We can call him a mutt so that's probably the go away button and I'm sure even if they force us to have him join you initially, we'll be able to dismiss him at anytime anyway.
I'll probably go without him too since first thing I'm doing is looking for an eyebot companion as they are (in my completely unbiased opinion) the only acceptable followers.
is a companion u arent force to use it. u can choose to never get it, or just simple send him sleep, like i did with every companion i got on F3 and NV.
But u cant kill it.
Where the heck are people coming up with the idea that you're forced to have any companion, namely the dog? This is an absurd assumption. Merely featuring him in videos doesn't mean that you have to have him, just think about it.
There is a confirmed perk called "Lone Wanderer" that gives you bonuses if you have no companions. Think about that.
Why would they give you a perk that is only useful if you have no companions, in a game where you are forced to have at least one companion (Dogmeat)?
Understandable question, but Todd has said specifically that Dogmeat is optional. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uonUCBk70JA, at 1:05. He also says "When he's your companion he can't die," which implies that he can die when he's not your companion, but I wouldn't bet on it. Could just be unfortunate wording.
I believe you can ignore the dog or shoot him in the face.
Nice to have some RPG choices...
Dogmeat is a fan favorite..... Which is why they advertise him so much.... Codsworth is a companion as well, and yet... you aren't forced to take him. I'm more interested in the animosity some people feel for a fictional animal, within a videogame... You don't want dogmeat? Don't walk up to him and talk to him... you won't even have to choose not to take him, because it'd be like you never encountered him. You aren't forced into having any companions, and even have a perk to add benefits to not having companions.
I too am baffled as to why so many people have assumed that companions are forced when it goes against Fallout and Bethesda's track history.
What role-playing roots are Bethesda abandoning, exactly? Their games have always been action-adventure RPGs.
You seem to have missed some videos. Did you see that part in Concord where the pc meets Preston Garvey and his gang and then takes out the raiders in power armor and then fights the Deathclaw? No sign of Dogmeat. In fact, for all the gameplay I've seen there's not a whole lot of the pooch, actually, you're just being selective for whatever purpose you hold... when will an answer be good enough for you? You have been given plenty of sensible answers with logic and proof, such as the dialogue option where you can tell the dog "you're a mutt" which leaves the logical mind to assume that tells the dog to get lost.
The problem with your thread is that you seem to have posted mostly to express your distaste based on something that hasn't been confirmed at all instead of approaching it from a standpoint of just asking for feedback such as saying "Can we not have the dog as a companion?" You've gotten your answers, when will you be satisfied, have us all agree with you that Bethesda has made a bad choice and harmed their beloved RP'er fans even though the consensus is the opposite of your assumption? There is no really solid evidence to back up the notion that you have to have any companion be with you, while there is evidence for the contrary. Plus Bethesda's track record concerning companions, where it is up to you.
Sorry, didn't know you couldn't take a bit a sarcasm. I didn't mean to come off as condescending.
At any rate, you're asking a questing no one here has a straight answer for. None of us know 100% whether Dogmeat will be a required companion or not.
I was just trying to inform you about something in the game that suggests that he won't be a required companion.
I don't remember Oblivion or Morrowind's quests having more choices on average than the quests in Skyrim - although Oblivion's quests overall were certainly the best of the three (at the cost of boring dungeons, and a boring world outside the city gates I'd say). I think their design philosophy for quests is different between franchises - Elder Scrolls get a boatload of more linear quests, and your choice is whether or not to do them, while Fallout has fewer quests that have multiple outcomes and approaches.
And considering 99% of Arena and Daggerfall is dungeon crawling and finding creative ways to slay monsters, I think it's less that they're abandoning RPG elements and more just changing their priorities every time. As for the gameplay elements, the only thing I ever really missed from later TES games were spears and spellcrafting, which is easily made up by how much better Skyrim's leveling and combat systems are IMO. (what I love is how Skyrim gets so much flak for a "streamlined" magic system, but it's actually the easiest and most rewarding game to play as a pure, unarmored, no-weapons mage at the standard difficulty)
I'm looking forward to the new character system, but I understand concerns with the voiced protagonist. If it's at least as good as it was in Mass Effect, though, I'll love it; even if it is different.
I don't do companions at all usually but if I did get him I'd put him in my house and tell him to stay.
I hate all the Dogmeat advertising as well, I really do. He's a staple of the series but in every game he's just one of many companions and yet Bethesda treat him as though Fallout is about a wanderer and his sidekick dog. Add that to the fact he's immortal and ugh...
But yeah I'll probably get him and then immediately tell him to stay somewhere, as with most companions. Pretty sure I'll hang with Codsworth for the majority of the game, my pre-war buddy.