I don't really use companions so I don't really care

However, if I did have companions I would more prefer to have a lot of companions that I didn't care about than a few companions I did.

The reason being this: once companions are dead they're dead. Usually this leads to an OCD complex where I feel like I have to keep them alive usually resulting in me just leaving them somewhere so they don't get hurt.

If I had a bunch of them that I didn't care about like in Oblivion I would probably be more inclined to actually have them in battle with me to to be of some use rather than just shoving them aside to keep them alive. Not only that but if I only had a few companions and they all died then I'd have no more companions. If it were like in Oblivion where I could get multiple followers then it wouldn't be a big deal because there are more of them.

Edit: Besides character depth and story really aren't strong points of Bethesda so I'm not going to expect it from them

I like the idea of a larger number of companions, in the end they're there to help me kill things. With this I feel like I'll finally be able to lead a warband or a group of soldiers against creatures or other war parties in the civil war. I'll leave it to modders to create more personnal companions, they seem to do a much better job anyway.

I'll have to wait to see the larger number in action but in my head i like the idea of it. I'm also pretty sure Todd said there would be both. So don't worry bro.

Dog. :celebration:

Seriously, as much I would love to have my own pet dog as companion I truly loved companions in past games. Especially the Reynald brothers.

I usually tend to work alone for reasons that others have already mentioned. Companions have a tendancy to get in the way during combat, and their balance or A.I always seems to be a complete mess. They're either overpowered and overskilled to the point that I feel like I don't even need to be there, or they're so weak and stupid that it becomes nothing but a chore trying to keep them alive. Both of these shortcomings in their design, is such an enjoyment and immersion killer that I tend to decline any companion assistance.

With that said, I like what I heard in the podcast. Sounds like there will be a large variety of companions, with a handful of them still being designed with depth and dimension in mind. The ones with weaker personalities and shallow backstories can still be enlived by our imaginations; their bland personas supplemented by the roleplayer's creative mind, and ultimately, each will inevitably grow as a character, simply by being along with us for the ride.

The biggest benefits of quantity are one--they obviously help us create unique experiences and add to the replayability value of the game; and two--quantity increases the chances that you will find a companion(s), who really seems like he/she/they would fit well with your character's design. Whether it be similarities in race, demeanour, ambition, skillset, profession, etc. The list goes on and on, so long as Beth can still create their shallow qualities, with an easily identifiable, stereotypical distinction that makes you, as the gamer, think when you first meet them, that this character fits perfectly with mine.

Let's just hope they become less of a burden in Skyrim, and instead add some value to the gameplay itself. :slap:

I don't need a companions but if they must the way Fallout: New Vegas was done would be the way to go.

I'm not sure how "being a hero" equals "working alone" and "no bland cannon fodder". I mean, look at films like Saving Private Ryan: Captain John H. Miller (Tom Hank's character) had a ton of companions, quite a few of them dying before we even got to know their names, but it didn't make him any less heroic.

I don't really care about in-game companions; I'll wait for modders to make decent companions.

I'm a quality > quantity kind of guy. I'd rather have a small but well developed and in depth number of companions then just plain boring cookie cutter npc's that you can hire and feel no attachment to or care for.

i want quantity over "quality". fallout 3 companions werent that deep.......new vegas companions were pretty good with the additonal quests but once you did them .......that was it. if we were talking baldurs gate companions or even dragon age companions then i might prefer quality. i just dont see that in the game so i would rather have the ability to make my party how i see it. ill pick a class, say warrior and then i fill my party out with a mage and a thief. i used companions mods for oblivion and morrowind so it will be the same.

overall im not to worried cause modders can add those little scantily clad anime girl companions if people want them. :rolleyes: i just hope that skyrims companions operate like the new vegas companions and not the fallout 3 companions.

Well I think Baldur's Gate caliber companions are possible for Skyrim. I don't know what Skyrim is capable of but i think they can add just as much character to the companions in Skyrim (Though if they did, i would imagine way fewer than in Baldur's gate 1 & 2.)

Can anyone give a short form explanation for why FO NV has such good companions compared to FO:3. I'm only just at the beginning of FO:NV and i can't get into it so i don't know, and i feel like some there's alot of other Elder Scrolls fans on this forum that are curious too.

Like most anything, that's "matter of opinion" territory. Possibilities:

Many say (and I agree) their stories are better-written and/or more developed.

Each companion is an extra quest line. (And for my money, Raul Tejada and Craig Boone each have some serious gut-wrenching "OMG" storylines to theirs. YMMV)

Each also has an associated perk you get while they're with you. (Ranging from "meh" to almost universally accepted as "at least borderline overpowered.")

While I tend to "work alone", I like the ability to have companions, even just for roleplaying sake.

I didn't vote because I'd like something in the middle: being able to "recruit" just about every NPC I meet (but they would have little in the way of depth), but with a few NPCs being created by devs just for this purpose: so, they would have more personality, a storyline, maybe specific things you need to do/have/be to have them as companions, etc.

I do realize that TES games, while having a good depth in roleplaying terms, are still meant to center about the PC as an epic hero... yet, I would really love to be able to "play politics", having a character that can do something with his/her high social skills; for example, having other people help them out, or even do the dirty work for them.

This far, "diplomacy" skills in TES have always been next to useless...

Yes and yes.

Hard to misinterpret Todd's words, he was fairly clear. I understand the reasoning, they can't have both, and they opted for allowing more choice in companions, leaving the depths to imagination. Can't agree on that point as for myself is all.

But as I said, I don't generally use companions anyway, so it's not a sore point for me.

I don't understand why everyone says this. Lots of epic hero's had companions:

Frodo had the Fellowship
Luke Skywalker had Han Solo, R2, Chewy, and i guess C3-PO
Marty McFly had Doc
Liu Bei had Zhuge Liang =)
"Journey to the West"s Monkey King had Friar Sand, the pig, and Tripitaka <---this is definitely epic.
Cheech had Chong
John Lennon had Paul McCarteny and George Harrison
Robert Plant had Jimmy Page and John Bonham
Rocky Balboa had Mickey
Fred Flinstone had The Great Gazoo
and Tom Hanks on Saving Private Ryan had a team too.

... The list goes on.

obviously some of those are jokes, but i think my point is clear. There is nothing that makes having companions lessen your "epic hero" status, and it's not like your companions having stories is gonna take the focus off you. you can always decide how much of their story you want to do, but the stories should be there for those of us who want them.