Why am i saying this? Well because i went through Honest Hearts like it was nothing and dead money only took me around 3 hours to beat, now old world blues is coming out. Like why are these all so short and also in my own opinion i do believe Bethesda should be the main creator of the fallout series, it's not that i hate fallout new vegas it's just to simple and does not have alot of story stuff like fallout 3 and fallout 3 dlc where so much bigger it made me think why create 4 dlcs for fallout new vegas and 5 for fallout 3 and then as i look at this not one dlc in fallout new vegas will let you live. Now i already know they said their never adding a dlc that lets you live, but really this isn't adding up and if you think when you get to the end of the game you see lots of good weapons you want and your like "oh wow i can't have that armor or weapons" I know Obsidian has made their type of fallout, but really i think bethesda rocked the world of fallout and that so they should make the next game, this is my opinion. PLEASE NO FLAMING THIS THREAD!

i respectfully disagree....

It's your opinion my opinion will always be with bethesda.

QFT.

There are some full price games which take around the same time to complete the main campaign in that game. So I think that paying however much you pay locally for the DLC is a reasonable deal.

Having said that paying ￡7.49 (if I remember correctly, I can't check as I'm posting at lunchtime at work) for the DLC iwith 3 hours gameplay is not too bad, considering it is about ￡7.70 to go and see a film at the cinema for about 1.5 - 2 hours entertainment.

It's your 10 bucks, if you want to rush thought it it's your fault; I got a good 10 hours on it.

Fallout 3's DLC are pretty damn short too, I think Dead Money was longest I took to finish a Fallout DLC.

Buy any Call of Duty game and you'll see that the 4-6 hour DLC for ten bucks is better than the 4-6 hour campaign that you bought for $60.

Plus 80+ hours online :biggrin:

MW2- 19 days online, equal to 456 hours online. :biggrin:
Sorry for being off topic, everyone.

Funny, took me about 20 hours to beat Honest Hearts. Although to be fair, it might have taken so long because I did everything possible in the DLC. That might be the hinging factor in this argument actually.

CoD becomes stale after the first 24 hours of gameplay. Battlefield on the other hand... but yeah i think the DLC could use more content but i'm happy with what we got the last two DLC.

Well that's greater than 80 hours isn't it?
William III: 1
ice625: 0

I also apologise for being off-topic

If he's got more hours in the game, then how come you scored the point?

Tell me one DLC who was in fact large.....

Sorry if you rush throught the whole DLC

Because my point was still valid, also I'm in my exam week and as such need positive reinforcement :sadvaultboy:

I hear what you are saying. Some folks got a little bit of fun from HH or DM because the theme didn't interest them and they fast tracked thru or simply a lot of stuff didn't appeal to them and they skipped it. Others spent their time gingerly getting all out of the DLC's that they could.

In my opinion for a DLC its practically impossible to make it something that everyone gets the same amount of enjoyment. My guess is that each DLC will have a certain theme that will resonate with certain players style.

If they doubled a DLC's size and content there would still be a risk that people may not be interested in the extra stuff and would still feel cheated.

Personally I got more from DM than Honest Hearts but only because of my style and preferences. In the end its not the DLC's fault or my fault.

Hopefully with each FO game and DLC the things that are mostly liked will be kept and improved upon and the stuff that most could do without will be dropped.

Yep. Single player games just keep getting shorter and shorter.

The Courier doesn't die at the end, have you even played through the game? Also, it took me 15 hours to beat Dead Money and 20 to beat Honest Hearts. Maybe you didn't explore enough.

:flamethrower: COD is overrrated garbage! [censored] puts me in a coma and Im sick of seeing it everywhere I look on Xbox Live. It's just another propaganda game but that's for another thread.

Yup, Fallout 3's DLC generally only took me two hours to finish (The Pitt only takes an hour if you don't bother with the steel ingots), so I'd say that Honest Hearts is about as big as Fallout 3's DLC was. Dead Money on the other hand took me six hours to finish, so it's no doubt the longest of the Fallout DLC thus far.

i don't know what that means...

QFT = quoted for truth.

I feel that your opinion is ill formed and ill conceived. If you completed HH in a few hours, you weren't spending the time to explore. If you completed Dead Money in a few hours, you definitely weren't taking the time to explore. Considering that in FO3 the biggest pro that most people cite when discussing it is the opportunity for exploration... I'm thinking you simply saw "not made by Bethesda" and resolved yourself to dislike it.

You should give the new wave a chance, bro. You might like if it you aren't looking at it through rose tinted glasses.

Futhermore, both Dead Money and Honest Hearts had more atmosphere in any one location than pretty much every Fallout 3 DLC put together. Except possibly for the Pitt, which I still believe was secretly made by people outside of Bethesda, because it's actually well written and atmospheric as opposed to pretty much every other piece of content in FO3.

I also believe that a return to Bethesdan design practices would be a massive step backwards. New Vegas was good because it recaptured what made the originals good, rather than simply copypasting The Elder Scrolls and replacing trolls with super mutants. Fallout 3's world was implausible and lacked any rationale behind its existence. It was like a theme park, not a place where I could legitimately believe people inhabit.

Dead Money was very long (at least on the first run, it takes less time the more times I do it), like many, the longest DLC I've ever played. Granted, Honest Hearts can be completed very quickly if you don't take your time, but my advice is take your time. Even if something is already long, it will prolong it even further.

Also, New Vegas is simple and doesn't have a lot of story stuff? Is this a joke? From an objective standpoint it is just not true, I'm sorry. There are more outcomes in New Vegas, various things are tons more complex (ammo comes to mind specifically), and the amount of quests is significantly higher. Fallout 3 (at its base) had a bit over 20 quests, and New Vegas has over 70. Some of the quests in New Vegas are shorter, but it easily comes out to more questing either way.

How much of this game have you played anyway considering you think the Courier dies at the end?