"What is could be" is an argument akin to "they should make it more complex", or "they should have fixed it instead of throwing it out", which is to say, an argument based on entirely empty, magical, speculation, that there is this just unrealized "other way" of doing things, that everyone is just missing, and has been missing for decades of game development. It is an entirely hollow argument, used to sound like you are saying something, without saying anything at all, just so you can complain the devs aren't doing what you think they should be doing, without actually offering the means of doing it, and while expecting others to figure out how to do what you want them to do for you.

I figured your retort would eventually boil down to one these types of arguments, and are unpleasantly unsurprised that it did.

Wait, you don't like loyalty quests? Or do you just not like the formula of "I want you to do my dirty work"? I don't think it'll be so bad in Fallout 4; the game lets you go it alone, so I don't think there will be much impetus to quest for companions you don't care about. We're not fighting the Collectors... I think.

One thing I really hated about some of the companion quests in New Vegas was how they were triggered; for guys like ED-E, Raul and Arcade, you either have to look it up in a guide or retrace a ton of steps in order to trigger the right amount of stuff... and in the end that turns out to be the majority of their quest in the first place. I like having companions talk about certain things and having their background open up like that, but things like that shouldn't be tied to a loyalty quest that makes them perform better as companions.

And dammit, I better be able to romance the token Ghoul companion.

Todd's kind of off about the "if the companion dies you'd reload" thing. In Fallout 1 and 2 I always just continued if my companions died. "Oh, well.. they didn't survive the journey this time... moving on." It's part of what makes replaying fun.. Sometimes the companions you thought were the weakest survive the entire game and the strongest die. Sometimes you just get tired of a companion and decide to kill them yourself. Death is part of the wasteland.

I generally dislike companions as a concept. Loyalty quests are just the tip of the iceberg, but they are a major annoyance.

They almost exclusively began the same way, either

A. Talk to them X times over the course of the game, resulting them very awkwardly dodging the subject in the most blatant "TALK TO THEM MORE TIMES TO UNLOCK QUEST!" way possible, until you unlock the quest.

B. Do some series of triggers which results in THEM running up and talking to you, only to, in a contradictory manner to them force starting the conversation, awkwardly dodge the subject in the most blatant "DO MORE TRIGGERS TO UNLOCK QUEST!" way possible, until you unlock the quest.

Then the quests, without fail, turn out to be some issue these "people" have had for YEARS, yet have never once tried to fix or act upon. Then they expect YOU to basically fix their problems yourself. To make matters worse is that, once you fix their problems for them, they then ask how how they should feel about, being totally unable to even THINK about their problems without waiting on your every word hand and foot.

NONE of this make any sense, or is how real people act. Its just so [censored] baffling that game developers keep doing this sort of [censored], yet boast about how "believable" this NPCs are as people. Its entirely contradictory, NO ONE acts like Boone, or Raul, or Arcade, or anyone from a Bioware game like Miranda, or Jack, or Tali, or w/e.

Companion loyalty quests are nothing more then a giant circle jerk, designed to let the player feel like they are god, by allowing them to literally fix every idiot in the universe's problems, whilst simultaneously allowing them to also feel like god via letting them make everyone's crucial life changing decisions for them. All the while, this format of quests does nothing but completely and utterly bankrupt the companion's believability as a "real" person, by reducing them to nothing more then programmable robots who follow your beck and call.

-I shouldn't have to talk to them 5 times to get them to start doing anything about their problems.

-I shouldn't have to have them run up and talk to me 5 times to get them to start doing anything about their problems.

-I shouldn't have to fix their problems for them to begin with.

-I shouldn't be able to tell them how they should live their lives.

If game developers actually gave a [censored] about making their companions believable characters, companion quests wouldn't exist, as they would have done them themselves years ago, instead of waiting around with their thumbs up their asses until the special snowflake player character comes along and forces them to get off their asses.

That's one of the things I've always really liked about Bethesda games, no [censored] idiotic companion quests.

Look at Jericho in Fallout 3, hes a former raider, who actually lived long enough to retire. Does he probably have guys who would want to kill him? Sure, you can't live that long and not. Does that mean hes [censored] pestering you about it throughout your totally unaltered quest to fix a water purifier? No, he either dealt with it years ago, or is in a point in his life where [censored] doesn't matter anymore. Does he pester you about his life sob-story? [censored] no, because its completely irrelevant to the task at hand, and he has no reason too. See, he actually LIVED, and actually did [censored] about his life, instead of staying in this bizarre stasis you see character in NV and Bioware games in, and he doesn't bother you with it like he should.

NPC companions in Bioware and NV style games are nothing more then what I like to call man-children. All they do is whine, [censored], and moan, about some problem, and then do everything in their power to NOT do anything about it, until you forcibly drag them outside to deal with it, then they expect you to do everything for them, and then tell them how they should feel about it. This is what 5 year olds throwing temper tantrums do, not what advlts do. I don't want to babysit children, but most RPGs, Bioware's especially seem to love to force it down your throat, and then they get 100 awards for "believable" NPC companions.

If someone asks me if I want them, all I can say is "I would rather not, and I'm glad Bethesda has avoided it thus far".

I want to find out the dog's name just by finding Doctor Li, and having her be like "OMG that's Dogmeat" and that's it. Don't throw some [censored] "quests" on it.

I believe Pete Hines specifically clarified that when they said "human" companions, they meant "HUMAN" companions.

I think it amounts to the difference between generic companions and companions that you form an emotional bond with. Bioware has far too many companions that you don't want to see die. With Fallout 3, I find most of the companions to be too generic unlike the New Vegas companions. However, the New Vegas companions never reached the complexity that Bioware companions have.

As I've stated before I'm definitely not a fan of immortal companions, but if you were to make them immortal why not do so when they are not following us? This seems to be counter intuitive to the whole unreliable AI dilemma we have with companions getting killed or falling into the ether when on their way back home. Odd bit of logic from Bethesda here.

mmm.. I've played mass effect/Dragon age in several different ways. I've gone through plays where I try to kill off (let die, let leave, don't pick up) as many companions as possible.. Mass Effect is pretty good in that you can pretty much eliminate most of them. Emotional bonds with companions can be different through every playthrough depending on what kind of character you make.. It'l be interesting to see what Beth does with companions but if there are any that turn out to be backstabbers I'm going to be kind of miffed that I can't just let them die or kill them before their betrayal in subsequent playthroughs. The only option there is.. don't pick them up. Kind of a boring option.. especially if they are quite handy and you do like having them around for their skills.

Hey man, don't crush my dreams. Ghouls are human... enough. (really, as long as the eligible companions aren't all young and good-looking, I'll be pleased)

As for loyalty quests, I see your point, even if I'm not as steamed about it. I like them as a way of slowly revealing our companion's background and character to us, and then watching some sweet character development action going on as something personal happens to them. If Bethesda can do that and break the RPG-standard loyalty quest formula, I'll be quite pleased. Saying all this, I'm starting to think Bethesda should model their companion quests more after the companion-specific side-quests in something like Chrono Trigger, rather than what games like New Vegas or Mass Effect do. There is a place for companions to trigger conversations based on what you see or do, and it can even have some influence on their character development, but that should really be an expansion of "companions comment on things for flavor" than any actual loyalty quest.

I think you're with me, though, when I say I really don't want companions and romances to be that indulgent sort of "the player character is a hero that can do everything and everybody loves them!" thing like in other games. I ran with it in Mass Effect since that's the point of the entire series (and my favorite moments in those games are when you can't solve every problem, incidentally), but I hope Bethesda doesn't do that with companions in Fallout 4. If that does happen (and I'm half-expecting it to be like that), I guess it's no dealbreaker for me since I'm used to it in RPGs anyway, but I'd be really happy to see Bethesda avoid that pitfall.

- You've gravely misunderstood me if that's the inference you draw.'What could be' isn't a lazy synonym for 'greater complexity', but conversely it limns a sentiment of change being possible irrespective of tradition; something we shouldn't tether ourselves to.It's the fulcrum of all dissenting or subversive views, not just in gaming but in every major discipline and every panjandrum who inspires change.

Imagine the detriment of Socrates considering his own ambitions of challenging piety and engendering cynicism were nothing more than idealistic and vacuous ways of doing things?Who knows maybe blasphemy would still be punishable by death as it was for Socrates...

Point being great movements, controversies and revolutions are almost always and exclusively inspired by idealists; from Martin Luther King Jr,Galileo, Laplace, Salmon Rushdie, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

Heck even in gaming we have our own contrarians such as Miyamoto who managed to save gaming while everyone condemned it as a fad.

- I gave a suggestion where F.E.V and/or radiation could be used to offer unique companions.Or a companion from what could be regarded as the main antagonist faction, offer the chance to humanize said faction (that could have made a notable difference in Fallout 3).

Without surprise you glance over the majority of my post...

Companion quests are usually my favorite parts of a game. Especially in Mass Effect, I liked the characters and wanted to know them better. Maybe it's not realistic for them to expect the player to resolve all their long-standing issues, but I think that's just another facet of the "center of the universe" conceit that most games are guilty of. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. I'm with President Eden on this one. There are plenty of opportunities they could present us with. I'll also point out that "archetype" and "stereotype" are not the same concept. Just because a particular character comes from a familiar mold doesn't mean they can't also be interesting and fresh.

I see the point. But I don't see it as worse than when you arrive in a new town and everyone wants you to fix their problems. At least with companion quests, they've presumably built up some level of trust with you.

As for the quest triggers, it should be feasible to have events in game that start the quests in a more believable way. Eg. Someone tries to assassinate one of them (if only they knew...).

Or maybe even a companion quest not built on trust. Maybe one could try to double cross you, steal something valuable, etc. First you have to find them again, then decide whether to kill them, let them go or help them with whatever issues they have.

I think there's much more potential than just "would you like to carry half my crap around and kill things for me?"

The difference is that normal townspeople are just that, normal folks, who likely don't have the skills, resources, or time, to fix the problem themselves. Companions however are portrayed AS being people with the skills and resources to get these things done, that is why you have them as your companion, their skills.

While by no means perfect, there was an instance or two in Skyrim with something that resembled companion quests, but that were significantly less insulting mentally then in other games.

For example, the Daedric Lord Vaermina's quest involves going to the town of Dawnstar, learning that everyone there has been inflicted with terrible nightmares, and that a priest of Mara named Erandur is in town, trying to solve the problem, but needs helps. After agreeing to help him, you both go to the nearby cultist temple to try to break the curse, and during your trip through the temple you eventually learn he was one of these cultists in the past, but fled when Orcs invaded the temple in revenge for their actions, later trying to turn his life around by becoming a priest of Mara and helping people, and ultimately returning to the temple when he heard the dark magics there were starting to affect other people as well, as a means to redeem his past actions.

It was a nice backstory moment one normally gets from Companion quests, but without all the insulting "talk to me 5 times/hit 5 triggers!" bull one normally has to go through to get companion quests.

It was also refreshing to see an NPC with some [censored] AGENCY for once. Unlike Boone and Arcade, and anyone from Bioware's games, who do nothing but sit with their thumb up their ass while their problems haunt them for years, this guy actually went and tried to turn his life around himself. He didn't need you to make his life decisions for him, nor did he need you to tell him that he should go back and put things right at the temple, he just did it for himself. You just happened to be a helpful extra sword on his own personal quest that he started himself for himself.

That was far less annoying then the [censored] we got in NV. If they could do stuff like that for Fo4, I would be significantly less annoying by the whole companion quest thing.

Also slightly less annoying was Serana in Dawnguard, if only because her father was the main badguy of the MQ, thus it was naturally impossible to not learn about her while learning about him as well. Talking about her life story actually made some sense in that regard, because it was literally the crux of the Dawnguard main quest.