Just finished this

Just finished this
I get what Obsidian was trying to do - make a Survival Horror - their own System Shock 2.
Problem is that Gamebryo is just shit and doesn't really work for that so the gameplay ended up being garbage. Stealth is broken and if you have a build that doesn't use unarmed or melee weapons, good fucking luck. Villa part was tedious but casino was way better at least.
Overall, i'd give it a 6/10. Good idea, shitty execution

Other urls found in this thread:

fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Ghost_Hunter
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I feel like they spent too much time focusing on the Villa part then the actual casino. All I remember is how tedious getting to each of the Villa locations was and how there was almost seemingly nothing to do in the actual casino section of the DLC. It also doesn't help New Vegas had to use Gamrbryo like you said, and also has to use most of the elements from Bethesdas shitty combat system from Fallout 3.

>Melee Requirement
>25
>STR Requirement
>2
>Bonus limb damage
>Enemies die when limbs are crippled

You have literally no excuse to bitch about Ghost People when they give you a weapon designed to kill Ghost People that basically everyone can use at its fullest potential. They're common enough that you will never come close to breaking it. If you have 50 repair you can make a version that's borderline overpowered.

>gameplay ended up being garbage

It's because it's an Obsidian game my dude

good luck using it without investing in any perks against the dudes who use the bear trap claw

I used the knife spear with 45 melee skill on a guns character and had 0 problems

I've done it every single time I've played Dead Money so I'm either dead lucky or not a shitter

patrician choice coming through

top fucking tier

Nah you don't have to have a melee build, guns are fine just git gud

This. First time I got around using the Knife Spear (first run through the DLC) I was laughing my ass off at how good it was against the Ghost People.

This is one of the worst DLCs of New Vegas, though. I haven't played OWB, but

Dead Money > Lonesome Road > Honest Hearts

what an absolute pleb, OWB is the worst btw

Let's see...

Dead Money:
- Great atmosphere
>Great setting
>Great characters
>Challenging
>Forces you to play in ways you never expected
>Great plot

Lonesome Road:
>Fantastic atmosphere
>Great setting
>Good character
>Somewhat good plot
>Broest of companions

Honest Hearts:
>Pretty shitty atmosphere
>Lame setting
>Great character, too bad you spend most of the DLC doing fetch and kill quests
>Good plot, but you spend most of the DLC doing fetch and kill quests so you only get the meaty bit at the end
>Shit companions

I'm not even going to discuss loot since I'm not one of those fags. But Honest Hearts is literally "Joshua Graham" and nothing else, which wouldn't be a problem if Joshua wasn't literally 5% of the DLC or less.

People who put Dead Money first are legitimately Sup Forums hivemind sheep.

youre criticizing honest hearts for kill and fetch quests but thats exactly the same type of shit in lonesome road, except honest hearts actually has good characters and story/plot while lonesome road doesnt, we're probably never going to agree on that but i also think dead money is the best

It is easily, EASILY, the best New Vegas DLC. It is consistently the best at everything. My major complaints are:

1. The Villa section is too long.
2. There's a lot of coming and going in the Villa.
3. The Casino section is too short.

Honest Heart is literally only good because of Joshua and the Survivors. Everything else is just kind meh and nothing special. I feel like they were trying to go with Zion being this beautiful Oasis but the engine is just so ugly that you don't really get the sense of awe they are trying to portray, but all the DLC's have a strong point and weakpoint
HH: Best two characters, mediocre everything else
DM: Amazing atmosphere, story and themes, but janky gameplay
OWB: Funny dialogue, interesting location and weapons, incredibly tedious missions
Lonesome Road: Good atmosphere, great armors and weapons, EDE fun times but DA BEAR AND DA BULL I still actually like Ulysses

>Shit companions.

You fucking moron! You are the companion,not Joshua.
Look dude you have to understand he's not helping you,You are helping him.

>Great setting
"no." Up until you're inside the casino it looks and plays like complete shit. The casino itself is decent.
>Great characters
NO. This isn't even arguable, what the fuck? How does anyone think that "deaf baldy with a bone to pick" and "swanky ghoul trickster" are good? let alone "old man who wants to get the macguffin at all costs?" Come the fuck on.
>Challenging
It's "challenging" because the game is clearly not functional in the way it wants you to play.
>Forces you to play in ways you never expected
See above.
>Great plot
Christ on the cross, get the fuck out.

>Lonesome Road
All accurate.

>Honest Hearts
The atmosphere is nonexistent because you're in the middle of Zion, you prick. You don't need dark spooky fog blinding you every ten paces to figure out what the stakes are.
>Lame setting
It's one of the most gorgeous places on Earth set in a time where tribes are beginning to evolve down paths of imperialism (or reject this path). Were there not enough spooky ooga-booga ghosts for you?
>fetch and kill quests
Disregarded.
>Shit companions
Not true, by the way.

I wasn't talking about Joshua. Rather, Waking Cloud and that native american fag.

Is it, though? I can't remember much about Lonesome Road, it's been a couple of years since my only run. But looking at the wiki shows that it has around 5 actual quests before getting to Ulysses, and none are as banal as "get me lunchboxes from a store", "disarm the traps in the bridge", "get me compasses from a destroyed bus", "destroy the totems in a camp", and so on...

Honest Hearts is literally Joshua Graham. Maybe Daniel. Again, I'm not arguing against its characters. But Honest Hearts is a very shitty DLC overall. Remove the Burned Man from the DLC, and what are you left with? Pure nothingness.

If you remove Ulysses from Lonesome Road, you still have a pretty cool setting, pretty cool atmosphere, a great companion, interesting enemies, and challenge.

>Joshua! Joshua!
Stop. Just because you didn't pay attention doesn't mean the characters aren't top fucking tier.

>Is literally a depressed bag of shit regardless of what ending you get
Daniel is shit.

>I, God and saviour of the universe, was not able to fill Daniel's complex and layered character with overwhelming joy in the face of the futility of his efforts
>therefore, Daniel is bad
The plebeian doth protest too much.

>"no." Up until you're inside the casino it looks and plays like complete shit.
Setting =/= graphical fidelity or gameplay. The idea of the Sierra Madre is fantastic, far more than "faction war in a canyon" (which is literally all Honest Hearts amounts to).

>NO. This isn't even arguable, what the fuck? How does anyone think that "deaf baldy with a bone to pick" and "swanky ghoul trickster" are good? let alone "old man who wants to get the macguffin at all costs?" Come the fuck on.
How can anyone think "edgy mormon guy resembling darkman" is a good character? Come the fuck on.

>It's "challenging" because the game is clearly not functional in the way it wants you to play.
It's challenging because it asks you to play differently, and gives you all the tools to adapt. Some people are just retarded and unable to grasp these simple changes.

>Christ on the cross, get the fuck out.
Please enlighten me about how Honest Hearts' plot is so fantastic. All I see are "hey dude, we have to leave", and "no dude, we have to defend ourselves". That's. IT.

>The atmosphere is nonexistent because you're in the middle of Zion, you prick.
Precisely. There's no atmosphere to Zion, because the only way it could have ANY is if the graphics were good and it felt like you are actually surrounded by wildlife. But they aren't. It feels esterile.

>gorgeous
Try harder.

>Disregarded.
disrigirdid

>Not true, by the way.
Absolutely true. Gotta hand it to Obsidian, though: they really nailed the native american aesthetic of the characters.

>Just because you didn't pay attention doesn't mean the characters aren't top fucking tier.
Is that why people consistently remember Joshua Graham and pick him over Daniel? It says a lot about Honest Hearts' supposedly "top fucking tier" characters.

>But looking at the wiki shows that it has around 5 actual quests before getting to Ulysses
The objectives of which are singular "kill this, pickup that, activate this, find this" just like Honest Hearts.
>Remove the Burned Man from the DLC, and what are you left with? Pure nothingness.
Joshua is the entire point and story of the DLC so of course it relies on him, in fact a huge portion of the game relies on characters, settings, and story.
>If you remove Ulysses from Lonesome Road, you still have a pretty cool setting, pretty cool atmosphere, a great companion, interesting enemies, and challenge.
That's honestly because Ulysses is so inconsequential to the DLC as a whole because it's mainly focused on combat, also I didn't really think ED-E is a good companion at all (follows-chalk or whatever wasnt interesting either, but joshua was)

>a bunch of plebes talk about how awesome Joshua is and this drowns out the patricians who hold up Daniel
>this is somehow meant to be a compelling argument against Daniel
Verily implores one t'ponder, that.

Daniel is shit the same way Arcade is shit

He wants the impossible and is then sad when it never happens

>Joshua is the entire point and story of the DLC so of course it relies on him, in fact a huge portion of the game relies on characters, settings, and story.
Yeah, too bad he's not only the point and story of the DLC, he is also the ONLY good thing about the DLC.
>The objectives of which are singular "kill this, pickup that, activate this, find this" just like Honest Hearts.
Browsing through the individual quests of Lonesome Road in the wiki show you are full of shit, and only one can be considered that (Laser Detonator).

Well hold on wait a minute are you saying that Joshua.G is a well made character?
Because there is a reason every one likes him.

The burning man is the only person who i have found that is approved by.
Sup Forums
Sup Forums
/k/
Sup Forums
/vr/
/r9k/
I mean the list goes on man.

Literally /ourguy/.

Joshua Graham is a great character. But Honest Hearts is not 4 hours of talking to Joshua Graham.

>Yeah, too bad he's not only the point and story of the DLC, he is also the ONLY good thing about the DLC.
He gets mentioned several times throughout the base game and name dropped again before the DLC starts, and he has most of the dialogue in the DLC, and the story changes whether you decide to agree with him or not. How is the story not about him and his tribe? He also isn't the ONLY good thing about the DLC.
>Browsing through the individual quests of Lonesome Road in the wiki show you are full of shit, and only one can be considered that (Laser Detonator).
Dude, every single quest has a linear path both in terms of level design and choices, you're literally forced to do things to advance. It's a shooting gallery compared to Honest Hearts.

>The idea of the Sierra Madre is fantastic, far more than "faction war in a canyon" (which is literally all Honest Hearts amounts to).
The "idea" of Honest Hearts was completely lost on you. Thinking that HH was about "faction war" is akin to thinking that DM was about killing spooky ghost people. It's a retarded misconstruing of the point and you know it. At least, I hope you know it.
>How can anyone think "edgy mormon guy resembling darkman" is a good character?
He's alright, but he's no Daniel.
>It's challenging because it asks you to play differently
*collar explodes*
>Please enlighten me about how Honest Hearts' plot is so fantastic.
"...a stunning look into the crisis that unfolds when bands of hitherto ritual-fighting tribes are influenced by an imperial civilization and the cultural shift that comes with"
The DLC is about culture and change (if we want to simply terms). It is nobody's fault but your own that you are dense.
>There's no atmosphere to Zion, because the only way it could have ANY is if the graphics were good
I think we have a problem of language on this point.
>Try harder.
Have you ever been to Zion?
>they really nailed the native american aesthetic of the characters.
It's a mix, you dummy. There's a fuck of a lot more than just AmerIndian there.

Can you make hostile people un-hostile?

I didn't kill Benny in the tops casino but the people are hostile and I have a quest not completed there.

might be a console command for it

Or you could just talk to Dog and get the perk that makes them stay dead when you kill them

if its a bug then theres a console command that makes you undetectable by the ai, perhaps that can help

If not I'll run in and shoot the guy in the head and cancel the quest lol

Can I deactivate dlc? There's a ton of quests taking up space on my pipboy that I can't do and it's confusing.

might be a console command for that too, at least removing them and then resuming them later

Significantly easier to just do it yourself because, unsurprisingly, you can't use Dog for the entire DLC

>If not I'll run in and shoot the guy in the head and cancel the quest lol
What is the quest called?

>How is the story not about him and his tribe? He also isn't the ONLY good thing about the DLC.
I never said the story is not about him and his tribe. What I'm saying is that you spend most of the DLC doing trivial shit because reasons. Which, as justified as they may be ("my people fear those sacred places"), aren't any less boring because of that.
>Dude, every single quest has a linear path both in terms of level design and choices, you're literally forced to do things to advance. It's a shooting gallery compared to Honest Hearts.
It's a shooting gallery in a location that makes sense.

>The "idea" of Honest Hearts was completely lost on you. Thinking that HH was about "faction war" is akin to thinking that DM was about killing spooky ghost people. It's a retarded misconstruing of the point and you know it. At least, I hope you know it.
Explain to me what it was about then. Apparently we now have to extract some deeper meaning out of the DLCs as opposed to taking the things at face value: that one dude wanted one thing, the other wanted another, and it is up to you to decide which one to side with.
>*collar explodes*
Yes user, having to pay attention to your surroundings is a change of pace from "run everywhere, shoot everything".
>"...a stunning look into the crisis that unfolds when bands of hitherto ritual-fighting tribes are influenced by an imperial civilization and the cultural shift that comes with"
*tips fedora*
>I think we have a problem of language on this point.
Not at all. There's no atmosphere in Honest Hearts. Closest you get to atmosphere is visiting Joshua's camp at night, with the torches litting up the walls of the canyon.
>Have you ever been to Zion?
Have you ever PLAYED the DLC? It looks like shit. It is not gorgeous.

>you can't use Dog for the entire DLC
Know how I know you didn't exhaust his dialogue choices?

Know how it literally doesn't matter when you have the Knife Spear

Know how the DLC goes out of its way to constantly tell you that "crippling limbs = dead Ghost People"

Know how you're a punk ass bitch who needs a companion and a perk to do the most basic of shit

I could point out all the ways you're making yourself look retarded, but I have to wake up early tomorrow so I'll just leave this here
fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Ghost_Hunter

First playthrough:
OWB > HH > DM > LR

Subsequent playthroughs:
DM > LR > HH > OWB

>using Dog

>Apparently we now have to extract some deeper meaning out of the DLCs as opposed to taking the things at face value
If you take the game at face value, you have a shitty game. Reading into things is what makes the game have such longevity. Simple concept.
>*tips fedora*
Calling you disingenuous would be giving you too much credit, I think.
>Not at all. There's no atmosphere in Honest Hearts.
I don't think you know what "problem of language" means.
>Have you ever PLAYED the DLC?
Yes, many times. I wouldn't be arguing if I didn't have an opinion, and I wouldn't have an opinion unless I'd played enough to form a proper one. Unlike some of us, it would seem...

DM > HH > LR > OWB
for me

I loved how Dead Money made you scavenge for shit where everything even tin cans are valuable since you could turn them into bullets or picking up cigarettes so that you could buy a stimpack.

I get why people love Old World Blues because it is incredibly polished and funny but I just prefer how Dead Money tried something really different yet it still felt like New Vegas. Also as much as I hate Dean Domino for being a cunt, I like how Dead Money flips the preconceived notion of "skill check always best".

>relying on this
You fucking casual.

>crippling a limb already kills a Ghost Person instantly
>"Ghost people are much more likely to die outright, even without being dismembered or disintegrated. Once this perk is in effect, when ghost people are reduced to zero health, one of their limbs will explode automatically at random."
The only retarded person here is you, I'm afraid. When I played the DLC, every Ghost Person I killed died and stayed dead because I listed to the advice given to me and then used the limb crippling weapon to kill them. Because crippling a limb kills them. You don't need a perk. It doesn't help if you're not a braindead retarded.

Which, of course, is why you need it and think you're smart for knowing it exists

Dunno. Have to find dancers or something for a black guy with an eyepatch. It's not a big deal, I just don't want a broken undoable quest clothing my list.

HH > LR > OWB > DM
Originally, it was
OWB > LR > HH > DM

Yeah I guess you could just fail the quest intentionally (kill the quest giver) and have it be gone.

respectable, I really just wished honest hearts was longer, had more dialogue outside of graham, and had slightly more varied quests. But it definitely has advantages over lonesome road.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but the story, characters and atmosphere made it for me.
Shame the other pieces of DLC aren't even close to Dead Money in quality. Especially Old World Blues. God what a fucking terrible DLC.

>If you take the game at face value, you have a shitty game. Reading into things is what makes the game have such longevity. Simple concept.
No: taking New Vegas at face value lets you appreciate the game. Reading into it lets you translate the conflicts of the game into the real world, but it isn't necessary.

You are basically saying "the DLC is good because [things that don't matter in a videogame]".

The conflict of Honest Hearts is literally "two missionaries torn apart between staying around and fighting, or fleeing Zion". You can dress it up however you want to, but the conflict is that and nothing more.

It doesn't matter what place culture or civilization have in it. The conflict is just that. Particularly so, because the only choice you have on the matter is "do I kill everyone or do I side with one of these two guys?".

I think the main problem with Daniel is he's attached to the god-awful "tribal innocence" narrative in Honest Hearts. His personality is centered around misguided, idealised romanticism (just like that idiot Ulysses), but he lacks the will to do the hard things for it.
>The conflict of Honest Hearts is literally "two missionaries torn apart between staying around and fighting, or fleeing Zion". You can dress it up however you want to, but the conflict is that and nothing more.
Which is what makes Honest Hearts arguably the worst DLC. Fleeing Zion doesn't do anything because the White Legs aren't there for Zion, they are there to finish wiping out the New Canaanites, (and while not specifically stated, the Dead Horses for being Legion rebels). So Daniel's whole solution is a waste of time anyway, and it misdirects so much focus to romanticising Zion as a place, and romanticising the dumb idea of "innocence" in the Sorrows, which is stupid in the first place.

HH is my personal favorite just because I like the worldspace and characters (even Chalk and Cloud are great), but the gameplay is a glorified fetch quest (only saved by the top-tier worldspace and background of Randall Clark), and the big "moral choice" isn't a choice at all if you're not a delusional romanticist that missed the point of all the current events in the region.

>You are basically saying "the DLC is good because [things that don't matter in a videogame]"
Not him, but you're stupid for saying that a role-playing game's story concepts and characterization don't matter.
>The conflict of Honest Hearts is literally "two missionaries torn apart between staying around and fighting, or fleeing Zion"
Sure, but what exactly is your point? Portraying that conflict through a meaningful story/plot, and characters that have motivations and philosophies can make all the difference. The story is simple just because you choose to ignore the intricacies.
>It doesn't matter what place culture or civilization have in it. The conflict is just that.
Conflict always happens for a reason user, and that reason is what makes any conflict interesting, that's why every story has a good conflict, with characters that have reasons to back them up.
>because the only choice you have on the matter is "do I kill everyone or do I side with one of these two guys?"
Just because the choices are simple doesn't mean the story is simple, or that making those choices are easy matters, unless you just completely ignore anything the characters have to say.

>taking New Vegas at face value lets you appreciate the game.
It really doesn't. See: metascore ranking and why so many plebeians whined that it wasn't a theme park like Fallout 3. You are categorically incorrect.
>You are basically saying "the DLC is good because [things that don't matter in a videogame]".
>[things that don't matter in a videogame]
Pragmatically speaking, nothing "matters" in a videogame except for the "gameplay" aspects of inputs -> outputs (ease of use and understanding). We can both easily agree that it is not on these fronts that New Vegas, a notoriously clunky and buggy game when played vanilla, succeeds. New Vegas succeeds in the more abstract things such as characters, story, setting, relationships, immersion, etc. These are not things you find when looking at a game "face value". Do you understand what I am telling you?
>"two missionaries torn apart between staying around and fighting, or fleeing Zion"
Except that's factually wrong. The Sorrows are the only ones that question leaving to preserve their culture and only do this at Daniel's behest. The conflict between the White Legs and the Dead Horses is inevitable. You'd think me disingenuous if I were to over-simplify Dead Money as "Oceans 11 with spooky ghosts" and yet you expect me to accept your blatant bullshit as legitimate. Laughable.
>It doesn't matter what place culture or civilization have in it.
It always matters. That's what makes something compelling.

>the Dead Horses for being Legion rebels
That's incorrect.
>Daniel's whole solution is a waste of time anyway
Also incorrect.
>the dumb idea of "innocence" in the Sorrows, which is stupid in the first place.
Missed the point hard.
> the big "moral choice" isn't a choice at all if you're not a delusional romanticist
Lol.

>Not him, but you're stupid for saying that a role-playing game's story concepts and characterization don't matter.
I'm not claiming they are completely unimportant, but acting like two characters make up for a fairly shitty DLC is completely retarded.

You have to be the biggest storyfag to have ever lived to think two good characters compensate for 4 hours of mediocre content.

>The story is simple just because you choose to ignore the intricacies.
It is not a matter of simplicity, it is a matter of CONTENT. Dead Money has far, far more plot than Honest Hearts does. It is also much more ingrained into the overall setting of the DLC. It's nigh impossible to forget about Dead Money's plot when playing, because it is present at every corner.

Honest Hearts has a basic plot that works, but it's hardly "the" reason why Honest Hearts is anything but a mediocre DLC.

Several years later and people still discuss the best dlc for new vegas. Its clearly old world blues

DM>OWB/LR>HH

An entire DLC of comedic relief is not enough to satisfy my super serious self image.

I find playing lonesome road afterward helps

>An entire DLC of comedic relief
If you took away the over the top writing, it would be a grimmer and more depressing DLC than Dead Money and Lonesome Road combined

>It really doesn't. See: metascore ranking and why so many plebeians whined that it wasn't a theme park like Fallout 3. You are categorically incorrect.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe these people weren't interested in what New Vegas had to offer? Oh, wait, I must be taking things at face value!
>These are not things you find when looking at a game "face value".
Yes they are. You must be retarded in order to completely miss the story and characters of a game.
>Except that's factually wrong.
Except it isn't. You don't talk with the tribes themselves, you talk with Joshua and Daniel. They are the main characters, and the ones that call the shots.
>You'd think me disingenuous if I were to over-simplify Dead Money as "Oceans 11 with spooky ghosts"
Because you have to be retarded to believe Dead Money is about a heist when there's far more to the DLC than "get into casino, get to the Vault, get the gold".

It would be like that if you gathered your own party, you broke into the casino, you rode out with your pockets full of cash and everyone lived happily ever after. But it isn't like that. By simplifying Honest Hearts the way I do, you miss almost nothing about the DLC's plot.

>I think the main problem with Daniel is he's attached to the god-awful "tribal innocence" narrative in Honest Hearts. His personality is centered around misguided, idealised romanticism (just like that idiot Ulysses), but he lacks the will to do the hard things for it.
Respectfully, I think that you misunderstood the point. The Sorrows' innocence isn't just being nonviolent- it's their entire hunter-gatherer way of life. Daniel's guilt over changing the other tribes (and getting them murdered) leads him to believe that preserving their *culture* of innocence see: all hunter-gatherer societies aside from PNW american indians and their relative altruism and peacefulness is the most righteous thing that he can do- remember, he is a devout Mormon. His attempts to preach gospel while retaining their cultural identity also has unintended consequences which stem from his misunderstanding of their culture a common problem with colonial era missionaries. All of his decisions are logical within his established character and all of the unintended outcomes are logical within the game world's setting. He's a perfect example of internal logic done correctly.

>but acting like two characters make up for a fairly shitty DLC is completely retarded.
I wouldn't say the rest of the DLC is "fairly shitty" at all, and the two characters are pretty much the point, so yeah it "makes up for" the DLC.
>You have to be the biggest storyfag to have ever lived to think two good characters compensate for 4 hours of mediocre content.
I do love a good story, but I don't think it completely compensates for the other DLC's flaws.
>Dead Money has far, far more plot than Honest Hearts does.
It's a quality/quantity argument that I can't really refute, (Dead Money not only has more content, but better content.) you should know I prefer Dead Money over Honest Hearts also.
>It's nigh impossible to forget about Dead Money's plot when playing, because it is present at every corner.
I completely agree, which is why I think it's the best, but that doesn't automatically make Honest Hearts shit.
>mediocre DLC
I don't really agree user, I bought it for very cheap on sale, it has decent amount of content, a very good weapon and armor, a good story that I still remember, and yes, two very good characters that very much serve the theme of Fallout.

>Did it ever occur to you that maybe these people weren't interested in what New Vegas had to offer?
Have you ever spoken to someone outside of a screen? Every time I've talked to someone who preferred 3 to New Vegas it went something like "more locations, things to do, cool stuff" which are face-value judgements.
>Oh, wait, I must be taking things at face value!
Do you have a single clue what you are babbling about?
>Yes they are.
See above.
>Except it isn't.
...yes, it is.
>Because you have to be retarded to believe Dead Money is about a heist
Not as retarded as you'd have to be to believe that Honest Hearts is about a faction war, you daft cunt.
>you miss almost nothing about the DLC's plot.
Except, you know, the whole thing.

>I wouldn't say the rest of the DLC is "fairly shitty" at all, and the two characters are pretty much the point, so yeah it "makes up for" the DLC.
That's where we disagree. Playing Honest Hearts after Dead Money felt like an absolute chore.

Once more: I'm not saying Honest Hearts' plot is shit or anything. Just that it makes up a small portion of the DLC, and frankly I care more about Joshua Graham, the character, than I care about Honest Hearts: The Plot. On the other hand, Dead Money not only made me care about the characters, but also the setting, the plot, the poor sods who came before (it was the first time I truly felt some "sadness" over those who perished in the war), and the gameplay.

Of Lonesome Road I won't speak anymore because I had fond memories of Honest Hearts before replaying it this year, so for all I care Lonesome Road could have turned out to be a boring piece of shit on a replay.

>Every time I've talked to someone who preferred 3 to New Vegas it went something like "more locations, things to do, cool stuff" which are face-value judgements.
Again, you imply "face-value" = "bad". Some people aren't interested in story elements when it comes to videoGAMES.

It ties in with the whole "to be fair you really need to have a high IQ to understand New Vegas".

>Again, you imply "face-value" = "bad".
Let me reword that: you imply "people take things at face-value" = "people don't like things I do". Which is retarded. Not everyone shares your likes and dislikes. No one is inherently moronic for liking Fallout 3 over New Vegas.

Ah, go fuck yourself. New Vegas isn't some pretentious fat autistic fuck's money printing machine like Rick and Morty.

>That's incorrect.
The Dead Horses were atleast allied with the Legion, and defected because they had more loyalty to Graham than Caesar.
>Also incorrect.
Daniel's "solution" to run away wouldn't stop the White Legs from persuing, and for the geographic brainlets among us, his plan to enter the Grand-Staircase-Escalante region actually puts the Sorrows CLOSER to the Legion's homeland, which only made it inevitable they would find additional threats later on anyway.
>Missed the point hard.
The only part of the point I didn't actually discuss was the difference between Graham and Daniel, with Graham being more idealistic on Zion as a place, while Daniel was idealistic about the people of Zion (the Sorrows tribe).
>Lol.
Nice argument to show why Daniel's choice isn't retarded.

> see: all hunter-gatherer societies aside from PNW american indians and their relative altruism and peacefulness
Holy shit this is delusional. Take a high-school level anthropology class if you even close to believe that. Hunter-gatherer societies were always competitve as fuck, especially when hunting ranges and prey become scarce.
In any case your whole post just shows why that whole plot point of Honest Hearts is bullshit, because that misguided romanticism about tribal innocence and a more pure way of life is complete bullshit and Daniel is a self-deluded fuck who is perpetually depressed because he bought into that.
>He's a perfect example of internal logic done correctly.
I never implied he wasn't a consistent character or logical to his potential upbrining and culture (actually he's literally Josh Sawyer in that universe). I'm just saying his choice is objectively wrong at all angles because his solution solves nothing and what it attempts to protect doesn't actually exist in the first place.

It definitely feels like it the way you talk about the game and treat people who don't think the way you do.

>Again, you imply "face-value" = "bad"
No, I don't. Argue what I have said, not what you wish I had said.

>"people take things at face-value" = "people don't like things I do"
See above.

It takes a balance. New Vegas certainly isn't the deepest game, but it is far from the most shallow. Have you ever heard the phrase "wide as an ocean, deep as a pudde?" that's F3 / F4. New Vegas would fall under "wide as a lake, deep as a lake." It's a nice balance of breadth and depth. Are you done with the increasingly desperate straw man arguments?

>That's where we disagree. Playing Honest Hearts after Dead Money felt like an absolute chore.
We will disagree about this to the end of time, but going from something masterful to something [that I thought was] just good wasn't a chore for me, Honest Hearts wasn't so offensively bad that it ruined any other experience I had in New Vegas, it was just a quest that I thought was good, but definitely not THE BEST
>On the other hand, Dead Money not only made me care about the characters...()
Again I agree, I prefer Dead Money just as much as you do.
>I had fond memories of Honest Hearts before replaying it this year, so for all I care Lonesome Road could have turned out to be a boring piece of shit on a replay.
That's very interesting because I also did a replay this(2017) year, and I previously thought Honest Hearts was boring Utah fetch quest simulator with idiot Christian dude, but re-playing it made me appreciate the story and characters all that much more since I wasn't merely just focusing on the (mostly) uninteresting quest design and combat encounters.

>No, I don't. Argue what I have said, not what you wish I had said.
I'm arguing what you've said. Here:
>"Every time I've talked to someone who preferred 3 to New Vegas it went something like "more locations, things to do, cool stuff" which are face-value judgements."
What you are basically saying is "these people don't like the same things I do, so they are doing face-value judgements". Liking New Vegas' factions and characters IS a face-value judgement as well.

And you only prove my point here
>New Vegas certainly isn't the deepest game, but it is far from the most shallow.

Some people simply don't care about certain elements of a game. These elements can be story elements, or downright gameplay elements: a lot of RPG fans completely disregard anything that isn't a good story.

There's nothing more for me to say considering you went on a tangent and started discussing things I simply had no interest in discussing. I explained what I liked about Honest Hearts, what I disliked about Honest Hearts, and you turned it into a "OMG YOU ARE A BRAINLET WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH™ OF THE PLOT".

>Holy shit this is delusional.
Lol.
> Take a high-school level anthropology class if you even close to believe that. Hunter-gatherer societies were always competitve as fuck, especially when hunting ranges and prey become scarce.
Except that's factually incorrect. The more scare resources became, the more "altruistic" hunter-gatherers became. The most readily available examples being supply caches of treated meat / tools and mating practices which required cooperation for the sake of genetic diversity. Either you're conflating hunter-gatherers with horticulturalists / pastoralists or you literally don't know what you're talking about and are pulling shit out of your ass. Scarcity made cooperation necessary while lack thereof made competition viable. Humans don't operate like most predatory animals which you would know if you took a fucking anthropology class, you pretentious twat.
>Daniel is a self-deluded fuck who is perpetually depressed because he bought into that.
Daniel is a depressed cunt because he fucked everything up in his mind. Did you actually play the game or did you just run through for loot?
>what it attempts to protect doesn't actually exist in the first place.
It literally does, although the wisdom of his decision is questionable.

>I'm just saying his choice is objectively wrong at all angles because his solution solves nothing and what it attempts to protect doesn't actually exist in the first place.
Doesn't this say more about you than Daniel? If people who played the game aren't overwhelmingly against Daniel, wouldn't that make the game good for giving you a moral choice to make?

>What you are basically saying is
Stopped reading there. What I'm "basically saying" is what I have said. Again, stop arguing against what you wish that I said. You're only arguing with yourself.

>Honest Hearts
>plot

Old World Blues:Liked the dialogue, weapons, The Sink
Disliked the quests
Dead Money: Liked the story, characters, ending and closure of Elijah story
Disliked the bull with the intercoms and broken stealth
Honest Hearts:Liked Joshua, liked the new weapons, liked the location
Disliked: fetch quests, giant cazadores swooping down out of nowhere and instantly killing me
Lonesome Road: Liked Ed-E, atmosphere, deathclaws near the bus was probably the most intense moment I've had in fallout
Disliked: Ulysses rantings, dunno if I am the only one but tons of what he said made literally no sense to me. His dialogue was nonsensical to me.

>Ulysses rantings, dunno if I am the only one but tons of what he said made literally no sense to me. His dialogue was nonsensical to me.
I'm really not sure if he's deliberately nonsensical or if that's just poor writing, but yeah, his ramblings were literally meme worthy (BEAR AND BULL) and nothing he was talking about made sense.

I agree with what you said about the other DLCs except the intercoms in Dead Money and the stealth wasn't an issue for me (I don't play stealth characters in anything other than specifically stealth games so I can't really say anything on it) and I disliked the dialogue in OWB, was just too over the top and whimsical for my tastes (and even for Fallout in my opinion).

>Some people aren't interested in story elements when it comes to videoGAMES.

>play rpg
>dont care for rpgs

????
i guess we really are the rickest of morties...

dont reply to retards

Welcome to the target audience for Fallout 3 + 4 friend

>play rpg
>dont care for rpgs
literally everyone that likes fallout 3 more than new vegas

>Ulysses rantings, dunno if I am the only one but tons of what he said made literally no sense to me. His dialogue was nonsensical to me.
He's needlessly vague to the point of being pretentious, but he's a good character in concept.
The bottom line is that you fucked up super bad without realizing it prior to the beginning of the game and created the Divide, and so Ulysses thinks you're a dangerously unstable murderhobo that kills entire civilizations because you don't think about consequences or learn from them. His general opinion of the major factions is that they're doing the same shit you are, so he misleads you into bringing him ED-E to help him nuke the NCR and Legion, destroying both of them while crashing Vegas' economy.
He's trying to achieve his own goal of blowing up the Mojave, while also teaching you not to gun down hundreds of people just because someone dangled a bottlecap in front of your face.

...

>if you have a build that doesn't use unarmed or melee weapons
What about energy? The holorifle is one of the best guns in the game and you get the upgrades for free in the DLC.

>if you have a build that doesn't use unarmed or melee weapons, good fucking luck
kek, what? they literally start you off with THE BEST ENERGY WEAPON IN THE GAME. playing dead money on my energy weapons scientist character was the most fun i've ever had with a video game. i felt like a ghost buster

great shit, thanks for the webm

i brought all the materials needed to make a deathclaw gauntlet, then after my weapons were seized i constructed it at the first workbench i found and dismembered every fucking ghost i could

>you fucked up super bad
You delivered a package. You were not complicit in the destruction of the Divide in the slightest. If anyone is to blame, it's NCR for sending Enclave technology to a place known to be some sort of Pre-War military base.

Any attempt on Ulysses' part to blame you for the Divide is the rambling of a hurt, angry man who logically can't blame anyone but needs someone to vent his frustrations on.

He's also a huge fucking hypocrite giving you the "all actions have consequences even if you don't see them" talk when he's fucked up so, so much more than you have.

>He's also a huge fucking hypocrite giving you the "all actions have consequences even if you don't see them" talk when he's fucked up so, so much more than you have.

This

He told Elijah about Sierra Madre, which could lead to Elijah unleashing the technological horrors of the Sierra Madre (Holograms, Cloud etc.) killing thousands of innocents. Also he got the idea of the collars from Ulysses

He told the Think Tank that there is a world outside Big MT, potentially leading to them lobotomizing everyone and undoing Mobius' noble attempt at containing them.

Ulysses is a massive cunt, if he didn't give me MREs all the time I would blow his head apart with a .45-70