It just means that you use them as immortal meat shields, and that the PCs react irrationally about them getting shot.

meh I use npc companions in games like meatshields anyway, even in the old games if I bothered, so the only diffrence is if I need to reload saves or not.

This shouldn't be encouraged in the [flawed] game designs. If nothing else, the NPCs should turn on the PC if they are betrayed.

(But better IMO, that the player loses them if they get killed ~whether or not it was their own fault.)

*shrugs* thats personal taste for ya, skyrim in my book had a good solution, immortal yet able to be incapacitated. Avoids the annoyance of companion deaths yet tones down the overpowerfulness of such a mechanic.

It's a mistake for games to tip-toe around annoying the player... It makes them servile, and unrespected. Fallout was very purposely not a fantasy magical setting, and it derived from Wasteland. It is a 100% about face ~flip-flop to then include immortal party members that cannot perish. It damages the game's credibility IMO.

Sometimes it can be a part of the gameplay though. See Jagged Alliance. Some members of your team either loved or loathed it to work together with certain mercenaries. If those died in combat, you would also get some commentary by your companions. Up to the point where I believe some refused to continue to work for you or would even start shooting you, if you betrayed them.

Like I said, it all depends on how much time you spend on the system.

I wonder how long until it becomes a nuisance to be gotten rid off that they even drop unconscious.

What's so bad about that? - Sure, you don't like it (and that's ok!), but many of us do (particularly those who would hate to be denied content because they lost a companion (which can happen if you have enough problems keeping your own character alive and kicking))

I like that I can't lose then and I freely admit that I don't want to use stimpacks (or any other consumable!) to get them back up after a fight (I hate added tedium...RL is tedius enough for me!)

greetings LAX

It's bad because it affects the design of the game; it is ~essentially aiming at two or more mutually exclusive targets, and ensuring that neither of us get what we want, and that what we do get is only http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/FO3_Arrow_to_the_Knee.jpg to us both.

My memory of Skyrim is that companions weren't actually immortal--enemies would ignore them once they became incapacitated, but they could still die from splash damage or friendly fire. I lost Lydia and a number of other companions that way. This, I thought, was a good compromise and I wouldn't mind seeing FO4 handle it the same way.

That's not too bad of way to go about it. I wonder if that will be selectable via console; or can be enabled via mod?

Pillars of Eternity works somewhat like that. Dragon Age does too... though I must say that it annoyed me in DA:O that the NPCs just get up after the fight (IRRC). In Pillars, the NPCs can die, and they can also be obliterated.

I also remember that DnD games had a similar mechanic where characters would not simply die when their health reached zero? Where they would actually only die if they had -1 health where zero simply marked that they have been out of combat. But I am not sure, it's been a long time.

the problem with dao and companion death is that they're integral to the story, at least a couple of them are, and up until those parts are past, having them die would literally lock you out of the rest of the game.

I believe they could/can die in the baldur's gate games, and maybe Neverwinter Nights 1, but they can't really die in NWN2.

It's nice to have some company in these games, but for F3 and NV, playing with companions = easy mode

The obvious compromise is to make companion death something the player can turn on and off.

Bad design IMO. [BTW, I'm playing DA:O ~technically.]

I prefer everyone being able to die, which unfortunately has never worked well in BSG games because NPCs are painfully stupid. If the AI is a bit better in FO4, then it would be terrible if they couldn't die. A sense of self preservation would go a long way. It may also finally encourage me to look into some medical skill so I can heal others.

Ideally companions should be self sustaining individuals who have their own gear and need food, water and stimpaks just like the PC. Maybe I'm being too optimistic

Unconscious at 0 and dead at -END

If they are unconscious, no, they should not be able to "resurrect" themselves. There need to be SOME downside for Leroy! tactics (tho the fact that you don't have direct control over the companions is also an issue and points out the need to vastly improve their general combat AI). Still, a downed companion should require some player interaction to get them back to a functional state (IMO).

I would rather companions die when their health drops to zero but given the companion AI in previous games this probably makes sense.

Of course, I'll only travel wi th Dogmeat. I prefer being a lone wanderer

The world's longest Escort Quest.

-----

Honestly, I don't really see the point in comparing how companions work in Bethesda games, with how NPCs are managed in party-based isometric games. There's different issues & design decisions for the two styles. (And even within them, depending on other things: like, in isometric games - can you control all the characters, are there replacements if they die / can the game be completed without a party, etc. Each of these different things, along with other designer intents, effects how character "death" is handled. So just because Fallout 1 or Wasteland handled companions in such-and-such way, doesn't really have much bearing on Fallout 3/4. Because they're different kinds of games - yes, Gizmo, we know. "They should have named it something different then". They didn't. And they're still different styles of games, and that's what has bearing on other design choices.)

Personally, I don't use the companions in the first place, because comps in Bethesda games just get underfoot. The games play much better with a single character running around by him/herself. (I did end up with a companion part of the time in FO:NV.... and yeah, pretty much just annoying. And doing the final battle with Veronica just underlined why having them die is stupid. She fell down in every single encounter with Legion dudes in the dam. No survival instincts combined with OP dudes with super-sledges or whatever crazy melee crap they had = constantly dead companion. If I'd had to reload every time she died, I'd either have never gotten through that battle at all, or I'd have done it like I do the Declaration mission in FO3 - I tell Sydney to wait, clear the whole dungeon, then go back and get her for the final talk with the robot.)

Exactly how would you propose to design it then? The options I see are:

• Companions do not have any content backstory quests and are just combat capable (loosely used term) mules.
• Companions can't die (so the content they have available isn't lost).
• Companions have content AND can die allowing for either "do-over" save reload or soul crushing content loss. Keep in mind that despite what "old-school" games did, this option is not considered a player friendly one these days.

Do you have any "design" suggestions beyond these (that are semi-reasonable) or do you think one of these is "superior"?

Different design. They'd have to put out a completely different kind of game if they accommodated companions dying outside of story scenarios, and that probably isn't congruous with Bioware's goals for that game or others. You don't like it (I see your IMO), but that doesn't make it bad.

Whether or not it belongs in Fallout is up for debate. Bethesda's http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/17/e3-2015-fallout-4-director-discusses-companion-functionality-immortality?utm_source=IGN%20hub%20page&utm_medium=IGN%20%28front%20page%29&utm_content=2&utm_campaign=Spotlight why they did it: aside from player character death, they want to avoid failstates where the player is only motivated to reload a save and start over, as they don't find that engaging gameplay. Make of that what you will. Me, I don't mind since I was the type who would always reload; the games never gave me a reason not to. It also means I don't have to babysit my companions, either.

It does svck for the Ironman type players that want to deal with those consequences and see that character's story through without reloading. But, ehhh. Maybe if the games gave me a reason not to reload, like some sort of quest that triggers on companion death or something. I dunno.

All I need is Dogmeat - Which I'm glad that he won't die. It was annoying in Fallout 3 how quickly he would charge to his death.

In Fallout 1 it was just as bad. Though mostly my shots would miss and kill Dogmeat instead......

Option #3, but with no clues given to the player that there was ever anything to miss.
(And preferably permanent PC flags that exist outside outside the saved games... that brand loaded games as having certain content unavailable for that PC.)

*Optionally though... How about other NPCs in the world that have their own path to the content, that can be triggered either in dialog, or for them spotting equipment from the fallen NPC.