Bah, I've never wanted a big group of people following me anyway. They'll just get lost, or knock stuff over. Or die horribly or something like that. Or the game might just become too easy (one companion tends to make the game a million times easier).

I love when someone uses that as an argument for adding anything to the game...

"I want to play Skyrim, but I want a mass of thousands of kitten soldiers with little Umbrella Corporation logos on their foreheads. While they're out destroying the game world, I want to be able to make biscuits in an easy-bake-oven, but I have to have the option for more heat in case I want to make pies. Then when I'm not doing that, I want to ride hyppogriffs from the Harry Potter universe because they're fun and cool-looking. What? What do you mean I can't have all of that? I was told I can play however I want and be anything I wanted to be? This game svckS!!!!111"

I was disappointed as well, I hoped that we would have 2 companions at a time. Mostly so we could have one person in our group for each architype a Mage, a Warrior and a Theif.

First of all, the majority of people who play Skyrim will do so on console, and not have all the modding options.

I thought the magnetism was supposed to help with the hitting bit.

And your "too easy" might be his ideal. Perhaps his character's life long dream is becoming some big shot cult leader who walks around with a handful of devout bodyguards who do there best to protect him from danger. Or MAYBE, if the AI is good enough that the companions take orders and actually stay back when you tell them to, he likes the idea of having them follow his leadership and defending THEM from the perils of the road (reminding them in the process of why he is so great). Who knows what his desired playstyle is? But, so long as realizing it does not require anything that would break with the gamelore, then why should it be a problem?

One thing that always bothers me on these forums is how SO many members seem to have absolutely NO respect for the fact that other people may want to play the game in a way that is not identical to their own favoured playstyle.

That's why they added magnetism.

What I remember is that Oblivion had four different guild factions, plus an Arena Championship and a Knights of 9 expansion, and that if you really wanted to (I didn't, but if you did) you could end up with something like Six companions simultaneously. Sure, the bad AI made such a thing logistical hell. But I thought the AI was being improved.

Now I'm thinking they didnt add magnetism for companions, just as a dumbed down auto aim feature, or somthing. Especially since we can only have one companion. With one companion, Ive never had trouble in previous ES games, hit wise. Its only when you get an entourage, stuff hits the fan.

actually its better

too many will cramp my style

and besides if it gets too boring you can always make love to him/her

AND if you a summoner/necromancer you will have like a mini skeleton army (I hope)

Honestly?...Really? I guess you people have run out of things to complain about, Anyway it will be most likely that we can have 1 Humanoid and 1 Animal companion.

I lol hard ..

whats the source. that preview in first page doesn't mention it. does it?

I think one companion is enough, it would get cluttered otherwise.

Strawman much??? Yeah, see, he never said you should be able to have everything you want in the game. Things that do not fit into the gameworld, have never been a part of the gameworld etc. etc. should not be in the game.

What he is saying is that the game should not impose BS. restrictions, and should not prevent players from being able to do things that are entirely in keeping with game lore and the overall setting of the game. If there are no hippogriffs in Tamriel, it makes sense that he wouldn't be able to ride one. There ARE however people, some of whom live in groups, or work in groups, or travel in groups etc. etc. etc., and so it seems very bizzare indeed that he has no chance of gathering a group of followers, when groups and followers exist within the settings of the gameworld.

They may be able to get away with a runner who can sprint for a very long time in the same way that you will still be able to have a small band of outlaws.

Also have faith in Bethesda; they did this for a reason. Mods will probably be out within a week for you to unleash your computer and let it have many companions at once.

Let me put it another way for you...

Your argument, if I am understanding you correctly, is that if it exists or makes sense for the setting, it should therefore should be an option to the player? Talk about a slippery slope! In the world of Tamriel there are gods, right? Following your own logic, since it exists within the setting, I should therefore be able to be a god. "I want to be a god who destroys the world on a metaphysical level. I should be able to form cults and have a chance at recruiting every NPC in the world to follow my cause toward darkness. I should also be able to be the Jarl of Whiterun and ignore every peasant NPC that comes asking for coinage. Or a mudcrab! They exist, I should have the option to play as one too..."

The list goes on.

A sound, lore fitting reason is given for you not being one of the gods. You don't start the game as one of them, and you aren't one. Though on the topic of becoming a god. . . well, there was that whole Shivering Isles thing.

For a powerful PC to become a cult leader, light or dark, makes perfect sense actually. I don't know how well the AI and engine could support such a thing, but it CERTAINLY would be a viable roleplaying option. It surprises me that you fail to realize this.
I don't see why you would not be able to become a Jarl, if you can muster the power to conquer their Hold and to maintain dominance.

As to the mudcrab bit. . . if there is a transfiguration spell that allows it, and you want to *cough* waste *cough* spend all of your time scuttling around as the pair of ragged claws mentioned in that T.S. Elliot poem, then I say have a wonderful time doing so.

That said, you are looking to hyperbolize. I am speaking of reasonable options, and two out of the four examples you gave don't really fall into that category. There is an enormous difference between not being able to become a god, and not being able to get two or three NPCs to follow your leadership as loyal companions.

If you are suggesting that it is fine for lots of things to be viable in the gameworld but entirely off limits to the player, maybe they should also remove the option to have swords, magic and guildmembership. And you DEFINITELY shouldn't be able to perform dragonshouts, as rare as they are supposed to be. Much more uncommon than Jarls and cult leaders.

One companion helps supplement the player's skills. Any more and the player is tempted to let the companions do all the work.

But why should we be restricted? I agree that too many companions will cause a bunch of accidental murders, but if someone wants to do that, why shouldn't they be allowed? I want to be able to play the game how I want, without being needlessly limited by what is considered "enough". Balance is fine, but only if it doesn't severely restrict how people want to play, and I consider a 1 person limit on companions to be quite restrictive.

seriously? play the game before you get disappointed with it, and i assure u mods can fix this if it troubles you so much.

This.

Unless you are a console player... :sadvaultboy:

"Right now you can only have one companion at a time."

Optimism: "we may change it to more later, so you can have a small army"
Pessimism: "(censored) your army. you take what we give you and be happy with it"

I like to have a follower when I RP, but about 80% of the time I like to fly solo

If you play on a console then yes you will most likely only be able to have one companion. If you play on pc then it won't be a problem. I had 3 companions following me in Oblivion. Mods ftw. :goodjob:

People...the 'mods will fix it' is really getting annoying. You forget many of us aren't on PC.

Perhaps that's why Betheseda doesn't think about peoples' playstyles when they design their games anymore...'cause people keep arrogantly pushing the idea of mods fixing stuff and so they don't worry about it.