This topic is NOT to speculate on what types of DLCS we might be getting or Followers.

What Im referring to here was the issue we had in Fallout 3 of entering Point Lookout only to find

'Dogmeat has left the party and returned to Vault 101'

or

'Charon has left the party and returned to Underworld'

Now I understand thematically while some of the DLCs precluded followers tagging along. There was only one Similation Pod for the Anchorage solution and The Alien one would of played a lot different had both player and companion been taken along but Point Lookout and Broken Steel would not have been impacted on by A follower tagging along. The Pitt also would have been an issue, both of you entering as Slaves? hmm

Now its 99 percent sure we will be getting DLCS for FO4. What Im hoping here is that there is no forced' You need to abandon everyone and come alone'. I dont mind it for one DLC (and we dont know how many we are getting) but im hoping the code is there to let whoever it is come along.

Whats the view on this? Is leaving behind followers a useful part of plot advancement or just it just rankle of the 'Oh I couldnt possibly enter that chamber and expose myself to high does of radiation that wont hurt me as a Super Mutant... .thats your job'

(I know Dogmeat can die, but Im assuming he cant still be left in some corner of the map never to be seen again)

I always felt this was for plot advancement and simplicity. I was annoyed by it, but I can see it from a technical standpoint.

Now that FO4 will be for next-gen, isn't it more feasible to do than previous-gen?

Well, as far as Point Lookout goes, I imagine they force your followers to leave due to the plot development that the Ferryman is working with the locals to remove pieces of brain. Granted, that doesn't happen to the player until halfway through the main quest. So it still comes across as a little contrived.

Skyrim was better with this, you could take anyone from the base game or other DLCs to Solstheim. So hopefully that means they'll continue that, provided there isn't a plot reason to make the player go it alone.

As Spvssynu said, Skyrim avoided this issue, so I'm hoping it doesn't come up.

That said, if it is happening in a manner similar to the way New Vegas handled its DLCs, all of which have justifications for making it so you're the only one who can enter the areas (either narratively, gameplay wise, or both), I won't complain too much.

Ya your right but why not just make DLC that a companion won't hurt the story?

That really zapped all of the fun out of the DLC for me.

I thought it was simply an attempt to make it more of a challenge. At higher lvls you and your companion annihilate pretty much everything you come across.

Yeah I never liked that design choice as it takes you out of the game, and it seems like a cop out on having to make more content for said follower. Though I think dlc breaking the balance of the game with making followers uber, broken steel, is more of a concern.

Nah. Bethesda's pretty adamant of keeping the focus on open-world this time; the DLCs in Fallout 3 in particular didn't really support this. So I think they'll avoid narratives that ask them to compromise their open world ethos that much.

You can't liken dlc from TES to FO.

They are two very different systems. In all TES dlc, we are allowed to keep our things, and it's more in the spirit of being a conquering dungeon diver. This was true through MW to Skyrim.

FO3 and NV were released between 3 TES games and didn't change the dlc system to be more attuned to those at all, because there's no need to. They serve two very different functions.

FO dlc is a little glimpse to another part of the world, not exactly an extensive adventure filled with dungeon diving opportunities like shivering isles or dragonborn.

If you're going to give someone a small taste of another area of the world, you probably want them to be stripped of all weapons so they are encouraged to use all the cool new things you made.

If I had all my things in dead money, surviving the cloud would be a joke and no weapon would compare to my unique gauss rifle; I would miss out on all of the weapons, and a core theme of that dlc (scavenging) would be entirely bypasses.

Bringing in followers does the same thing, I'll never have my brain taken out if Cass is around because she'd probably put a stop to that. Fawkes won't let me get cut up in point lookout. Two people with in honest hearts could carry a lot more, and make most of the new items useless. The road was meant to be walked alone, so bringing Boone would kind of ruin the entire theme of that plot line.

You could write around companions, and have them lose their brain in OWB for example, but then the story isn't about the courier, but the courier and his buddy. He's not overcoming the loss of his brain and changing the future of big MT, he and lily are.

That takes away a lot of lore from the player character since he/she ceases to be some mysterious lore figure capable of outstanding things, and turns into a buddy cop duo.

All very valid points Highestprimate, I am just hoping that the issue is taken into account this time.

Lets say the DLC is .. Cape Cod. I dont want Elvis the 30th my Ghoul Singing buddy to be left behind in the Commonwealth Wasteland because the boat only has one bed. The story is still about the Sole Survivor but nobody stays alive in the wastes by themselves for long. Fallout 1 is known for the Vault Dweller yes but also for Ian and Dogmeat and companions that autofire into your back.

I just want the ability to be able to take my 'buddies with me'.

Also I assume if we are referring to point lookout, both characters would go to sleep at the same time on the trip there meaning we could have both our Brain parts removed by Tobar. Imagine if this truly f---ked your companion over (because its mentioned Tobar removed a smaller piece that normal).

Yes seeing Fawkes interacted with a Scrapper or Creeper would be amusing.

I don't think it's a cop out, especially regarding New Vegas' DLC.

For Dead Money, the only companion that really would have made sense being included would have been Veronica, as it would have allowed for her loyalty to be pulled three ways (Father Elijah, Christine, and The Courier), but most of the other characters wouldn't serve a purpose narratively or in terms of gameplay (people would complain about their followers losing their equipment, and the game would force you to abandon whoever came with you anyway to use the story's companions. There's also the fact that if I were in Father Elijah's position, I wouldn't be having people who knew each other working together on the heist. While it does increase the odds of them working together to complete the mission, the collars do that fine as it is, and it increases the odds of them working together against me.

For Honest Hearts, my headcanon (can't remember if it's actually the case) is that the Happy Trails Caravan can only afford to hire one more person and has contracts with the other members already locked up (though you can talk Ricky into skipping out). Even then, it could always just be the case that they only want to hire you, not your friend.

Old World Blues' justification is almost entirely narrative as well, as the scars on your brain are what save you from becoming your average Lobotomite, and people would have complained if Boone suddenly became useless because they brought him to Big Mountain.

Lonesome Road's is also story driven, as it's about the showdown between you and Ulysses. Courier v Courier. He wants to fight you, not you and your best friend, so it's possible that he could just refuse to engage you if you brought someone with you. You're facing him on his terms, not yours.

I think these examples are different from say Point Lookout's narrative justification, which really just is there to serve a plot twist. I'm fine with losing the ability to take Codsworth to Philadelphia or somewhere like that if it tells a better story.

That said, assuming we can return to the locations after the DLC ends, I'd like to be able to take my companions back there. Because then, there's no real narrative or gameplay reason to exclude them.

Because, I guess companions are optional, and to the devs, the concept and story are more important than followers.

It's for story, as well as ensuring difficulty. Take the Pitt for example. It was pretty unbelievable that I, a man in full power armor, even felt being hit on the head by a lead pipe. It would be even less realistic for Fawkes to fall to it. Furthermore, could you imagine how easy the Pitt would be if you had Fawkes with you?

I was talking more about Fallout 3, than New Vegas. At least NV had valid reasons, instead of just a "no followers for you" prompt with no explanation So yes in Fallout 3 it was a cop out. In NV it was as well, but the story and locations justified it more often than not.

Fallout 3 had perfect reasons.

The Pitt: That guy at the start wasn't going to sneak in two people. You were supposed to pose as a slave or someone trying to join the higher ups. Bringing a posse sends the wrong message.

Zeta: only one person gets abducted. Aliens have no interest in your dog.

Point lookout: not enough room for passengers and more than one person would cause problems with the brain slicing set up Toby had.

Anchorage only has one machine. You're the only person around with a pip-boy.

The only one that doesn't cover is BS, and I don't remember if you could use companions there. If not the reasoning is the escape bird doesn't have enough room for an extra body.

There you go, every dlc has a reason as to why followers can't come.

Well, most DLC have a plot-wise reason for you to be alone. But most don't mean all.

Point Lookout don't have a reason to send you alone first time, but need you to be alone for brain surgery. Afterward, it is just a boat trip. As long as you have tickets, you shouldn't be alone.

For Honest Hearts, there is no reasons you should be alone.

Those two DLC should have allowed you to take followers and Point Lookout a reason to have you isolated for the brain surgery.

Other than that, companions wouldn't make sense in other DLC.

You'd think in the Pitt that rather than have you just mosey on in there undercover and go "I've always been a slave! Don't you remember me?" they would have had you get "caught" by slavers on the way to the Pitt and who would take you there as well. That would have allowed your companion (provided they were human) to come with you, and would have made more narrative sense.

Zeta's "justification" is bull. The aliens have abducted more than one person at a time in the past, so there's no reason why they wouldn't take you and Jericho for example. They've taken machines in the past, so the Mister Gutsy doesn't seem like a stretch. Not sure if they've ever taken Super Mutants or Ghouls, but I don't imagine they wouldn't have an interest in them. Finally, they've taken cows in the past, so it's not like the only biological life they're interested in is humanoid.

There's clearly room for more people than just two on that boat, so the justification is really "so there can be a twist." To make matters worse, it's a twist that I find rather weak.

Anchorage's justification makes sense, though the whole "We can't figure out how to remove a Pip-Boy" thing is just nonsense.

So reasons for not allowing followers? Sure. "Perfect reasons" for not allowing followers? Not by a long shot.

Yes, the return to zero function where you are are stripped of all gear breaks down a bit if you use companions.

However then you return to the area you should be allowed to bring companions.

If the context of that DLC's story provides a reason why a companion cannot join you then i prefer to let that story work as intended. Also plenty of DLCs provide you with temporary companions so it would nonsensical to block that

Both of those are present onboard the ship...

I wouldn't have any problems with them allowing companions to join you on dlc so long as it made sense within the narrative of said dlc. I generally like the fact that you go in alone, but I also don't like having companions with me so it's never really been something I even thought about.

Why not allow for variety (one DLC allows comps, another does not), for the most narrative freedom?

----

Personally, it's never bothered me because I don't use companions if I can help it.

(The one that does bug me is the "take all your gear" one, even when it makes sense for the DLC's story..... just because I worry about getting it all back. And having to rebuild all my hotkeys. I tended to avoid FO:NV's casinos for that reason, too....)

I think there should be a mix. Some DLCs you end up entirely on your own, others you can bring followers into them. I think the feeling of isolation and depending on those you meet through your travels makes a more interesting theme for a DLC then bringing your own personal squad of several followers into the area.