Yes, unless their name is Boone.

No babysitting = more fun = more value.

(I support immortal companions)

Boone my my best friend in that game, but in all honesty it made me fight that much harder to keep him alive. There's a feeling of satisfaction for keeping your best bud alive in a wasteland full of danger. and a sense of loss if you lose them. That's why its important.

And its why Bethesda is showing you your life in the pre-war era. To make you feel like you actually lost something after the war. Same logic applies for this IMO

No I don't want immortal followers. I don't understand why people would want an invincible meatbag that soaks up like half of the damage and just makes things easy by drawing fire, there is pretty much zero risk in fights when you know all you have to do is keep yourself alive. That is really boring to me, I liked how I had to manage my health and my companions in New Vegas, especially when a companion would just drop dead after you won a big fight because you forgot that Cazador just poisoned them, it makes things interesting, and yeah sometimes you want them to live so you reload, but I find that to be only a minor inconvenience as I save regularly.

I don't mind the dog being immortal because in 3 dogmeat died whenever an enemy looked at it wrong, it was pretty infuriating.

I think they should have an option for companions to be immortal, maybe if they are bringing hardcoe back they can tie it to that like in New Vegas or just have a toggle.

There should be an option for those who don't want it.

I personally never use companions anyway, so it matters little to me.

The issue is AI stupidity and balance, not immortality.

As a given, immortality is fine,

but the AI needs to balanced to make it work.

If the companion is overpowered, that hurts the game, as I don't want to simply walk behind my companion.

Immortal is not the same as invulnerable, i.e. if the companion is low on health,

they should become unconscious, ideally to the end of conflict.

Indifferent as I only use companions minimally. I think that the devs should allow the player to choose at the start of each game.

I didn't like rolling with companions in FO3, as they didn't have much personality besides being a mule. In NV, I liked rolling with companions, but there comes a time I just send them off to the 38. I rarely took my companions into dangerous situations so, I'm indifferent if they can die or not, as I will probably play FO4 the same way, even if they have NV type companions, I will roll with them but eventually send them to a safehouse.

immortal is not being able to be killed

invulnerable is not being able to take damage.

I get what you're trying to say but even if the companion is knocked unconscious and they continue to get up time and time again, that is being immortal.

All things being equal, lets say that AI stupidity and dumb game mechanics aren't a factor (even though I know that's never going to happen)

Would it effect your choice?

I think it's less that people want invincible meatwalls to tank the game for them/remove all difficulty. What they want is to stop having to reload constantly because the idiot companions keep running out to block missiles with their face.

It's like having an unending Escort Mission, the worst type of quest in the history of gaming.

Immortal companions is a horrible concept, and I hate it dearly.

I wasn't a huge fan of Boone.

I can see your point though. Veronica was my personal best friend.

This could be solved by just adding a dialogue option or something that made your companion essential or not essential.

That would be an interesting way to go about it. Boone always reminded me of a vietnam vet with some crazy PTSD

I usually don't travel with a companion, but I think having them knocked out until we can heal them is a great idea. Even if we have insufficient medical skill, throwing them over our shoulder and carrying them to a doctor would be cool with me.

getting knocked out cold would be the best way to handle sidekicks. this is sort of down with sidekicks in skyrim. when their health is very, the nastys won't attack them.

I don't mind. Most RPGs have companions that are immortal so long as they're following you (becoming incapacitated rather than killed when their health reaches 0), and those that don't will usually have resurrection magic to bring them back if/when they die.

I just don't want them to die stupidly requiring a reload - unconscious, out of the action - fine.

An invincible and invulnerable and OP companion, no thanks.

I don't think that is happening and if it did, I'd just leave the companion behind.

Pretty sure most of the playerbase just resets after a companion death ANYWAY, so them being essential only makes it so you do not have to reload.

again, why not make the player himself immortal then? since you reload everytime you die... same logic

I can understand being annoyed about reloading often, but I hate invulnerable companions, it just makes fights a joke IMO, a compromise I wouldn't be totally against would be if a companion was knocked out they don't get back up until the fight is over completely, though if that was the case I could see people going into stealth to revive them which would be lame.

I would still rather have a toggle or hardcoe mode option for killable companions, so that people can choose which way they would like it.

no, it is not, a companion fainting does not end teh game, and does not send you back to the last save.

that is, as far as i know anyway, EXACTLY what is going to happen.

but this is exactly what youre complaining about.. the game ends for you when a companion dies and you reload. you die in game you also reload. immortal companion=less reload, immortal player=less reload, same logic.

I know that Todd Howard has said that the Dog is invulnerable in an interview, but has anything been said about other companions being invulnerable yet?

and if you choose to reload when your companion dies, that's your choice. even though you're going to do it anyway doesn't mean it should be mandated that companions should be immortal to save you the time of reloading a save when others might not do that. Lets say Bethesda drastically improved the clumsiness of the AI in this game and only 25% of their deaths were a result of being clumsy. At that point I would argue if you choose to reload then it's just because you miss your companion and you want a picture perfect world.

If there's one video game that made me mature from the picture perfect scenario its Xcom. That game made you really hate how grim life can be. And I reloaded a thousand times because my characters kept dying, then I finally woke up and said "I need to learn how to cope with stuff like this"

Clumsy AI and bad design is one thing, but it should not dictate the design of immortal companions IMO