I work alone. Summoned creatures are fine but anyone I should be trying to keep alive is more of a nuiscance than a help.

Why do you people consider New Vegas relevant for the direction of TES? It is Fallout and it is not made by Bethesda. I see many posts in Skyrim forums where New Vegas is given example along Oblivion and Fallout 3 of "signs of improvement" but improvement of what? Of past Obsidian games?

I would personally like a distinction between both features.

Followers and bodyguards don't need character development, but as you grow in fame, it'd be nice to ask any guard or wandering adventurer to help you out. But there should definetly be fully fledged companions that actually become part of the story. Vilya for Oblivion is the best example of a realistic companion I would like to see.

Quality > Quantity
I don't use companions often because they tend to either get in my way or make the fights too easy. If I can ask npcs to join me for specific tough missions i want them to be mortal and to have a rich story behind and a distinct personality. A npc without personality is not more memorable than a summoned skeleton, so I prefer the skeleton because it looks cool. If you can do companions as memorable as Planescape Torment or Baldurs Gate I will use them.

I'd prefer a quality over quantity approach to companions, myself. I'd rather have a reletively small number of available companions each of whom is a distinct character who I have a reason to like, than lots of companions who are just glorified pack mules or meat shields. And while the two don't always have to be mutually exclusive in this regard, usually, they are, the more companions you have in the game, the more work is involved with giving unique personalities, backstories, and character development to each of them, and generally, this will result in the developers cutting down on the detail that goes into each of them. Thus, as a general rule, more available companions equels less uniqueness for each of them. of course, this is just a general rule, factors like the skill of the writers and how much focus companions are given in game development will also play a part. But reducing the number of companions in the game would allow Bethesda to put more detail into each one.

Regardless, though, I don't expect companions to be that important a part of the game, so in the end, if I don't like how they're done, I'll just not use them. And regardless of the depth of individual companions, I hope Bethesda makes their AI better than follower AI tended to be in past Elder Scrolls games, I don't want them getting stuck on rocks, running in the way of my attacks, or just generally being stupid.



It isn't, the direction New Vegas takes by no means must reflect on the Elder Scrolls. At most, you might see that a certain aspect is a step forward or a step back from Fallout 3, since it is still a Fallout game, but beyond that, it's independant from the development direction of the Elder Scrolls, whether you consider it from the standpoint of the series or the developer. Still, that certainly by no means indicates that Bethesda can't take ideas from New Vegas, in areas that it did well. If I ever say "They should do what new Vegas did." I mean it in that way.

I don't recall stating that NV was an improvement over OB. But NV did it better, I'm sure we can agree on that. The same way Bioware games do it better. My point is look at why people praise certain aspects of other games and see if you can make said aspects in your game better.

From what I gathered they're focusing on quantity and more isn't always better. if they can make some of those companions have actual depth then my hats off to them. Interesting companions don't have to be many 3-4 is enough for me; heck, I'd settle for 2 very well thought out ones.

I like what he said.
It's the reason that MCA is one of my favourite mods ever, yet I never used Julan: I prefer companions with a little bit of depth, that don't require too much involvement while being more than just permanent summons. It's why I liked Morrowind overall: it was a fill-in-the-blanks approach to role-playing.

Quality over quantity anyday. Thats why i always get the companion mods for bethesda games.

I like working alone. Companions just get in the way especially during a melee combat

If I have to babysit them for them to even survive (Oblivion), then "I work alone".

I won't take any companions with me that can't take care of themselves and are stupid enough to charge into danger like berserkers.

I want stereotypes. A traitor rogue, a coward cook, an arrogant warrior, a heroic knight... Stuff like that but with twists. I don't want actual depth and backstories, I can fill in the blanks. (A traitor cook who is actually innocent but not that innocent. ) What does reflect me then?

My impression from the podcast is that Todd was highly influenced by some of their design decisions in Fallout 3. For us it's an entire different thing, for developers it's far more intuitive to approach Skyrim as an evolution from Fallout, which was the last game they worked on, instead of using Oblivion as the starting point.
They're both RPGs, they're both sandbox. Much that Fallout borrowed from Oblivion, Skyrim will borrow from Fallout. We're talking about similar design challenges, very similar gameplay issues to be dealth with, and they come up with solutions that have been already been thought through and brought to the table over the years. Perks, companions, less statistics, a more visual approach, less cumbersome HUDs, those were all lessons from Fallout. And Fallout New Vegas further improved the way you interact with companions, I'm pretty sure that was starting point for them, instead of going back to earlier TES games that were completely devoid of NPC followers.

They may look also at other games and Oblivion mods, but the groundwork for Companions comes from Fallout, since it's already there.

And Obsidian may have been the developer of New Vegas, and I'm sure Bethesda would have tackled certain features in their own way, but based on the hints we have so far about Skyrim, it really feels like Todd is appreciative of what they have accomplished (and so am I) and won't be hesitant to borrow.

Well said

@vtastek
I see what you mean but no matter how much you try you'll never be able to craft something in your head that actually surprises you... obviously because you're crafting it. You're not actually giving them depth or a complex personality, you're creating a backstory that really has no influence on that character. What I'm talking about is a character that chimes in when talking to someone, tell you his/her views on things when you talk to him/her directly, a companion that can surprise you at times. Something that's more than just a permanent summon. That's my main issue with companions in games. If you actually let me take along someone for a long time then at least give them a personality, make them interesting and meaningful to your character's story.

100% agree.

I'm sure 'shallow' will work out fine, but it's a missed oppurtunity even so.

More like Minsc less like Alistair.A few entertaining battle cries adds more than a whiny backstory.That is why Minsc got to fight and Alistair got to carry gear and wait at camp.

And no humping of companions Bioware has the dating sims covered.

Go for the eyes, Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!! AARRRGHH!!!

More Vilja/New Vegas, less Fallout 3.

I especially enjoy NPC banter in games such as Dragon Age, and being able to take a group of well-written NPCs along on my adventures brightens up the game.

I'll admit I was a little disappointed. I was hoping for even greater depth and complexity in companions than what we saw in either FO3 or NV.

i usually work alone but i do like to have a friendly doggy to de-throat my fallen enemies for me. i would be more excited if there was a type of AI control for companions though. like if you have a mage you could set them to heal you and use defensive magic. or tell a archer to stand back and let arrows rain. stuff like that

id rather want few in-depth companions that i feel i "get to know" a bit. a flock of random dudes would be annoying

I tend to work alone. It's simply my preference. However, meeting someone with a good background that could become a companion through a quest and/or chain of quests could be interesting....so long as they can just stay at my castle and don't have to follow me around all the damn time.

It will be both.

And this is why I don't like the "fill in the blanks" mentallity some seem to take to these things. No matter how much backstory you make up for the mercenary with all the personality of a brick that you hired, he still has the personality of a brick. It's all just a story you made up and won't have anything at all to do with what actually happens or what you actually see. If I wanted to see my own characters, I'd write a story myself using original charactets I created, rather than experiencing someone else's. Justifying lack of depth in companions that way is like saying that you like it when the protagonist of a movie has absolutely no personality because then you can imagine the character's personality yourself, but no matter what sort of personality you imagine, it won't have any effect on the story at all.

Now, this is only true for companions, and NPCs in general, of course. For my own player character, I still want to decide who my character is myself, because, you know, that's sort of the point of character creation.



Ah, yes, I sort of forgot about that part, even so, I'd rather the emphasis be put on the few unique companions rather than many generic ones.

I'd rather a handful of in depth companions, then mindless Meat-shields, i mean thats why they are called Companions no? you trust them enough to work with you and watch your back, if I needed a distraction I could easily use Charm and turn some enemy to my side for the time being. I've had enough of Oblivions companions and that Companion mod where you could dress up dolls basically to fight with you. either some worthwhile companion or just dont do it.

I don't think there are companions in Skyrim, more along the lines of expendable hirelings. Honestly, though? I think that is fine. If the game weren't about THE LAST HUMAN ON THE PLANET who could stop an impending threat, I would be all about companions, but if you can hire John, Joe and Jimmy and watch them die off every time you encounter a "Big Bad", then it kinda hammers that idea home (as it should). If they took that approach in Fallout, I would be ticked as it was always a part of Fallout games, but since having permanent, robust companions was never a part of TES, and isn't keeping with the kind of stories the TES games tell? I'm a so completely okay with this it isn't even funny.