Optional, I guess. But I voted yes. It's really not something that Bethesda should be saying an outright "no" to IMO, but they have.

I didn't have a problem with companions being killable in F3, honestly though I could careless about whether they can die or not. I usually leave them on the edge of a combat zone and retrieve them later for pack mule usage.

I voted that I didn't care because between console commands and mods I'd be able to change it even if the game didn't already reflect my preference. If that weren't the case, though, I suppose I would vote 'no'. I'd be unlikely to hire or take on a companion in the first place if I knew she could die.

Depends on how good the companion A.I. is. If my companions are constantly dying and making me have to reload the game over and over then It's going to get pretty annoying even having companions. So I'm not sure if I'd want perma-death companions.. But, as we've seen with past games, companions often charge enemies within their sight instead of using cover, any sort of real tactics or remaining stealthy. Sometimes if companions just act stupid, yeah, I'd rather just leave them dead on the side of the road than have to deal with them. (it would be their own fault for doing something stupid to get themselves killed after all.) So I really have no idea what I'd like to see. All I know is that I'm looking forward to testing out the companions but like most games that offer companions.. I'll basically only be picking them up for side quests. I'm hoping companions side quests aren't overly invovled.. like you actually have to have them during certain main quests to make them viable.. but we'll see.

I agree that there should be an option to play a style of play where dogmeat can die or any companion for that matter. The lack of information on hardcoe mode is really a little upsetting at this point.

I'm pretty glad that our companions are immortal (when in our company). Solid AI might make companions more durable, but it doesn't solve any issues when they actually do bite the dust. If these were Skyrim-style followers and came a dime a dozen, I might not care as much about their survivability; but if they're designed as story-driven and interesting companions, there isn't much Bethesda can offer to make it interesting enough for me to play on when they die. (and Bethesda is arguably getting better at incentivizing playing through your failures, since Skyrim had several radiant encounters that would only trigger through a citizen NPC's death, or after being caught committing crimes)

I think that's what Bethesda's getting at. Even if you're a super elite hardcoe ironman gamer, you don't get anything out of companion death compared to other failstates. Your own death is good for trial-and-error gaming, and the most well-done quest failures have consequences that add something of their own to the game (or in the very least, you went through most of the quest content anyway and it's over). Compared to when a companion dies, that's just one less companion in the game. And in the worst cases, it undermines even having a companion in the first place if you're constantly babysitting them, or they die after the first major firefight.

I'm not .

I would certainly like some in-game way to set a companion essential - or not.

Agreed fully.

If these were dime-a-dozen mercs for hire like Skyrim, I wouldn't mind dumb AI getting them killed, but they aren't.

We don't even know how good of a Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) system Bethesda Game Studios has developed for Fallout 4.

Since PC, PlayStation 4 (PS4), and Xbox One have lots of RAM 8GB RAM for the consoles and PC's have up to 64GB of RAM with DDR4 RAM (I'm not saying Bethesda Game Studios will use 64GB of RAM for the PC version of Fallout 4.). Time will tell only when Fallout 4 releases for sale.

I think it should be a player option to set companions as essential or not.

Ram has almost nothing to do with the quality of the AI really.

And if you think Bethesda will somehow do what every other developer since gaming began failed to do, well.... that's a nice thought I suppose, if terribly unrealistic.

Given how companions worked in Skyrim, i'm not exactly holding my breath.

Still, unless you go the sneaky route, and unkillable meat shield can only be good.
And a "meat shield" is pretty much all i expect, which means having them immortal is an excellent design decision. "Distract them by getting killed while i kill them!"

I hope they have similar quick command interface for them as New Vegas has.
But again, seeing Skyrim, i'm not exactly holding my breath.

The fact is Fans should have zero say with this feature or pretty much any feature.

Any choice we make is based on speculation and without all the facts. Why is that a reliable source? I don't really think the ignorant should be asked to give their opinion on things they are ignorant about. And I include myself. Asking these question post launch actually allows us to EVALUATE features and be able to make INFORMED opinions based on actual experience.

What if companions are vital for the plot? Or rather one or two are vital? And if they made only them essential and the others not isn't that a big huge mechanical red flag? I don't want a large neon sign saying this companion is important because only this companion is non killable. So yeah in this case i would want them to be none killable. yet if no companion was important to the plot then there is no reason to not make it optional.

We don't have enough information to make any kind of informed decision on what the developer "should" do. And frankly I have no faith in gamers as developers, the cult of the amateur colliding with gamers unreasonable expectation almost always results in shlock.

It should me optional, a lot of people are save-scammers by nature, some will reload the game if they broke a single lock-pick

I don't want an immortal companions, so i won't have any if there wont' be a hardcoe mode where they can die.

You know, I don't think it would be hard to improve AI so that companions don't get killed as easily; you could set it so that they enter a defensive/take cover state at low health, and enemies would ignore companions in that state (like how they ignore most NPCs that take a knee at low health). But that still doesn't account for fall damage from getting ragdolled, or a high-power attack that kills them even with a good amount of health, or lingering poison/burn damage; you could work around that, sure, but at that point why on Earth are you going through the trouble and not just making them essential to begin with?

I'm all for smarter AI, but if we're talking about ways to make companions not get killed, there are much simpler solutions. Or, you decide that companions can die, but that has to be considered against the context of companions in the whole game (imagine if the companions in Mass Effect or Chrono Trigger died permanently) and what the player can do after their companion dies.

yes yes and yes especially that overhyped stupid dog

Optional ofc, the more options the better. There will probably be mods that gate this anyway, but they should introduce something like hardcoe mode to gate it, or just an option in the menu. I have lost Dogmeat alot of times in FO3 on Very Hard and it can be quite sad, but its part of the role i am playing at that moment and i will not reload when a companion falls.

I was leaning towards "should be optional"

But then i thought back to new vegas on how I liked using hardcoe mode (its an option) BUT at the same time companions would also have to die, was fun for about 5 minutes.

So no companions should not die, besides in F4 when companions get KO'd they stay down for a while and the only way to get them back into the action is by using a stimpak.

Well it could also be like Skyrim where if your companion takes a lot of damage they take a knee and the enemy generally ignores them. Even with this however they can still die if they are hit by one of my arrows (intentional or not) or fireball, whatever. In this case enemies generally can't kill them, but I can if I want to.

But it's been mentioned in the Rig your Dog thread that with him being unkillable, then things like mine fields and such become a breeze since you can just send him (or any other companion) into the mines to set them all off.

Or worse, if some valley has a dozen Death Claws in it and you have to get through, just send your companion at them with a melee weapon and you just walk around as they fight them all. Theoretically the companion would eventually kill all the Death Claws even if they were fighting with a spoon. They'll just keep fighting, never dying, until they are all dead or you've moved on enough that they try to follow you again. Heck you could even send them into a den of raiders and just sit back and wait for the fighting to stop. If you share in the EXP of the kills your companion makes this would be an easy way to get all kinds of EXP without ever firing a shot.

Can, question is, want to?

Besides Beth having taken measures against such exploits.

I know I'm going to sound like a traditional "PC Master Race" guy but given the PS4 and Xbox One are getting mods now I think it's a fair comment: to me mods make everything in the game "optional". I'd check the "should be optional" comment in the poll, but I don't think that gives the right impression. As a Vanilla default state I think Bethesda have made the right decision making them immortal; it certainly caters to the majority. Sure you could demand it be a toggle in the base game, but if they did that for everything that was requested as "just a simple toggle" it would actually add up to a fair amount of development time.

I suppose that would depend on whether this "you need a Stimpack to get them back up" thing is correct. If so, it might not be economical to use them for mine clearing.

Also, if you can direct companions that exactly ("go walk to that point")

...personally, I'd rather disarm all the mines, for XP and extra weapons/caps

It gives you a new avenue for expression. In Fallout 3, you can imagine that your character is a callous low-life who couldn't care less for the well-being of his followers, but there aren't many actions you can take to demonsrate that callousness. In Fallout 4, you can express your character's vile side. No good guy would order a loyal companion to go sweep a minefield when the companion's suffering is ensured and his death is a real possiblity.

Although the game prevents the companion from dying, as far as your character and his companion are concerned, the companion is mortal and can die.

I don't care. I never use followers unless I am forced to do so, and then I suppose they will be essential.