Replaying Honest Hearts

Courier said:
I have a $500 laptop that can play New Vegas on the highest settings with reasonable performance. Instead of wasting money on consoles just save up and buy a decent PC, not to mention that games are cheaper on PC than on a console so you'll probably end up saving money by buying one.

It would be very nice of you to let other people decide on their own on what they want to "waste" their money on.
 
Felspawn said:
dont let the PC elitist crowd get to you, 360 is a perfectly fine way to play NV. The PC is better, but there is nothing wrong with the 360.

Yeah, it's alright. I wish they would give console gamers a sandbox mode or something, something like the G.E.C.K. for the console. The only reason I play on Very Easy is because the amount of shots it takes to kill people bugs me. I wish I could lower both my health and the enemies health. Not just the enemies. Oh well, I guess I'll just play on god mode until I can figure out a way to get New Vegas to work on my laptop.
 
Courier said:
I have a $500 laptop that can play New Vegas on the highest settings with reasonable performance. Instead of wasting money on consoles just save up and buy a decent PC, not to mention that games are cheaper on PC than on a console so you'll probably end up saving money by buying one.

/playing devils advoate

1) Any PC that can "really" play PC games (something like the witcher 2 or something else equality demanding, not FO3/NV stuff) will either cost more then $500 or require a decent amount of PC knowhow to build something, which not everyone has.

2) 360 costs $199. or it could be the same 360 they bough 6 years ago that has been providing good times for a much longer time then any 1 un-upgraded PC.

3) PC games cost $10 less then a comperable 360 game (crazy steam 75% off sales notwithsanding) you'd have to buy a crap ton of games before you see any real "savings"



Its not to say that i dont agree that the PC is a better platform for FO:NV, as it was the better platform for say Dragon Age 1. But not everyone is PC centric and shouldnt be bashed for being that way. I am fortunate enough to have 1 of each gaming system (or more as i have 2 360s) and a very solid gaming PC but thats irrelevant to my opinion of NV and equally meaningless to how someone else spends their money
 
Games consoles are computers designed and manufactured for playing games.

Personal computers are not designed with that as their primary function.
 
Courier said:
I have a $500 laptop that can play New Vegas on the highest settings with reasonable performance. Instead of wasting money on consoles just save up and buy a decent PC, not to mention that games are cheaper on PC than on a console so you'll probably end up saving money by buying one.

I probably should have bought a laptop more suited toward gaming when I was buying mine, because I try to play New Vegas on the lowest setting, but it lags a lot. However, I didn't think of it, because when I was buying my laptop I pretty much only played Call of Duty. Oh well. Maybe when the new X-Box comes out, I'll get a new PC instead.

Four Suited Jack said:
Games consoles are computers designed and manufactured for playing games.

Personal computers are not designed with that as their primary function.

True. However, you can mod with a PC, which automatically makes it better. There are dozens of changes I need to make to New Vegas to enjoy it to its fullest. (Which is saying a lot for how good New Vegas is considering the fact that it's pretty much my favourite game.)
 
Felspawn said:
/playing devils advoate

1) Any PC that can "really" play PC games (something like the witcher 2 or something else equality demanding, not FO3/NV stuff) will either cost more then $500 or require a decent amount of PC knowhow to build something, which not everyone has.

Mine can run almost anything, I can even run Crysis on about medium settings.

2) 360 costs $199. or it could be the same 360 they bough 6 years ago that has been providing good times for a much longer time then any 1 un-upgraded PC.

Game developers specifically have to lower the quality of games so that the old hardware of modern consoles can handle them. A modern PC can handle a lot more than a several year old console.

3) PC games cost $10 less then a comperable 360 game (crazy steam 75% off sales notwithsanding) you'd have to buy a crap ton of games before you see any real "savings"

Why don't Steam sales count? I can often get a great deal on a game where I'll get if for 50% or 75% off. I've bought several games for as low as $5-$20 that are being sold on consoles for $30-$60. Not to mention that the average PC game is $10 cheaper than a console game even without being on sale. All that money adds up.

Edit: And even if you do own a console, you're going to buy a computer anyways for things consoles can't do. Everyone on here obviously owns a PC, save the money you would have spent on whatever new console just came out and put it towards a decent PC whenever your old one wears out rather than buying a cheap PC and a cheap console.
 
Felspawn said:
1) Any PC that can "really" play PC games (something like the witcher 2 or something else equality demanding, not FO3/NV stuff) will either cost more then $500 or require a decent amount of PC knowhow to build something, which not everyone has.

My parts have cost around 200 euro and I play Witcher 2 with pretty good graphics.

Not that it matters in this thread anyway... plus, console vs. pc discussions are so god damn annoying. Everyone knows that pc is the better hardware for everything. :>
 
Courier said:
Mine can run almost anything, I can even run Crysis on about medium settings.

My parts have cost around 200 euro and I play Witcher 2 with pretty good graphics.




I guess it depends on what settings you're willing to settle for (hows that for some PC elitism :wink: )



Game developers specifically have to lower the quality of games so that the old hardware of modern consoles can handle them. A modern PC can handle a lot more than a several year old console.

and 90% of games now a days are develeped with those consoles in mind as lead develepment platforms. Performance wise sure a PC is much better but if no one harnesses it what doe it matter... Games like the Witcher 2 are the exception not the rule. i like PCs for the moddability, not for running things at stupid high resolutions and sky high frame rates (though those are nice too)


Why don't Steam sales count? I can often get a great deal on a game where I'll get if for 50% or 75% off. I've bought several games for as low as $5-$20 that are being sold on consoles for $30-$60. Not to mention that the average PC game is $10 cheaper than a console game even without being on sale. All that money adds up.

i guess i can let you have 1 out of 3.. because honestly i <3 steam. its the best thing to happen to PC gaming in a long long time
 
Surf Solar said:
Walpknut said:
I don't get why peopel only look for "FAT LOOTZ AND GUNS" in their DLC only, if you are only itnerested in that get the PC version and download a bunch of mods.

No one talked about "FAT LOOTZ AND GUNS" in here, or complained about the lack of it. Is it your inability to stand cricisim again?
What are you talkign about? why all defensive now?
I was responding to a post that said the only good thign about HH was the new guns, no idea what you are so defensive.

The thing with HH is that unless you liek exploration there si really not much reason to replay it with a different Build, it has a pretty streamline Plot, I really did nto liek that no matter what ending you Pick all the namedchacrters will be gone once you finish it. Dead Money offer a little bit more of replayability in my opinion, at least to play it twice.
 
Played through about 4 different times. Im doing a 5th later today, but doing a speed-run. RP'ing that Caesar sent me to Utah to kill Graham. It'll be a quick one-two punch of a run through.
 
Two reasons to play on PC instead of consoles:

Mods. eat that, consolitists.

Bugs and custom fix. Eat that and die, consolitists.
 
„Consolitists“. Seriously. Is that how far the english language has degenerated on the Internet?
This suffixistic and ististic language is making me nauseousistic.
 
I recently replayed HH with hardcore, veryhard difficulty and Jsawyer.
IMO, weight limit before go to zion and very little ammunition selling makes game very harsh and challenging. compare with OWB or Dead money, also OWB has little ammunition but at OWB I can make huge amount of repair kit, energy cells, for Dead money there's few supplies but later you can buy bunch of repair kit .308 and .357 ammunitions.
 
woo1108 said:
I recently replayed HH with hardcore, veryhard difficulty and Jsawyer.

I've only ever played NV this way. In fact i've never even played it on normal to know how much harder this makes my game.

woo1108 said:
IMO, weight limit before go to zion and very little ammunition selling makes game very harsh and challenging. compare with OWB or Dead money, also OWB has little ammunition but at OWB I can make huge amount of repair kit, energy cells, for Dead money there's few supplies but later you can buy bunch of repair kit .308 and .357 ammunitions.

Yeah. When i died in HH it was due to lack of gear/ammo/degraded armor.

My two cents on HH after my first playthrough:

PROS:
- I enjoyed the environment like many people say. It's dramatic and fun to explore.
- The difficulty was just right. I was level 22 and had a tough time with the giant cazadors, yao gui, green gecks and white legs. popping up all the time. Plasma mines are nasty too but i had light step.
- survival caches are awesome. Really liked the story of the survivor of the war.

CONS:
- depiction of tribal culture is weak IMO and came off as bland for me right off the bat. Its a real shame too becuase as FO2 proved the whole post-apoc tribal culture thing has huge potential. In HH it just seems unconvincing and out of place.
- I found joshua graham dull although i like his voice. I found the other guy utterly boring and bland. I liked the Christian element though as you can be damn sure religion would survive (even thrive) the apocalypse. I'm not a christian BTW!
- Story seemed forced. Walks with chalk meets a random caravan guard and instantly becomes your unquestioning companion. Pu-lease!! Tribals instantly embrace you unquestioningly. Childish. Graham and the other guy ask you (a random stranger loaded with guns and scars) to decide the future of the tribes!!? Joke. This is, however a major flaw in the Mojave generally IMO.

I don't care about loot as NV has no shortage of that already!

Overall I found HH marginally worth it - 4/10. I'm halfway through OWB and would give it 8/10 so far. Much more mature, thought-out and well-written DLC.
 
Josan12 said:
CONS:
- depiction of tribal culture is weak IMO and came off as bland for me right off the bat. Its a real shame too becuase as FO2 proved the whole post-apoc tribal culture thing has huge potential. In HH it just seems unconvincing and out of place.
- I found joshua graham dull although i like his voice. I found the other guy utterly boring and bland. I liked the Christian element though as you can be damn sure religion would survive (even thrive) the apocalypse. I'm not a christian BTW!
- Story seemed forced. Walks with chalk meets a random caravan guard and instantly becomes your unquestioning companion. Pu-lease!! Tribals instantly embrace you unquestioningly. Childish. Graham and the other guy ask you (a random stranger loaded with guns and scars) to decide the future of the tribes!!? Joke. This is, however a major flaw in the Mojave generally IMO.

I don't care about loot as NV has no shortage of that already!

Overall I found HH marginally worth it - 4/10. I'm halfway through OWB and would give it 8/10 so far. Much more mature, thought-out and well-written DLC.

Too bad they were rushed to make HH.
But for storyline and ending, I think it was not bad.
Bad thing is that quests are just fetching something and it is nothing interesting except for Chalk's reaction .
 
Replay for the 1st time. impression

Merchant: Joshua refresh well, I suspect due to no-sleep policy. Resetinventory refresh his Aids item. Sell good amount of .45 rounds, 12 gauge and 20gauge. Some number of .50 caliber, but only useable if you bring ATM from Mojave, or at high enough level that White Legs drop it(26). Enough energy ammo if you use only one type and workbenching the other two into that one.

(edit: you can get more .50 by disassemble missile-rockets into components to get primer. If you bring enough empty case from mojave, you can make .50)

Hostiles: Caaaaazaaaaadores! But Bloodshield help. yaoguai is just plain ferocious. So are geckos. Oh well. It's like a hunting trip. Oh, and dont forget to use yaoi guai meat.

Equipment: Bring along one good scoped gun, preferably silent, and one thousand rounds of normal and HP types. Lots of drugs and weapon repair kits. You can get hunting shotgun, so the need for close-medium combat tool is covered. As a energy gunner you can get a Multiplas, so it's also covered. Your life will be much easier with Jury Rigging, so prolly should not go before getting that. Otherwise, all your money and loots will pour into repair fees.

Quests: straight forward.

Conclusion: Treat Zion as a hunting ground and you should be fine. You are there to hunt, with quests as SIDE-quests.
 
Honest Hearts is one of my favourite Dlc's aswell as Old World Blue which IMO was Hilarious, I've Just Started a New Game on New Vegas and I'm siding with the legion so i might RP that Caeser sent me to Utah to Kill graham, As someone a page back already did
 
I've recently replayed HH for, I think, fourth time and I never get bored with it. Mostly because I consider Zion as a break from Mojave; yes, you still have to fight your way through, but it's more open and exploration oriented (as opposed to Dead Money which would set you on one path and hasten you), the quests aren't 'fetch this, fetch that' (OWB) and the environment isn't ridiculously hostile (like in Lonesome Road, which is still my favourite DLC, but the difficulty would sometimes leave me utterly pissed off). I think this DLC is a nice change from the desert, even if it was rushed.
 
I thought it had an interesting concept, and location, but ultimately it was completely wasted on Fetch Quests.

I would have really liked to have seen the Utah tribal thing expanded upon.

I only play that DLC for the Desert Ranger Combat Armor and lots of food.
 
I'm replaying HH now and there's 3 things i notice right away:

1) the caravan getting slaughtered at the very beginning is weak and badly done IMO. It's just not convincing. There isn't even really a caravan for christ sake! Just the characters all standing around. It's not even a fight which seems such a waste. It's not scary, or even tense (for me)

2) the landscapes, while interesting (as i've said myself before) i find actually quite unrealistic and the colours gaudy. I don't feel like i'm in Zion - whereas the Mojave is MUCH better designed and really quite believable. The geography, the details, everything about the Mojave seems like it's had x10 time spent on the landscape.

3) the quests. I mean c'mon - collecting the lil' scout boxes?!? WTF?! Does graham ever even explain why he sends you out collecting lunch boxes?!
 
Back
Top