Well, that's like arguing that we shouldn't try to be moral because it's impossible to be purely good. Clearly there's always going to be greedy and unscrupulous people and power disparity between constituents of a government. A good system of government harnesses the former (personal greed and ambition) for the greater good and reduces the potential to abuse the fact of the latter (unequal power between government constituents). California and New York are always going to be waay more prosperous and influential than North Dakota or Wyoming, but I don't think the latter states are being mercilessly exploited like you suggest is inevitable with such an arrangement.

Why? Your conclusion does not follow your premise. Using his Securitrons to keep the Strip families in check is an element of House's policy but it's not the sum of what Mr. House represents. House does not intend to allow any sort of political participation for the masses, while part of the point of Courier control is that the Courier can if he/she chooses. I'm not sure how many more ways I can paraphrase this point.

You can have a gradual transition from House-style autocracy to representative democracy - in fact, it's the only sensible way to do so. Yes, with the Yes Man ending you have the exact same material resources (and strategic position, by and large) as House. What can differ is the governing ideology the Courier brings to the table. So yes, you can be Mr. House Mk. II, but there's nothing suggesting that you absolutely have to be.

You can't count the player character, the player character is a walking Deus Ex Machina for every problem in the game. In reality you don't go storming a Legion post single handed. You would use stealth and snipe/stealthboys and the like. The reality of life is you HAVE to push people around to get things done. Before House, Vegas was a warzone with a bunch of tribals, who in Swanks words, would 'scalp people for giggles'. Now look at it, he has The Strip shining and functioning again and the Three Families turned into something civilised, if House won at Hoover Dam, imagine how restored Freeside could become.

Ya sure House had to push out the violent tribes, but what about the average folks that got caught up in that act, there was probably no way to push the violent tribes out then get the normal people out peacefully, but he didn't so much as issue an apology, would it have killed him to give some caps to freeside to make it a more prosperous community?

Yes if he would put work in it AND respect the locals, instead of offering them work and push them out if they dont want too. Freedom my friend, freedom. I was a strong House supporter, before he killed the Kings, after i took a peaceful option. Stupid, but he did it and that made it impossible for me to trust him as the leader of the free people of Vegas, so i took he′s place and tortured that old man. Its not that i dont respect him, i just want people to not be afraid of getting used.

never mind

I agree if and if he's not supporting the locals now why would he do it after hoover dam

I really, really, hope you realized that you can have House spare the kings before you spewed all of the anti-House stuff.

Edit: It makes sense that he killed them with your ending, because they allied with the NCR, and he is trying to push the NCR out of Vegas.

If you sic' the kings on the NCR, House spares them.

Dude it doesnt make sense, i didnt tell the kings to svck NCR′s dike just so i could ally with House and get him to kill them just cause they ceased hostility against the NCR refugees. Its stupid that a peaceful solution should be responsible for the deaths of 50 (just a guess) ghetto kids. they didnt do anything. But fine be a house fanatic I DONT GIVE TWO [censored] BOUT WHAT YOU DO.

It doesn't really matter what you told the Kings to do, you've put freeside in a situation where House walked in with the Kings on their knees and the NCR's trousers were down. This is also a ridiculous metaphor. with the NCR-Kings-House triangle, there is no perfect ending, the fact of the matter is is that someone has to die, you should not get so angry at the fact that some people made the decision that maybe saving the 200 year old genius with the means and the plan to make humanity better is better than saving the people who worship a singer as a god

Courier: Guys, I've got a great idea, why don't I kill a 200 year old genius who has saved millions of lives and give control of his massive army over to, I don't know, this robot I found in somebody's room, what could possibly go wrong!?
Well you control it. There i said it. And the Kings dont do anything bad, they are keeping Freeside safe, they are not running around screaming: NCR ROCKZ. So why is it NECCESARY TO KILL THEM?

Yeah, it's not like members of the Kings have been say, attacking NCR citizens, charging ludicrous prices for water when the people of freeside are all desperately poor and also the kings aren't doing a very good job of keeping freeside safe are they? you get attacked every 5 minutes.

As for the House/Yes man debate, who said that the Courier is a leader? Mr. House is leader (founded Robco, saved vegas then united three most dangerous tribes and held off the might of NCR within 7 years) whereas the Courier is just that, a Courier, a person who transports messages and packages from one place to another. and what happens after the courier dies, in the House ending everything carries on as normal because House is running things and House will plan for after his death so Houses death will not be an issue whereas with yes man when the courier dies the mojave becomes devoid of any leadership and military commander

What a great argument, what u took it from all the other arguments i had previously with house fanatics? Dude there aint nothing wrong with Indy. The courier is much more then just some nobody that carries messages. The courier made a prosperious town, and then blew it away with nukes. He delivers a chip and decides the fate of Vegas, so dont say he is just a guy that transports packages, cause he has accomplished much, now i respect House saving Vegas and all that [censored], but i dont see House caring about simple human life in general. He loves he′s progress though, and wouldnt mind making he′s progress FLY to the stars in a wacky dream of conquering a new planet. Good [censored] luck. Well, let me now when House has he′s galactic empire established and ill confess i was wrong.

As i have stated numerous times who the courier is and what he is capable of is totally up to the player so you don't know he is "just a courier" and you don't know he won't plan for after his death. Also the kings are only working with the NCR to help freeside and nothing more the fact that house kills them off like that reveals a hint of paranoia doesn't it? and since he's willing to leave freeside with any amount of protection he clearly doesn't have the interest of the locals at heart.

I don't New York City vs. Bismark North Dakota is really comparable to The New Vegas Strip vs. Novac. The Mojave wasteland is a small area with one focal point: The Strip. Other than The Strip, well, there are a handful of small trading settlements and that's about it. And without New Vegas to bring people into the Mojave, those trading towns would be nothing more than a collection of subsistence farmers. So the whole Mojave economy depends on New Vegas and it's casinos, and then if you put three corrupt tribes in charge of those casinos, it would make it extremely easy for them to exploit most every settlement in the wasteland. So that's where the Courier comes in, keeping the Three Families from abusing their superior status in the Mojave's economy.

You also throw around terms like "the greater good." That's kind of the big question for a lot of governments, isn't it (well, it probably isn't in reality, but that's just my cynical viewpoint showing through)? What exactly defines, "the greater good?" Caesar arguably works for the greater good by creating a safe, orderly, efficient society free of corruption and bureaucracy. And does the greater good mean that the majority is more important than the individual? So then it turns into individualism vs. collectivism/corporatism, which should a government promote? I have always viewed the independent path as a step toward promoting individualism, but then that's just my ideal view of how things should be in the Mojave, and that changes from person to person, bringing up another interesting point about the independent route. (see my response below)


This should cover it:

I don't disagree with the last part at all. You just seemed to be saying in the post I was replying to that it will not turn out well, and that the Courier will be powerless to stop the Families from exploiting the little towns. Which I suppose is the opposite of what you are saying here.

The Three Families were corrupt and powerful because House allowed them to do their thing, as long as they are loyal to him. As the Courier, you can conceivably take a much more active role in their affairs. Or just wipe them out and invite some other groups, if you were ruthless enough. I almost always end up wiping out the Omertas for example. I think if the Kings were installed in one of the casinos he probably wouldn't be so eager to exploit the little people.

Firstly, that was my replying to your assertion that the Courier can only be House Jr., and that exploitation of the hinterland by the Strip was inevitable. So okay, maybe bringing the 'greater good' into this was a misstep, since it was pretty tangential to my point. Which is merely that there'll always be greed and lack of scruples. A government that works directs those energies to its own purpose.

Secondly, my objection of Caesar's Legion is not only because of his brutal methods, but because the end result of these brutal methods do not justify the means. Literally any other ending (except perhaps some Indie endings) would be better for the Mojave (and the region at large) than the Legion one. Someone else once said in defense of Caesar's methods by saying that you can't bake a cake without breaking a few eggs, but if your recipe results in the cake being putrid and inedible then yes, you should not break those eggs.

In that earlier post, I was replying to your idea of the Courier allowing the various groups in the Mojave to self-govern, and I was only describing the potential problems with that particular idea. I didn't mean for my post to critique the entire independent ending, just the "self-governing Mojave" interpretation of it.


I agree that the Courier could take a more active role in policing the Three Families, and I agree that it would be better if he/she did. The Three Families (especially the Omertas) are corrupt and dangerous imo, and one of the main reasons why Anarchy/self-government would fail almost immediately if implemented in the Mojave wasteland.


Well, the Courier will become Mr. House Jr. in a lot of ways:

• The Courier will have control of the Securitrons.
  
• The Courier will be in charge of New Vegas.
  
• The Courier will have be the single most powerful person in the Mojave.
  
• The Courier will have access to all of House's wealth, resources, and technology.

In other words, the Courier will fully replace Mr. House in terms of taking House's political and economic position in the Mojave. That doesn't mean that the Courier has to use that position in the same way as House, in fact the Courier can take a completely different political and economic route than House would have, but that doesn't change the fact that the Courier will still take House's position as (see above list). My point with saying that the Courier would replace House wasn't to say that the Courier would have to follow House's ideals. My point was simply to debunk the assumption held by a lot of people that the Indy ending will simply cause "anarchy" where there won't be any power vacuum in House's place and everyone will just govern themselves without any authoritarian or totalitarian regime rising to take the seat of power that House has now vacated. I was saying that the Indy ending will have the Courier filling the power vacuum left by House, then what he/she decides to do with that power is up to him/her.


I'm curious as to whether you have ever done a full Legion play-through and whether you've ever exhausted all of the dialogue with Caesar, because Caesar explains why the Legion's plans for the Mojave are best better than I ever could (unless I just copied his dialogue directly). If you simply don't agree with his viewpoint, then I don't think I can convince you to believe in it, in fact I don't think the Legion ending is all that great either. But I do believe that its "good" side is a very strong one, and I also believe that it is far better than the NCR ending.
Here's how I rank the different endings:
1) Independent
2) House
2.5) Legion
17) NCR

I don't like the NCR. I completely agree with Ulysses and Caesar when it comes to them, and while I don't like killing NCR soldiers, I don't mind killing Kimball, Crocker, Oliver, or Colonel Moore. Especially Colonel Moore.

How can you rank NCR last? Think about this where do you buy most of your supplies? Gun Runners? Crimson Caravan? Followers? 188? All of them not possible without NCR, sure they got problems but name a government that doesn't. Also there is a reason that most of people who can afford to get onto the strip are NCR citizens, because NCR allows the chance to actually thrive and have a job a house and safety, as opposed to simply surviving, so sure your gona pay taxes, but your quality of living will drastically increase. There may be corruption and greed within it but at least most people in the republic are trying to help the wasteland. I agree that kimball and oliver aren't very good leaders but thats the thing about a republic, leaders change. The NCR isn't perfect but it's a shot at something better than the wasteland.

The NCR is a lot like the prewar US, isn't it?

If you can make an argument as to why blindly mimicking a failed system of government is a successful strategy, then please do. The prewar U.S. system obviously failed, and yet the NCR is all, "Democracy FTW! cause Americuh!!!!"

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" sums up the failure of the NCR. IMO, stupidity is repeating something that failed over and over again while expecting a different result each time. So to me, the NCR's base is in stupidity and ignorance, and they are doomed to fail again, doomed to never make progress or learn from the past.

The US didn't fail because it was a democracy. Guess what other pre-war nation got nuked and wiped off the face of the Earth? China. The nation that actually started the Great War because it was losing the conventional one that it also started by invading Alaska. Was China a democracy? Seems unlikely. Guess what other nation got nuked and wiped off the face of the Earth? Oh yeah every other nation on the planet many of which were presumably not democracies. I see this argument a lot but no one has ever explained in the slightest how democracy led to the destruction of the USA or the Great War.

Now your arguing democracy?!?! If you pay close attention they created a nation with the same form of government as America. The democracy didn't cause America to fail, it was the resource crisis, no oil left and eventually everyone launched nukes at each other. I would also like to point out that America was winning the war and were developing the technologies that would solve many of the problems, so in reality America never really failed by its own doing, it was invaded by china and that war eventually ended in nuclear fire which was most likely caused by the Chinese since they were losing the war. Also Cesar based his society off of Rome which failed drastically to barbarians, really all societies must fall and you can't argue against one by saying another society with the same government failed so that means its doomed, ya it will fall like all other nations, but it will do a lot of good before it does.

The concept of democracy is nice, but it also comes with some major problems. Rampant corruption, inefficiency, an easily manipulated majority, et cetera. And that's what it's like during peace time. The U.S. didn't fail just because of the Great War. It had failed before that. Democracy proved worthless in a time of crisis, and the military (run by the Enclave) took total control. The U.S. annexed Canada, slaughtered its own rioters, used propaganda constantly to justify what it was doing, captured its own people and used them as fodder for experiments designed to create new weapons (the FEV). The whole, "democracy" thing wasn't happening there, because democracy is a weak, corrupt, inefficient form of government when it comes to governing large numbers of people, and it really only shows through during times of crisis. I'm not saying that totalitarian communism (I'm assuming the Chinese had this) is any better, in fact I think it is far worse, since it ends up being grossly corrupt even during peace time, but I am saying that democracy definitely failed before the Great War, and that the NCR is ignoring that failure by repeating it.

Bleh, that argument kind of svcked. I'll provide a better argument tomorrow that is likely to make more sense than the one above, I'm quite tired right now. One of my main points is there though, that the U.S. failed before the Great War because democracy didn't work so well when faced with a crisis. But seriously, talk to Caesar and Ulysses, they explain the NCR's flaws quite well.

The enclave was a shadowy branch that took over because of the weakness and corruption of the united states leaders, who were much worse than oliver and kimball, not democracy. There are no branches like the enclave in the NCR your assuming that they are exactly the same while they are not, so i think we should switch from arguing about what went on in the U.S. to whats going on in the NCR because they are quite different.

None of these problems you've listed beyond an easily manipulated majority (and you acknowledge in the rest of this post that this was not actually the issue in pre-war USA) are specific to democracies or even particularly endemic in them. They can occur in any form of government for a variety of reasons.


What? Where was this ever stated? The pre-war USA wasn't a bastion of liberty but there is no indication that the military was in charge of the country. And if the Enclave was running some sort of oligarchic shadow government behind the scenes, which we again do not know at all then you've kinda shot the rest of your complaints down below in the foot since it wasn't a democratic government doing those things you're complaining about.


I'm not sure how any of this proves that democracy caused the US to fail. You're listing a bunch of reprehensible actions that proves that democratic governments are not moral or inherently good but I don't recall claiming either of those things. At the end of the day it remains quite clear the reason the US failed was due to resource depletion and overpopulation (as explicitly stated in the intros to both Fallout 1 and 2) and finally Chinese nukes. Not the form of government it had.


But there's no evidence that the USA failed before the Great War. It wasn't a utopian government obviously but there's no such thing. I've listened to both Caesar and Ulysses many times. Their arguments are not convincing.

Ever tried going on a murder spree in Camp Mcarran with THE BEST WEAPONS IN GAME, and then moving on to the DAM killing EVERY damn NCR soldier (camp forlorn Hope and all the ranger stations nearby included) and then move on south and kill every Legion and well about everyone on the [censored] frontlines? you should try it, it takes about 2-3 hours if you want to loot too, and its one of my best moments of New Vegas.

Democracy did not cause the war, but high consumption and following the ways of the old world might cause another one. NCR is destined to fail, but so is every government.

Just to chime in here. Will everyone stop squawking the 'DEMOCRACY CAUSED THE WAR'. No, the lack of global resources caused the War. It all started with the last known untapped oil well in the world, China got to it first, and the US covertly sabotaged their attempts and took that oil derrick. China, in retaliation, moved in on Alaska. Not because it was closest, but because it had the oil. It's the same reason why Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was justified, you cut off somebodys oil, it's only a matter of time before they resort to desperate measures.