I saw that interview after I posted my last post, and I must say that I am encouraged by his response. I am very "pro choice" oriented in my games, so if they indeed deliver I will be one happy camper. Honestly, from what I've seen so far, I've seen nothing that's "deal breaker" for me, and actually some things that give me a lot of hope for this game

It wouldn't doubt me that some inspiration from New Vegas will be in Fallout 4. From the trailer I felt a Fallout New Vegas vibe while looking at the towns.

Sometimes, in hardcoe mode in NV, I really liked letting some of my human companions die and carrying that with me narratively. Like, I always let Boone die. The man had no future anyway.

But... I never ever ever let the dog die. I always reload. I don't know what that says about me, but I'm prepared for the consequence if part of the consequence is my puppy living and doing cute dog stuff.

Don't forget burst fire weapons. Tears everyone to shreds, including your companions. Or you if your companion had one.

They are only valuable, and worth protecting, if you can lose them.
If you cannot lose them, then even the heroic (as opposed to psychotic) PC will sacrifice nothing at all to keep them safe; and their talents (if any) will be taken for granted.

*This is de facto theme-park behavior. It means they are there as solely as props to serve and amuse the player while on their tour of the park.

You're forgetting that you'll be seeing your companions suffer repeatedly. Death will tighten its grip on them only to release them back into a world of suffering.

No not forgetting; lamenting. It's enough not to use companions at all. In Fallout, it was a point of pride to get Dogmeat past the military base alive. Now it's moot point to concern one's self about him at all.
The game seems heavily designed towards the 'Me,Me,Me' mentality, and not for the roleplayer at all... The one whose PC would get shot to save their companion ~or the one playing a PC that doesn't deserve companions, but gets to keep them anyway, despite not protecting them... because they are exempt of mortality; (and common sense... seeing as they stay with them afterwards).

I don磘 disagree with this, and at the start of the game I think I do want my companions to be mortal. However in the later stages, 500+ hours, I just want to run around shooting things as the exploration parts are over by then anyway. Hence my wish for a toggle

First of all you should try to understand the game industry; then you'll answer your own question

Why would anyone want this given NPCS "AI" in previous games?

Uh, Skyrim. "What's that? A big honking dragon landed in my village? Well, forsooth, I am a blacksmith, in a leather smock and wielding a rusty dagger. I shall immediately charge in. Have it it, yonder foul best!".

It never ended well.

That is exactly why someone would want essential NPCs.
Important, but not essential NPCs, such as merchants and Sidequest characters kept getting themselves killed.

I dont know why they just don't give companions a tremendous amount of bleed out life, so they can still die, but its highly unlikely they will as long as the player is still standing. But for those of us that want to go through the bereavement process with companions. lol Poor Lydia, how many times did I watch you die. well then we can.

I actually encourage their deaths, just to have a reason to try out a new companion.

Also it might help if the programmers actually gave them some self preservation A.I. so that when in trouble they'll retreat or run and hide.

I just don't want my hand holding just because some gamers don't want to apply a modicum of caution to their playstyle, and then when the inevitable happens, cry about it and reload.

Except I can be as cautious as I like, and my dog thinks it should just go mental and attack a super mutant armed with a chainsaw, and then HA it's DINNER!

Unless the companion AI vastly improves (and to the point where it's as sneaky and dastardly as me), it's a recipe for fail.