I didn't care much for it either. I thought the tribal concept was hammered in so hard that it had become kind of nauseating after a while. That said, the Burned Man I was a huge fan of - Keith Szarabajka freaking owned that role. Everything else... ehh.

See, I didn't feel compelled to explore at all. The survival caches were somewhat interesting, but nothing else stood out. I might revisit it, if I can.

Operation: Anchorage I cannot defend, and I understand why most people don't like it, but for some reason I've yet to identify I love it. Call it a guilty pleasure, I guess.

Broken Steel is fifty-fifty for me. I liked the part where you need to take the giant robot and retake the Jefferson Memorial. Then I adored the side quests that had sprung from Project Purity being put to use (like the water caravan quests), those really had this sense of everyone's dreams having had come true but soon people had realized that life goes on and there were still a lot of headaches and day-to-day problems to deal with.

But then near the end of the DLC, as you said, it was just a bunch of more pointless fighting at the Enclave base. It kinda ruined the tone.

Yeah, and at that point you were probably really high level so all those countless enclave baddies had massive health pools. Honestly I just remember it being tedious as fuck.

And, call me weird, but I think Fallout games should have real endings.

My only real problem with O:A is that the loot you get at the end is completely ridiculous and overpowering. Gameplay-wise it was fine. Not exceptional, but fairly entertaining.

That being said, I really love all of NV's DLC a lot.

More annoying then Three Dog or how did that annoying yawling idiot from F3 was called? I don't think so.

I consider Fallout 3 an "off shot" to the series. Like Fallout Tactics or the Brotherhood of Steel PS2 game.

But yes, F3 had a lot of annoying characters. A lot.

Of which series? There are two, FO1-2, and 3-NV. Don't give me any of that "wrote by the same staff as FO2" crap either.

This. And his has the best writing of the series.

Currently going through the FO3 DLC right now. Finished The Pitt, Operation: Anchorage, and Mothership Zeta, and currently going through Point Lookout.

I thought The Pitt was ok, and the moral dilemma was interesting (the only time I ever thought my character could side with the raiders), but I dunno, I thought it was merely middling.
I like Operation: Anchorage a lot, but it's basically an early modern shooter dropped into the game, so I think it's dependent on if you like those or not (confession, I enjoy them).
I liked how Mothership Zeta felt, and the new look, and the weapons, but the levels could be a bit confusing, and, when you're in there it's cool, but once you're out it feels... weird, almost jarring. Also, you should be able to see the destroyed wreck in the sky when you look up.
Point Lookout so far is... eh. I like the idea, and the look, but so far it's not really enthralling me. I would love to play a Fallout game set in Louisiana, but honestly, I'm preferring the DLC and main game of New Vegas a lot more. Bethesda should just hire Obsidian for every Fallout game, I think.

Fallout 3 is the sequel, like it or not. NV is a side story.

"Hello children it's THREEEEEEEEE DAAAAAAAAWG!! bow wow and your listening to Galaxy News radio" got annoying the FIRST time I heard it. So I turned it off and just listened to the soundscapes instead.

Only if what is written on the box is more important than the actual game.

Can it not be both?