He we was alot bigger. He's actually bigger than the new behemoths.

He was a cyborg supermutant... in Power Armor... That I think was mostly part of bis body; [non-removable].

Edit: http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Fallout%20Related/Frank_zpsun0jm9xd.jpg

It looks like his legs are almost 6' long to the hip.

I remember he is bigger than deathclaw

I honestly believe you're over thinking things here. It doesn't have to be a retcon of anything and it probably isn't.

Fallout 4 is a new game on a new (modified) engine, made for more powerful systems. They've just made new, higher detailed models of everything. While they were at it, they probably just took some creative licence with the models. So while the designs are similar to the old ones, they're not identical.

It doesn't have to be "It's different! OMG retcon!"

I'd take the size thing as more for gameplay. Lore wise they are the same size, gameplay wise they are small to fit through doors.

I've not seen that the 3D models of Supermutants in FO3 or FO4, are higher detail than the 3D models of the ones in Fallout 1 or 2.

Also: That density shouldn't affect the height; if it's wrong they should fix it; if it's intentional, they should explain it in-game.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about and it kind of bugs me.

Some people seem to think that even the most minor differences must have an in-game lore explanation.

I'm door, but no, they don't. Sometimes the artists just want to go with a tweaked design that they think looks better. That's it. No lore. Just an artistic design decision.

Reminds me of the armor of Zero from the megaman games.

It changed nearly EVERY game, and when asked why his armor changed, the explination was "it didn't change, it always looked like that(that being the design in the newest game) we just "changed" it becuase we thought it looked better".

That bugs the hell out of me... but only when they are depicting something with a preexisting appearance. It's the same [to me] as taking artistic license with a portrait and adding or removing features of the subject regardless of likeness.

If it's a new brand [yet again] of supermutant, there should be a given reason for it; and if it's not, then it should not be radically altered from what it's depicting.

Why does this not surprise me?

Portrait artists are like that I suppose.

There was an honest effort with Marcus, by Obsidian... but none of these really look like they should.
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Fallout%20Related/NPCs.jpg

Bethesda has always tinkered with the appearance of recurring items and objects. Mudcrabs look different in each game they appear in. Glass Armor looks different in each game also. One of the things I love about Bethesda is that they don't mindlessly recycle the art and gameplay of previous games.

I see these games as artistic representations of the "real" items. Each game is an artistic re-interpretation. It's not unlike a painter who paints the same scene several times during a long career. Each painting of the same subject is going to look a little different than the others because the painter has changed over the years.

But they do it with the content, and that's worse. FO3 ~was Fallout 1 & 2 recycled; almost every bit of it.

*I honestly do expect that FO4 will recycle parts of Fallout Tactics.
(It would not surprise me if it actually was the plot of Tactics.)

I do not think it's mindless to improve upon an existing design; such that one is not using the previous asset [file] in the new game, but a better one of the same subject. But if it's the same sword, it should look like the same sword ~just with improved quality to it... Not a different design to it. There is nothing at all wrong with having a different sword... but it should be a different style of sword, not the original antique from the last game.

Fo3 already recycled parts of Tactics
>Group of BoS being sent east to battle super mutants.
>Coming into contact with a machine overlord trying to exterminate most organic life on the planet.
>Being forced to recruit from the local populace to sustain their numbers.

And no, recycling content is not that bad, so long as they change it up a bit. Especially in Fallout, a series all about how humanity keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.

there is a reason why the Monomyth exists.

I'm fairly certain impressionists and cubists did portraits, too. Regardless, no, that isn't it. Not at all. It probably has more to do with your seemingly dogmatic adherence to the idea that anything different from Fallout 1 or 2 is lesser, if not outright bad. That tends to lead one to think you don't like or can't handle change.

I think it's bad; it's bad because it's impossible to suspend disbelief of the lightning striking thrice.

If the supermutants are smaller ~but the people aren't, then it has to be a difference in the dipping process ~might be a difference in the FEV itself... But it shouldn't be a difference that goes unexplained. The Fallout series made careful point of explaining.

Change [btw] is not bad; but radical/incredulous change is always damaging to believability IMO (or outright bad , as in critical injuries leaving changes).

*Every single supermutant in the series games [prior] had the distinctive flat top head; none of Bethesda's supermutants do. Even a caricature should have that; they are supposed to be caricatures ~of 50's pop bogey monster minions; complete with tooth strap, to hold up their failing pallets.

I feel that most of the recycled content in Fallout 3 was to get a foothold in the series without jumping straight into someone else's lore. So they took some features from the previous games and moved to the east to get a fresh start while maintaining some coherency with the series.

If that is causing you to lose your suspension of disbelief, then I honestly find it odd how you dealt with most of anything in Fallout to begin with.

I personally hope the reason why Lyons BoS is in D.C., assuming it is Lyons, is because they are chasing the super mutants, who have fled from D.C. to Boston to try to escape their destruction, ala Tactics.

the mythic meta-symbolism that would represent would be great.

I also hope that if they ever set a game in the Amercian south/South-east, that they use parts of the unsued plot of Tactics 2, what with the mutant GECK creating a massive jungle of doom.

They took almost everything [that they paid for]; but the funny thing is, that their main audience didn't know any of it; had no attachment to it. They could have extrapolated the East coast Capital Wasteland however they pleased, and discarded the entirety of Fallout 1 & 2... and it would have been fine.

I find the mutants ~in every setting they devise, to be a truly disturbing trend they've begun. They've taken isolated incidents from the far West, and centered their whole concept of the Fallout universe around it. Well get the green Team Rocket every version; and miss out on new creative ideas that will always play second fiddle to the SMs and the Enclave.

I'm hoping the diminutive supermutants indicate a plot supported variant enemy.

That sounds cool, and is an apt typo.

Were you also upset when Mario 64 or, heaven forbid, Mario Kart, weren't 8-bit platformers?

If supermutants are smaller, no. It doesn't have to mean that in the slightest bit. It can simply mean that the artists decided to design them a little differently this time. No more, no less.

Why would I be? That's a technology change. (But also, I've never played any Mario games but Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros.; and Donkey Kong.)

That shouldn't be a valid reason IMO; sad if it is the reason... sad but fixable.

Changes like that affect the setting as a whole. People play in the West, then the East, then the North, and the same creatures are seen to be drastically different. It means they are smaller in the North, stupid in the East, and imposing as hell in the West.
[Not good if they are the same creatures. It's damaging to a cohesive world setting IMO.]

Actually, Mario Kart was an entirely different genre. It's a racing game instead of a platformer. And guess what? Between the release of Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, there was also a big technology change. 3D was much more advanced and prevalent than it was when the first two came out. Perhaps just as importantly, there was a social change. Isometric turn based games as a genre were effectively dead. What did you want Bethesda to do? Release a game that would appeal to a tiny niche audience, but be a commercial failure? That probably would have been the last Fallout game you'd ever see.

The way I see it, characters, settings, stories, etc go beyond mere game mechanics. They can exist in any form. Fallout is the world or setting, not just an isometric turn based game.

It's a perfectly valid reason. There is absolutely no reason at all they shouldn't be seeking to improve not just the game, but also their designs. To demand that everything look exactly the way it did in Fallout 1 is just plain silly.

Does that mean Bomberman has always looked like this?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/BombActZerobox.jpg/256px-BombActZerobox.jpg

Instead of this

http://media1.gameinformer.com/imagefeed/featured/gameinformer/features/afterthegame/bomberman.jpg

How are these improvements? (We're talking things trivial to get right.)

*What occurs to me is that (and I hope it's not the case), that perhaps Behemoths needed to be a maximum size, and that regular super mutants looked too big next to them. I would have preferred the accurate looking super mutant, and the removal of the Behemoths from the game.

Right. Of course they aren't. How silly of me.