...and here I removed the "(So no, not jarring at all)," because I thought it was obvious from the rest of my post.

edit: to be more clear - I've played all sorts of games over the years (JRPGs, WRPGs, etc) that have given you ways to get the rest of your party back up (either recovering on their own, or "resting", or feeding them Phoenix Down/Stims/MedPacks/whatever). And it's not been "jarring" because that's how the games worked. I've also played games where companions dying was a right pain (either due to requiring super-expensive costs to resurrect them, or having them die). And that wasn't jarring either, because that's how those games worked.

Because they're games. Not life sims, not "reality". Just like the vast majority of them (at least the ones with a designated "Main Character") go straight to Game Over if the main dude dies, even if there's a whole party of helpers there who could save the day and get him back up like he can do for them. They're games, with a set of their own game rules.

So no. No "jarring".

But hey - I'm just speaking for my experience playing games. No universal truth. Whatever, dude.

Do you find anything jarring in games, Kiralyn2000? Is jarring another of your trigger words?

Yes, i finished nv two times. I always play hardcoe though, I always play it that way, so i tend to forget about there even being a normal mode. Yes in normal mode they are also essential. I really prefer hardcoe mode though, where companions can die.

Fallout 1 and 2 let you micromanage all members of the team, making it easy to protect weaker members. You don't have this option in an first person game. Yes they should have more followers command and control functions in addition to improved AI but companions would still die far easier than you unless they have too much health making them too strong tanks.

Or they can have disposable followers like mercenaries, if its followers you care about it will equal reload.

hardcoe killed them as other says, in Skyrim they went down like exhausted and enemies ignored them.

As i understand you need to activate and use stimpack to get them up again, making it more costly. I guess fast travel also get them back up. Else they might risk getting knocked out while away from you and you don't find them again.

How do you mean ~exactly?

Haven't played 2 but I don't recall any way of controlling followers in 1. You could give them ammo, armor and stuff like that but that was about it. And I think I've heard similar complaints about 2 as well, with companions killing other companions when they got in the line of fire and even the player.

I would prefer it if companions could die FO4. If you really want to have them alive you could always reload a save and give them better gear etc. In past games I think the issue stems from the AI kinda doings it's own thing, You can't really tell them to keep their distance from enemies. That could be fixed if overall AI was smarter to use cover (especially while reloading) and stuff like that.

Pfft.

Not even in the slightest. My suspension of disbelief is good enough not to mind.

A reality simulation is not my idea of fun. If I want that I'll just watch one of those silly reality TV shows. A game has many elements that come together to make a fun and (hopefully) challenging experience. The way followers are handled when their health runs out is just another gameplay element as far as I am concerned. I do think people should have a toggle for how they want this element to work in their game, but I don't think one way or the other is the 'right' way it should be.

...which are, of course, carefully edited out of hundreds of hours of footage, to present the chosen "dramatic" narrative.