I don't mind followers being shallow honestly I like the more quantity than quality sure fallout new Vegas had amazing followers but how many were actually good? like 3 and each of those followers had a specific faction alignments so alot of the time you would be out of Also if a follower didn't have the Skill set/morally you wanted or needed.
What dissapoints me however iswith followers is that they don't level up with you so they become useless this is fine if you use warrior followers caus there's a dozen of those but if you use a ranger/Mage follower your out of luck cause out of the 5 mage/ranger followers there's actually one or two that are good
It's clear that they aimed for many companions, but all very shallow, instead of few companions, but far more fleshed out. Which approach is better is hard to say, I'm guessing there are people who prefer both methods. Personally, I would definitely have preferred fewer, but more fleshed out companions.
Instead of followers having a set moral system, you should in some way be able to mold your followers over time. So if you've had a follower for a long time, they would more easily accept cold murder, different alignment or other moral conflicts.
I never understood the whole leveling issue with companions. I've read that J'zargo is the only companion who can level all the way to 81. Some people have posted that you can use the console to disable, and then enable a follower, to make their level match yours again. So what's right, do they level or not?
The best method to level companions in my opinion, would have been to give them skills as well, so if your companion were using bows all the time, their archery skill increased.