What is it with people and the immortal dog?

The Courier

The Courier

Blain is a pain.
Seriously, no one complained in New Vegas when you have Hardcore off and Arcade doesn't just drop dead from Cazador poison. From years and years of my companions dying due to mishaps, (Marcus's minigun, Ian being Ian, Dogmeat running headlong into a freshly launched Mininuke,) I'm pretty much okay with my companions being immortal. The combat in this series, turn-based or real-time, is always messy and difficult to keep track of. In a bad way. In that way where it is often technically impossible. Mainly modern Fallout, thanks to bethesda's utterly batshit-crazy AI.

Does anyone really care if your dog, a non-speaking, likely backgroundless character, (Unless they go the cool route and reference A Boy and His Dog) is incapable of biting the big one during one of the thousands of nuke-shelling clusterfucks? I mean, normally I HATE Bethesda's hard-on for Essential NPC's like Maven Black-Briar, whom I want dead, but this just seems innocuous in comparison.
 
I just want the dog to not be immortal in hardcore mode. Having to pick your fights to keep your companions alive adds tension that might otherwise be lacking. Your companions being immortal in FO4 is much less annoying than "every NPC of even minor importance is immortal, up until the point where you're scripted to have to kill them."
 
I can see what you mean, though for me it often feels like babysitting instead of genuinely working with my followers.
 
The Courier said:
I can see what you mean, though for me it often feels like babysitting instead of genuinely working with my followers.
Click to expand...

The other thing I think that rubs people wrong is that the audience reaction to "the dog can't die" was so overwhelmingly positive. Like that's a weird thing to get excited about for an RPG ("no matter what you want, or what you do, this thing can't happen!") At best, a thing you can't change is a neutral thing, so getting excited that you have no input on something is just weird in the context of an RPG. It's like if Bethesda had said "and the home you build can never burn down"- it's a thing they decided not to implement, not an actual thing to get excited about.

That it's another instance of "people eating up whatever Bethesda has to say, even if doing so is nonsensical or doesn't benefit them in the least" just rubs people the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
The Courier said:
I can see what you mean, though for me it often feels like babysitting instead of genuinely working with my followers.
Click to expand...

well they could make your companion in a way where he isn't all about micro management. Like giving clear orders. Would not be that hard I think.

Anyway, the problem isn't even so much that the dog or other companions are immortal. It is more like the root for a problem that has become almost symptomatic for modern games today.
 
Last edited:
If F4 has no hardcore mode it is a problem. The original Fallout games didn't let your companions pass out then magically wake up when a fight was over. Dogmeat got torn the hell up with bullets. Ian would murder you on accident. Marcus liked to mow your entire party down with Minigun fire. There were problems, yet it managed to be engaging because you were emotionally invested in the characters. You wanted Ian and Dogmeat to make it all the way through. Now what the hell is the point?

If there is no hardcore mode, then the companions are just elements to handicap the enemies and drive the plot forward. The immersion that everyone goes on and on about is broken. Everyone wants to be hardcore and praise Dark Souls for causing people to die so much. Why can't people do the same with Fallout anymore? I'll go ahead and answer. Because the series is watered down, streamlined for the masses to maximize the profits. They don't want 12 year old Jimmy getting upset about Dogmeat Mark V being hurt. Same with the child NPC's. Bioware started the trend of getting people more lenient to immortal companions. Right around the time they jumped to consoles. Bethesda followed suit with Oblivion.

A whole generation of gamers are growing up with that, unless they happen to play Wasteland 2 and some of the other cRPG's coming out. But those games are by no means as successful financially as Bethesda's. Which is what has caused the issue in the first place. Old guard Fallout fans want the series to be challenging, more like mountain climbing. New fans want something fun but not too difficult, much like a playground. Both hold value but there is no denying that the old games are what people are missing. At least around here. So you want to know the issue. The issue is the new Fallout appears to forget the improvements that Obsidian made on the formula. The guys that actually knew something about the series and RPG's in general imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I personally don't care, and it's my understanding that you don't have to take the dog as a companion if you don't want to.
 
Nah.... In Bethesda's game, NPCs are going to be like Ioun stones; equip-able accessories that orbit the PC. :(
attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Battlecross said:
I personally don't care, and it's my understanding that you don't have to take the dog as a companion if you don't want to.
Click to expand...

A shit excuse. All of the companions are immortal. I'm seeing that said a lot.
 
Because Reloading is too hard. No one complained about New Vegas having the pussy mode because it was AN OPTION, you also had the option of not having immortal companions. Immortality takes away any pressure or value from companions, they just turn into meat shields you couldn't care about in the least in fights, you will send your dog to attack robots armed with miniguns and you won't have to worry because it will eventually succeed, isn't that just lame? Also it further takes away from Companions having any impact on the story from their endings, as even if Fo4 has multiple endings (which I doubt) then Companions will not have any "They died" endings. If your companions keep dying on you then maybe you just need to not suck at the game, maybe games should let you fail if you suck instead of babysitting you so you have a fun time with the sandbox and the buckets.
 
They might as well let you heal after combat automatically. At this rate I wouldn't be surprised.
 
Fallout 5 will have an immortal Player Character at this rate. And people will think that's the future of gaming then too.
 
I actually did care about the companions in Fallout 2. I always paid close attention to how much they got hit, because I needed them to survive. Cassidy and Marcus were my favorites because I picked them on my first playthrough. I felt like they were actually my companions, whenever I healed Cassidy sometimes he would say "Thanks, friend" and even though it's trivial, it helped me form an emotional bond with those characters. Marcus and Cass appearing in New Vegas helped solidify those feelings. Marcus mentioning the Chosen One and how he helped save the people of Arroyo from the Enclave made me feel like my playthrough in Fallout 2 actually mattered, and that it had an effect on the timeline. Cassidy died at the oil rig on my first playthrough and I was legitimately sad lol. I didn't restart in a new save though, I continued on because I like my playthroughs to be realistic. When there isn't even the option of companions being able to to be killed it takes the value of their characters away. Like @Walpknut said, they basically become meat shields. Sure, you can care about their story, but you don't ever have to worry about them dying which cheapens the experience. That's just my opinion anyway
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What made Dogmeat famous in the first place was his tendency to die.
For many players, it was just a dog which casualty don't matter. For others, they avoided to put it on too risky situations. But for many others, bringing the dog in danger and keeping it alive was the challenge they set themselves too. They spent countless of hour just to brag that they made Dogmeat survive. Make it immortal is just breaking what made it famous in the first place.

Other than that, i would prefer any essential status to be optionnal, not forced on you. Same for bullet sponge. I had to spend all my fat man nuke to kill Dogmeat in Fo3. I don't want to waste so many ammo next time.
 
Immortal NPCs are not the case only because players are more casual nowadays. It's because the AI is pretty much always terrible. It's very difficult to make NPCs with some self-preservation instincts that will put their own safety ahead of other things. If NPCs had better AI that actually tried to take cover during firefights, immortality would not be needed anymore. As far as I remember there were no immortal NPCs in Morrowind. Why? because they only stood in place and didn't move at all, they were at absolutely no risk of death except for at the hand of the player. In Oblivion and Skyrim essential NPCs are necessary so that they don't randomly die if they wander off somewhere, thus not letting you complete your quests despite it not being your fault.

It is not correct to put all the blame on players or developers who want to babysit the companions, Blame the AI.
 
Askorti said:
Immortal NPCs are not the case only because players are more casual nowadays. It's because the AI is pretty much always terrible. It's very difficult to make NPCs with some self-preservation instincts that will put their own safety ahead of other things. If NPCs had better AI that actually tried to take cover during firefights, immortality would not be needed anymore. As far as I remember there were no immortal NPCs in Morrowind. Why? because they only stood in place and didn't move at all, they were at absolutely no risk of death except for at the hand of the player. In Oblivion and Skyrim essential NPCs are necessary so that they don't randomly die if they wander off somewhere, thus not letting you complete your quests despite it not being your fault.

It is not correct to put all the blame on players or developers who want to babysit the companions, Blame the AI.
Click to expand...

So like the original games.
 
I actually don't care about the immortal companions, I only pick them up to do their quests and so that I can have at least some advantage in fights - I'm terrible at real time FPS fighting. That advantage never lasts long anyhow since they drop unconscious when the enemies give them a meaner look.

Still, I wouldn't be surprise that the dog being an essential NPC is actually a foreshadowing that the dog will have a scripted death during the story. I can't wait to see how the people who were all hyped up on the dog will react to that, and how Bethesda will deal with the backlash. Fallout 4's Broken Steel will retcon the dog's death, I can already see it.
 
Askorti said:
Immortal NPCs are not the case only because players are more casual nowadays. It's because the AI is pretty much always terrible. It's very difficult to make NPCs with some self-preservation instincts that will put their own safety ahead of other things. If NPCs had better AI that actually tried to take cover during firefights, immortality would not be needed anymore. As far as I remember there were no immortal NPCs in Morrowind. Why? because they only stood in place and didn't move at all, they were at absolutely no risk of death except for at the hand of the player. In Oblivion and Skyrim essential NPCs are necessary so that they don't randomly die if they wander off somewhere, thus not letting you complete your quests despite it not being your fault.

It is not correct to put all the blame on players or developers who want to babysit the companions, Blame the AI.
Click to expand...

There are ways how to get around it.

It's called game design.

Ever played Arcanum? Arcanum had a lot of NPCs of which some would give the player important informations. Arcanum also allowed every NPC to die. And they found ways to make it work. If it ever happend that the player killed some important NPC either by accidant or willingly the game developers made sure that you had a way to solve the situation without always to reload the game. For example notes left behind by the dead NPC somewhere in his room that would tell the player the information they required. That's simply game design.

But of course. That would actually require from the designer to think about all the possible ways to play his game. It is much easier to just say, naaay, let us just make this NPC immortal. Hell even a MESSAGE that tells you that you killed a very important NPC and you should reload would already help - that's how morrowind did it. But it is simply easier to make everyone who's important immortal and forget any grudge the town/NPCs have against the player after 72 hours.
 
What I hate is if I want to enjoy the game I have to add so many mods to even make it challenging or fun as a RPG. I have to look at the game as a hiking simulator or adventure game with RPG elements, which sours the whole experience. At least with New Vegas you had some consequences for your actions. The combat might not be as great(compared to Fallout 2), but the story was interesting, it didn't fuck up the lore, there was overall more care for the franchise. Yet Bethesda doesn't even speak of it. Obsidian is a developer that I have grown to trust. Bethesda has completely destroyed any goodwill I ever had towards them.

I tried to get my friends to play hardcore mode on New Vegas, or my cousin, who is a huge fan of the new games, to play the old Fallout's, but the general opinion is that it is too hard or in the old Fallout's case, outdated. I realize some of this is a generational thing, but I'm not much older than a lot of fans who just do not like RPG's like Fallout. Anytime I hear something about there being too much reading I do cringe. When I think of RPG, I think of dialog, and hopefully, a lot of dialog options, lore, etc. I don't like new fans of the series to expect mediocrity. At this rate ID will be making the next Fallout spinoff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top