I want my Bethesda back--Obsidian pisses me off. Running around getting blown up several times trying to locate speakers is NOT my ideal of fun. Worst $10 I ever spent. on a scale of 1-10 I give Dead Money a -30.

Ok.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1180297-dlc-better-not-svck/

We have a thread already for you complainers.

But it was fun for me, Obsidian doesnt work for you tastes my boy

You chose not to wait and see if it would turn out good, you just bought it anyway. All your responsibility.

Maybe you should take your time and slow the [censored] down? :wink_smile:

I don t know I loved DM, it challenged me in many different ways.

I liked fo3 more than nv too, but dead money was a great dcl.

Only people who r against critical thinking would say it svcked. IMO

I read about what the Obsidian devs intended it to do, and it did just that.

I LOVED DEAD MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!! GREAT JOB ON DEAD MONEY TEAM OBSIDIAN.

I give it 8.75 out of 10

I too miss the subtle brilliance that were Operation Anchorage and Mothership Zeta. Not to mention the highly strategic encounters introduced by the wonderfully designed new enemies in Broken Steel.

:unsure:

Just generic FPS game level runs IMO. Nothing new.

I preffer Dead Money personally

But in my opinion, Obsidian did better than Bethesda...no offense

Dead Money, in term of story, environment and feeling is better than all 5 DLC of Fallout 3.

In term of gameplay...actually I also hate trap and cloud, I spend most of my time to find and avoid them :brokencomputer:

Kind of fun and challenging at first time, but I will not want to replay it :sadvaultboy:

Have you ever played a FPS??????

#1 The fp in fps stands for first person OA and MZ 1st or 3rd person

#2 You have other things to do and choices to make.

#3 OA didn t have much map freedom at all so it was close to a shooter, but since you could pick units to take with you. You could also decide the order in which to attack the targets. There for it was more of a generic tactical shooter. Big difference between FPS and a tactical shooter. MZ had too much other stuff to do and way too much map freedom, (even inside a ship) and too much talking to be any kind of shooter at all.

Before you unleash these horribe opinions you may want to go play some different kinds of shooters. IMO

Well. Next time read up on a DLC before you buy it?

Maybe the OP needs to change his tactics. Maybe, you know, switch it up a bit. If charging in, fists a swinging, "Blarrgh!! Attention Deficit SMASH!," hasn't worked the first half dozen times; it just may be time to take cover behind the office desk and rethink your strategy.

Just say'n.

I somewhat agree with the OP, but from a different view: being strapped with explosives and forced to finish a DLC before leaving is indeed not adding to the fun rating. In fact, one might consider it sloppy from Obsidian that they basicly repeated Operation Anchorage. Even after many considered the freedom and exploration of Point Lookout the reasons for that DLC to be the best DLC for FO3, Obsidian decided to trap players again. Probably because its easy, and they didnt had to worry about consistence: what indeed if you brought Veronica with you. Or ED-E (detect through the cloud). Or Boone (enemies light up through the cloud). Or Gannon (surely with his wisdom he MUST know something about the place).

You dare to compare Operation Anchorage with Dead Money?, and what consistency? the DLC was pretty consistent to me, and its not easy to make a DLC of that magnitude, none of them is easy, much less when you see the plot in it

Cool story, bro.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1180297-dlc-better-not-svck/