My roof held up just fine until I started poking holes in it. Storytelling and writing don't tend to hold up when people are deliberately scrutinizing it. If you can't suspend your disbelief while you're playing, that's usually not the fault of the writers. Sometimes it is, but not in this case.

Pray tell how it is that they could involve that without doubling or quadrupling the scope of the game? I'm serious about that, the only part of Caesar's territory that we get to deal with is the front line, I'm not sure how the writers could show us the stability or lack thereof without greatly increasing the size of the game. I suppose they could provide DLC for that, but still, by the nature of the game, I'm not sure how much they could really do with it without moving the whole game to the other side of the river. And then create a similar problem with the NCR in the process.

I wracking my brain trying to come up with the quests you speak of, but I can't recall them. Nevertheless, if you choose to be inconsistent in your character's choices and motivations, that's not the devs' fault. Roleplay better next time. The fact is, the Legion will follow Caesar's commands, even if they don't agree with them. Caesar respects strength, and most women he considers weak. It's not likely you would have a chance to prove your strength without the special dispensation you receive from Caesar, so outside of that, being a woman who sides with Caesar would mean a very short or miserable life. It doesn't say much about your character's character that she would still side with him, considering she knows what it would mean for any other woman, but hey, you can still roleplay that. Not sure where you're going here. There are plenty of ways to sneak or hack your way to your goals in most areas in the game. But yes, you'll likely have to do some fighting, too. I'd like to see more RPGs where combat wasn't the default/only way to solve many problems, but they're definitely few and far between. That depends on whether you'd rather just nuke some Legion or NCR... And yet it's hard to say you're roleplaying if you never really make any choices. Truth is, I liked FO3 well enough, but NV is just a much better game, as far as I'm concerned.

What's pretty much assumption? Many characters state that this is so, including Cass, who hates the Legion. She just thinks it's a piss-poor trade-off. And how they attain it doesn't matter to everyone. Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it bad storytelling, either.

So a true Fallout game has to take place in a direct hit territory?
I don't see your reasoning. Washington is a strategic target while Vegas isn't.
That's it.

For the writing Vegas had more options describing Benny or the Khans that followed him.
F3 really had only one sentence copy pasted for everyone you met.

Also why are you focused on only one aspect of the game, the female character and Caesar?
That's maybe 1% of the whole game.

I think New Vegas is more true to the original two games, but I don't think that makes it a better game itself. I actually agree with Siannah in that New Vegas isn't as interesting to explore, which was one of the major perks of every other Fallout game. Walking around seeing what you'd find, but New Vegas I've always found rather...bland.

I also think the DC area and New Vegas are very similar in that there's only one access and they're the hub of the game. But I think DC is much, much more interesting. Sure it uses the stunt gimmick of "Here's a landmark but it's BLOWN'D UP" but it was still engaging to me. On the flipside, I hate New Vegas much like how I hated New Reno in FO2. And when you hate the central hub of an overall narrative for the game, it's hard to enjoy major parts of it.

I think both games have their markets and cater to different types of players. But I do know that everytime I play New Vegas, I lose interest around the time I make my way to New Vegas itself. Before I hit that point (which you have to hit to continue plots) exploring the small towns leading to it, I love the game. The faux Vegas thing kills it for me which really undermines the entire game. I can't play FO3 now but I did put almost 200 hours into the game by the end trying to see and do everything I could good and evil.

While F:NV's story is definitely not without a fault, I'm honestly confused how anyone can prefer or even liken it to F3's. F3 is a typical for Bethesda Zoolander of a game - so, so pretty and so, so stupid. New Vegas even with its holes and well thought but poorly realized baddies makes way much sense. And doesn't give impression it was written by an autistic automaton, pardon my alliteration.

Yay! Lonesome Road was finally released in our backwaters region! Impeccable timing, too. I finished OWB yesterday and was just getting ready to jump into the Hoover Dam battle.

Note to future readers: do not start OWB at a high level (35+). The enemies there scale to positively ridiculous levels.

Crap, I was saving it for last as it is the best DLC. Even Honest Hearts scaled weird with savages strong like a guy in power armor.

Scaled HH (I was there also when 30-ish) is nothing compared to scaled OWB. Level 40 Cazadors and Nightstalkers are total bullet sponges who deal a lot of pain in each hit. More than three at once means you're pretty much screwed.

I wouldn't really say it's the best DLC. It's easily the funniest, but from the three I played, I liked Honest Hearts the most. Which makes me the weird one, I suppose.

Different DLCs for different people, everyone has a favorite.

I found Dead Money great, so guess I'm also of the weird kind.

I don't think there's even an unanimous "bestest DLC", so you wannabe weirdos can stop trying to outweird each other. :P

Dead Money? Probably the most polarizing from the lot, people either love it or loathe it. I myself have a pretty much complicated opinion about it - the characters, the story, the ambience, sounds, creepiness, all that would make my favourite, but - it's a bloody rat maze. 3/4 of my playtime consisted of me going from A to dead end to dead end to dead end to dead end to B.

Old World Blues? Loved it, laughed out loud at times even, but I easily see how this kind of goofiness and scenery chewing is not everybody's thing.

Honest Hearts is probably in the widest range of opinions from "Loved" to "Meh" to "Yawn" to "Sucks". I took it as a light, breezy, v. pretty simulator of hiking, ocassionally interrupted by pointless people in garish makeup.

Lonesome Road...a lot of people liked it for giving a proper closure to Courier's story. Me, I liked Eddie, crazy architecture and nail gun, but hated that asshole Ulysses and couldn't care less about that idiot's motivation, so I guess it sums up to meh.

TL;DR - all four DLCs are very different and that is a good thing.