, effort, and time that could actually be wasted money and time if it turned out poorly.

There is nothing damaging to development about adding the ability to pet a dog. No matter how many animals that is, the amount of development time that'd take from a game that already takes upwards of 3-4 years to make is NEGLIGIBLE. It's a button prompt and a couple animations, from a studio who likely has more than enough animators willing to make the quirk chungus dog animations.

The reason games take so long and so much money to make now is that development is tied up in 45 layers of corporate bureaucracy, where CEOs and focus testing groups have a greater say on the game's creative direction than the actual directors.
Any sort of concept or idea has to get run through 50 different meetings just to reach the implementation phase.
2 hour long code edits and bug fixes take weeks to get approved.
And there are extended periods of time where even with all this the developers have no direction and idea where to go.
Mocapped animations by the buttload, voice recordings and lines for EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER (usually from famous actors and celebrities too!), hyper realistic terrain and textures to sell the world.
All of this is for a game that needs to be 50-80 hours long with 300 hours worth of content so that the publisher can justify charging a fat 80 dollars for it, with extensive advertising campaigns licensing out popular pop and rap songs to play in the trailers. Billboards, subway advertisements, everywhere.
And the studios are being hosted in the most expensive cities in the world for no FUCKING REASON when there are millions of talented artists, coders, and designers in any part of the world, who don't have to get paid salaries in the upwards of hundreds of thousands because they live in a place with an actually HUMANE cost of living.

Dog petting? Negligible.

I never said that this was some huge roadblock or anything, you're choosing to interpret my post as such. It is simply another "small" piece of the puzzle that contributes to the issue. Because petting an animal is not a singular bloat feature usually, but just one example. All games have finite resources that need to be allocated towards something. Ultimately, does this serve the game and is it a worthwhile use of said resources, no matter how small ? I say no. Especially when the games are far from perfect and are lacking in some other areas.

 

[Lupin3]

Does anyone actually care about this useless shite feature?

Am I a miserable bastard ?

 

[Gamezone]

Petting the cat in Shenmue was next gen.

 

[64gigabyteram]

I never said that this was some huge roadblock or anything, you're choosing to interpret my post as such. It is simply another "small" piece of the puzzle that contributes to the issue. And petting animals is simply one of these bloat features that can be used as an example. All games have finite resources that need to be allocated towards something. Ultimately, does this serve the game and is it a worthwhile use of said resources, no matter how small ? I say no.

All games have finite resources and time to be made. But if you have a thousand dollars and a candy bar costs 3 dollars, it wouldn't hurt you if you bought one for your kid.

 

[BloodFree]

All games have finite resources and time to be made. But if you have a thousand dollars and a candy bar costs 3 dollars, it wouldn't hurt you if you bought one for your kid.

I edited/rephrased the post after you replied, but this is the point in regards to what you're saying.

It is simply another "small" piece of the puzzle that contributes to the issue. Because petting an animal is not a singular bloat feature usually, but just one example.

One candy bar, sure, 10 or 20 starts making a dent.