Why Are Ghouls Diffent In Fallout 4?

[pjedilord]

Why are ghouls diffent than han companion in Fallout 4? why dont they talk?
Why do they lack brains? what happen to the ghouls to be diffent than han companion?
Why did han companion brain not rot but other ghouls brain rot?
Does han care for ghouls or only hes ghouls?
Was ghouls diffent in other Fallout games? did they talk? do ghouls breed?
They can never age only if they use rads often?
So the person is not person is roaming ghoul so not human?

[no1schmo]

Messaggio originale di Anvos:

Your response gives you away as somebody who only cares about pre Bethesda where the games only showed very limited locations within vast swaths of territory. Let alone its pretty much been consistent that human ghouls are physically weaker than their feral counterparts.

Ghouls aren't magical undead. The core of their organism isn't rotting its the extraneous bits their mutations render vestigial, which coupled with ghouls no longer aging means parts the rads don't heal will wither or rot over time.

*gasp* You've discovered my dirty secret of caring about lore and consistency and not liking that Bethesda retcons whatever they feel like! Because yeah, there's no point to this discussion if we're going to A) ignore all previous games and B) invent things.

The "limited" territory of pre-Bethesda games is probably greater square-mileage than than the Bethesda games, you know. Reno to San Francisco alone is a fair drive. I don't believe ferals were much stronger than regular ghouls before, but that's irrelevant to the discussion--I agree that being mindless in CQC would enable one to have more strength, but that doesn't change the fact that ghouls originally struggled to be very physical AT ALL, even when fleeing for their lives. Even in 3 and NV, ferals at least seemed stiff and awkward to a degree--but suddenly they are like large, aggressive monkeys or something, or the Trogs from the Pitt. Ghouls are absolutely magical undead, they always were, but Bethesda cranked it up to 11 and also multiplied their numbers 100-fold.

[Anvos]

Fallout 1/2 are severely limited in scope since of the vast swaths of land they cover the PC only interacts with less than a dozen or so places in any detail, so trying to paint broad lore strokes with them isn't a fair assessment.

[no1schmo]

Messaggio originale di Anvos:

Fallout 1/2 are severely limited in scope since of the vast swaths of land they cover the PC only interacts with less than a dozen or so places in any detail, so trying to paint broad lore strokes with them isn't a fair assessment.

Because it's a wasteland, and the PC goes to those places that have actual stuff. Those games didn't just fill the "desolate wastes" with countless people. See, again, you're basically arguing in favor of a retcon by using the retcon to support the retcon--the new games changed the nature of the world, so therefore, the old games were wrong, because the new games say so. Which means there's no point to a discussion of lore at all--you don't care about "lore holes" or contradictions. Which is fine, you don't have to. But then don't be condescending about something you can't even debate because you just pretend they don't exist.

[R3dAlert93]

I personally much prefer the look of the fallout 3 ghouls and their grunt sound. Kinda creepy when they are moving towards you.

[Anvos]

Messaggio originale di no1schmo:

Because it's a wasteland, and the PC goes to those places that have actual stuff. Those games didn't just fill the "desolate wastes" with countless people. See, again, you're basically arguing in favor of a retcon by using the retcon to support the retcon--the new games changed the nature of the world, so therefore, the old games were wrong, because the new games say so. Which means there's no point to a discussion of lore at all--you don't care about "lore holes" or contradictions. Which is fine, you don't have to. But then don't be condescending about something you can't even debate because you just pretend they don't exist.

There is no bloody way every small to large town would have gotten nuked let alone places without strategic importance such as landmarks. Fallout 1/2 even admit there are other places that just aren't important to the PC's story via the various other tribals that we never see their homes, let alone the paltry number of settlements we visit wouldn't be enough to support the trade caravans that exist in game.

-------------------------------

On the topic of ghouls guess I forgot the new addition to the family in Fallout 76 the Windego, a specific strain that only occurs if the person turning ghoul was a cannibal and as far as we know are only feral. How they could be made more unique and upgraded in future Fallouts I'd say would be make them a ghoul that can climb and jump over obstacles and maybe has some stealth.

[no1schmo]

Messaggio originale di Anvos:

Messaggio originale di no1schmo:

Because it's a wasteland, and the PC goes to those places that have actual stuff. Those games didn't just fill the "desolate wastes" with countless people. See, again, you're basically arguing in favor of a retcon by using the retcon to support the retcon--the new games changed the nature of the world, so therefore, the old games were wrong, because the new games say so. Which means there's no point to a discussion of lore at all--you don't care about "lore holes" or contradictions. Which is fine, you don't have to. But then don't be condescending about something you can't even debate because you just pretend they don't exist.

There is no bloody way every small to large town would have gotten nuked let alone places without strategic importance such as landmarks. Fallout 1/2 even admit there are other places that just aren't important to the PC's story via the various other tribals that we never see their homes, let alone the paltry number of settlements we visit wouldn't be enough to support the trade caravans that exist in game.

I'm not even going to bother undermining most of your claims because you've basically forgotten what you were trying to prove and are now just arguing for the sake of it. Or you are angling for some sort of argument from ignorance; the old games didn't show us every square inch of the region, so...what, there were totally thousands of ghouls, ghouls who were fast and agile, all just off camera, just do you can try to defend Bethesda from being accused of retcons? Is there anything else you'd like to assert is true because the first two games didn't outright state wasn't true, i.e., aliens caused the war with mind control beams fired out of the genitals of sex bots? Hey, they might be in the desert somewhere in California, the games DID skip over some areas, so you can't say it's not true!

Yeah, no, lore is lore; things are established, and make up the rules and logic and atmosphere and flavor of the series. Those need to be stuck with...usually. But you CAN break those rules, so long as you do it properly; you set it up, you explain it, you give us details that make sense within the confines of the universe as to why there is an exception to the rule. They could have explained that the west coast got the brunt of the bombs, and the worst ones, but by the time they got to the east coast, China was running out of nukes and were resorting to smaller, weaker bombs (and fewer detonations in general) that emitted less direct radiation; still destructive, but the weaker background radiation meant far more people turned to ghouls than died, at least compared to the west. Maybe the KIND of radiation was different too, causing less internal damage. See, it took me 5 minutes to give a decent, though certainly not complete and perfect, explanation of why ghouls are different. If Bethesda had decent writers anywhere except writing lore articles for The Elder Scrolls, they could have come up with explanations and made things fit together. And if the project director or producer cared at least a little bit about the writing being, you know, at least a C, they could have tweaked some of the gameplay elements to be more in line with lore, too. But there's not much pressure to do that, because some people just don't care, and people like you go even further and actively defend objective BS because you don't understand how to critique media, so you'll just invent headcanon or use an equivalent to "god of the gaps" argumentation to excuse it all. "Yeah, okay, 100% of ghouls we met in 3 games were all like X, and now they are suddenly like Y, but that's not a contradiction because...uh...there totally could have been Y-like ghouls in those old games that we just somehow missed! And no one ever mentioned them! It's not impossible to imagine so therefore it's true and therefore there's no contradiction!"

[Anvos]

There is the simpler answer that the Bakersfield ghouls are the exception and that logic follows since they were created using a very specific set of circumstances.

The stories of Fallout 1 and 2 are also ones that are roughly the the type that don't encourage the PCs to go off and fully explore the regions, since their looking for specific things, with at least pseudo time limits, so its understandable the PCs don't know potentially everything about the region and creatures where the game takes place in. Let alone both PCs led fairly sheltered lives before the main story.