The one thing i couldn't stand in FO3 was that when your companions reached zero health. They were dead. Forever.

One of the things i LOVED about FO:NV is that they simply fell unconcious! Then got back up after a minute or two. (or sooner).

Will the Companions in FO4 follow the NV standard of not dying?

Also the Vampire companion in Skyrim Dawn Guard Serana? was it? if you went though all of her dialogue by the time you finished the expac, she was SO well written that she actually felt like a friend that you cared for. Will the companions of FO4 (or some of them at least) have this same level of writting and depth?

Heres hoping!

Already confirmed that companions won't die when they're with you; although if they get KO'd in battle, you may need to Stimpak them to put them back in the action.

And at their Quakecon presentation, Bethesda talked about companions having more depth than they did in Fallout 3. So here's hoping.

Beth confirmed this a while back, they don't die.

Pretty sure they've stated that the companions don't die. I'm assuming they'll act somewhat the way they did in FNV.. go unconscious until you revive them or whatever. I'd much rather have a revival system in place where you actively have to participate in them getting back into battle. It'd be pretty funny if they just remained unconscious until you did revive them. You could just leave them there for awhile while you went and did something else.

I have no idea how well they'll write the companions. You're right about Serana. She was the best written companion we've seen yet. Hopefully, they'll have well written sidequests that really make them feel flushed out.. Not sure if they'll be that well written into the main story though since you'll have a bunch of companions to choose from.

awesome! Still haven't seen the quakecon presentation yet!

1. Companions are more valued this time, they are essential and NEVER die.

2. It seems that the message for "quality NOT quantity" has finally got through to Bethesda regarding companions, you get less but have more depth.

Why did you hate that?

Well, technically, Fallout 4 has more companions than any modern Fallout game. Skyrim had dozens of companions that really weren't very fleshed out, though, so I see what you mean. I still think there's a value to having dozens of less interesting companions compared to having 12 really good ones, though, if the game gives us lots of things to do with them (which Skyrim didn't).

I have no idea why they would not make this option (essential / non-essential) a conversational setting like most modded companions do. Yes, the wording the semantics of the conversation branch are not very "immersive", but giving player a choice would always seem to be the preferred option to me. I do like the idea of having to expend Stimpaks or some other consumable method to revive and treat their wounds.

Can't speak for him, but i personally hated it too. they're is no real way to prevent companion death, and melee followers were just stupidly suicidal. It becomes even worse if there is content tied to the companions, missing out on tesla armor in fallout newvegas because gannon doesn't know how to find cover is pretty lame. A better question is why do people want there companions to be able to die? I'd assume it would make you into a baby sitter for them.

Companions unfortunately cannot die (should be a toggled option honestly). There are less companions in Fallout 4 than there were in Skyrim, so they will have more depth and will be more developed similar to Serana.

Has that finally been mentioned that ALL companions cannot die? I remember seeing that the dog cannot but also that people were speculating on whether or not the rest of the companions could. Did something change that or did I just not read it correctly?

Pretty sure it was confirmed for all companions... besides, why would they only make Dogmeat essential?

My understanding was that they are only essential while they are with you. Meaning that if you wanted one dead you could fire it and then kill it. Or am I mistaken?

“A lot of open-world games, they’ll have it where ‘you failed this mission, go ahead and press A to redo it.’ We don’t ever want to do that,” said Howard. “So, we’ve got to handle all failstates and some of those we have to do like, ‘Okay, the dog can’t die, because you’re just going to reload.'” http://www.pcinvasion.com/fallout-4s-companions-cannot-die/

I think because a lot of people looked at the dog in a more sentimental POV they knew that people would restart for a dog death over other companions? Idk just spitballing there

They can't collect and use their own?

(and Dogmeat can eat small mammals or something...)

I'm not aware of that. Technically, Todd only confirmed that "dogmeat" cannot be killed. Unless he said something about the others at GamesCom or QuakeCon, I'm not sure. Regardless, it is the idea that them having immunity from death at all that bothers me. If they die, I can always reload.

well in NV only you could kill your followers. (Friendly fire). Which is a fair enough trade off i suppose. Hopefully they keep it!

This was one of the big disappointments. The Fallout series was built around permadeath.
(And they ignore that. )

*Most of the contemporary RPGs were fantasy settings, and had resurrections as an easy fix for the departed; Fallout deliberately didn't. If the player couldn't keep the PC alive, then they lost them, and had to find a new companion. It was a point of pride to get through the Military base with Dogmeat alive ~despite the canon ending.

I don't like it at all that companions don't die. It makes the game easier. You have an extra damage dealer by your side, which can't die so there is no risk involved. You can abuse it. I do hope if they die during a fight they won't get up until the fight is over to balance it a little.

Instead of making them essential I would prefer they made their AI much better. So I don't have to babysit them, but that they will die if I play poorly or choose a fight we are not ready for. I have had great emotional moments when companions died during new vegas. And I didn't reload after they died. So no Todd Howard, not everybody reloads after dogmeat dies!

I think it was somewhat necessary change due to very shoddy AI. Companions in FO3 and NV completely lack the sense of self-preservation. They don't even try to keep themselves out of the line of fire.

That won't be the case in F4, NPC's will use cover and strafe as much as possible.

So if I get this right the issue isn't so much if companions die or not but that you have to baby sit them trough everything?

If the companions had better AI and the player more sophisticated and easier controls, would it be acceptable? I mean we are after all in 2015 and not 1995. I surely would hope that SOME improvements can be made here - and some games did!

I think the best way to handle it would be to make it simply optional, if it is really to much of a work to make the comanions not suicidal. It definitely can't be much work to create a small check box in the menu. The game could tell the player at the start that if your companions die now they will be out permanently unless you activate it in the gameplay options or something like that.

I am just not a friend of immortal NPCs. I think in todays gaming you have many tools at your hand to get around it. There are enough old RPGs that allowed you to kill everyone, if you wished so. That's of course just me but Companions for me don't feel like companions if they just take a short nap after being hit by a rocket luncher and getting beaten by several monster/raiders/what ever. I agree that Fallout 3, Oblivion, Skyrim etc. are not very companion friendly games, there they are just pack mules with a voice and nothing more.

But it is more a question of how much attention you give a good companion system with the commands, the AI and all that. How much control you give the player. For example to give your companions armor, stimpacks and other equipment. More sophisticated command and behavior options could make it easier to navigate your companions trough combat. Telling them to retreat if they loose 50% or 70% of their health, running away, using a stimpack - if they have any, and to return to the combat. Or not to attack a target before the player started the first attack. Or only attacking targets that use melee weapons. And so on and so on.

It all depends how well it is done. I can of course only talk for my self. But I always care more for those companions where I know, if something bad happens, they will die. It makes it simply more plausible and believable. At least for me.

As frustrating as this can be, it would offer a perfect opportunity of choices and consequences. If you chose to be reckless with your companions or if you simply had bad luck ... well it's either reload, or continue with the consequences. It would at least allow you to have a sense of role playing and permanence to your play trough. In other words, things matter. With immortal companions you can always charge head on in every engagement, without ever to think about preparations or if you're ready to attack.

Like I said earlier, it could be completely optional and that way you would have the best of both worlds. It can't be a bad thing to give people choices here.

I am pretty confident that mods will change that anyway making all immortal NPCs mortal. However, that should not be any kind of excuse to have them in the first place, cauz moders will fix it!

I usually soled FO 1-3 because companions was always such busywork, including the fact they could die, Tactics had the most straightforward solution, which was to have all the characters in a group be someone you controlled.

Of course in the current FO games that wouldnt really work, so the "immortal" nature is a good compromise.

I like they can't die. The AI is so bad in these games you'll spend most of the time baby sitting and reloading. It made every companion but Serana in Skyrim annoying and I never wanted to use them.