Which again, is apart of my fascination.

"Skyrim made a lot of money, therefore, streamlining is profitable" would still be an inaccurate statement because Skyrim had a ton of variables going for it. You need multiple controls and one variable, but Skyrim had several. We have no reason to believe streamlining is the cause for the success, as it could just as easily be the result of Skyrim's marketing campaign.

That Bethesda is streamlining FO4 too though is an indication that they are connecting these dots. Whether they're connecting these dots because they don't realize the two might not be connected OR because they have data suggesting they are connected, either way it's astonishing to me. It'd be astonishing if Bethesda were that dumb to connect them when they shouldn't neccesarily, and it'd be astonishing if the path to profit truly was to remove features just as readily as you add them.

Can't please everybody. I'm in the "pleased" camp. While I don't want essential NPCs anywhere else in the game, essential companions are just fine with me in Fallout.

As long as I have to worry about my stupid companion running *toward* the deathclaw instead of *away* from it (like I would), then I want that companion to be immortal. Companion AI is unbelievably dumb in these games and I shouldn't have to pay a price (accept the loss or reload) for that stupidity.

I'm sure a mod will fix this "immortal" problem.

I'm happy about this. Yeah yeah yeah 'It's a game huehuehue' but I don't enjoy my pets dying and I don't save every five seconds, so I don't want to have to reload because a deathclaw ambushed me. Or give us a toggleable companion mortality setting to shut up some of the people here. I enjoy not having my companions die even when I try my hardest to protect them.

This is why I pulled the plug on you!!!

Why would it follow New vegas? Bethesda didn't make New Vegas, FO3 and Skyrim the last two games they made were major successes for them. Why in the world would they not build on those successes?

Why not make it an option like it was in New Vegas? That could please everyone.

I just realized. Maybe you actually wind up being the power rangers in game, and all companions are needed to form the megazord for the main boss battle. Betcha didn't think of that, now did ya?

Because New Vegas was a success too, and a success that bridged the gap between the old-school fans and the newcomers to the series. It was a perfect mix to please all parties and exhibited some Grade-A storytelling.

That was part of my point too: who is to say Skyrim didn't sell more copies simply because it had the larger hype train and the larger marketing campaign? They paid a LOT of money to market Skyrim.

You have more willpower than me, friend. Mariposa played like a slide-show for me due to all the reloading I was doing to keep companions alive. And as I stated earlier, Dogmeat really wanted to die by forcefield. I finally gave up and let Dogmeat stay dead - but I spent hours trying to keep him alive through reloads.

I can see why it is canon that he died in Mariposa.

I'm not a fan of it, but I can understand it.

I know it's generally frowned upon here to have to rely on mods to "fix" the base game and make it what it maybe should have been from the start, but I've come to the point where I'm alright with it. I was already expecting it, so it really didn't surprise me. Beth can make their game so long as they give the community the tools to mod it. By the end it'll be infinity closer to what kind of Fallout I want to play regardless if Bethesda had streamlined it or no.

Maybe that really is a bad opinion to have, but it definitely sums up how I've felt so far. "Meh, kinda lukewarm on that idea Beth, guess I'll mod it."

This is probably the reason, and why dogmeat stayed at home, at least until he got insanely OP in broken steel.

As he only had melee and was far to aggressive he would charge into fights where I planned to redraw to new firing position and putting down mines letting me fight a few enemies a time but he had to fight all at once.

This was actually an good idea, make it something you want to avoid but not an catastrophe.
And yes smarter followers who don't charge packs of deathclaws. Liked how they worked in FO:NV where they was able to disengage enemies if you redrew.

This looks like one of those issues that I'll need to experience how it works in the game before I have an opinion. Seemed to me most of the companions could die in Skyrim, but it was rare that it happened. Frankly, it occurred usually from friendly fire, which automatically meant a reload. I do remember one instance though where Ilia died in the sewers of the forgotten city in Blackreach, when she was swarmed by Falmer. I had gotten too far ahead of her, and kept expecting her to appear later. I eventually found her face down with a falmer mage glaring over her. This actually was a random moment of drama, and I sort of hate to think that things like this will be missing in Fallout 4.

The more promising thing is that we've a confirmation from Lord Todd himself, that companions are going to be more complicated and involved within the story lines. Sounds like BGS is writing more into their characters which is moving in the right direction. Whether they can pull it off or not remains to be seen. I do know that they better not share voice actors with the other NPCs let alone spawned enemies....

Dude, this is painful to read.

Please quote where he said any of that. He didn't. He used PR speak, and you filled in the blanks with your own desires. Please recognize this for your own sake, lest you get yourself worked up for things that were never promised nor said.

Well, Dogmeat was a special case in FO3. He was a higher priority target than the LW in a fight. Basically, he was a meat shield.

Longknife, I say this as someone who raged and argued before DA:I was released on Bioware boards about the lack of any concern for PC users, the simplified interface made to benefit consoles the most and a number of things. All it made me was sad and angry. So I stopped. I stopped posting on the boards, I stopped arguing with people and I felt a thousand times better after I let it go. To me, it sounds like you have not enjoyed the direction of the franchise for a while, and while it is your right to make all the posts you want claiming Todd Howard is liar and how Bethesda has ruined Fallout and is leaving flaming poop bags on your door step, you might be happier accepting that the next installment may not be for you.

Now, as someone significantly less invested but still a fan of the franchise, there is something I want to point out:

It is not really optional that companions were immortal, but it was optional that they WEREN'T. The screen at the end of Doc's house specifically marks HARDOCRE as the optional mode. Now, for you that maybe the only way to play, and even Sawyer and co. may have felt that way to some extent, but the base experience that Obsidian and Beth set out for people had companions as immortal. It may seem pedantic but it is the difference between claiming that this changes fundamental ways the last game worked (it doesn't - and there is even evidence BGS was leaning this way with the PUPPIES perk) and complaining (rightfully, but perhaps prematurely) that they have removed an optional mode from the previous game.

I think you can argue that marketting can sell you more copies but it can't make a game a best seller and win you numerious awards, both gamer choice awards and industry awards. There were over 5 million PC players on steam in january 2012 as I recall. You don't get this simply from marketing you get it from word of mouth endorsemants. Does marketing help? Yes and it does impact sales but Skyrim isn't the most marketed game in history so you have to accept that some of the sales are a result of the positive reaction people had with the product.

I hate wow. I played it once at a friends for about 2 hours and I was like nope not for me. But my subjective view of wow doesn't change the fact that it is a well made and well recieved MMO. Is it a game that i like? No but subjective like doesn't make something objectively bad. Far too many gamers to so invested in their opinions that they can't deal with something they subjectively dislike being a success. GW2 is another game i don't like. So many features in the game on paper, for me are a plus but when I bought it and played it i soon got bored. I just didn't like it. But i have no problem saying it is a good game. it has done well in sales and won many awards. My friends still play it today. All measures of a quality game. Skyrim still has an extremely active modding community on the nexus and other skyrim mod sites. Yet more evidence the game a quality product.

This all said, a persons subjective view of a game is always 100% accurate for them but it loses all revelavance outside that person's skin. And conversly a objectively good game which i think can only be measured in sales and awards, doesn't magically make someones subjective opinion of the game wrong. i am 100% correct is not liking wow and GW2 but my dislike doesn't make them bad games either.

Far too often older fans think their view points are more important than new fans but it simply isn't true. They also think that all older fans hold the same view as them which also isn't true. I have played FO, FO2, FO3 and FONV. I have recently learned i missed a console game as well as FO tactics. i consider myself a true fan but i have zero problem with Bethesda's direction one because they were ALWAYS going to put a new spin on the game as they didn't invent the Ip so they were going to want to put their own stamp to it. Second because I am so glad that RPGs evolve. The first two cRPGs I played were Adventure on the atari 2600 and Zork on the XT. These were super games but i am so glad were moved past this. I found oblivion a poorer game compared to Morrowind but i though Skyrim was the better of the three because I still haven't started the main quest in skyrim. Well I did enough of it to unlock Dragonbon and get random dragon attacks. To me any game that can get me playing for 3 plus years and i still don't feel the need to complete the main quest is a success in my book. I got borred just exploring in morrowind and oblivion that I went and completed the main quest did not get this feeling in skyrim. i am also willing to try something before i right it off. I was concerned about no attributes in skyrim but 6 months into playing it i had forgotten they were removed. i was able to make smart and dumb character weak and strong character all without any actual numbers assigned to attributes. I simply role-played and picked perks that were fitting to the type of conecpt I created for the character. So I am not convinced players were right it the wrong direction as it didn't stop my ability to roleplay and did hurt sales and thirdly i enjoy playing skyrim still. So by what measure can I honestly say it was the wrong move?

Bethesda has a direction they are going it is open world, streamlined character development and according to Mr. Howard they now want ot add strong narrative. If anyone doesn't like this they honestly have to make a choice accept this is the way things are and go with it, leave or mod the game to your vision of it. Bethesda has zero insentive to listen to their vocal fans because so far they have claimed making fallout 3 with a 1st person perspective would ruin the kill the game, well.. it didn't. Skyrim with no attributes equals will the TES franchise and well... it didn't. So far the doom and gloom prediciton of the fans has been dead wrong. Why would or even should bethesda listen when their own insticts have taken a smaller studio to industry leader?

If followers are anything like FO3 or NV then I won't even bother with them. I'd keep the dog tho.

Are you always this salty about internet forums?

from OP Link "He wasn't ready to comment on whether or not companions could level up alongside the player, but did mention that the development team at Bethesda Game Studios was "being a bit more specific about their role"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9a6ZKY5n5g

I can see where you think I'm "reaching" , but I go with what I've researched in the past, and what I seen as far as development trends in Mr. Howard's recent history, mostly small things, but moving in a certain direction. It may be you won't see it as more than co-incidence, or improper juxtaposition that's fine. My view is that BGS is concentrating on improving character development, as was demonstrated in the DLCs for Skyrim, as well as going with voiced Protagonists in this game. To add more specific elements to companions requires more thought about their dialogue, background, and purpose, I'd be very surprised if we've still the mostly wooden pack mules we had in Skyrim.

As far as getting my hopes up, no worries there either. Skyrim was very successful from a go explore the world standpoint, but hardly an engrossing story adventure. Same with Fallout 3. I pretty much expect the same thing this time around, but that doesn't stop me from hoping for more depth.

Actually I really don't mind if my pack mules and cannon fodder are immortal. Saves me the time to find new recruits or reload if I really liked them.

Because the reason they die so often is the AI is terrible. The way to fix it properly is to improve the AI but that is harder than simply ticking a box in the creation kit to make them immortal.

Save cheats should not be catered to imo

To further support your hypothesis in the after interview of the showcase Mr. Howard states they want to add a 'really strong story.' Which dictated new features like a voiced protagonist be added to FO4.

https://youtu.be/2KApp699WdE?t=2h22m47s

One of the ways to tell strong stories is through companions. The only way to do this is if companions are far more developed compared to skyrim and FO3. I would even say more developed than FONV as well. NV companions were more developed than Fo3 or Skyrim but they were still not really great companions that added a strong narrative to your game play. There appears to be evidence for your hypothesis, I wouldn't say proof but evidence.

I don't know if bethesda will pull it off but so long as they give me the same strong open world experience I expect from them and an improve narrative from skyrim and improved companions I will view it as a success as it is a step forward. They don't have to create better companions then bioware or have better story telling then CDPR, to be a success in my eyes because it took both companies more then one game to perfect their strong characters and storytelling. This is Bethesda's first attempt at adding strong narrative/story to an open world enviorment so long as they give me an improvement on their previous game I feel I am well served.

I don't understand why they didn't fired that guy yet. He obviously don't understand a thing about Fallout...

Is it too hard to ask him to spend time with the creators and learn a lesson or two ? Or are they too afraid of him ?