Yeah, that's likely the case.

For something like 99.9% of players, that would make for a rubbish game, though.

Player selects on camp-bed to sleep. Game over, player dead. Reload. "Wait, what? Damn, this game is a buggy heap of garbage! What? 'Companion stabbed you in your sleep'? Why!? Why would they do that? I'm taking this back to the store, this can't be right. Has anyone else had this? Damn, this bug is cropping up all over... IT ISN'T A BUG??!!! Bethesda are mad! Why did they put this in!?"

Even worse if a reviewer encounters this feature. Same problem if a companion steals the equipment you need to survive.

Thing is... these are just games. The companions aren't supposed to be 'real' or have 'feelings', and everyone knows this. The characters in games are just that. Characters. They exist to serve the purposes of the plot. Even if it's a roleplay game with a lot of player choice, the player is still navigating a set of game mechanics and pre-written plot scripts.

This is why, in Fallout 3, you can't pile all your initial stats into charisma, intelligence, persuasion or whatever, patch things over with the overseer and live the rest of your life safe inside the vault leaving your abandoning waste of a father to his own dumb devices.

Given that companions and all other characters in games exist only to serve the purposes of plot or gameplay mechanics, then they should either behave in ways that progress the plot (even if you only find out about it later) or in ways that can be understood and anticipated in a mechanistic fashion. They shouldn't behave randomly. If a character does behave in a way that appears random, then the game needs to wave a flag saying 'this is supposed to happen'. Usually in the form of a scripted cut-scene, NPC dialogue or similar device.

crazy RPG fans are crazy RPG fans, comforting isn't?

I think you misread - if you behave in a way a companion doesn't like, I don't think you'll romance them (they said something about "how this character feels about you", so they have personality!)

greetings LAX

ps: Romance if done right adds to the characters (it doesn't diminish them at all!)

I agree. All of the NV companions were believable characters that had personalities and backstories, and were very memorable.

Well, don't be such a doucher, and be a better judge of character? (jk)

The narrative doesn't need to weigh so heavily in the PC's favor. As Cook's Tours will tell you: The World is Yours. The PC isn't boot camp for kids outta high school; his recruits are assumed to be characters, with their own interests, motives, and story. That can mean looting, selling, disappearing in combat, and betraying you, in order to advance their own agendas. When companions are recruited, the player character should have to think of companion NPCs as covenantal/contractual.

Maybe I misunderstood your post. Were you suggesting an AI driven risk of companions messing the player over regardless of the character's dialogue and voice-acting (which is what I thought your post sounded like), or a 'character as written' risk, which tallies with the character as presented to the player?

The latter would be fine, and perfectly in line with the character fulfilling a part in the plot-thread being selected by the player from the possibilities offered by Bethesda - but the player ought to be given enough information with which to judge the companion's character, and any betrayal should be implemented in such a way that it isn't a game-fail state. Like I said before, developers sticking in insta-death traps that cannot be spotted before they're encountered is rarely if ever popular.

Having a character written as competent, level-headed, professional and supportive and with no motive to turn on the player character suddenly do so because of a hidden dice-roll would really be an appalling mistake.

Don't feel sad about it as I never said I didn't enjoy new vegas. New Vegas was a good game, but was far from the perfect one some people think. Personally obsidian handled the lore and factions of the game splendidly, but I feel they failed to execute it as well in terms of progression of events. I also feel that the environment was so dull, with a few gems here and there, as opposed to bethesda's games which have far more interesting environments. Now New Vegas is a great game, but I don't feel it's as amazing as some people claim is all.

This. New Vegas has a good story and character writing... but the Mojave was just boring compared to the Capital Wasteland...

Agreed. I liked the weapon mods and the companions. Overall I think FONV was a better game then FO3. But FO3 had atmosphere and lots of it.

But the DLC's for FONV were much MUCH better than the FO3 DLC's. In fact, I prefer the story line in the DLC's then the main quest in FONV.

Actually things like this would be awesome in a fallout game.

One of the funniest scenes in fallout 2 was when you lost the arm wrestling match to the super mutant and he made you his [censored]. Fade to black and you wake up with a ball gag and a disease

Picture this you are a good karma do gooder and you recruit a bad guy, think Montaron or Xzar from BG or Jericho from FO3. You have no business associating with this type of criminal but you do anyway, ignoring all the danger signs. One night as you camp you get tied up and [censored], get sold to slavers, have a kidney harvested, you get the idea. You then need to escape and then track down the guy who wronged you. This would be a great storyline.

If you were a bad karma guy and hung with good people they could turn you into the law and testify against you.

I would really like companions that could do things against your wishes and act in their own best interests. Make it where your goals need to be aligned or you need to build up a level of trust before they'll go and do something stupidly risky like attack a big pack of deathclaws or something. There you are crouched down and about to shoot a deathclaw and your companion goes "Whoa!!!, hold up there Einstein." and you need to convince him you know what you are doing or else he'll leave or just move way back out of the way and watch.

On the main topic I think it makes for better characters when their sixual preference is written in rather than accepting whatever you want them to be. Dragon Age Origins did a good job of it in my opinion. Zevron being up for anyone made sense and fit as well as Lelianna (the bard). Morrigan being rather conservative in her feeling until unleashed, Sten respecting toughness and conviction while disdaining the typical "I'll answer what I think you want to hear BS" that many conversation trees have to get the "best" response. As others have pointed out these all work because the story is fairly linear, the number of companions are few and there are ample times to interact at the campground to further explore the relationships. Not sure how any of that will be possible in an open world go and do whatever you want world.

Hopefully it will be better than Skyrim's system.

It does. I've played RPGs where the NPC can rob your party blind in the night, or try to kill your PC if you dismiss them. I think it would be fine if the PC makes choices that the NPC hates, then the NPC might leave during the night ~perhaps leave a note if the PC is literate.
It could also be good if the PC with an onerous history and bounties on them, might wake up in jail; turned in by their greedy NPC; or one that couldn't stand them getting away with their crimes.

I find it odd that suddenly men are complaining about there in game Girlfriend being Bi and might know a girl they can get it on with in front of him . . .usually the response you expect would be along the lines of Heck yah!

If its because the guy your with might start hitting on you? well Im sure its easy enough to avoid, and if not theirs always Mr Mini gun to explain things Bullet point by bullet point.

and with the right mod Mr Mini gun can even make it a http://www.winchester.com/Products/components/Bullets/centerfire-rifle/Pages/power-point.aspx

Well I've allways been a "hands-on" kinda guy. I even find strippers boring... It's like going to the amusemant park... and just watch other people go round the awesome rollercoaster and then go home again.

Also I'd feel like a peeping tom and I just respect people's privacy too much.

It's not that characters are bi or gay. Heck, I've had a bi girlfriend and I've been to 2nd base with a gay guy to make a third person jealous (after which he kept hitting on me the rest of the evening -..- ).

It's that, I personally, would like the variety of it, in the characters. So I can be eg. flirty, with it having absolutely no repercussions, because it's inherently platonic (tho that went to hell in the above example ).

Well, they pointed to the realistic side. No giant groups of Super mutants or raiders, it's a desert. Settlements are highly populated, for the better, or for the worse.

Now it would be interesting if some of your companions hit on each other. Didn't Haer'Dalis in BG2 hit on Aerie? Course since you can only take one with you at a time we are going to miss a lot of that inner party banter, which is sad since often that can be pretty good stuff.

Another thread [censored]ing about optional stuff... i for once welcome every increase of interactivity in games, but i guess some people like to limit their freedoms. Let me guess, you're probably an apple user.

I do recall a number of treads where people were wondering why the heck some random npc was talking about marriage because they did not realise the necklace thing. But then that whole system was so poorly thought out in the first place

ooooooohhhhhh HE SAID SHE AINT GOT NO nipbleS!!!!

I don't care about who we can romanticize or have coitus with in games. I only really put work into it if there are story quests to go along with said companion, like NV, PoEternity, etc. Skyrim's system was just atrocious.

I guess we should just blindly praise everything Bethesda ever does? Restrictions in games are a good thing, imo. As long as we can build/develop correctly to access whats being restricted.

Take your moronic platform religious wars and stuff it. Those are just idiotic stereotypes and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And with that, I'm closing this a few posts early.