Personally, I thought that Dead Money was great. Despite being linear, I found it a refreshing change of pace and it added a new facet to the way Fallout can be played. Compared to FO3, the DLCs have been just as good, if not better in some aspects. It is all a matter of opinion, of course, but I think if you enjoyed FO3's content, you will enjoy F:NV just as well.

fallout 1 or 2 isnt coming back

i love both games but i have to say that New Vegas's DLC is much better imo i think fallout 3 DLC is good but its filled with bullet sponges which i really hate and mothership zeta is just dumb.

A sad thing too, but with console-tards and and casualistus destroying every aspect of the game world I guess were gonna be stuck with Fallout: The Casual Persons Edition Volumes 4, 5 , 6 and 7

sorry everything cant be fallout 1 or 2

Dead Money is the best DLC I've ever played.
Just use your brain, set a goal of not dying ever, don't run around all willy-nilly like an idiot, use your ears and logical deduction to figure out where the radios are, and it'll be the most fun DLC you've ever played too.

Honest Hearts is meh. All the Fallout 3 DLCs were meh in my opinion too. The Pitt felt more like a scavenger hunt, I was never dying to play Point Lookout's main quest or to explore it, Broken Steel could've just continued the game and raised the level cap and then just walked away and people wouldn't've cared, Operation Anchorage was ok, I found Mothership Zeta interesting too. I guess I want my DLCs to be linear. Yeah Broken Steel was linear, but the storyline svcked. The thing is, I only explore random locations when I've already done everything else worth doing. Exploring random locations is a last resort for fun. The only time exploring was fun for me was in Fallout 3 itself because those locations had character and loot; exploring in Point Lookout and The Pitt was boring, and it's sorta the same with Honest Hearts. The Pitt and Point Lookout also had "meh" storylines too, thanks to relying partly on exploration, and that's the same with Honest Hearts. Exporing in Honest Hearts awards loot and a pretty decent story, but Honest Hearts is prone to spawning giant bears directly behind you every 20 seconds, which gets old fast.

Having said that, I'd STILL rate Honest Hearts above all the Fallout 3 DLCs. I'm guessing it's simply because it ties in well. The Fallout 3 DLCs all tied in horribly. "Oh look, enemies you can probably kill right now but you choose not to and to pretend to be a slave!" "Oh look, a magical simulation that brings you to Alaska!" "Oh look, a spaceship that we can somehow control well enough to drop you off right back where you got abducted!" "Oh look, a distant land that you're paying good money to go to FOR NO APPARENT REASON!" New Vegas actually makes the DLC tie-ins believable. Abduction in Dead Money is a cliché, but to make up for it, a character in the DLC will tell you EXACTLY how your abduction went down. Honest Hearts, you're a flippin' Courier, so it's not unbelievable that your character would take up a caravan job, compared to the Lone Wanderer being like "I need to find my dad, but first I'm going to go on an expensive boat ride to a far away, strange land with this shady looking man FOR NO APPARENT REASON! "

never said it had to be. I just want it to be good. unlike the steaming pile of carp Bethesda gave us.

Obsidian should be the sole makers of Fallout games, since they have many old Black Isle staff in their company and they KNOW what makes Fallout, Fallout.

Cut them some slack, it wasn't that bad.

Bethesda had the issue of overtaking a franchise with die-hard fans and creating the next chapter. They had to stay loyal to the story, yet work it in such a way that would allow new players to understand the storyline WITHOUT changing details or writing the story in such a way that would offend the die-hards. They did a cop-out and opted to do a story on the opposite side of the country that would mirror the plots of Fallout 1 and 2. I'm sure that if Bethesda created entirely new factions in D.C. that had nothing to do with the first two fallouts, people would be disappointed. At the same time, if they had done New Vegas, they probably would've taken the NCR and the BoS and the Enclave in a direction that most die-hards wouldn't like and most new players wouldn't understand. In that sense, they made a good choice with basically making Fallout 3 salute the plots of the first two without actually interfering with the west coast happenings.

FO3 simply suffered from a main plot that was dull, boring, didn't pull you in or provoke emotions, and was black in white in it's morals. They also failed to provide people with motivation to be anything BUT good; your character would have to be an absolute nutjob to take the evil path. Other than that, the game was lacking in difficult moral decisions as a whole, which was one of the things they promised to deliver. Still, the game was fun, the Talon Company vs. Super Mutants vs. you battle locations were intense, exploration was a lot of fun and the atmosphere was very post-apocalyptic.