Wait... So, ghoulification is confirmed?..

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:05 pm

Please read my entire comment. I stated that if they answered the two things I listed, they could add it in. However, it is not presumptuous to conclude that they most likely will not add it into the official game. It is more presumptuous to claim they will add it in, and even more to claim to have knowledge on how this would be executed.

The fact is, fans request tons of things into the next game constantly! The majority of those things never make it into the game due to budget, time and whether or not it would fit into the game. In this case, there can never really be a "cure" for ghoulification, because a ghouls body is heavily damaged by radiation exposure.

Long lived, not immortal.

The only explanation for a cure that would completely restore the PC would be alien tech... but that would essentially be "space magic"... and this is Fallout. No one will really want "space magic" as the cure.

User avatar
Chantel Hopkin
 
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:41 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:29 am

That's why I said apparent immortality. Is there any lore about ghouls that died of biological reasons?

User avatar
StunnaLiike FiiFii
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:30 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:34 pm

The main threat to ghouls seems to be the chance of going feral (and the loss of body parts), cure that and add the capability to make human like bodies and your as close to immortal as you are going to get (except for the robots) in the Fallout universe. Even if you cannot cure ghoulism, synthetic facial and body reconstruction could remove the stigma of being a ghoul, with some added bonuses over regular humans (immune to radiation and extended lifetime).

User avatar
Sakura Haruno
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:23 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:39 pm

I did read your entire comment, but the fact is you started it by saying "They aren't going to add a perk that would turn the players into ghouls." This is a definitive statement. In this statement you have clearly stated that they are not going to add this feature without any evidence whatsoever as to how you could possibly know this. Where is your proof that this feature won't be in? Please provide a link to the article or video that clearly states that this is the case.

On the other hand, you could simply edit your comment so that anyone who reads it knows that this is your opinion, and is therefore speculation. Otherwise all you are doing is misleading people. Incidentally, by subsequently claiming that the feature could be added in if certain criteria are met, after definitively stating that they aren't going to add it, you have actually contradicted yourself, which again will only serve to confuse those who read your comments.

User avatar
Connor Wing
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:22 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:29 pm

He is not claiming to speak from an official position or possessing any prior knowledge. He is merely expressing what is almost certainty a fact in a perfectly reasonable manner.

User avatar
Christie Mitchell
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:44 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:44 pm

and yet, a thread popped up immedaitely that mistook your speculation for "confirmation"......

User avatar
Sierra Ritsuka
 
Posts: 3506
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:56 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:21 am

Expressing anything as being factual without clarifying that it is either your own opinion or is merely speculation is misleading. If you claim otherwise, then you are suggesting some kind of double standard on the forum. And so he is not "merely expressing what is almost certainly a fact in a perfectly reasonable manner", he is claiming something as being factual without evidence or clarification, which is misleading.

If I put up a sign that reads "High Voltage. Do Not Touch", and you choose to ignore it, is that my fault or yours?

User avatar
Nuno Castro
 
Posts: 3414
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:40 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:37 pm

Turkey's right though, a simple perk that turns you into a Ghoul is incredibly shallow. It simplifies an extremely painful transformation, and given the fact that Bethesda dislikes locking players into decisions, it's counter-intuitive to create a perk that locks a player into that decision. They would have to create a "cure" for it, and although I've felt that a cure isn't that farfetched, the timeline of FNV/Fo3 have shown that a cure isn't doable in the same time frame that Fo4 takes place.

User avatar
Shelby Huffman
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:06 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:47 pm

The irony is that at no time did I ever suggest that we could transform into a ghoul by selecting a perk. What I suggested is that the irradiated lightning, which has been confirmed as being in-game, would trigger the process. To quote myself from the thread, "The initial phase begins as soon as you have been struck by lightning."

There is no way that this could be misunderstood as suggesting that a perk would be responsible for transforming into a ghoul. Also, anyone claiming that I have mislead them in the way that this is worded has somehow missed the word SPECULATION in the title of the thread, at the top of the page, in the link to the previous thread, and at the beginning of the section detailing the individual perks. In addition to this, there is even a 'Speculation Alert!' banner right at the top of the page on the chart included on vault111.com

EDIT: my main point is that the poster you mentioned has made his statement in a way that suggests prior knowledge without providing any evidence or clarification

User avatar
Charlotte Henderson
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:37 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:23 pm

This doesn't refute the point that Bethesda is not going to foster such a fundamental change on people playing the game until, in your opinion, they reach the third rank of a perk almost at the end of the Endurance tree.

User avatar
Nomee
 
Posts: 3382
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:18 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:01 pm

What I have suggested in my thread is that the bonus added at rank three would prevent the transformation caused by an initial lightning strike, but would not prevent the same effect from being initiated by any subsequent lightning strikes. If ghoulification is going to be included in Fallout 4, then this seems like a sensible way of assisting those who do not wish to become a ghoul.

User avatar
Rachyroo
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:23 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:26 pm

Well, to be fair, that is what it sounds like. You select a perk and each rank of it (in addition to an outside factor - like the radiation lightning storm) contributes to a gradual transformation into a ghoul :confused:.

User avatar
Anthony Diaz
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:24 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:03 pm

But what you are saying is that Bethesda would make it so that a strike from an initial lightening strike would make a player a ghoul?

A sensible way of "assisting" those who do not want to become a Ghoul would be not to tie it to random instances in the game but make it a choice determined during a quest as fits previous choices of this nature; considering the length of your research, taking previous games into account, then this point should have already occurred to you.

User avatar
Teghan Harris
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:31 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:59 pm

I'd be really pissed if a random lightning strike would randomly turn you into a ghoul. But I'm sure this is just another silly speculation point that I can laugh at when it doesn't become true. Really you think lightning is gonna turn people into ghouls? Really?? LOLOLOLOLOL

User avatar
ZANEY82
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:10 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:10 pm

If uneloquently put the sentiment is shared.

User avatar
tegan fiamengo
 
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:53 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:03 pm

I too, concur.

I doubt ghoulification will be in Fallout 4. Even more so the speculated way of its implementation by the power of Zeus.
User avatar
Oyuki Manson Lavey
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:47 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:35 am

I hear what you're saying, but I made sure I was very careful in how I worded the details of the perk. The description clearly states that the primary function reduces the level of radiation caused by lightning, car explosions, and mini nukes. The bonus feature also states that it would prevent and not cause ghoulification that would otherwise be caused by the initial lightning strike. Also, in the very first paragraph, I have once again clarified that it is the radioactive lighting itself that would cause ghoulfication. Here is the full paragraph for anyone who is still confused by those who may have suggested otherwise:

"The most devastating explosions we can face in Fallout 4 are those with a nuclear source, including car explosions and mini nukes. In addition to this, we now have potentially lethal radioactive lightning to contend with, which is caused by radiation storms that blow in from the Glowing Sea. This perk protects against all of these threats by significantly reducing the amount of radiation received by the player. This is especially important due to the far more lethal effect of radiation reducing your maximum health until removed. In addition to this, the bonus feature at rank 3 will go some way to preventing you from being transformed into a ghoul by radioactive lightning. The possibility of being transformed into a ghoul has not yet been mentioned by any of the devs, but is something that I am almost certain will be added as a new feature of the franchise."

I am quite certain that there would be a fair amount of warning of incoming storms for those who would rather not take the risk, as well as 'guaranteed' locations of frequent lightning strikes (such as a very tall metallic tower) for those who would actively seek out the opportunity to play as a ghoul. As you mention in your comment, this point has already been taken into account as part of my research.

Once the game is released, if I am proved wrong with some or all of my theories, then at least I know that I have actively contributed to the fallout community with speculative ideas that many people have found interesting, as well as giving us all something to contemplate due to the lack of official information. But if I am proved right, I certainly won't be laughing at those who have criticised both my ideas and my efforts. At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it takes more guts than you perhaps realise to put forward ideas in the face of strong opposition. And I would much rather be the person bold enough to attract the attention of critics that the one hiding behind a keyboard pointing and laughing.

User avatar
Yonah
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:42 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:56 am

I agree this is the main reason I believe this pipe dream is false. Pretty sure you won't be able to start the vanilla game as a Ghoul (mods will make this possible, no doubt), so that means it's something that has to "change" the PC and this is far too close to Vampires and Werewolves in TES games to ignore. I don't think Bethesda would treat Ghoulification any differently than Vampirism or Lycanthrope in TES games and creating a "cure" would raise too many questions and issues that I doubt they want to address (both Lore and Morality wise). Also, unless they included special Ghoul perks, conversations and all the trappings that go along with playing a Ghoul character, the "experience" would be pretty lame and that would be QUITE a bit of extra work.

The entire discussion of ghoulification and perks preventing it are speculation at it's worst. I get that it's coming from a place of enthusiasm for the game, but it's horribly misleading to casual players just searching for some information on the game.

User avatar
Sarah Knight
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:02 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:04 pm

Lol, I would hate having to take an 8 Endurance perk (or any perk) to stop ghoulification. That would affect character customization considerably if one perk was all-important like that. I would hate being forced to play as a ghoul.

User avatar
Emma-Jane Merrin
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:52 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:52 am

A couple of things that I factored into the equation when I put this idea forward on my thread. First of all, there is at least one NPC, as shown in concept art, who appears to be locked into the early stages of ghoulification. The pirate/redcoat, even though most people have always referred to him as a ghoul, has facial features that are still intact, including his nose. This is noticeably different from any ghoul we have previously seen. The fact that he is drawn this way in concept art suggests that this is how he will appear in-game, meaning that something stopped the process before he was fully transformed. This also suggests that there is some kind of in-game trigger that would have initiated the transformation in the first instance. And the most likely candidate by far is the radioactive lightning that has been confirmed by Todd Howard himself.

Secondly, no matter which protagonist we choose to play as, there are two things that make them completely unique in the Fallout universe. Not only is their DNA the purest in existence due to lack of exposure to either radioactive fallout or the FEV virus, but they have also spend in excess of two hundred years frozen in a state that halts all cellular activity. There is every possibility that these two factors would allow for a reversal in the process of being transformed that is equally unique.

User avatar
Alex Vincent
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:31 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:37 am

I totally agree. This is why I have also suggested a quest-related alternative to reverse the process in the first phase, which would have minimal impact on gameplay :)

User avatar
Tamara Primo
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:15 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:06 pm

There is no way in hell that in a game with a voiced protagonist that is striving for "emotional depth" Bethesda is going to let you turn into a ghoul.
User avatar
Michelle davies
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:59 am

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:12 pm

Even that would be incredibly annoying. Once I'm "ghoulfied" the game is over for me.

User avatar
suniti
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:22 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:56 pm

The other method would be to find shelter if there's a storm brewing. I would imagine that this wouldn't be a constant issue, but it would give a real incentive to head to the nearest town, building, or underground tunnel if we see dark clouds overhead.

Or alternatively, we could always just use save/reload if we would rather continue on our way :)

User avatar
Antonio Gigliotta
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:39 pm

Post » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:08 pm

I was very careful about that in previous games, but you will get exposed eventually. If you are saying that you just become a ghoul and have to do some annoying fetch quest to reverse it then that is horrible.

User avatar
Annick Charron
 
Posts: 3367
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout 4