They used to be your classic pushover zombies. When have zombies ever been a threat in games? From Castlevania 1 level 1 to JRPGs they've been nothing more than nuisance critters except for Diablo throwing in the occasional fast, unique one.

Gameplay-wise I think Beth did a good job especially with the settings they put them in. I love how they were utilized in NV in Camp Searchlight. They were real threats.

In fairness to Van Buren, wasn't it only through hard work and extensive research that a ghoul was born? And even then it was insanely unlikely to work with only like 2 living born ghouls. I wouldn't consider that a retcon or lore-breaking because it acknowledged the ghouls' sterility and found a sensible workaround without undoing anything. That's different from the fast ghouls of 3 and New Vegas, as their existence ignores the fact that earlier ghouls were slow without any explanation.

I think I've made my points abundantly clear, and hashing them out with you again would be a waste of my time - immensely. It's very obvious to me that no matter how I form an argument, you'll purport that your suspension of disbelief is destroyed by ghouls having evolved from their previous presentation. It's a giant stretch, but who the [censored] am I to tell you where to draw that line in the sand. Nobody can form an argument against that, and I can only disagree with your assessment that lore is this untouchable entity.

Just because you've spoken to CA/JE does not mean it has any bearing on the decisions they made in the past and the decisions they have made regarding current lore. They themselves wanted to retcon some past lore in Van Buren for whatever reason and they're free to do so. Granted, you don't need to like it, but so be it. Do you think Stephen A. Smith is some expert on how basketball players feel on or off the court because he's on a one to one basis with them occasionally? He throws this statement out all the [censored] time but in truth he knows very little and just pretends to speak from a position of authority.

Bethesda isn't adding Lassy or Krusty the Klown into Fallout. They've retconned a lot of [censored] from past games for the sake of presenting familiar enemies to old players, and to introduce newer players to the potentially lore rich world of Fallout. Even then, it's a work of fiction, and it's Bethesda's retelling.

But, who am I kidding, you're just going to cherry pick from my writing, and continue to ignore a lot of my points - just as you have above in some of my older posts.

As an aside and going back to this quote:

"I do believe that you would disagree with a neighbor's account of their own dream."

How is the context of that any different from you saying what a dev should and shouldn't do, and what their particular dreams are for a particular decision or design? Honestly, who are you to tell them what they can and can't do? This isn't the first time that your phrasing has come off as hypocritical. I won't outright accuse you of it, however, I will contend that in a previous thread you were telling people to not judge a game before they've played it, but you have certainly had no qualms doing the very same thing you're preaching against. Make of that as you will.

At the end of the day it's a game. The WWII example isn't great because in the case of ghouls, they shouldn't even be walking to begin with and yet they are. Zombies for that matter should not even be walking and yet they do. They should all be literally falling apart. 100-200 years into the game and ghouls are still walking around willy nilly because whatever ailments they are afflicted by keep them from falling apart.

We're sitting here talking about, "yeah they're illustrated as falling apart," and yet the point in time at which they should have been fully decayed and skeletons in the ground is long gone, and they're just walking around. Tell me, at what point are these abominations supposed to cease to exist, or are we going to just give it a free pass because it wouldn't be very fun gameplay if an enemies existence was in fact a detriment to itself.

I go back to the George RR Martin example of how a work of fiction is just that and just as liable to change in future iterations - just like Batman, just like superman, and just like the lightsaber.

That's a fair point, I think.

Going back to a core premise of the Fallout universe, we're looking at 2077 as being The World of Tomorrow as predicted in pulp sci-fi, which at the time certainly manifested as radiation exposure resulting in shambling zombies. (I won't go into a tangent but "slow" zombies specifically tie into 1950's cultural fears of the time, I feel.)

Lore-wise, though, ghouls in Fallout are just a mess. Their origins are all over the place at this point, and it's going to get retconned in every game to fit why they're now in whatever the next location is going to be (by the same token that supermutants will appear in whatever region a Fallout game takes place in and then - hopefully - given some explanation as to how that's now possible.) The retro-futuristic 50's thing was more of a jumping-off point in the original series and not everything tied directly back to that premise; besides which (arguably) Bethesda pushed that angle more than Interplay/Black Isle anyway.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can see both sides, here. On the one hand I can why some would prefer only the slower ghouls, and feral ghouls as mindless shambling creatures. On the other, if you're going to make a case for Bethesda taking too much artistic license with the original lore, I don't think ghouls are where you're going to win that battle. Simply because with ghouls we're dealing with something that tended to be a bit nebulous after the first game anyway (though - granted, they had some pretty specific origins and features in the first game; it all got pretty wonky pretty quickly from what I remember.)

Also, the animations for ghouls in 1 and 2 specifically showed them shambling, but at the same time it's not like they had a terribly small AP pool or negative movement modifiers or anything. As I recall they could close the gap in a couple of turns if you weren't careful about kiting them, in terms of gameplay. One of those cases where the animation was depicting one situation but in-game it was something of a different situation.

At the end of the day I think it comes down more to personal preference than lore. My ideal ghoul situation would be that you start off with your mental capacities intact. It would be a... painful life as a ghoul to say the least (and I agree with your "ghouls are not x-men" statement, Gizmo.) Cognizant being have mental blocks for self-preservation. I am physically capable of hitting something hard enough to break my arm, but my brain stops me from doing so. (Long story but I have actually popped my knee-cap out of socket from running while in a blind panic - I don't recommend it.) I can easily see ghouls being lethargic and especially cautious, even in combat situations.

A feral state would be the unavoidable destiny for a ghoul were I writing the lore. As the brain breaks down, a feral state precludes self-preservation. We have enough graphics power now to see ferals losing pieces of themselves in their wild attempts to get at you. Inhumanly strong and fast makes sense to me, but now we're not talking about a superpower so much as a descent into "creature" status - that strength comes at the price that your exertions are literally destroying you in the process.

(But mostly I just prefer the faster feral ghouls because some of my more memorable creepy moments in F3 and NV were hearing those guys skitter around in the dark and then spinning around and seeing one trying to rip my face off. )

In short, I agree with your point about thematic accuracy in general - I just don't think there's as much of a case to be made about it's importance in regards to this particular instance. Not everything needs to tie directly back to that premise in Fallout 4, because not everything (even ghouls) tied directly back to that theme in F1 or 2, personal preferences aside.

Of course they are, because folks are acting like the word retcon doesn't exist and [censored] everytime Beth "contradicts" the old lore, when in fact technically they can't, because they own it.

Sure they can. Do retcons not, by definition, contradict old lore? I mean, they are doing away with it, making it moot in favor of whatever they prefer to place there. Sure, their lore is THE lore now, and it may override the good old lore, but that doesn't mean it can't, or doesn't contradict it. It means the opposite, in fact.

People from Kenya have been shown in marathons to run really fast. With no shoes. And frequently win marathons over people with shoes, running in their own lands.

Some things, while similar, are going to be faster.


If you all want to be technical, Feral ghouls should not be moving at all, as the most likely do not have enough muscle mass to do so, aside from that, their diets of people are hardly rich in potassium, a key element used in the production of ATP, which allows nodules on muscle fibers to release. When ATP production ceases, that is called rigor mortis.

So. Ghouls shouldn't move at all. Happy now?

If you want to talk about lore surrounding ghouls?
Good luck. I mean that. Devs can't even pinpoint what makes ghouls. So how can you pinpoint what might make ghouls behave or move differently? You simply can't.
And before you cry about Bethesda not explaining something, take a look at the FO bible.
Realize, that it exists simply because original Devs didn't make things clear. So let's step off of that soap box. It's pretty unstable.
*drops mic*

The context and meaning of that is not that they have dreams (for something), or even disagreeing with those dream per se; it is that one would be disagreeing with a personal account of something that only the other person could know.

They are in a constant equilibrium (of decay and regeneration); they are effectively stagnant, and not getting any worse, nor getting appreciably better.

*Until they are injured ~that changes the equilibrium; and they can die of injury.

** I think nuclear_day's mention of unfiltered action (damaging them) would count as self inflicted injuries that could get life threatening.

This was an early aside of mine as well. (A few posts back.)

I see them all as old men and women; aware that they could [choose to] risk serious strain for gain, but that their body could fail them at any time; "and is it worth it". It's like the roofer who will not climb the ladder or walk on the roof ~not for fear of falling, but fear of failing ~resulting in a fall, (like their knee or ankle flipping out on them).

Seeing the ghouls ~who should all be in their second hundreds (though Bethesda and the VB team retcons even this, with new ghouls), seeing them moving like 'running backs', just seems terribly out of character, and being wasteful of exertion. The older you get, the more you conserve and refine your movements. These characters are ancient, but they don't behave like it. I don't mean ~act feeble or debilitated by their age, I mean that they don't act like someone with that kind of life experience under their belt. Conceivably these people have spent 20-50 year stints in town after town, they've seen it all [and they are still alive!], and they probably look at 'normies' like kids playing in a school yard; and remember what it was like to be 70; or 27, or just 7.

I dislike the entire concept of feral ghouls ~not that they couldn't become feral, but that they become [under Bethesda's treatment] an impulsive threat, and generic goon attackers. Ghouls would be the most patient and deadly of threats. A ghoul would not be the strutting gorilla pounding his chest, they would be the Coral Snake in a basket of bracelets. Think: Ghoul sniper that doesn't mind crawling 3 foot per day, and waiting weeks in ambush; and having 70 years of rifle training.
Instead we get flash mobs of generic mindless undead.

There are better ways to improve and extend the ghoul fiction than this.

1 That argument should apply to everything scavenging for food in the wasteland from ghouls to deathclaws, anything reliant on a potassium rich diet for ATP production.Even emaciated children in impecunious locals eating nominal quantities of rice are capable of movement, though labored and kept to a minimum.

2 So ghouls should have labored and minimal movement if anything, without being totally inert.

3 Basically the same fatuity that awesomepossum asserted.

Why should we accept the one thing the developers agreed upon (at least initially) when they couldn't reach a consensus on most other issues?By suggesting this argument you're permitting any interpretation of ghoul lore possible, why shouldn't feral ghouls have the ability to fly?The lore is a mess anyway and equally as lucid as the argument for emaciated world class sprinters.

So where are we with the invisible flying ghouls? I was thinking they can add teleportation to the list?

When did the original Devs agree on how fast the ghouls in Boston are?

They should leap at you like in resident evil 6 since it would make them harder to shoot and therefore be more fun for gameplay.

I feel like the rare ghouls that have been around for centuries should have the ability to throw concentrated balls of radiation too like Reavers in 3.

You have just said yourself they should be literally falling a apart and not walking around. This is precisely why the original devs had them dying off pre-Van Buren. They weren't going to be a permanent main stay and they shouldn't either.

I have yet to see a single member discount any points besides continually saying "gameplay is more fun" which is 1.) Subjective and 2.) Could be resolved through a new enemy

They could have easily created a new enemy and either dispensed with ghouls, created new lore, kept true to old lore. Instead they kept somewhat true to old lore in dialogue despite shoehorning them onto a different coast, but then contradicted themselves.

Ghouls running fast can be explained by the fact that they ARE dead and decaying. Such a trope has been used in several TV shows, mostly anime that I know of, where one of the main character is a zombie, and because of the fact he is dead, his body lacks all the mental and physical restraints a living body normally has, that prevents them from harming themselves via over exertion of muscles and limbs.

Also, while its true SOME ghouls, like Patchwork in Fo3, have a bad habit of literally falling apart, the vast majority of ghouls don't show such levels of limb weakness. The worst most ghouls suffer is knee pain.... and that's about it. Being so rotted as to be falling apart arms and legs is not shown to be common, and really only exists with one ghoul in both Fo3 and NV.

Indeed, even in the case of Patchwork in Fallout 3, its stated simply attaching the limbs back allows for a ghouls natural regenerative abilities to restore function to them. For all we know a feral ghoul could just sit in one place with his legs detached, and as long as they remain touching his body in some form, they could just re-heal themselves.... until they fall off again.

You pick what's closest to theme. When in doubt, look to the original presentation that made it into the game.

In Fallout, the Necropolis vault failed (during the war); the people were unprotected from indirect exposure to the bomb effects.
(That caused the ghouls over time.) Later it was rewritten that the vault failed on purpose. ( This messed up the fear & fluke nature of the event, by making it a man-made betrayal instead of a pulp 50's monster origin (freak nuclear accident). )
Notice that this is the only time that has happened; ghouls should have been a one-off event for the rest of the series, but unfortunately, they were one-off only until the unreleased VB, and FO3 after it.

Ghouls were (and should have stayed) an unwelcome relic [and reminder] from the war; and the only living caste that remembers the pre-war world first hand.
(And this was a roleplaying series, and all of that was untapped, and/or discarded in favor of using them as sprinting flash mobs.)


*[Tactics is a faction game that needs armies, so of course super mutants and ghouls would make their appearances.]
** Interestingly: Tactics defines ghouls as weak, and so limits their use of melee weapons [to light and one-handed].

Yep, we did get http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Mindless_ghoul. Unless you're talking about a ghoul with brain function like Set or Charon, there's no reason for feral ghouls to not behave like mindless goons. The only way to extend the Ghoul fiction would be to stick to Fallout 1/2 lore, which wasn't even cemented -with respect to Ghoul/Mutant lore-, and just write them off as relics of days gone by.


And the original devs wanted to change that - why? I don't know, I won't pretend to know the devs, but they likely didn't want to write off Ghouls and that's fairly evident by making ghouls have kids in VB. The Batman writers could have created a new superhero if they wanted a morally bound boy scout - but they didn't.

Ghouls are walking contradictions to begin with. We're essentially cherry picking which elements of Ghoul lore are ok and not ok - they shouldn't even exist to begin with.

I look forward to the next thread though where we can have a discussion about whether the protagonist's bulge is sufficient in size. I thought I had seen it all with people complaining about crank technology.

im ok with a softball size bulge but anything bigger then that is just superfluous. And anyone who says other wise is wrong.

They existed; just as mindless people exist [they exist, they are not indicative of people in general].
(There were fairly mindless supermutants too; chaps Harry could take on a good day ~in a spelling bee.)

Ants.

No they shouldn't that makes zero sense, why would only the inhabitants of one unsealed vault become ghouls? Tens of thousands of survivors of the war should have been far enough from the blast to survive the explosions but got enough radiation to undergo ghoulificaiton.

Also remember most of the lore on ghouls came from in-game characters (who can be wrong) or from behind the scenes bibles. (which went through repeated changes.)

I never had a problem with the way the ghouls moved in FO3, so if they are of similar speed in 4 its cool with me. They were easy to take down, aside from the glowing ones, and easy to sneak up on and get a clean head shot. Hate the glowing ones...

What heresy you speak.

Ants? You mean the little six legged critters that can lift 50 times their body weight?

*The question was how can anything that cannot lift more than their body weight ~move quickly?

Just to roll with your example, the Ghouls being written as flying would require a biological/physical change in order to establish that they can fly. Unless these ghouls were drinking red bull on the side, they're not going to sprout wings and should therefore never be able to fly. Creating this physical change would be a contradiction to how ghouls were physically presented (note I am not talking about movement/dexterity), but then again nobody is contending that ghouls should fly to begin with.

The point of contention is whether it's a stretch to have ghouls that can make Usain Bolt crawl up into the fetal position and bawl his eyes out. It's not. Is it a contradiction to older lore? Yes, and I have never stated that it isn't. What I have been saying this whole time is that the ghoul lore was murky to begin with, and that it was retconned to make way for a different fictional interpretation. Bethesda simply kept the rotting nature of ghouls and accelerated their movement speed. This isn't the first IP that has had to deal with retcons, and it certainly isn't some sacrosanct entity that removes it from the possibilities of a retcon occurring.