i don't know. i realize the story-line in rpg games is important. but really, if i was only, or mostly concerned about the story, i'd read a book. i think gameplay, graphics/surroundings, weapons/loot, feel of the game,etc, is just as, if not more important, when playing an action-rpg. i think fallout 3 was alittle better than NV personally. i've played fallout and FO2 also, and i personally think the newer ones are definitely better. i guess my point is, i don't think a game should be judged by the story, unless the story total captures you, and is awesome. was NV's story really "that" awesome?? actually, i think the Wanderer was way more badass than the Courier. the Wanderer would have never been knocked by anything less than a super-mutant! but i do agree with ya 'bout HH, it is good, for dlc in all aspects.i can't understand either, why some people don't like it. i think they're rushing through it. by the way, if ya like "story-lines" in games, check out "mass effect 2". great game, and awesome story. sorry about the rant.
1. The only reason why the Lone Wanderer is baddas is because you became a demigod of the Wasteland, with all you skill maxed out, and the fact that enemies scales with you makes thing more easier for you, even in the most Difficult mode
2. Mass Effect 2 was subpar. compared to the first one IMO, its more shooter then RPG, oh and no invetory :facepalm:
3.But the book does let you create you own history?,they let you to go wherever you want and start wherever you want?, they let you to be the protagonist?, and the most important,
they let you to choose the consequences of you action?,Oh and BTW, DA3 does have MP, finally