Plenty of ways for them to be reintegrated into the lore.The best way I heard for an idea is that the intelligence is a recessive gene and that a percentage of new born death claws would be intelligent ones.

Plus I would love to hear a death claw companions view on the area or events happenings.

No

http://fallout.gamepedia.com/Burrows

"As for the Burrow, this location was written by an early designer associated with the project. While it was well written, I felt that its content was not appropriate to our Fallout universe, mainly based on its style and feel in the game and not on its artistic merit. So I did not approve its addition to the game, and that Glow holodisk is all that remains of any reference to that area. ” - Tim Cain, Fallout Bible 7

The animation constraints did contribute to it not being included, but Tim Cain was the one who ultimately said "no, its not being put in the game because it doesn't fit".

I don't care about furries, I just think its REALLY dumb. Even the AYYY LAMOS! being canon, and The Enclave getting a whole bunch of their tech from them, is less stupid then talking animals.

Talking animals would be like bringing back the ACTUAL ghosts from Fallout 2.... it would just be beyond even OWB level stupid.

No, that expansion was equally, if not more asinine then talking deathclaws.

Ranks up there with Zeta

Fair enough. I guess the problem is something like this really does just come down to personal taste. It's canon within the Fallout universe, it's not objectively more stupid than many of the other things that are canon, so it's a case of "Does it make sense in the Fallout that I want to play?"

For some it does, for others it doesn't. And since it's a matter of taste, there isn't really any sense in arguing about it, because there's no right or wrong. Sure, there'd be ways of re-introducing talking deathclaws that would make less sense than others. For example, having Goris re-appear might make sense as we don't know how long albino intelligent deathclaws are supposed to live anyway, whereas finding a whole town of talking deathclaws trading with their neighbours and celebrating spring by dancing round a maypole... ok, it might be funny but in completely the wrong way.

Still, just because some people like the idea of them returning doesn't make the people who don't are wrong. Or vice versa. And since it's all a matter of what Bethesda like, anyway (which we don't know), it's all an entirely moot point

The whole thread I kept thinking of the "Gratch luuuug Rach-Arg" thing.

My biggest gripe about your attitude is that you don't seem to understand that Black Isle =/= Bethesda. Black Isle said "no, there's no way that'd fit." concerning the S'lanter in Fallout 1. Bethesda said "Let's make them ACTUAL cat people instead of humans with tails and face paint." concerning the Khajiit in every Elder Scrolls game from Morrowind onward. Saying the Burrows would never work is like saying Disney would never change Big Hero 6 into their own thing and only loosely base it off of the original Marvel comic. New management= new ideas, and honestly you should just accept the fact that Fallout is under Bethesda's management now and that they have every right to re-wright the entirety of the lore as they see fit if they so wish. Just don't be going and getting salty because of Bethesda doing what they want with THEIR property and not doing everything as envisioned by Black Isle. Because trust me, I can guarantee saltiness for you if such a thing ever happens.

BTW sorry for snipping out the link in your quote but apparently for some bs reason I can't even so much as quote a link.

-I dont see why you would think that, I understand the difference between the two companies just fine.
-I also don't understand why you would think I dont accept that either.
-They have done their own thing, contradicting previously established lore in the process(vault 87 for example) and I really didn't care at all, because their explanation made sense, and still fit within the context of the universe.

That would be true is Bethesda was full of idiots who care only about the mass exploitation of other people's work for their own personal gain, with no regards to the source material, like Disney has been for well over a decade now. However, Bethesda has shown to care about the source material, to the point several of the older devs have complimented them on it.

I actually loved that element of FO2. When I first played FO2, right before NV came out, I was pleasently surprised how awesome the idea of talking Deathclaws were. I would accept one talking Deathclaw that spouted off sarcastic lines. He would have to have a British accent. No other would be acceptable.

I have an oddly antagonistic relationship with FO2. Parts of it I really love, but the parts of it I hate, I REALLY hate. I.e. Arroyo and the Temple of Trials, The Vault Experiments, The Golden Globes porm Studio, etc. I am ambivalent about talking deathclaws.

I understand. There are elements of FO3 that I really like. Then there are some elements of it that I absolutely hate. It's one of those games that I know I can never go back and play again. Like the Mass Effect series. After ME3, Bioware kind of killed me. Seriously. It felt like Bioware was trying to kill me with it's ending. True story.

It took me a moment to realize what you meant by the "AYYY LMAOS!" Then it hit me.

Was it how hundreds of hours of unique choices across multiple games all boiled down to picking one of three colors to use as your filter for the near identical ending slide-shows? That were all anti-climatic and showed you as essentially useless? I bet it was something like that. Not that I would know ... On a completely separate note, I'm just going to go cry in a corner now.