If you're unable to post in the forums due to spoiler alert could you please send me a PM?

I've been hearing really mixed reviews and people who hate it seem to REALLY hate it because its Frustrating?

I honestly don't care if someone ruins or spoils something for me explaining it, if it sounds cool I'll buy it.

But if it's a different game play than the game itself, What is is like?

Thanks in advance

HAHA...Frank Horrigan! I loved killing that beefed up mofo! :toughninja:

But seriously, that is a really loaded question. Like you mentioned, Dead Money is infact a whole different game. Instead of running and gunning, it is a lot more stealth and melee during the first 1/4th of the game. Also you'll find yourself scavenging/cooking anything consumable just to restore HPs as beds and stimpacks are very rare until later when you get more chips and access to buy said items from the vending machines. Especially without your old gear, it adds a whole nother level of challenge to the game that was sorely lacking by the time you were hitting end game content in NV.

Is it difficult? Yes. Is it frustrating sometimes? Yes. Should you make multiple save files that you alternate between? DEFINITELY! However if your like me, you'll find it a nice refreshing change of pace from business as usual in FO3/NV and well worth your money.

Dead Money is about: Awesome characters, exploding collar, deathgas, exploding collar, greed, exploding collar, the heist of the centuries, exploding collar, letting go, exploding collar, to begin anew aaaaand some exploding collar.

I think we got the idea about the exploding collars, I'm sure you didnt like it that much but hell its what made it so GOOD.
Any thing else you would like to add other than the exploding collars?

I never said the exploding collars were bad, I actually loved them. :confused:

Anything else I'd like to say about DM?
Yeah.
+level cap is horrid and dispenser is overpowered like crazy.
Awesome writing and and great endings.
Hell, we even got 2 new ways to end our game if we want to.

It is about surviving by the use of your brain.

Nothing in fo3 or fo nv is like it.

For overall game experience I believe it to be the best fo dlc to date.

If you don t like thinking a little bit.......... don t get it.

I loved the collars and the unique challenge they gave. I only wish I was playing on the PC for the realistic lighting effect mods. I want bright and well lit areas to be so, while dark low light areas to be dark and low lit. The vanilla game doesn't offer that, likely due to the lower performance of console systems.

The people who say dead money is frustrating just don't like a challenge and/or can't figure out how to deal with simple gameplay mechanics.

I'm not even making this up, i've read lots of detailed complaints on here.

My only complaint with Dead Money was that I can't get Veronica to use the Holorifle. It's not a listed bug either, so I don't know what to make of it.

This is pretty much it. Dead money requires you to pay attention to and use your environment to your advantage. You can't get through by sheer force (well you can although it'll require some scavenging to unlock access to the containers hidden throughout the place). The COD crowd hates being unable to click the win button and move on and therefore hates dead money. Anyway, it also has amazing characters (sad you can't take them back but that is part of the entire message of the dlc). It's all closely wrapped together with the story, of which the central element is "letting go," which plays a big part when you get to the vault at the end. Overall, I'd say: Point Lookout > Broken Steel > Deadmoney > The Pitt > Op Anch > Mothership Zeta

You thought Broken Steel was better than Dead Money?

I think I know where he's coming from with Broken Steel. FO-3 NEEDED it if only because the end svcked so horridly I needed an old coat hanger and a bottle of ether to erase it from my memory. It was horrible when considering story for the sake of story, but it was a very much needed add-on.

As do I.......... Even though IMO dm is the best fo dlc in terms of overall gaming experience, Broken Steal gave me something far more important..........an ending. Plus BS was good in its own rights.

Broken Steel broke the remaining balance of the game so even if the original ending svcked it wasn't so improved that it excused the horrible gameplay additions that further messed up the balance.
After all, it's a game, a story is needed, sure, but the actual gameplay holds a lot of value as well which BS broke completely. :/

I need both good gameplay and good story for optimal exp, but story trumps all in the end ( IMO ). I can play a game with absence of balance (to a degree) but if the story plays out like the one in FO-3... no, just no. Just individual preference. Balance can take one up the backside for sake of story, in my opinion.

BUT Gabe's right, balance is a huge issue for making a game playable (and bullet sponges are the laziest and most pathetic form of attempting balance imaginable.)

They at least added 1000+ hp overloards that could snipe with a tri beam laser rifle.

The reavers in the presidential metro were quite a challenge.

Also you must consider the enemies in the other dlcs the Point Lookout tribals, the mz aliens in battle suits. Both PL and MZ contained dead serious near Uber enemies. I liked that.......

Challenge shouldn't be restricted to battles of attrition. Reavers, Overlords, and swamp folk were pathetic. There was NO reason behind how much damage they could take. This isn't WOW where it takes an act of the cosmos to kill a high level enemy with zero reason given as to why.

yeah, I could take out a Behemoth, but then I went to the swamp and these scrawny little guys would take a gun in the face and not even blink. That was stupid. Instead of beefing up their damage, they should have just doubled their number.

Well whats the reason behind how much damage we can take?

RPGs have always been about hp the way I see it. If everythings dies way easier than I do......... that is boring to me. If everybody dies real easy including our selves, then we will be playing a fps.

Its a choice that must be made. In my mind rpg combat always were epic long battles with big hp flying around.

If you take away that it will be like SOCOM 4 combat where everyone dies fast...........including you.

Huge HP counts are better suited for turn based combat IMO. For dynamic sandbox fights, where combatants can take cover and utilise flanking and plunging effects (throwing a grenade over a wall/house/boulder) then HP should have a limited importance. Armour rating and weaponry on the other hand should take extreme precedence. If the overlords wore armour made from scrapped sentry bots (the main body of the sentry can be the chest piece with the hollowed out head worn as a hardened skull cap) then I'd support it all the way. As long as good reasoning is put behind it, and not just "it is because it is", then sure. Good 2 Go.

I enjoyed the tribals of point lookout. For a minute there after they killed my Uber Tank God in the mansion for like the 8th time, I wondered how I was going to get it done. They did high dam and had high hp and had numbers. They were Uber Gods to counter my Uber God. Only difference was I could change my tactics, because I have a brain........... they couldn t.

I ll take PL tribals over pathetic cl any day. They killed my Uber God.

You want balence there it was......... you want a hardass enemy.....there they were.

For combat to be balanced when I have over 400hp and a brain the enemy needs at least double the hp of me, because sooner or later I will win.

There are other ways that balanced could be improved.
Instead of giving Albino's with ridiculous HP how about just giving Giant Radscorpions an increase in DR and poison damage/length? And then have the Albino's be at the same health as the Giants but give them more poison damage, higher DR and faster running speed.
Overlords could be given a better DR, more manueverable tactics and better melee damage.
Reavers could be given increased speed, radiation healing and allow their hits to inflict radiation on the player. (50 rads for one hit and 20rad/10 sec for their grenades)

There are other ways to improve enemies without giving them huge health pools.
But BS decided it was easier to go the sponge way which is inferior IMO.

But BS didn't just unbalance combat, it broke the character system too.
I never went for a "max character" and often ended up with 5 or 6 skills at 100 which I thought was fair enough.
But BS went too far and I had 9 skills at max without even trying.

It broke the ending.
It broke the combat.
It broke the skill system.
It broke the perk system.
And thanks to Almost Perfect it broke the SPECIAL too.

Nothing good came out of BS IMO.
Even the Vanilla ending was better than the "Okay, Enclave is destroyed! Now go collect cameras for me!".
I did like blowing the Citadel up though because it felt more along the lines of Fallout.
But what made it illogical is that I've been working with the BOS all the time (forced to if I might add) and The Lone Wanderer has never really had an incentive for disliking them and then out of the blue in the last second with the flip of a switch I blow them up.

And the story wasn't even that good in it either.
All of the sudden Enclave has a better base far away.
And they have some satellite station which was locked off.
And they had a space bomber they could've used at any point during the Take It Back! quest.
And most of the quests were just more long dungeon crawlers with pieces of story tied into them.

Broken Steel helped nothing when considering it was a Fallout game.
It helped Elder Scrolls fans that like roaming pointlessly around after the main quest.
It helped Black And White morality players that like "lulz evulz" or "white knights!".
It helped WoW players that like characters that are gods.
But for Fallout it helped nothing what so ever.

/opinion?

basically what every1 said.

in one play through i got to the bell tower with NO AMMO, ALMOST NO CHIPS, ONE BAR OF HEALTH, AND GHOST PEOPLE SURROUNDING ME FROM BELOW. thank god i just happened to come across the snow globe or dead money would had some short endings...... :cryvaultboy:

Oh and on the Almost Perfect thing, I know it's optional, but here's the thing, the developers should not break their own game even if it's optional.
That perk had no place in any Fallout game.
SPECIAL is meant to be important, something that Bethesda failed at with the vanilla, but even the minor things it had was all broken with that perk.
Doesn't matter if it's optional, don't get me wrong, options are good, can please a lot of people, but even optional things need to have a limit.
"Oh but if you don't like it don't choose it", I don't care about this statement some people like to throw around, SPECIAL is meant to be important and even optional things need to have a limit.

I never take high intelligence or perks that make my guy even more Uber. I just think it will lose some rpg combat feel if everything dies easy. IDK the answer. Personaly I have no problem with other walking tanks on the map besides myself.

I ve played mainly on line fps for the last 7 years where everyone has about 80hp, and dies with in 4 bullets most of the time. They have brains though. Most humans at their house are way harder than any ai.

Its a tough question to turn rpg combat into fps combat. I don t think a lot of pure rpg fans would be down with it.

I like big hp enemies that can counter my 400+ hp and a brain. The things they put in at the end of fo3 and in the dlcs made me feel kind of human again, because you were not going to stand in and shoot down an overloard without ducking out and shooting stims.

Better ai may change it. The old fo level system may have promise. I ll have to start a thread and ask about it so I understand it fully.