Elijah, Graham, the Think Tank and Ulysses.
Caesar, NCR, Mr. House and Indy/the Courier respectively.


How so? Allow me to explain my theory.


Elijah = Caesar

In Dead Money, we get to know Elijah as the guy pulling the strings behind it all. Elijah came to the Sierra Madre frustrated about his loss at HELIOS One, hoping to "begin again." He hated that the NCR had taken over Helios, something he felt was for the worse. When he came to the Sierra Madre, why did he do it? He wanted to wipe the slate clean and begin again, he wanted to come up with a way to make and break nations. Once he discovered the potential of the Sierra Madre, it was only a matter of breaking in.
The problem? He can't do it alone, he needs help. And his "associates" keep turning on each other in hopes of taking everything the Madre has for themselves.

What is the Sierra Madre but a metaphor for war? "They could've had it all, but they kept turning on each other, letting their greed get the better of them. It....it was insanity." Is this not an aspect of war? If we were to all work together and never declare war on each other, playing as a team, then yes, we COULD have it all. And yet nations turn on each other, hoping to take more for themselves, much like people do on a smaller scale. Hell, from the NCR's perspective, the Battle for Hoover Dam IS a resource war. They prove to be unwilling to share the Dam or the Mojave, if they see a chance to take it all for themselves. Caesar hates the NCR for it's corruption, much like Elijah hates it when his "associates" turn on each other.
So what is Elijah's answer? He installs the dead man's switch to the bomb collars. He attempts to control their greed forcefully. Human nature is still there, but he knows that with the bomb collars rigged to blow together, people will stop turning on each other and work together towards a common goal. Likewise, what does Caesar want? He wants to control humanity. He sees the flaws of humanity and knows the faults of human nature, but he hopes to change this. He hopes to control humanity by building up a nation and controlling it's culture. He knows that if he builds a mighty nation where people are raised to work towards a common goal and not just think of themselves, he can hope to change human nature. The only difference between them is that Caesar is trying to change human nature through generations of indoctrination towards a more noble, selfless way of thinking. Elijah on the other hand accepts human nature for what it is, and simply tries to stop and prevent it's more evil aspects through the use of technology. Both use force (Caesar, through warfare, Elijah through the bomb collars) and both thrive to gain control of the world around them.
Elijah's grand scheme is to master the tech of the Sierra Madre, then "declare war" on the Mojave, wiping out everyone until he's free to build up his own nation the way he likes. Caesar's grand scheme is to keep building onto his army and master the art of war until he conquers literally everyone in the area, then slowly indoctrinate future generations into a culture and nation the way he likes.
And what becomes of them? Sadly, human nature still exists. Elijah may find himself killed by a rebelling "associate" who didn't take kindly to having a bomb collar strapped to his neck, and thus he decided to kill Elijah. Or he may still embrace his greed and steal everything Elijah worked for from right under his nose. Elijah's goal is....too ambitious. He may be strong and determined, but he STILL needs help. The only way for it to work is if he finds someone who shares his philosophies and his goals. Perhaps Elijah could find someone willing to join him by his side in furthering his goals, THEN he could succeed. If he doesn't find a true teammate though, then human nature's need to be free or need for greed is going to destroy him anyways.
Caesar is in a similar situation. He's strong and determined, so much so that he's built up a nation. But Caesar is just one person, and his Legionnaires are following him, not his ideals. Without an heir who properly understands his ideals and wishes to further them, it doesn't look good for the Legion after his death. The people may rebel against the control put upon them by the Legion, wishing for freedom, or even if they don't, people will still be people under his nose. Silus for example is unable to follow through with Caesar's plan, and when his life is on the line, he let's greed overcome him so he can live on.



Joshua Graham = NCR

What is the NCR? The NCR is a nation that wishes to do good. The NCR wishes to give people their freedoms and live happily together, giving everyone a voice and a vote. As a result, the NCR has a multitude of faces, from good to bad. It's a common saying that "the two-headed bear has two heads, wanting to go in two completely different directions, winding up never getting anywhere at all...." The NCR is the nation that, if you listen to their BASIC orders, they actually end up with quite a bad game ending, but if you do your best and try to please everyone, you can actually have the most peaceful ending in the game. The NCR is also a nation that may claim one thing but do the other, seeking excuses to allow for their actions. House himself warns that it's an absolute certainty that, given time, the NCR would simply look for an excuse to kill him and overtake the Strip.

And so is Joshua Graham. Graham is a man with a very wide spectrum of emotions, and a very dramatic moral compass. Much like the NCR represents all different kinds of people with very different opinions, Graham represents all different kinds of emotions with very different kinds of results. Some days Graham wakes up and he's kind and fair to all people, other days he wakes up and he's slaughtering entire tribes, much like the NCR. Perhaps deep down, Graham knows better. He knows God and he knows what doing good means, much like the NCR has proven themselves more than capable of commiting good acts, fully aware of what they are. But sometimes? Sometimes being good is hard. With the NCR, you're asking a nation full of thousands of people to ALL know what's "the right thing to do." Sure enough, many of the people don't or aren't willing to accept the risks that come with being the better man, and thus the NCR compromises itself down to something less good. Graham is much the same. Deep down he knows the truth, but commiting evil? It's just....so easy, so rewarding, so fulfilling. Why take a chance on letting the White Legs go? Why take a chance on letting the Great Khans go? Is it not fair-is-fair to destroy the White Legs? Is it not fair-is-fair to destroy the Brotherhood of Steel?
In the end, what determines what becomes of Joshua Graham? The people around him. The voice of the people can calm him and have him admit the truth: that God is nothing more than an excuse to commit these atrocities. The NCR is the same. It needs the right voice from the right people (the Courier) to refrain from commiting atrocities. Without the right voice from the right people, both give in to their evils, taking care of their problems the easy way rather than the hard way. Graham and the NCR can go anywhere, from commiting genocide to bringing about peace for any and all. The deciding factor will always be the voice of the people.


The Think Tank = Robert House

The Think Tank. A group once dedicated towards progress for the sake of humanity, now isolated in their dome, free to do whatever they please. A group so wrapped up in their own experiments and goals that they've come to believe the Big MT is the only place left on the planet.
House? House is a man who's been isolated from society for centuries, believing in progress as the key to humanity, pragmatic enough to do whatever it takes. He believes Vegas shall be an oasis in the world, a shining beacon of light that promotes progress. He believes his home to be special. House is the type of man that, if he wants something, getting it is just as simple as that. There are no hinderences in his strive for progress. If he believes he's found a hinderence, he disposes of it. House does as he pleases, without much concern for the well-being of others. His philosophy is that if it furthers his goals, then do it. The Think Tank, likewise, will experiment on anything with anything, without any concern for the reprocussions. Whereas House seeks productivity as a whole as his form of progress, the Think Tank seeks knowledge. With House, what becomes of Freeside or outer Vegas is irrelevant, so long as Vegas is still at optimal performance and still progressing forward. With the Think Tank, what becomes of the world is irrelevant, so long as they're still gaining knowledge.
What stands in the way of these two? A form of conscience; idealists. With the Think Tank, Mobius disagrees with their wreckless system of experimentation, dedicating his life to working against them, making sure they never leave the Big MT and hurt the world. With House, it's the Courier (potentially) and many of the people of Vegas (the Followers, the BoS, Freeside). The Courier could decide House will hurt the people and pull the plug, and certain groups like Freeside, the BoS and the Followers simply won't accept the way House does things.

What can become of the Think Tank and House? Well, they could both die. Die because they neglect to care for their fellow man. The Think Tank may die because they give the Courier an ultimatum where he's forced to. They want his brain and his body to further their goals; the Courier has become nothing but a tool to further their goals. And typical of their pragmatic attitude, they don't care that they have to kill him to get these tools. For that reason, the Courier may kill them. Likewise, House may pose a threat to certain groups, believing they need to die to further his goals. The Courier, representing those groups, may kill him when faced with the ultimatum of him or another group. (the Kings, the BoS, the Followers, other communities of Vegas)
Or they could be shown some emotion, compassion and humanity. The Think Tank and House are both the kind of people who simply act on their emotions and desires, while being all-out ambitious in furthering their goals, doing as they please. What if humanity (the Courier) became a part of the Think Tank's desires again? What if humanity took a priority over their experiments? Or hell, what if THEIR lives took priority over their experiments; what if fear (claiming to be Mobius) took control of them? House is the same: as the Courier gains importance, so does his opinion. Perhaps at first, House shoots down his suggestion of sparing a certain group, but as he shows his worth, it suddenly becomes a big deal if the Courier threatens to walk away. Or perhaps the Courier could threaten House; after all, his life is in the Courier's hands.


Ulysses = The Courier (Independent Vegas)

Throughout your travels through the Mojave, what question is probably on your mind?

"What is the right thing to do?"
"What do I believe in/what do I support?"

What is the Independent route? Arguably, of all of the choices, it's the one with the least amount of personal profit. There was a time when we thought Indy meant you're the new ruler, but the developers have since let us know that belief is false. Caesar offers you gold, the NCR offers you bribes and House offers you a life of luxury, but Indy offers you nothing. Indy is a choice that's made solely because you believe in it....or, out of ignorance you believe it'll profit you, and your ignorance costs lives.
The independent Courier is, in a sense, "finding himself." And Ulysses? Ulysses is doing exactly the same. While you're struggling with the conundrum of "war....war never changes. But why?" so is Ulysses. Both of you are searching for something to believe in. The independent Courier has to make decisions purely for himself. These aren't decisions being made for you; no, you have to get to know each nation and decide if you agree with it's existence and philosophies or not. You struggle to determine if Caesar/Elijah's desire for control is justified or not, as does Ulysses. You struggle to determine if the NCR's/Graham's compromising themselves down for more practical results is justified or not, just like Ulysses. You struggle to determine if House/the Think Tank's more selfish outlook on things in a sort of attitude that there IS no solution so you might as well enjoy life and take what you can for yourself is justified or not, and so does Ulysses.
Ulysses eventually decides that he will compromise himself down and take a practical solution in attempt to control the outcome of the Mojave SOMEWHAT, but his interests are purely for the sake of humanity, not selfish ones. Ulysses hates someone who doesn't put thought into their actions, because for an independent path, thought is definitely neccesary or people will die. The conundrum is that Ulysses is still opting to kill people, in a belief that it will save people, similar to how an Indy Courier may opt to destroy the Brotherhood in the Mojave; such is the the struggle of Indy and Ulysses.

And what becomes of Ulysses? What becomes of Indy Vegas?

Simple.

With a little respect for your fellow man and another nation, people live on. Without that respect, people die. Ulysses challenges your beliefs, and if he doesn't feel they're justified, he loses repesct for you. So much so that he declares you and the nation you support "wrong" and opts to kill you. Even if you win the fight, someone has died. If you show him your beliefs are justified, he gains respect for you and the nation you support, opting to let you and that nation live on. He decides to give them a chance, and even fights alongside you in the face of adversity, much like two nations might learn to fight alongside each other. The Courier essentially does this with Independent Vegas. He visits each nation and demands justification. If he receives some, the nation is probably allowed to survive. If he doesn't, he'll likely crush that nation.















Thoughts?

I just found all this interesting to ponder on. There's some lessons in there I think, but I'll leave the conclusions up to you all.

Excellent essay! You really pondered the conundrum that is New Vegas and the various paths the Courier can take. Your insightful take on the various adversaries we face in the DLCs really shows various parallels to the different nations.

Elijah as well as Caesar are both obsessed with control. They are both megalomaniacs, in my eyes and none of them would do anything to better the conditions of the Mojave.

NCR and Graham are both torn in various directions, and they both would chose fight over diplomatic solutions.

The Think Tank and House are too focused on what they want and also have no interest in the world, outside of their little area of operations.

Ulysses and the Courier truly try to find a better way of living, to turn the wasteland into a better place for all. (well at least that's my Courier's goal).

Very interesting Longknife, you're always thinking outside the box. The connections you made are pretty significant, and I wonder if this was something that the developers did intentionally. If that is the case, then the DLCs offer even more than I originally thought: now they offer a different perspective on the four main factions in the base game. That would make sense too, because where do the DLCs leave off? Lonesome Road. The final event before the battle at Hoover Dam. The DLC that challenges the Courier to defend his philosophy and to truly believe in it. So wouldn't it make sense that the whole DLC 'journey' would be marked with people that help the Courier question and understand the different factions back in the Mojave?

Another thing is that Ulysses, the questioner, is a recurring character throughout the DLCs. He is either mentioned in or actually in every one of the DLCs. I wonder if that has any relation to this. He is, after all, the one who tells us to question the different factions. I'd like to hear his House dialogue again and see if it bears any resemblance to what he says about the Think Tanks.


I think these two statements are more related than you made them out to be.

Both the NCR and Joshua Graham hold up "higher ideals" and twist them in order to justify their actions.

The NCR holds up the ideal of freedom for all, yet they abuse the Mojave, stealing its resources and stepping on its people. Did the people in the Mojave freely decide "We want NCR military rule and we want our resources taken from us!"? No. The NCR didn't give them a choice. The NCR uses the idea of freedom to justify its actions, even when its actions are contrary to the idea of freedom.

Joshua Graham holds up the ideals of Christianity, which are, for the most part, noble ideals -- freedom, peace, treating all people with respect. But what does Graham do? He twists and misinterprets random lines of the Bible in order to justify actions that are contrary to what God's will is said to be according to the Bible.
For example, take what Graham says as he executes Salt-Upon-Wounds: he says that Salt-Upon-Wounds is the "ram in the thicket." That shows a complete misinterpretation of an Old Testament story. The story was supposed to be about how Abraham was so trusting in God and how honorable that trust was et cetera et cetera. It seems weird by today's standards, but back then, a story like that was easy for a lot of people to understand and relate to. What I find interesting is that, in Old Testament times, human sacrifice was strictly forbidden in ancient Israel. In fact, according to the Bible, God gave a warning to the ancient Israelites that if they ever partook in human sacrifice, they would be driven out of the land. That's partially why God didn't let Abraham sacrifice Isaac, and why Abraham sacrificed a ram instead. But what does Graham do at the end of Honest Hearts? He puts the story of Abraham and Isaac in his head, replaces the ram with a human, Isaac with Zion National Park, and Abraham with himself. He completely twisted an old biblical story in order to justify murdering someone, and his misinterpretation even contradicted another part of the Bible. If we follow the same story of Abraham and Isaac, then the true "biblical" solution would be Daniel's: to leave Zion and 'sacrifice' it just as Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac. This would be 'listening to God' especially since the other option in Honest Hearts is to murder a large number of people (something against God's will). Graham, instead of listening to Daniel, decided to take matters into his own hands, and in order to do that, he had to be internally dishonest with himself and twist parts of the Bible in order to justify things that go against the Bible.




^ A little bit lengthier than I wanted, but the historical side of religion is an interesting subject to me.

Short version: I thought that Honest Hearts was interesting in its portrayal through Joshua Graham of how religion is often twisted and used as an excuse for one's actions. It seems to be similar to how the NCR twists it's ideology through propaganda and other means in order to justify imperialism and other actions that are contrary to the "everyone has a voice" ideal that a democracy is supposed to hold dear.

I think it's interesting in that....

The DLCs seem to sort of show the philosophies of the main armies in "worst case scenario." For example, I don't agree with the Legion but yet I understand their philosophy and their argument. Elijah, on the other hand? I always thought he was insane. It was only until my most recent playthrough that I thought "what is the Sierra Madre but the world on a smaller scale, unable to work together due to greed," and then made the connection between the similarities of Elijah and Caesar. After that, it....well yeah, it changed my view of the Legion, though I'm not sure how. It's one of those things that just really makes you think.
Of course Caesar and Elijah are two different people with two entirely different methods, but the philosophy they share? The philosophy is pretty similar, and it IS scary to see what can happen when that philosophy is applied to a worst-case-scenario.

Elijah seems like a warped, demented version of Caesar in that now you -LITERALLY- cannot disobey or your head will blow up.
Joshua Graham is a warped version of the NCR, where you see a man screaming about righteousness while simultaneously slaughtering a tribe, purposefully distorting "truths" to meet his own agenda. And much like the NCR, if he makes a mistake or if he's dooming his own people with his methods, he simply won't see it coming. Graham and NCR are lying to themselves, and without some form of intervention, they'll lie to themselves until the day it's too late.
The Think Tank is a warped version of House, where you see what happens when the pragmatic interests are shifted from "progress," something that generally involves a somewhat content population as a side-benefit, and moved towards "knowledge," which doesn't have that side-benefit, at least in the Think Tank's case.


And Ulysses? Ulysses is you, the Courier. Ulysses shows you what you could be. Hell, as Ulysses himself says, "No need for bombs, when hate will do." Are you really any better than Ulysses if you destroyed a nation during your travels? The only difference is he did it with a bomb, you didn't. Yes there are practical differences in that the bomb harms the earth aswell, but you're sharing Ulysses philosophy and his "hate" if you've destroyed a nation (the Boomers, the Kings, the Khans, the BoS etc) during your travels in the Mojave.


It's an eye-opener, I guess. Ulysses says "ask yourself what it really means if you follow a symbol," and I think this is important too: seeing your OWN philosophies personified in a worst case scenario.

This was really thought out, I think it was excellent. If you think about it, then all of this really makes sense.

OMFG WHERE IS THE LIKE BUTTON
You seriously took your sweet ass time writing this [censored], respect.
I agree with everything, you made me figure something out. Thank you, thank you

Longknife knows...

Good job man. Never thought long and hard about this. Didn't play the DLCs enough to ponder about this. I saw similarities with House and the Think Tank but never with all the rest.

What do you think about Joshua turning into Caesar?
Helping a tribe that's in trouble by teaching them how to go to war.

That's more of a similarity in their actions rather than their philosophies. This is comparing their philosophies. In that sense, Elijah is closer to Caesar. Both seek control, just through different means. Both recognize a problem with humanity; Caesar through the NCR, Elijah through the people turning on each other despite the bomb collars before he implemented the dead man's switch. Both try and teach their group unity, again though through different means.
Caesar and Graham? Caesar isn't lying to himself. He knows he's a hypocrite if he accepts a surgery, but he doesn't care because he's being practical and thinking about what's best for the Legion. Graham? Graham would have to lie to himself to excuse such an act. Joshua doesn't recognize a problem with humanity and go on a crusade about it. He complains about humanity's faults, yes, but in a different sense. Caesar is talking about the survival of mankind, Graham is talking about "doing the right thing." Caesar builds an army because of humanity's faults, Joshua just sits and accepts them, praying one day they change.



This also explains why teaching Joshua the truth about himself often felt like the good ending rather than evacuating Zion. Evacuating Zion could be seen as....the fact that if you help the NCR win and do everything right, you STILL haven't changed the leadership. Hell, you've actually ensured Kimball, Oliver and Moore will stay in power. That "evil" lives on, even if you did make the best of the current situation. In the practical sense, yes, you've saved the Sorrows innocence and preserved a tribe, but on the other hand the Burned Man still walks.

That's what makes the decision in Honest Hearts so difficult for me... although I still think that evacuating the Sorrows is the best option.

As for the NCR, the "show Joshua Graham his dishonesty" equivalent ending is arguably the House ending or the Independent ending, where the NCR is sent home, defeated, and Oliver, Kimball, and Moore hold their heads down in shame. It teaches the NCR that expansionism is not the answer to their problems, and it also tells them that they aren't unbeatable.

Longknife that is another very well thought out and deep essay. I am very impressed by the time and effort you must have put into it.

From what I've seen in one and a half playthroughs, and a run though HH and OWB, this theory makes a lot of sense so far. If Obsidian did intentionally set this up they are geniuses(as are you for picking up on it).

This is an awesome thread and I appreciate your insight and effort,

Now I'm curious if the similarities in philosophies are intended or coincidential; if Avellone only subconciously recognized the similarities or was fully aware of them and intented for them to be there....

You know, at first I though. "Eh....okay.....?"




Then I reread it, and whether or not the connections you made were meant to exist, the fact that you connected them and put them into a well organized argument makes them seem pretty plausible.

Damn fine essay I think. Certainly brought out some perspective on those characters.

Sawyer, Avellone and Cain would be proud of you.

Yes you make alot of points about the factions.

NCR: NCR uses the excuse of Democracy and Freedom. They enter the Mojave without the consent of the people and Hpuse. They steal there resources and abuse there people. At the same time though, corruption seeds throughout the Republic. Half of the NCR military wants out of the Mojave and wants to focus on reoraganizing there nation(Kinda like what's happenning right now in the States eh!). NCR uses the justification of Democracy as there action, just like the United States of America.

Elijah: Warped version of Caesar. I thought he was insane. He wants to restore the BOS and destroy NCR.

Caesar: A Megalomanicac

Graham: Graham uses the excuse of God and Christinaity. He says God is kind and caring yet twists it as he wants to destroy the White Legs. It is kinda like the crusades where Christianity vs Muslim fight over the holy land(I think i might not be correct on this).Daniel is the caring side though.

Think Tank: Think Tank is basically where they shift instead to progress there own goals. House wants to progress Humanity but at a cost. Despite though, they both rely on the Courier as there live depend on them. House needed someone to take care of NCR and Legion and the other problems around Vegas. The Think Tank need to take care of Mobius.

Independent/Courier: As for these guys, they have the power to change. They can find there trueselves.

In a word, no.

They're exactly what they seem. DLC. That's it. Nothing more. There is nothing deeper than that. And no metaphors.

And the people in Old World Blues are neutrel or hate Robert House. So that really does'nt work. They were never altruists in the first place.

Elijah is nothing to do with Caeser. He is BoS, for one, very important, thing. And BoS most definately don't like CL. They're the polar opposite. Clever tech hoarders who don't want world domination.
Elijah is exactly what he appears. A psychotic lunatic. But functionally insane. He has actually thought his evil plan out and it would work. It's not overbudget. It's properly done. He is'nt trying to change peoples nature. He's a simple, straightforward, insane, villain after power and control.


Ullysses is a inconherant moron. He could'nt fire his own gun the way he talks. The dlc is simple. Big nukes, your past, awesome setting, kill the idiot who keeps mumbling random words via ED-E, save ED-E.
Look at the awesome setting. Wish there was more of it. Find Ullysses.
Nuke whatever you want at the end.
That is it.

You honestly didn't pay attention to the DLCs or just ignored the story because they definitely have meaning. (One of New Vegas' DLCs alone has more meaning and thought than Skyrim)

Ulysses was one of the most important characters, and if you push your opinion out that he's just an idiot who mumbles random words, then you must have played the DLC mindlessly without paying attention to anything except the gameplay.

Regardless of how you interpret them, there were plenty recurrent themes and metaphors within the DLCs. This is a ridiculous oversimplification.

Even if the developers somehow didn't intend all of the deeper meaning stuff that fits perfectly within the point of Fallout as a series, and in the context of New Vegas, why would you just assume that's the case? You're pretty much just being your own buzzkill.

I now have a feeling that Longknife was a writer for New vegas.

Maybe he's Chris Avellone, and he's just not telling us...

He's certainly good at interpreting literature and making connections. I admire his depth of insight and ability to make connections like this (I never related Graham with the NCR or the Think Tanks with House.)

I have to wonder Longknife, if you don't mind me asking, what do/did you study in college (I'm assuming you're either in college or have been to college.)? Your essays about this game remind me of my English teacher's lectures, so I'd guess that you studied literature or something similar.


What a shallow interpretation of something that was created with the purpose of inspiring deep intellectual thought. You must be what all writers of non-escape literature fear most.

I have to wonder how you even enjoyed this game at all. It would seem (to me) like an empty and worthless experience (as an RPG) if it weren't for the thought provoking characters, choices, and themes -- all of which seem to have evaded you.

Pretty much sums up her entire post.

I'm actually a law student, though I hope to change that soon.
I'm a German-American dual citizen, and I also have a physical handicap (born with one leg. Left it in the womb, didn't need it. ). When I turned 18 it became increasingly obvious that I wouldn't be able to handle the costs of studying and health insurance in the US, so I moved to my other country to study. At first Law was surprisingly fun and interesting here; Civil law and Criminal law are both thought-provoking and practical, as you can find everyday situations to apply your knowledge to. After a while though, State law began to take over the majority of my subject matter, which is BORING. Civil Law and Criminal law are kind of like math; there's a specific formula to follow when checking to see if someone's guilty or not. State Law is a bit more abstract, with you needing to have some idea where to look in a big book of laws.
It became a bit too much and too boring for me (got sick of questions like "What paperwork does Mr. Smith need to fill out before he can get permission to trim the tree in his backyard") and I started questioning what the hell I'd switch to though, since I'm kind of a person with very few wants, desires or interests; I often have trouble making decisions or taking the initiative. Someone suggested being an English teacher since any time I need money, I tutor or translate english for people around here, from law offices to business students to translating papers on social movements completely. I'd never thought of it before because teachers in the US don't earn jack, yet here they earn pretty good money.

Long story short, I might be switching to teaching english soon. I hope so, cause that's something I think I could do professionally with ease. It's fun to do, something I'd feel good about doing (I'm helping the world in a way, even if it is just teaching Germans to stop having their god awful accents and fear of speaking english ) I consider myself good at it, and the major requires that I learn two more languages, and I love learning languages. But still I don't consider it quite the same as what Avellone studied. There's a big difference between studying english to teach it, studying english for journalism and studying english for creative writing. I'd also imagine it'll be....interesting to study english in Germany, a country that (at least in my region, Bayern handles english slightly better now that I think of it), in my personal opinion, puts far too much value into learning the grammatical rules of a language and not so much into practicing speaking it or using it.



Even if the connection weren't intended, it's completely possible that such connections were made subconciously. What, with the aspects of the NCR, Legion, House and Indy fresh on Avellone's mind, he mind subconciously implement them again when coming up for a concept for DLCs.
This also isn't a comparison between simple, practical things such as where their allegiances lie (NCR, BoS etc), but rather between the motivations behind their actions and their inner thinking patterns.

I'm actually very curious if they were intended or not. Anyone got a twitter account? Can't say I do, but Avellone does. Almost tempted to link him here and just flat-out ask if such a connection was intended or not.

You sound like a pretty cool guy, Longknife. Although I think this confirms that you definitely aren't Chris Avellone in disguise.

Anyways:

Yeah, I can see law school being painfully boring... High School Mock Trial is about the closest I want to get to being a lawyer.

As for being an English teacher, I think that would suit you well (based on what I know about you, which is very limited, obviously, but still). Your ability to interpret literature and help others understand it (at least on these forums) is impressive, and you're anolyses on this game remind me of my favorite English teacher's anolyses of different novels and short stories. I don't know if you would be teaching English in that way or if you would be teaching it as a "foreign language" type of class, but either way, I think you would be good at it.


It's the same way in the U.S., really. I've taken two years of Spanish, and I can read and write it fairly well, and I'm pretty good at translating, but I can barely speak it, and when I do it's painfully slow. I would enjoy the class a lot more if I was actually learning to speak and apply the language rather than just learn grammar and such.

Have you ever considered studying creative writing? I mean, you could teach a creative writing class if you wanted to combine the teaching aspect and the creative writing aspect of an English major.

But good luck with whatever you decide to do. Only thing is, if you're going to be a teacher, don't do it in the U.S. unless you'll be teaching at a university. I know you mentioned this already, but things have been getting worse for public school teachers (at least in my state) for the last few years, and it's only going to get worse. Plus, if you teach in a High School, you'll have to deal with the U.S.'s high school culture, which svcks if you're a teacher. Out of curiosity, how much would a high school level teacher in Germany get paid annually? I'm assuming it's much higher than one in the U.S., but I'd like to know how much more.


I'll ask him on Twitter. I was curious about this too, so I asked Josh Sawyer about it on Formspring yesterday. He hasn't responded yet, but sometimes he holds onto a question and answers it later if he's writing an extended response to it.

As for Chris Avellone, here's what I'll tweet:

@ChrisAvellone What do you think of this? http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1381273-the-four-dlc-antagonists-represent-the-four-armies-and-their-issues/ Did you do this intentionally while creating the DLCs or...?

What do you think? Should I word it differently?

Nah, with Germany I think it's a little different.

The US is a different culture altogether. To be honest, I have to get annoyed that the US is referred to as ignorant about other cultures, because I don't meet many people who know much about US history or culture (news and politics yes, but not culture). Does that offend me? No, the US is an ocean away and a 12 hour flight. I don't expect them to make that trip to learn about our culture. It is unfortunate that the US is basically an "island" in the sense that we have ONE neighbor with a dramatically different culture, but don't act surprised when they don't know much about other languages or cultures. It's not that Americans are self-centered and not interested in other cultures, but rather that they simply don't have the same opportunities to get to know a different culture that the average European has. Hell, I could get on a train and be in the Netherlands in 45 minutes, Poland in 6, Austria in 8, France in 3 and probably the Ukraine in a day. With a plane, even faster. Having said that, the US simply doesn't take foreign languages very seriously in it's courses. From language courses I've had in the US, it's always the attitude of "here, let's learn the basics."
Germany? Well, everyone is expected to know english. Even if China were to become the world superpower in 4 years time, you have to realize that some things are simply grounded into the english language by now. Business is predominantly done in english, and it would stay that way for quite a while because everyone knows it. The hacking/programming community, to my knowledge (I'm neither a hacker nor a programmer, but have talked to both and heard this) is predominantly in english, as most programming languages are based on english, to the point where hackers I've met said they hate speaking english all otherwise, but if they're talking with another hacker (even one that shares their own mother language), they speak english because it makes it world's easier. Psychology, I wasn't aware until coming here, is dominated by the US. Most major psychological studies and breakthroughs are conducted in the US, and thus psychology majors here actually work with english perhaps moreso than German.
The point is US learns and teaches languages as a sort of hobby, whereas Germany intends to actually teach it's students a language. Unfortunately, Germans by nature are very logical. As a culture anyways. This benefits them for mathematics (I've learned algebra in both english and German, and the german teachers were WORLDS better), but hinders them for languages in that they only seem to focus on the FACTS, not so much on the matters that can't be measured. The result is that the average German knows english grammar quite well, but speaks the language horrendously because they never practice it and are nervous to do so.
Meanwhile, all of Scandinavia and the Netherlands watch American TV shows with subtitles rather than dubbing (Germany dubs everything), and all of them can speak english with a FLAWLESS American or British accent. If they could explain the inner workings of the grammar? I don't know, I've never bothered quizzing them on it. Does it matter? Well, you learn a language to express yourself properly, so no, I think the Netherlands and Scandinavia are doing it properly, Germany definitely isn't. It's....well I find it embarrassing, but also have to laugh because it's so typical for German culture. There's a saying in Germany, "Most people work to live, the Germans live to work," and sure enough, the moment there's a way to have fun while learning a language (aka little kids can just watch Spongebob), Germany COMPLETELY misses the profits of this and instead has everyone open up their grammar books and study Simple Past vs. Past Perfect for hours on end, then when I watch an American friend here try to communicate with a store clerk or any German in general, maybe 65% of the people are so bashful with English that they stick to pointing and using brief statements and sentences (they understand fine though), 25% can handle expressing themselves though with constant mistakes and a strong accent (and I'll never understand why some Germans would pronounce 'violin' as "why-o-lin...." This isn't Japan, we're capable of pronouncing both V and W.) and only 10% seem to have no problem with the language. (and they usually studied abroad for a time)



Anyways, enough with that off-topic rant. I just find cultural differences both hysterical and fascinating, and I have to laugh when the same Brazilian who asks our math teacher "a negative times a negative equals a positive number? Are you SURE?" proves to be just as capable of speaking english as a German, despite the apparent culture of "go to school just to get the free food" Brazilians have told me exists there and leads to poor education for many. Meanwhile the Dutch watch Spongebob and ace english exams with flying colors. Good game, Germany!



And nah, Criminal Law and Civil law are both surprisingly fun. Civil law is just practical and can be applied to everyday occurances, and Criminal law they make an effort to make fun. We always got examples like "Mr. Smith wants to kill his neighbor's annoying toddler. One night he sneaks into his neighbors garden and shoots at a figure he believes to be the toddler, but in reality it's the neighbor's garden gnome. Upon shooting it he flees the scene. What is Mr. Smith guilty of, if anything?" At first it starts out as an example of a total idiot, then it becomes even more fun when you realize the guy is guilty of attempted murder AND property damage.
State law is a drag. That's just all the formalities and forms and inner workings of the government, the equivalent of what you'd see at a visit to the DMV...Sadly, state law went from being a third of my studies to....well, currently more than half. Thus I want out. I'm simply not anol retentive enough to enjoy this type of work.


And tweet him however you'd like. I'd just say "There's a theory that the four DLC antagonists = the four New Vegas armies, seen here: -LINK- Yes? No? Was this intentional or no?"
Wonder if he'd even respond. I'd ask J. Sawyer (formspring don't give a damn if I got an account or know wtf I'm doing) but something tells me he'd just say "Ask Chris Avellone" or "Mysteries!"

While geography does play a big role in it, there is still an alarmingly large number of people in the U.S. who are completely and purposely disinterested in learning anything about other cultures. That would be, eh, *okay* if they didn't shove their ignorant opinion about why the Uniterd States is the best damn countree on Erth down everyone's throat. It's kind of funny, actually, since they seem to think that, just because the U.S. is the current hegemon, that it must automatically be the 'greatest country ever.' Greatest? How do even define something as multidimensional as a nation as being greater than other (also multidimensional) nations throughout the course of human history? Unfortunately, it's often our own public (and sometimes private) school systems that contribute to this attitude of ignorance to the world outside of the U.S. For example, in my school, from grades 5-12, we have 6 years of American History, 1 year of World History (AKA wars America was involved in since the early 1800s), and 1 year of Ancient History (which was in 6th grade, so it was about as dumbed down as it could get). That could easily be reformed, and, if it does get reformed, it could possibly open up the idea of "hey, studying these other cultures is actually interesting and useful!" to a whole generation of students.


That was an interesting look into Germany; I've never been there, but I'll probably study there when I'm in college (or in high school, if I get accepted to study abroad programs). And yeah, most programming languages are in English (e.g. ). And yes, our algebra classes are (generally) awful here in the U.S. It's interesting that the Scandinavians learn a language just by watching subtitled TV shows though; I never knew people did that. So much for Rosetta Stone and its over priced software, I guess.

English grammar is tedious and very detailed (I don't know how it compares to other languages though), so I can see how bad someone would be at speaking the language if they only focused on grammar.
Grammar =/= Pronunciation. I find it funny in Spanish class when all of the near-dropouts have to speak the language out loud. The word 'chair' in Spanish is pronounced as "see-yuh," but most people in class pronounce it as "sill-uh" because it is spelled "silla." Someone even pronounced "chipotle" as "chip-ott-oll" when it's supped to be "chip-olt-lay."

Anyways, enough with that off-topic rant. I just find cultural differences both hysterical and fascinating.

As do I. I just wish that I knew more about other cultures outside of just researching them outside of school and talking to people like you online, i.e., I hope I can study abroad pretty soon.

And nah, Criminal Law and Civil law are both surprisingly fun. Civil law is just practical and can be applied to everyday occurances, and Criminal law they make an effort to make fun. We always got examples like "Mr. Smith wants to kill his neighbor's annoying toddler. One night he sneaks into his neighbors garden and shoots at a figure he believes to be the toddler, but in reality it's the neighbor's garden gnome. Upon shooting it he flees the scene. What is Mr. Smith guilty of, if anything?" At first it starts out as an example of a total idiot, then it becomes even more fun when you realize the guy is guilty of attempted murder AND property damage.
State law is a drag. That's just all the formalities and forms and inner workings of the government, the equivalent of what you'd see at a visit to the DMV...Sadly, state law went from being a third of my studies to....well, currently more than half. Thus I want out. I'm simply not anol retentive enough to enjoy this type of work.

I mean, it sounds interesting, but it's just not for me. Situations like that sound fun to learn about (like you said with attempted murder and property damage), but I'm often demoralized when I read about certain cases here in the U.S.
I hate the fact that people are often punished for things they didn't do because of insufficient evidence (due to lack of technology) or other factors such as the media swaying the jury. I'm also angry about the fact that we still have capital punishment. When you combine that bitterness with a general meh level of interest in legal studies, well, that's pretty much why I'm not super interested in legal studies, you dig?

And tweet him however you'd like. I'd just say "There's a theory that the four DLC antagonists = the four New Vegas armies, seen here: -LINK- Yes? No? Was this intentional or no?"
Wonder if he'd even respond. I'd ask J. Sawyer (formspring don't give a damn if I got an account or know wtf I'm doing) but something tells me he'd just say "Ask Chris Avellone" or "Mysteries!"

Well, I tweeted him yesterday (no response yet) and I asked Josh Sawyer on Formspring a couple of days ago (also no response), so I guess we'll just have to wait and see. It's entirely possible that Sawyer didn't answer because it's one of those themes that we (the players) are supposed to discover without guidance from the devs. Someone asked him a while ago what the main themes were in New Vegas, and he responded with something along the lines of, "If I have to tell you the themes, then I didn't do a good job creating them and expressing them through characters in-game. The idea is for you to find them yourself."
So... we might not get an answer out of either of them. It's worth mentioning that Avellone hasn't been on twitter all that much lately, so he might never see the question in the first place unless we contact him some other way.