At first I was really confused about how anyone could prefer having killable companions that are A.I. controlled. This made no sense to me, especially from the people who say it increases their immersion. Does it make sense for the companion to run off on their own and try to kill enemies too powerful for them? Does it make sense that they won't retreat even when about to die and that you can't give them any combat commands? Does it make sense for them to not use stimpaks on their own even to save their life? What about going from fully battle ready to dead in 1 second with no in between phase where they are dying or injured and you can save them? Then there's the people who become emotionally attached not base on personality or the companion's actions or involvement in the story, but the fact that they can randomly get blown up. I finally realized what these people have been trying to tell us: they really REALLY like escort missions! For such a person what would possibly be better than babysitting a fragile and stupid A.I. who does everything in their power to get themselves and the player killed not for one measly mission but for the entire game!

I find it funny that people are so past the thought that bethesda could do good ai that they could never see it happening.

New dogs. Invincible dogs.
Either is just going to carry my stuff and bite peoples faces off, so no worries on my end.
Though, I believe the reasoning is that companions will play essential roles in the story.
We have to accept that, with all it encapsulates. Hopefully it is indicative of Bethesda upping their writing game.


Also, the not dying and wanting them to.
So long as it is least like NV, just fire them if they get knocked unconscious- essentially the same as death if you never bother with them again.

I get that what's being asked is for a way to lose the game if the follower is that central to the storyline dies.

I do hope there is a hardcoe mode allowing NPC death, causing failure, though. Failure slides would be a nice touch. "You failed to stop the robot uprising. Dogmeat's death-yowls distracted you just long enough for the machines to surround and over take you. Your story ends here."

Oh, for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9A_1eoyGiM.

I doubt that, since you can't take them all, and you don't have to take any.......

They can't be that essential.

Very cool, they will get scared half to death by all the gunshots but so would the dog probably.. It would never happen though (thinks about a game set in Elsweyr)

Sticky for Fallout 4! Sticky for Fallout 4!

This is part of the reason why I like protected/essential NPCs. The game world has 20-30 NPCs scaled to represent a population of thousands (millions) of people, and each NPC tends to have his/her own flair or unique personality. When they die from some random event a bit of that world dies with them.

In Fallout? The world was devastated; (should be irrecoverably). Basically everyone was dead, and the few people that survived shouldn't be over a million; it took over 100 years for the US to reach a million, and that was with a unspoiled country; the world of Fallout is a bombed out toilet of a world, with the remnant few desperately trying to eek out an existence in it.

Companions can be useful, but they can also be really stupid. I'll take immortal companions over an inevitably poorly implemented system where they can die. The AI often often behaves as if it just read Charge of the Light Brigade and thought, "yeah, let's do that". Like it or not, many characters need to stay alive. I can't count how many times I had to reload a save in Skyrim because vampires teleported into a town and killed a few named NPCs before I could hunt them all down. I don't like it when the whole world is an escort mission. Random chance shouldn't determine how much of the game you get to see. Characters should only be permanently killable by the PC. In fact, watch this video to get a better sense of how I feel about having to protect an NPC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raIrRERM9OU

If such links aren't allowed, just look up 'Every Video Game Escort Mission Ever 8 Bits'.

This.

Population count is down the drain. Large population centers and industrial capability has been bombed into oblivion. Vast stretches of land should be irradiated and unreachable for humans (and safe spots for ghouls and super humans).

Daily survival should be first priority, meaning clean food and water and medicine. Anything else is luxury at this point. Brahmin are on of the few domesticated animals of note that can serve as beast of burden.

Re-population takes time and frankly is hindered by radiation poisoning of the current generation and malnutrition. Lack of proper healthcare isn't helpful either as qualified doctors should be few.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be small case progress, especially in larger "towns" (villages more considering the population numbers). Back it's way off from anything resembling pre-war.

So what if the NPC's are stupid and die from glitches or stupidity? We should be suffering from the consequences, furthermore quests NPC's should have quests written so if a quest NPC gets killed we should be failing quests.

Because that's less 'realistic' than immortal NPCs. Why should I be cut off from a good side quest because my supposedly elite 1st Recon companion goes all Leroy Jenkins with a half broken Ripper? Why should I miss out on half the game because mobs keep showing up next to important people? The game is centered around your character, and ceding control to luck of the spawn is not fun.

My statement was a blanket to cover both TES and Fo3 representing millions and thousands, respectively, with a handful of NPCs.

It isn't without any stretch of the imagination that were the figures scaled up, New Vegas would have had bustling casinos with hundreds of people in each one, likewise for the strip. Parallel to Whiterun in Skyrim, the trade hub of the region, and we could have expected well over 100,000 civilians.

As a side note, why even bring this up? My statement was in relation to a much bigger picture completely unrelated to what you're bringing up. The NCR in FNV, a faction with population in the tens of thousands, was represented by a few hundred...

What NPC's being immortal is more realistic than the NPC's being killed by glitches?

For me when I play RPG video games I want to suffer from the consequences when the quests NPC's get killed. Quests need to also be written to take the choices and consequences you make into effect. I enjoy playing RPG video games that have all NPC's killable. I actually have fun playing and not get bored after 30 minutes or after 5 hours.

And the vaults themselves were a thousand represented by tens... but of the world at large, there would be remarkably few, and nowhere near bustling anywhere; probably never again.

I would imagine in a shelled out hell hole like the wasteland, areas that are seemingly secure and protected by well-to-do, armed citizenry would attract people en masse.

As romantic an idea it is for civilization to never bustle again, I got to say the nay no to that notion, my damies.

At one point in our own history, there was an event that whittled us down to about 2000 humans. Sure it took a very long time to get to the billions we have now, but I should think that if mankind has rebuilt even as much as it has in the FO series, it is definitely on the incline.

Survivors are left with a pretty great deal of pre war knowledge. Jet was made. Stimpacks were made from plants. Basic needs, while not in over abundance for many, are present in locations seen in every game. Factions warring with each other hinder each other almost as much as the environment, which will only continue to get better. Meanwhile those warring factions will ultimately conquer one another, or find diplomacy.

I don't think all areas should progress linearly, or at the same rate, though.

What would be fun is that Dogmeat was not immortal but infinite. When Dogmeat dies you get a new Dogmeat named "Dogmeat MK II, when he dies you get "Dogmeat MK III" and so on.

Dogs should definitely be replacable instead of immortable.

Also, the seller should sell various flavors/perks/types of dogs...

The dog seems to have a backstory. In this case it wouldn't make sense to replace him with another dog.

Please Bethesda, just make it a toggle so we don't get any more of these threads.

Where are people getting information that the dog has a backstory? I never heard Bethesda Games Studios talk about it or see anything about the dog. Other than the dog going in the house after it was destroyed after the nuclear bombs fell.

The only amount of backstory this dog has is that a male dog stumbled upon a female dog in heat, and that the player character finds the dog at a gas station, possibly, referencing a certain scene from South Park.

While I don't know what damage has been done...

It is estimated that in 35,000 BCE, the world population was 3 million hunter-gatherers, which rose to 15 million, when agriculture finally was introduced in 10.000 BCE. With that... there lived 50-60 mio. people in the roman empire alone.

So atleast there is still potential for somewhat large populations (relatively) with presumably rather basic agriculture knowledge.