Horse implementation; whistling for your horse

Gameplay
#1

One thing I have been thinking about lately is how KCD is implementing horses. Specifically how you call for your horse.

It appears it is being implemented just like WC3, where when you whistle, your horse essentially appears out of nowhere and comes to you. This is similar to how Red Dead Redemption implemented horses as well. With KCD and RDR, if your horse was generally “within sight” it will come from that location. Otherwise, it appears out of thin air.

I really hate this implementation. I find it immersion breaking. You should have to take care of your horse. If you are traveling in a location where you choose not to bring your horse along (maybe you want to move quietly on foot, or the terrain makes it dangerous for the horse) so you have to find a location to tie your horse to a tree.

This would require you to come back for your horse later. If you take too long to come back for your horse, there’s risk that someone might steal it, someone might kill it (for the hide and horsemeat), or–if you wait too long–the horse dies.

Anyone else prefer this more realistic implementation?

7 Likes
#2

Personally I do not have a problem with the whistle feature in games like WC3, RDR, or DAI. In RDR tying up your horse is necessary if you want to keep the current horse. Aside from that there is no reason to bother and I almost never did just for role-playing’s sake. It was boring and I am sure the reason they did not make ‘tying up your horse’ mandatory is because it is not very fun.

#3

I acknowledge and understand your point, that it can become tedious and annoying. I think even Dan touched on this in a video. But, the other end of the spectrum, of having your horse appear out of thin air, is just as annoying. I don’t know if there is a happy medium.

I will argue, though, that this being an attempt at a historical, realistic RPG, that something as integral as a horse to this time period should be implemented in a more realistic method. Tying up your horse while in town, or to a tree while out of town, is not all that tedious compared to how they are implemented alchemy (which I think looks absolutely awesome).

1 Like
#4

I just really do not want to tie up a horse everytime I dismount. If you have to tie up your horse and neglect to do so what is the consequence? Will it run off or get stolen? What if you are in an open area and there is nowhere to tie a horse? Would NPC’s want you hitching livestock to their fences or property?

In RDR you tied a horse to a post. Would the Warhorse team have to set up designated posts all over the game or find a way to allow players to tie a horse to any tree, fence, ect without any problems?

I think the best solution would be to change the part of whistling you do not like. Have it so the horse does not disappear. In Shadow of the Colossus the horse Agro would keep a respectable distance from you and drink water and eat grass while you were dismounted. When you whistled he would run over to you. He also freaked out around things that made him nervous - the colossi and shadow beings for example. This made him all the more believable as a living creature.

7 Likes
#5

I like that suggestion; the horse staying within a relative proximity of the player (with some obvious exceptions) allows for the whistle mechanic to now become both realistic and believable. A simple solution, that still caters for flexibility where required.

I tend to agree with @Pengman19 The old horse appearing out of thin air trick is seemingly the wrong fit in context to KCD.

3 Likes
#6

The horse isn’t killable, right? Skyrim kinda has a good concept with horses. They’ll stay whereever you leave them and may even follow yu :stuck_out_tongue:
I don’t like the fact ur horse can’t die tho. (If I’m correct) I think they said something about it on e3 or I may be wrong.

#7

I really hate this implementation. I find it immersion breaking

Okay then try to program your own game. In all honesty, you have any idea how hard is to program a path finding for a horse, from any point, to you, so it makes sense and isn’t annoying? It might be a little bit of immersion break, but it’s an immersion break that is necessary, in order for you not to be annoyed while waiting 5 minutes for horse getting from the latest location to your own.

I suppose warhorse will do something similiar. It’s an effective mechanic, and without the little minimap, you won’t notice Horse just randomly appearing on the map. Don’t worry.

#8

Gladix - I have a hard time imagining it is that hard. I am sure it is easiest and causes the least problems if the horse just disappears. Large-scale, open worlds like Skyrim and Shadow of the colossus have horses that do not disappear. SOTC and Drakan both had rideable beasts that could navigate around solid objects and make their way to you with ease. I know Drakan is a bit of an obscure, unheard of game, but it in particular was impressive. The beast could fly, but even around mountains, trees, and very uneven terrain he could get to you without a problem when you called.

#9

That is a reasonable compromise. It’d also be nice if in certain locations (maybe limited to towns) where you can tie your horse up ala RDR-- if you want to.

2 Likes
#10

I don’t really understand this argument, or your annoyance with my request.

Ideas shouldn’t be censored because they may be difficult to implement. And there’s no reason to be annoyed with someone who is suggesting something that may be difficult. You may dislike the idea because you don’t like realistic elements as much as I do, and I respect that, but it’s not like this isn’t a legitimate issue for some people.

In Witcher 3, you can visibly see your horse appear out of nowhere. And to top it off, as it comes to you, it can go through walls, the ground, etc. etc. to get to you. Why make such a beautiful, immersive world, then have something that distracting and unrealistic happen?

2 Likes
#11

EDIT: Problems solved^^

#12

I’m all up for a compromise: You don’t have to tie your horse. The horse will peacefully graze, maybe randomly walk a few meters, but that’s it. But it will not come to your whistle, especially not from hundreds of metres. This way taking care of the horse will not annoy you, but neither will it be a whenever-you-want taxi.
It just feels weird.

1 Like
#13

Whistling for your horse is fine, gameplay should come before realism in cases like these so people don’t get bored or frustrated with losing a horse or having to walk everywhere. Also, this is still just to test the horse riding mechanics, things can and will change during development.

#14

The truth is, just having a horse back in this time period was not only very expensive, but also very time consuming. Unless you were wealthy enough to have your own stables and hands, it was time consuming to feed and clean up after it, bathe it and general maintenance. In a given town, in this time period, very few if any actually owned a horse. Only the lords. The only animals people had were work animals like oxen.

#15

deece, horses were used during that time period for transporting goods and for farm work. Horses required grain and pasture, unlike oxen that only needed pasture. Fewer horses however were needed and they were better suited for wheeled plows. With the invention of the horse collar they became much more useful for field work. I did a post on here about the horses used during this time - Horse/Dog Breeds and Recommendations

Horses were important during this time period and I am sure that there was no shortage of them. Nobles and knights no doubt could afford the better bred, finer horses while peasants settled for cheap, less desirable animals. Having to feed, clean up after, and general maintenance is required for any animal. It is not exclusive to horses. The nobles were just able to pay others to do the dirty, laborious work for them, unlike peasants and farmers who had to do it themselves. As for bathing the animal, I am no history expert, but I would assume most people during this time period didn’t bathe themselves - let alone the animals. The nobles probably did though.

#16

Forbidding, fair enough. Though I dare say that you don’t need a shovel to pick up shit after most other animals or a pitchfork with which to feed it. I do not think they were nearly as prevalent as you think. Especially in a small outlaying village with less than a hundred people. I tried to find some reference to value of a horse in this time, but couldn’t. I would imagine that it would be in comparison to buying a house though.

#17

I managed to find this… medieval cost of things:
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm

According to this, a war horse would sell for 4x the cost to rent a cottage for a year in the 1200’s on the low end, and 320x the cost to rent a cottage for a year in the 1300’s on the high end. My point here is horses wasn’t something every farmer had. Not even close. Most of the things I’ve read have them sleeping on hay and farming by hand with very rudimentary tools.

The term “one horse town” exists for a reason.

#18

Warhorses were high end animals and the Destrier was the most prized, so it isn’t surprising that they were costly. The rest of your post I assume is sarcasm, otherwise you clearly have not owned or been around any large animals. Horses need only a scoop or so of grain a day and some pasture or hay on the side. The same goes for almost any other grazing livestock. Shoveling animal waste is also done not just for horses, but for any livestock animals that are kept within a barn. In modern times most people who own chickens (an increasingly common hobby) know what I am talking about. I am sure in medieval times they just let the chickens wander about freely, but you get my point.

#19

Regardless, I feel I’ve made my point. Feel free to look at the table, it’s quite interesting showing not only costs of some things, but wages as well, so you can kind of get a grasp of what it would take to have your own horse and yet still get on with everything else.

#20

I am not saying that horses were dirt cheap and everyone had one, but neither do I believe they were this ultra rare commodity. I still stand that horses were not out of reach of peasants. They had the less desirable and cheaper Sumpter, Affrus or stott for labor while your post/chart clearly demonstrates that only nobles and wealthy knights had the means to obtain the well bred, warhorses. To me your argument is like looking at the price of champion thoroughbreds today and saying only millionaires can afford horses. You neglect to recognize that there are less valuable animals that the average person today can afford. Horses that cost a few thousand or hundreds of dollars.

The website you provided a link for also has the disclamer: “The list of medieval prices which follows is by no means complete or thoroughly researched.”

and

“Of course, a price list is a misleading guide to a feudal economy, because so many goods were either produced within a household, or supplied by a lord. Retainers could get money, but they would also get food, lodging, weapons (sometimes), and cloth. Knights Templar were provided with clothes, horses, and armor.”

So it gives an idea, but it will not be too accurate. You also have to take into account that this is not like modern times where everyone works a job, lives pay check to pay check, and visits the supermarket for food. They were much more self-sufficient back then.

I am not sure how valuable people during the period would find this information enough to write it down. I am no history expert, but I would guess only the wealthy could read and write, and I am sure that they would not want to spend their time recording the peasant economy and wages. I am sure this has made it very difficult for historians to get a price grasp on goods of the time, which is no doubt why you had a hard time locating any information on the subject.

1 Like
© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz