Lately though, I've thought about what he stands for, and then I kinda understand the complaints about him being selfish. House stands for capitalism in my mind, and look at capitalism today. There's always one person (or rather ok, in our world just a select few; in a world of 6 billion people with only 1210 or so billionaires though, yeah I think you get my point with "one person") who ends up on top and in charge, and that person calls the shots. The way I see it, House only saving himself (and Vegas, though his motivation behind saving Vegas is questionable) during the Great War basically kind of stands for the fact that by the end of the day, he's the most important and he's the only one that'll be saved in a Second Great War. Perhaps a better way to explain it is, we all know that New Vegas is nothing but a way for House to fund his new visions and ideas, correct? He basically admits to feeding off of the NCR like a leech, but justifies his actions by saying "the end justifies the means" and talks about his goals. Well what if, before the Great War, House leeched money off of the common man? He had resorts and casinos before the Great War, we know this. And where did that money go? Into saving House, that's where. Basically, people are just tools for him. I've always known this but supported him anyways simply because in end effect, I found his ideas good, so I didn't think it mattered. Now though?
I always thought of House as being closer to the wasteland equivalent of enlightened despot, but you make a lot of good points about his representing capitalism. House is no doubt selfish, and while many will argue the whole, "well in the big picture he's doing good" idea, I just don't see it happening that way. I'm sure that's what the top 1% and the American government (Enclave) were thinking before the Great War, and look where that led them.
Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I don't see a selfish leader creating what is essentially a self-centered power structure around him (House and his New Vegas empire) as being the foundation for a good, long lasting nation. House is a genius sure, but he is a genius that is completely disconnected from the lives of the people he leeches off of and lords over, much like, as you said, the "select few" leech off of and lord over lower classes in a capitalist society.
But then again, House is realistic in a lot of ways, and maybe it's just in the nature of people to be selfish, so he could be the best choice after all. I'm still saying Indy is best ending, but I don't know where I stand with House...
I think House can basically be summed up by Dr. Hildern and Arcade Gannon.
I never thought of that, but yeah, that does describe the big difference between Indy and House.