Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
As others note, rolling in without the right specs decently levelled can make it unplayable.
As for the lack of freedom, well, that's what the whole scenario is about. You're being manipulated. But there is a good payback at the end to make it all satisfactory.
However, in a way, it's the devs who are manipulating you too much re the right specs needed to get through more easily. That's the one thing I don't like about it - devs shouldn't be so manipulative but create an expansion that can cater to all PCs by building workarounds for the non-ideally spec'ed PCs. Challenge is a very good thing, but making it so challenging to the point of unplayability is never acceptable.
But the feel of it, the tension in places, the ambience, the monotonous soundtrack, the whole crazy heist thing, yeah that's what makes it for me. It doesn't need to make sense because the characters are a bunch of wacko's anyway. And I like crazy. Crazy is fun...
Stealth at 100 is optional if you wanna finish the dlc with style and steal every single gold bar.
and bad because you can't go back and explore the area when you've left the villa ig, not too upset about that one because of the narrative (ha ha let go!) but it still feels kind of lame when you paid money for the content and it's just a one and done thing, Anchorage and Mothership Zeta from fo3 has the same problem (and one of them didn't even have a lore reason for that!)
always mods I guess
There's only a few areas you can't go back to on Zeta, IIRC, although I'm not a huge fan of the DLC. I've always suspected Bethesda meant it to be more humorous than canon, but they didn't quite get there with the writing.
But the whole thing is almost a punchline... A cowboy, an astronaut, and a samurai are hanging out.....
They made both FO3, and NV these open worlds with lots of options, but a great many of the DLC's for both games really suffer on replayability.
Ok, just checking. Most of the time I hear "fanservice" these days it's really just people complaining about lgbtq+ characters existing, so I try to clarify.
Hmm... Idk how to feel about that. I definitely agree as a queer person that companies inserting queerness into media in an attempt to draw us in and profit off our desperation for representation sucks. It's predatory and treats us as a monetary demographic or quota rather than just... regular people living our lives.
There is a problem, however, when people (not necessarily you, but lots of people) see a queer character and automatically assume it's pandering/virtue signaling, and whine about how "they didn't HAVE to be lgbtq so they SHOULDN'T be." I hear a lot of "If it's not relevant to the plot including it is annoying," which is an issue because why do we need a specific reason for a character to be gay, but never need a reason for a character to be straight? It's as if we're reduced solely to our queerness, and that we only exist in media if that's the focus. I was so happy hearing Veronica casually say "she" when referring to an ex-lover. I know it may seem like there's a huge surge of queer content, but in the grand scheme, it's still somewhat of a rarity to come across it, so it's a good feeling.
I... have no idea what this means XD
Right there, you kinda contradicted yourself. "Christine never mentions a lover at all" is only true if you ignore everything she communicated before regaining a voice. You can deduce she had a lover, and she nods. When you say "husband" the dialogue makes a point to note her frowning and shaking her head. When you say wife, then girlfriend, she wavers her hand until you say "more than a girlfriend, then. A lover." and she nods. (I may be a bit off on the order but this is essentially how the convo went).
Just because she communicated it nonverbally doesn't mean she didn't confirm it when you asked. She doesn't confirm it was Veronica, but does make it clear she came looking for a woman she loves.
As for Veronica, yes she says "might," but iirc it was pretty clear there was meaningful connection there, and that Veronica cared about this woman in some sort of romantic sense. I don't think that's the fanbase making it into more than it was, though to be fair idk the fanbase or its reaction back then.
"Far-fetched" doesn't strike me as accurate. Not explicitly canon, sure, but certainly hinted at. They both express missing the woman they lost, and Christine even went so far as to search for her. Connecting the dots of "two women from the Brotherhood of Steel who were in an ambiguous romantic relationship before being separated" is by no means a stretch of the imagination. It may well be that those two never were together, but the way the game hints at it leads me to believe the writers wanted us to make that connection. Even if they didn't, it's hardly "far-fetched."
This is great insight, thanks!
And now you see the problem with this "woke" crap for your "side" of it. The cynical part of me thinks this effect was intended. They've managed to make the other side of the populous suspicious every single time a minority is in a movie.
Because suspension of belief only goes so far, AND there are two sides to everything. The word "minority" is used for a reason.
Take the recent pronoun thing with Starfield.
The people who are for the pronouns say it isn't a big deal. Ok....
But then when people make a mod to remove the pronouns, suddenly it's a BIG DEAL. And those people who wanted this are attacked and called bigots.
It sounds to me like it really was a big deal, and I have zero stake in this since I won't be buying the game regardless, and never intended to before this was brought to my attention.
It simply means, that IMO, if a casting, or story choice was made for woke reasons, i.e. political, or virtue signalling, it's usually painfully obvious, such as the aforementioned gender or race swapping.
It's just like the pronoun thing. They want you to believe that they're making the best choice for the media, whether it be choosing the right actor or whatever. They want you to believe it isn't about race or gender. Then if they didn't care about race or gender, why not just keep the character the same and cast it accordingly?
I'll tell you why. Because the truth is, they don't want to put in the work. They want to just take over everyone else's work and if we don't support the change, they can call you names and label you things.
Some of these "creators" have even been bold enough to come out and say that making a new character is too hard.
There's no contradiction because I'm not discounting that she said she had a lover. My point is, it wasn't even crucial enough to her story that she brought it up when she got her voice back.
Veronica only mentions it with like one line of dialogue.
There is no option for either Christine, OR Veronica, to mention you met their intended counterpart (again, intended because things in the game don't line up.)
You can argue that they didn't have time, but it doesn't change facts.
There's even a case to be made that Veronica has been over it a long time since she chose to remain in the Brotherhood, and actively help them.
There's also the rather poor writing of the narrative, but that's par for the course with many parts of New Vegas. It's generally worse than the main game, but not by an amount that's worth complaining about. It's weird that you don't get choices in the main narrative of the DLC; the base game is full of the illusion of choice without actual choice, but Dead Money gives you neither. While it makes sense for Elijah's character, it comes at the sacrifice of narrative, player agency, and character choice.
All in all, it's fantastic if you're the type who appreciates the attempt more than the outcome, and it's fantastic if you're the type who doesn't care about role playing in your role playing games.
To paraphase my friend Mauno here, after the first piece of DLC was released New Vegas was broken from its original design; the level cap of 30 meant that every point mattered quite a bit since there was no way to max everything without cheating. At this point, the only way to not have essentially every skill maxed by 50 is to intentionally screw yourself over with a low-INT run. I'd say Fallout 4 has the same issue, but New Vegas doesn't require radiant quests to ensure enough XP is available to hit the level cap, to the point where the XP penalty from Skilled doesn't even really matter overall.
Will your stats be finely-tuned for the DLC at the suggested level; maybe, maybe not, but considering the amount of XP you can get there along with what you can get in terms of weaponry if you look around enough, it doesn't matter in the end. Scavenging does infinitely more for your chances of success than a few more points in Melee or Sneak, even if it's just a Frag Mine or two.