Longknife's a pretty cool guy, eh is born with one leg and doesn't afraid of anything. I just hope Chris or Josh say something about your findings LK. Would be pretty cool to see what they think of it. For some reason, I don't think it was intentional. But I have a feeling those guys will like what you wrote LK and will certainly make them see their own game in a different way.

Well Longknife, here's what I have for you:

From JE Sawyer's Formspring:


http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/337053826609607217



Comment: Well, it wasn't I who drew the parallels, but rather a friend of mine. He went into detail about it, which you can read here --->

~~~

I'm surprised it wasn't intentional, honestly. It must have been a subconscious thing, like the themes from the main game were still floating around in the developers' heads as they were creating the DLCs. Either way it's pretty cool that it turned out this way.

Mr. House's comparison to the Think Tank is the weak link of the four IMHO.

You have to convince the Think Tank that it was once human, while we know that Mr. House IS human. Jane is an example of the fact that he still feels human emotion (a naughty emotion, but it's the extent that his sixual drive that he can reach to).

Mr. House actually cares about improving the lives of the people around him, but in the long term, so sometimes he loses sight of it in the winding of his progress. I would say that he's closer to the Think Tank than than the Courier, but I'm not sure about the comparison.

Honestly, the biggest comparison of the two in my opinion is the fact that they are practically two Old World superpowers that have just begun to wake up and reveal themselves to the world. (Luckily, the Courier stops the Think Tank from doing so.)

Mr. House values in bringing the Old World back, while the Think Tank hardly recognizes what pre-war America actually was until Ulysses asked them one of the most epic lines of dialogue EVER.

It seems like you are over-glorifying the Indy ending a tad bit with the Ulysses comparison IMHO.

Ehhh, I don't quite agree with your post, it felt like there was clear bias between 'The Big Three' and your Indie one. Your indie one felt much more boasting and optimistic.

Also I feel you make it look like House is ruthless, which I disagree with. He'll kick something that he deems to impede progress out of the way, sure, but I do feel you painting him as ruthless to a fault is a bit misleading.

Untrue.

As I said, the protagonists compare the philosophies of the armies to a sort of "worst case scenario."
House IS ruthless. He purged the Strip, he's willing to purge Freeside and he's always thinking of "progress" first, people second.

There was once an article I read by some athiest group...The article was trying to argue that all morality is but an illusion, that we're really just supposed to fight for our own survival at any costs and nothing more. They argued that the fact that we naturally have qualms with killing or robbing other humans or the like isn't because there's such a thing as right and wrong, but rather that that too is an evolutionary technique. Sure, theft or murder profits you in the short term, but in the long term humans are social creatures, so it actually hinders you since others will just team up against you. They took the outrageously pragmatic viewpoint and claimed that thus, morality is nothing but our evolutionary instincts telling us this is a bad idea for our own survival.

I think of House as the same. Don't get me wrong, he DOES benefit society, without a doubt, but for all the wrong reasons. He benefits society because it's good for business and good for progress. Hundreds of people working towards progress is superior to just a handful, and as he says himself "Frontal assault on casinos? Bad for business" and "why declare war on the NCR? They're my best customers."

The Think Tank and House are very different in what they can do to the wasteland, yes, as their goals are different, but the Think Tank can represent the problems of the "for all the wrong reasons" part of House. They represent what COULD happen with such a philosophy when the overall goal doesn't have the need of humanity so close to heart. I mean let's get real here: House would never give YOU the time of day until you prove you can be profitable. It's just lucky you deliver the platinum chip. Likewise, the Think Tank won't give you the time of day until you show you're on their level of intelligence.

I admit, the connection CAN feel odd, for obvious reasons. The main reason being that the Think Tank provides a comic relief the majority of the time, which seems to overshadow most of their other traits. But hey, Caesar's philosophies fall back on a man most would call psychopathic. It's not directly representative of the main factions though, I just believe it's something to think about.


As for Indy?
As I said, or rather, as Ulysses said, "No need for bombs, when hate will do." Many people here criticize him for resorting to a bomb while simultaneously preaching about the wrongdoings of others. Are you really any better if you choose Indy? Hate will do, and you're equally as capable of wiping out an entire nation in attempt to save the world. Yes, you're not using a nuclear bomb, but the idea is that you are just as capable of making catastrophic mistakes as Ulysses is, so you better think about your actions if you choose to go it alone. Some people may view Ulysses as getting too lost in metaphors and meanings to look at the reality of what he's doing, which is an equal possibility in Indy Vegas.
Indy vegas, I would also say is, as always, handled a bit differently since it has a broad spectrum of possiblities and it all has to fall back on you. Some "you"'s are more qualified than others, so depending on the "you" leading Indy Vegas, this comparison could feel more important or less important.

Also, when I say Indy wants to do good? As does any nation. No one is born evil. Caesar wants to do good, House wants to do good, the NCR wants to do good. The difference, and the main reason for reiterating the need to do good in Indy, is because House, Caesar and the NCR (to a lesser extent the NCR) have already found the means by which they believe they're doing good. House believes good will come through Progress, Caesar believes in stability. Indy, you still have to FIND it. You don't have a means or a purpose yet.

No, they're not exact. They're also not supposed to be. And yeah I think the connections between House and Indy are a bit more vague, but that should be a given: we're provided with VERY limited info on House to begin with and Indy can have a variety of faces. All the DLC counterparts have entirely different means and entirely different goals. The philosophies however? The need to control in Elijah and Caesar, the compromising one's own mission of NCR and Graham, the pragmatic and cold forward-thinking of the Think Tank and House, and the desire to do good and find a home at -any- costs of Ulysses and yourself? Those are all parallels I see.
Elijah shows you how insane and obsessed the Legion can be, Graham shows you how warped and disgustingly delusional the NCR can be, the Think Tank shows you how heartless and disattached House can be and Ulysses shows you how destructive YOU yourself can be.


That wasn't to say they DON'T take english courses, of course.
Nevertheless, speaking with and hearing ONE teacher speak english while you discuss the grammar rules compared to hearing a variety of accents, dialects and forms of speech through television, all the while with subtitles to show you the equivalents in your own language? It's obvious to see why they're worlds better off.

Love the essay, but a minor nitpick.

ulysses, Elijah, and the Think Tank are indeed the true antagonists of their respective DLCs.

Joshua Graham is more of a protagonist. He has his opinions, he asks you to do his taskwork, but in the end you're not fighting him unless you choose to blindside him with a shot to the back, in fact he'll go along with the less-personally-desired-Plan-B out of respect should you decide to side with Daniel - it is literally impossible to provoke him unless you take a cheap shot at him. While philosophically speaking you could say that certain elements inside him are antagonistic in contrast to his protagonist points, those are more sides of his own story for him to deal with himself, and Salt-Upon-Wounds and the White Legs are still the "traditional" antagonists of Honest Hearts.

He didn't 'purge' the strip, he kicked out those who had no want to work, and hired those who decided to stay behind.

That's not true. He has the genuine interests of people at heart, if you tell House that you're killing him for Caesar, he doesn't plead for what's left of his life, he screams in horror over the prospect of mankind having slavery as its future. That sounds like someone who cares to me, since slavery is a profitable business.

But you're arguing really bizarre claims without complete answers. The think tank is bugger all insane, House is clearly sane. The Think Tank caused the earthquakes in Hopeville Pre-War, intentionally sent buggy and failure prone tech to the Madre, and even the cloud of the Madre is their work. House has done nothing on that level of disgustingly uncontrolled choices ever. Aside from software bugs which all computer tech is prone to, RobCo pre-war was proven to be a dependable business in terms of the product you could buy. Before one tries to argue over the robots in Fallout 3, the military ones I mean, there's no explanation of why they are initially hostile. So it's hard to say if the military did some kind of 'kill them all and let god sort his own' program as a failsafe on the bots or what. But still. Point is, I don't see anything House does as wrong, his wiping out of the Kings is heartbreaking, but the Kings made their choice when they refused to leave. When you're faced with a squad of gun toting god-tier robots, only an idiot would stay there.

I just think your Think Tank connections are grasping at straws a good 70% of the way, and vague fitting puzzle pieces the rest. Caesar isn't psycho though, just so blinded by ego.


I honestly don't believe the canon Independent is any better than House, the Courier is a status quo, and a dictator. Even though he may 'just rule The Strip' he still 'owns' the region. Who's in charge of the Securitron army that has the final say in everything? Oh right, The Courier. Who's the one who let's everyone do as they want so long as it fits into his idea of Vegas? Oh right, the Courier.

These are the same actions of House. Aside from the Courier offering an illusion of 'freedom', I just think Independent is killing one dictator and replacing it with another. Is House more tight around the collar than the Courier? Sure, but he offers a stable vision of the future. Independent is just one persons vanity project for their idea of a perfect Vegas.

At the end though, this whole thing is shown as very 'looking desperately for a connection point'. Elijah isn't interested in saving people as he claims, seeing as his ending is nothing but everything dying. Graham isn't even the enemy in HH unless you kill everyone, so IDK WHY Graham is in here, The Think Tank are no longer sane, just bright, incoherent shells of who they were, and Ulysses, if anything, is more about the delusional attitude most indie players have, unawares they do more harm than good.

Several points within your post make me think you're missing a big part of my point.
I'm not saying Caesar is the same level of evil as Elijah.
I'm not saying House is insane like the Think Tank.
I'm not saying Graham is a bad guy.

I'm saying their methods are one in the same.

Elijah wishes to have control over people, so does Caesar.
Graham believes in good causes but often doesn't follow through with them because he comes up with excuses to allow his bad behavior, so does the NCR.
The Think Tank simply doesn't care about people that simply aren't profitable to their goal of research and they'll pragmatically do whatever they need to do to further their research, House is the same but with a goal of progress for society instead of research.
Ulysses spends a looooooong time pondering on what he considers right, what to believe in and what he thinks is the best hope for humanity, so does the Courier.

Exact same methods and philosophies.

Now, is Elijah as noble as Caesar? I don't think so. Caesar views everything he does as absolutely neccesary to save the world in the long run. Elijah? Elijah just seems to want to control things and has a hate for things out of his control.
Is the NCR as vengeful as Graham? Not to the same extent, no. They showed some patience with the Great Khans (as well as mercy) and aside from Moore, they're not too peeved about a BoS alliance.
Is House as detrimental to society as the Think Tank? I don't think so. Hell, House is FOCUSING on progress for society and benefits much of the population, but isn't immune to forgetting the little guy in the grand scheme of things. The Think Tank has long lost it's purpose of helping their country and now blindly craves knowledge as what keeps them going.
Is the Courier super similar to Ulysses? More or less, depending on you and how you play the game. Some people play this game once and decide NCR is the correct choice, in which case the only thing Ulysses and the Courier have in common is wanting something to believe in and wanting to do good, but isn't that everybody?

Their actions or motivations may vary, but their methods are one in the same. Elijah/Caesar seek control, Graham/NCR lie to themselves, Think Tank/House are pragmatic in their goals and Ulysses/the Courier are on a quest to find themselves, willing to die for what they believe in. Sometimes a need for control gives you intelligent, calculating and level-headed people like Caesar, sometimes it gives you men on the brink of insanity like Elijah. Sometimes lying to yourself results in a corrupt government, sometimes it results in a religious zealot. Sometimes being pragmatic results in heartless experimentation, sometimes it results in a shrewd leader. Sometimes being willing to die and kill for what you believe in results in someone willing to kill for those beliefs, other times in results in someone willing to take the time to learn the ins and outs of beliefs and treat them with respect.


And this is off-topic but:


An idiot, or someone who's willing to die for what he believes in.
Which is likely more than one can say for House, Caesar and Kimball. Kimball voices worry and a belief that his speech is a stupid idea, dialog with Ulysses implies Caesar may be mad if he were alive to know you killed him and he lost, and House isn't too pleased with you if you open his life support container. Not saying they neccesarily AREN'T willing to die for their beliefs (my evidence I just gave can only suggest, not conclude), but we have evidence the King is, we DON'T have evidence for the big three.

Honestly, House is pragmatic, not not NEAR as pragmatic as Caesar. Crucifying the troublemakers and scaring the living [censored] out of your citizens is a good way to keep them in line. It may not be ethical, but it works! The same goes for an all-male military with females as breeding stock.

In Mr. House's approach, he is pragmatic, but only to a certain extent. You don't see him wiping out the Khans who could prove to be an annoyance in the future. If he doesn't need to claim human life, he won't. The Brotherhood is the only case, and they deserve to die anyway.

I agree with you against Martyr that you can paint JG (somewhat) as the antagonist because you have to stop him (or let him) when he tries to execute Salt-Upon-Wounds.

I think you're over simplifying this... It's not that the connections are made in every possible way, just that some of the philosophies and motives of Elijah, Joshua Graham, the Think Tanks, and Ulysses are parallel to some of the philosophies and motives of the Legion, NCR, House, and the Courier. They aren't similar in every way, but each DLC character listed above does show a dark side of the faction that they represent, which goes with the theme/idea that the Courier should question the faction that he is supporting.

While I agree that the Think Tank connection is the weakest of the three, I think the other ones show some pretty significant parallels. There's nothing really unreasonable about any of it, perhaps some could be explained more, but nothing is completely unreasonable. Even JE Sawyer said so: "I do not think there is anything unreasonable about his anolyses, but as for Joshua Graham and the NCR, perceived parallels are not by design. I cannot speak for Chris Avellone on the other DLCs."

As for your last line (about Independent players), I think you're correct.

(I'm not speaking for Longknife's post specifically, just the Indie-Ulysses connection in general.) But you've defeated your own argument here. Ulysses shows the worst side of an independent Courier, a side that is, as you said, on some delusional mission to help everyone while actually harming them. This sounds similar to the option of destroying the Securitron Army and then following the Indie Vegas route. "EV3REE ONES FREE NOW N0 OPRessIon!!1!1" is the idea behind that, but it actually causes widespread chaos and one of the worst endings possible. This is just like what Ulysses is doing, i.e., "TEaCh 'em a lesson by NUUUKEN all of 'em!1!" is possibly the most destructive action anyone has taken since the Great War itself, and it effectively cripples every ending of the main game (NCR and Legion are gone, Indie and House now live on an economically crippled island, essentially).

So really, Ulysses having the delusional attitude of many Indie players (this includes the smaller scale delusional attitude of players who don't destroy the Securitron Army as well as those who did) is kind of a 'wake up call' for them to open their eyes to the scale and importance of what it is that they're doing back in the Mojave. In other words, he should cause them to drop the utopian delusions and get a little bit more practical about where the Mojave is really going post-Hoover Dam. In other words, Ulysses serves his purpose in this argument as well: he is parallel to the dark, 'delusional' side of the Indie route, and he shows us how destructive that darker side can be.


Oh man, what happened to the whole "Indie and House are different only in semantics" thing? I thought we had the workings of a peace treaty there.

I'll just say this: Is it really an illusion of freedom if everything about their lives exemplifies the idea that they have a lot of freedom? By your logic, all freedom is really an illusion as long as it is in a safe environment. I mean, can't we say that the government is just letting us be free right now? They control the military, right? They could easily use it to control us.
The same goes for the Courier. He controls the Securitrons, and he could take total control of the Mojave; but he doesn't. If he isn't actually controlling everything, then it doesn't really matter if he could or not. Again, by your logic, everyone in the Mojave is under NCR control after the Indie or House ending since the NCR could, if it wanted to, overrun the Mojave. Is the NCR going to do that? No. It would result in tremendous loss of life for their military. So is everyone in the Mojave controlled by the NCR? No, they're not.

Edit: Also, here's the definition of freedom (I'm doing this because I feel like we're arguing about different definitions for the word 'freedom.' This is the one that I'm referring to when I say that Indie offers the most 'freedom.'):

Freedom
noun:

1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government

~~~

So really, by definition, Indie Vegas does offer the most 'freedom' to everyone.

Caesar is pragmatic too, but on one hand, he's more synonymous with control, whereas House has become synonymous with pragmatic thought. That's just how it is.
On the other, Caesar shows more human qualities (by human, I mean thinking with his heart rather than his mind) in that he's sensitive to insult or disobedience (House shrugs off such things and always offers you a chance to return because he recognizes your value), he hates to lose Arcade Gannon as a philosophical sparring partner (House loses Benny as a partner and does not give a [censored] about his fate, devoid of any positive or negative reactions to it) and he allows the Followers free passage out of the Mojave for no reason other than he sympathizes with them.



As I said, I think that's partly due to the fact that in GENERAL, we have limited information on House; the man is a mystery for both the general public and to a lesser extent, the player. There's very limited connections to be made because there's very little backround information on House in general. Caesar and Graham on the other hand both have very detailed histories and philosophies so it's much easier to make connections and justify them. What little we DO know about the Think tank and House though? Well we know the Think Tank would love to experiment on the Mojave for no reason other than to gain data and knowledge (the value of the knowledge being highly questionable), and for whatever reason House is also highly dedicated to progress, so much so that he's willing to preserve himself and live through a coma for the SAKE of continuing his progress crusade.



As do I. That's the IDEA behind my entire post. The DLCs show the worst of the methods of each of the four factions. I dunno if the thought has any real practical use; I mean it's possible to despise Elijah but love Caesar. However, I still think it's a fun thought, and perhaps important to realize the similarities in methods. Perhaps as a more general idea, it suggests that ANY philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt, as none of them, at their core and most extreme stage, are perfect.

That's true too; House is certainly a mysterious guy. Probably because everyone he's close to tends to stab him in the back. (I mean really, his brother, Benny, the Courier; this guy just can't win.).


It's just an interesting thing to think about, really. Sort of like the weird parallels that are sometimes drawn between two totally different works of literature, i.e., they help us understand/relate to themes in both pieces of writing, but they don't offer any practical "this is what the author intended" kind of literary anolysis.