Among the first-person games in the series, is often considered the weakest. While its combat and movement are much more fluid than previous entries, it lacked many of the role-playing elements that the franchise had built its identity around. In comparison to and , it lacked a sense of character voice and choice for the protagonist. Yet there is one area of the game that even its critics must admit handles far better than its predecessors, and that is how the game handles its companions.
All three of these titles include companion characters to some extent, NPCs who the player character can befriend or hire and take with them out into the wasteland. Companions fight alongside the player in combat, carry excess gear, and provide a bit of company in an otherwise lonely apocalypse. Yet in comparison to the companions available in the earlier two titles, which tend to be more static as characters and lack a sense of depth, creates complex backstories for its companions, tons of dialogue options, and even quests that allow the player character to learn more about them.
Of course, the two earlier titles include companions that have interesting personalities and have become fan favorites. From the gentle giant Fawkes in to the calm and laid-back Raul in, it would be unfair to say that the companion system in these games is bad. However, while these characters are fun to tag along with, they lack any sense of character growth or additional complexity to make them really stand out.
Characters in a story don't always need to be dynamic with changes in their goals and perspectives, but ideally, central characters should have some kind of arc if they are going to stick around. and feature companions which can get old quickly, with minimal dialogue options and no real sense of personal goals. One needs only to look at a few of the companions available in to see how much of a difference that type of character writing can make.
companions don't just follow the player around,
Read more on screenrant.com