Demon, I'm not contending that the previous lore of the game was contradicted. It was contradicted in Fo3, and Fo4 is a continuation of Fo3's lore direction. You're essentially getting on your soapbox and going "a-ha, you're not telling me why they can't just create a new enemy." I can't tell you why, I'm not a mouthpiece for Bethesda.

What I have been saying this entire time is that lore retcon happens all the time, and the Fallout universe isn't far removed from it. Sometimes, it occurs because instead of replacing a familiar face, it's better to build and adapt. DC wanted to keep Batman instead of dedicating time into developing an entirely new character. Lucas and Co. wanted to keep the lightsaber concept but reevaluate how the weapon worked and functioned.

The ghoul situation is very much akin to wanting to keep familiar faces that were in the older titles.

Its not that they can't create new enemies, its that you say they should create a new enemy without giving any details on what form this enemy should take and what lore should accompany it. That is pretty much saying "Make the game better!" and then giving no details and saying that they must be incompetent when pressed on how they should make the game better.

Can you find a direct quote from me saying this? I would love to see where I said that. I find it interesting that you would say so given that my quips about the ghouls are contradiction of lore (both new and old).

No, incompetence is how you presented them in our PMs when you said that developing new enemies is easier said than done, that it's too difficult and takes up too many resources, when every other developer has been able to do so. Example: The creation of every IP and additions to any games.

You weren't kidding about going in circles though, you still have yet to elaborate on why you said so.

There is a difference here. Yes they certainly wanted Ghouls to make an appearance, but this isn't minor change to facilitate expanded narrative, this (and other changes like it) is rewriting the base premise. This can negate or contradict established events and even missions in the previous games; some of which became canon.

It's akin to making Mario and Luigi into Icelandic immigrants, or making Duke Nukem into a politically correct advertising executive with a gun hobby.
There are changes, and there are changes. Making Power Armor into a freestanding shell with its own animations is a good change; making Power Armor into ~always having been passive clothing is a very bad change (as we saw in FO3).

A sequel should build outward from its roots, not hack them off.

* Ghouls were intentionally dying out in Fallout 2; as were the remaining supermutants... Because they were supposed to fade away into the past. The events that spawned them were settled and over with. The project lead of Fallout even stated that FEV [ergo supermutants] was local to the West Coast, and that it [FO3's plot] could have been something entirely new invented for the East coast.

Before the Quakecon thread was closed due to a post limit, I had quoted a post by you that said you were very upset by the fast running ghouls, saying it broke lore. I said in kind of half-disbelief if you realize that it was like this in Fallout 3 and NV. You decided to send me a PM saying this:

"They ran, yes, but they didn't leap, pour in through walls and have glowing eyes.

They shouldn't have been running in Fallout 3 and New Vegas either, especially when dialogue in Fallout 3 suggests that they're rotting corpses that are barely held together.

I liked Fallout 3 and I'll probably have fun with Fallout 4, doesn't mean I have to blindly accept everything the developer does. Don't mind a fun game or gameplay, I just mind when it's nonsensical."

And my response to a rather unexpected PM (Really have never had that happen before, someone decides to chat in PM instead of in a thread, im not really a fan of that.) was:

"Its kinda that old zombie debate of if you prefer runners versus shamblers. Most games go for runners since it makes for more exciting gameplay, and the lore just kinda has to conform around that.

After that my response was: "What would be your suggestion for a new enemy? How does it fit into the world, and how do you explain it being in Boston but not in DC? How much development resources does it take to fully develop this enemy alongside the feral ghouls? What's the lore reasons behind there being both slow and fast zombies in the world? Why do we need to spend the resources to create a new kind of zombie, when we could be creating a different kind of enemy?

So thats the record for anyone whose wondering the circumstances of this threads creation. Hopefully everyone has the full story now.

Well ghouls are not zombies. they are alive just...look like zombies. They are feral humans basically. So they have a metabolism. Besides, even if they were the walking dead, slow zombies are not scary and pose no threat.

in a video game? How ever the developers want it I guess? If they want creatures that are bone skinny and can run at Olympian speeds then thats there decision. Also anybody remember cloud from ff?.......that sword? His body frame? But thats just fine with meI enjoy games for what they are.

1. I'm surprised it was unexpected given I was replying to your quoting me in the previously locked thread

2. And?..

3. Mhm..?

4. So where is the quote of my "triade" that you claim I went on? You provided a quote of your excuse yourself that it's difficult to create a new enemy. You also provided a reply where I never claimed them incompetent, but said and as you, yourself quoted: "..It's essentially saying they're too incompetent and lazy for the job. If what you're saying is true then they shouldn't be developing any games let alone the Fallout series."

In the above where I said your description of their inability to create a new enemy is essentially saying they're incompetent.

Oh, the "triade" was #3? lol I never dodged any questions from you, but you sure have been dodging everything I've been saying. I also never said they were incompetent in that "triade" you quoted. I did point out your excuses though.

Edit: So again, if you're only going to continue dodging things and not actually debate or answer anything, then why continue?

That should never be done in any title. Players (and later developers!) should like a game and its lore for what it is, not for it fawning on them with what it hopes will please them.

I am not saying that they are incompetent or anything like that. You said that they should create a new enemy to fit inside your specific vision for the game. I asked what form this enemy should take, and that it is a lot easier to say that they should just do something when you're behind a keyboard on the forums than to actually be in the development process. I wanted details about how you would plan to change the game to make this enemy replace the feral ghouls, I wasnt making excuses about how your suggestion isnt even possible because Bethesda is somehow incompetent.

Am I going insane? Are our brains just hooked up different ways? It doesnt feel like we are even speaking the same language sometimes.

There are other monsters devised by the original teams that haven't made it into the games yet; they own them [one assumes], they could have used some of them; and some are appropriate.

Which one of those would be better used as a feral ghoul replacement? Can you give specifics?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Gehenna_(Van_Buren)

(Another one is http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Molech from that page too.)

>Literally all media, which has been deigned around adapting things to suit the consumers needs since creation it wrong!

Never change Gizmo.

1. When? I said they should create a new enemy to fulfill the role that you, Jaramr, think should be in the game (runner zombies). I said they should create a new enemy so as to add something new to the game, so that it doesn't contradict previous and new lore about ghouls, but instead adds some variety. I asked why you thought it necessary to contradict lore to make gameplay [subjectively] more fun.

2. So you did dodge the point, then? Why should it fall to a consumer to create a new enemy for the developer? If you would like a prime example of a new enemy, then I know for a fact that multiple examples were presented throughout the 200+ suggestion threads. Feral ghouls needn't even be replaced as I have already said. Again, I said a new enemy should have been created if it was their intention of contradicting them in gameplay. Feral ghouls could have been presented as the shamblers that they are, while also adding a new enemy to fill the role of some necessary zombie runner.

Again, any other dev has done what you claim is easier said than done.

3. Believe me, I know what you mean.

Edit: As Gizmo pointed out they even own the IP for new enemies that could have fulfilled the role and never implemented them. There are plenty of cut enemies from the originals and Van Buren. Not to mention Zenimax is a pretty big company and (to my knowledge) BGS has created their own IP from nothing, so I fail to understand why a new enemy could not have been created. Something that should apparently fall to me or any of the forum members to do for Bethesda.

Right then, whats the plan to work them into the game? How are you going to avoid complaints that a creature that is completely on fire wouldnt be able to run at top speed? How would something with that much girth go down in just a burst or two from the players assault rifle?

I think something similar to the Trogs from The Pitt could replace feral ghouls. Of course they'd have to come up with a story that something caused people to degenerate into that mindless savagery.

Something akin to the original concept for trogs would've been neat to see. Hell, the swampfolk of Point Lookout were basically this, but with a somewhat altered appearance, and their gameplay is very similar to that of the super mutants. More regional mutations would be nice to see instead of nonsensically pulling old ones into parts of the world where they have no business being.

Change should come in the form of new media; not 1984-style rewrites of old media. The Fallout world setting has great potential... If they need something new ~they should devise it, rather than recycle co-opted assets from the previous games; (especially not the ones that came with a foreshadowed end).

Why should it matter if they are on fire? (They don't care.)

Sounds fine by me.

Exactly! I would love to see each new game location have its own specific enemies!

1. You said that instead of having ghouls as a fast zombie enemy they should make another creature to be the fast zombie enemy. That was YOU that said that. You can say that you want them to make something completely different and have no runner ghouls if you want, then we can talk that, but the subject at hand is that they shouldnt have made ghouls into fast running zombies.

2. Because you're the one saying that they should have dropped all of their ideas and made something new. If you're going to make suggestion, then put some effort into it. That is what I am asking for. I am not disagreeing that they -could- make a new enemy, I am saying that if you want them to make a new enemy to fufill the gameplay niche of a runner ghoul that you should atleast articulate what you want in the game instead of saying that they should just make a new one.

3. Good god, I know, right?

>The changes to ghouls is akin to something from 1984!

Like I said Gizmo, never change.

Why should it matter if they are dead? (They don't care.)

I was quite happy to see the Trogs from the Pitt. Bethesda showed they could create different mindless enemies that had their own interesting material to bring in their DLC. This is partly why I have such a huge issue with the current feral ghouls.

I absolutely agree!

Why does being on fire matter? Again the point is moot anyway when the current placeholder (feral ghouls) are contradictory to Bethesda's own presentation of them anyway.

The point is that there are an endless number of enemies and concepts that could be implemented instead of contradicting already established and supported lore. Why are you adamant about protesting this?

Except they aren't.

As I pointed out previous, being so decayed as to have limbs fall off its treated as an entirely rare and uncommon thing. Only one ghoul in Fallout 3 is shown to have this condition.

As would others have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4XVW6qcuzM&t=3m11s