Talk: Retroactive continuity (Fallout 4)

Grammar[]

It seems like much of this article was written by someone who doesn't understand proper comma usage. I've fixed a few instances, but it's quite widespread, and I don't want to re-write the entire article.—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.91.223 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 June 2016. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I will give it all a look, and fix up any grammar mistakes that I see. GarouxBloodline 05:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes, elaborations, and retocns[]

Maybe it is just me but I'm going to have to leave my take on the sections here.

Cats

I have completely removed this section as it is completely wrong. Cats were never extinct.

New Gauss rifle

Could this be an early American prototype?

Jet

Could there have been another chem called "Jet"? Or that Myron had the formula for this supposed pre-War Jet, but not the ingredients?

Ghouls

Typhon.

Gen 3 Synths

Could Harkness and Armitage be another type?

Vertibirds

How is this a retcon? Trial runs were in use on the Anchorage front, why not also in the Boston area? Could they have preliminary manufacturing in the area?

X-01

Is not pre-War.

Super mutants

• Incurable is incurable.
• Where did the Institute acquire their FEV, let alone why did they create the super mutants?

Power fist

What makes this model "industrial"? Could this model be suited to be fitted over a power armor glove and vambrace? Also what does the "Big Frigger" have to do with this model? It hasn't been in a game since Fallout Tactics.

Tato

Could it just be a new word for "Tomato"? It seems to be to be a sort of Tomato rather than a Potato, especially since neither plant is extinct.

Great War itself

Could this man just be insane?

--Ant2242 (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that you understand what a retcon is - it is not necessarily the complete re-writing of established canon, but can also be significant changes to established canon. For instance, while cats were never fully established as extinct in the classic games, they are regularly referred to as extinct, with the last known cat being found dead. So to all of the sudden have them appear in great numbers, as if their survival was never in question, is, indeed, a retcon. The section likely needs re-writing, so that is what I suggest for you (or myself, or anyone else) to do, instead of blanket removing that section.

As for the rest, I will try an explain:

1. Gauss rifle:

• The implication is clear on this one, as the militarized Gauss rifle fails to make an appearance, even within the BoS. So when organizations such as the Institute and the BoS, two of the most advanced factions in the post-nuclear war, are seen with these rather homemade variants, with the militarized variant nowhere to be seen, and never referenced, then that is a proper retcon. Does not mean that the militarized version ceased to exist, it just means that this is a high irregularity added in by Bethesda.

1. Jet:

• I am not here to make speculation. Fallout 2 clearly established that Myron invented jet, and now, it has been established over Fallout 2, that jet is now a pre-War chem, with the exact same name. That is a retcon.

1. Ghouls:

• Your link to Typhon actually proves my point, as he aged as a ghoul, wherein Bryan has not aged a single year. Regardless, Bryan is a unique case never seen before in the Fallout universe, which makes this a retcon by Bethesda into ghoul biology.

1. Synths

• There have only been three generation of synths produced by the Institute, and only the third generation could pass of as human.

1. X-01

• I... know that it is not pre-War. That is exactly the point of it being on this article, since Fallout 4 has made the armor into pre-War armor.

1. Vertibirds:

• Why are you using non-canon simulation lore as an argument point? Actual lore points to the Enclave being the only faction to ever mass produce vertibirds, with the Museum of History stating that before the War, vertibirds were still in their conceptual stages.

1. Super Mutants

• Exactly my point - that there is now a cure, means that a retcon was created by Bethesda.
• It would be speculation to attempt to answer all of those questions. In Vault 87, it was established that their variant of the F.E.V. was unique, and the super mutants there proceeded to use it all up, leaving none left. So since the Institute never got that strain of F.E.V. after the War, then that means that the strain was now so unique, afterall. Therefore, retcon.

1. Power fist

• The Big Frigger is the standard model for all power fists up until Fallout 4. Just because they are no longer specifically called that, does not mean that that is not what they are. Anyways, the model has changed drastically, and just as with the Gauss rifle, the militarized version inexplicably never appears in Fallout 4.

1. Tato:

• Just how much of Fallout 4 have you played? It is mentioned numerous times throughout the game that tatos are a mutated combination of both potato and tomato. Not to mention that it is explicitly stated by both farmers and the BoS scribes, that both the tomato and the potato are extinct.

1. Great War:

• Highly speculative, and not backed by anything since the researchers also knew that they were working for the government. The director's connections to the general are not in question - at least, not for now they are not.

Cats

Cats were never extinct, so writing a section saying that they are not long something they were never makes no sense.

New Gauss rifle

How does it completely negate the cannon of the M72 and PK112? Could it just not have been added? Instead Bethesda opting to add a new model.

Jet

Unless it's a different chem or Myron invented a new way to procure its manufacture.

Ghouls

My link proves my point. Ghouls that are children grow up. Not to mention that ghouls need food and water.

Synths

Oh, well if there is only three generations then do they explain how the 3rd gens can; eat and digest food realistically, how their hair grows, and skin bleeds? Mechanical organs maybe?

X-01

The loading screens specifically mention that is was developed post-War, by remnants of the military.

Vertibirds

The Anchorage Reclamation simulation is not "non-canon" just inaccurate to what actually happened during the Anchorage Reclamation.

FEV

• The way the virus is described to work, there cannot be a cure unless you create another retro-virus to infect the FEV hosts (super mutants) with their original DNA.
• I still don't understand how the one FEV strain affects the other if they are separate.

Power fist

That makes no sense, they clearly were developing branded weapon gauntlets. A true statement of their popularity on the war front. Declaring that this new power fist model supersedes another model completely negates the development of all the weapon platforms.

Tato

Although I have not gotten far into the story there have clearly been tomatoes and potatoes throughout the series. At best this would be a new plant among the other two.

Great War

It maybe highly speculative, however everyone knew they were fighting China. It is just too prolific among all the games to say otherwise.

Please sign you posts.--Ant2242 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

These "retcons" are mostly false, and the ones that aren't are minutia. And adding that with the use of "...retcon..." on the top of the page really makes this just look bitter.The14th (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Necessary? / Nominate for Deletion[]

Does this really need it's own page? I think these would be better placed among the individual pages referenced. Either way I definitely don't think it merits top page placement in the portal. The14th (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the retcons deserve a page but it shouldn't get top billing on the portal page. Shadowrunner^(stuff) 04:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This page does not need to exist. Some of these are not true, the rest are obscure and should be put into the individual subject pages. And the article is not neutral, it is an attack at the author's perceived slights by Bethesda on the Fallout canon. I have tagged the page for deletion. The14th (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The assumption that retcons are inherently bad is unfounded. The editor in question explained to me early on that it's a page meant to track changes to the lore with no ill intent. I don't find the wording bad either. Tagaziel (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the term "retcon" has indeed a negative connotation – IMHO…

But I think the purpose of the article is justifiable. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's in the phrasing, starting off with the dismissive way he quoted the word retcons (now finally changed, but still a good mark of intent). And some of his examples aren't even retcons, they're just quibbles over minutia. Like the synths line, which can be summed up with the words "engine limitations". Or the cats one, which he's drawing from inference and lore from the opposite coast of the setting. The Great War line is my favorite, as he is using an in-universe biased source to say there was a change to who started the war. The salvageable information should be moved to the individual subject pages and the rest deleted. The14th (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That was proper English typography - in the case where a word within quotations does not start, nor finish a sentence, nor allow for a pause, '...' is to accompany and/or herald the word in each respective manner. So I would appreciate it if you would not assume malice; however, I have just gone ahead and removed the quotations, since they are not worth causing trouble over.

As for the rest, I have already explained that train of thought earlier on this very talk-page: retcons are not only re-writes of lore, but also additions to the lore that are contradictory in meaningful/meaningless ways, or they can also build off of already existing lore.

You might notice that this is the case in my work, as I use very impartial wording, to make it clear that these retcons are not necessarily symptoms of revamped lore. For instance, I never specified that the militarized Gauss rifle is no longer a part of the Fallout universe - my wording only points out an oddity in the established canon, by having two of the most advanced factions in the post-apocalyptic world, using homemade variants, when the militarized models were shown to be in consistent supply since its introduction in prior titles.

I will wrap this reply up, by saying that if you or anyone else has a problem with the article, to re-write it, instead. The Vault is a collaborative project - so I welcome other editors to make their own additions. What I will not abide by, are attempts to just outright remove content, unilaterally, just because someone has issue with some of the content. GarouxBloodline 17:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My problem is content like this has always been relegated to the specific topic pages on this wiki. Why does this page need to exist at all, what does it accomplish that the individual topic pages don't? The14th (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We all have a different philosophy on what a wiki's purpose is. My philosophy is that a wiki should be an encyclopedia, where we are working to create an intricate network of independent articles, redirects, and shared content. I am not going to say that your personal philosophy is wrong, but I am also going to say that there is nothing wrong with proper use of redundancy. Ultimately, this comes down to a case of agreeing to disagree, as I am not here to change anyone's minds. Just keep in mind that my work is well within policy, so I will ask you politely to not make any further attempts to outright remove work that I have put time and effort into, unless there is an objective reason to do so. Of course, feel free to make changes as you see fit, so long as they improve the article. GarouxBloodline 18:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I don't remember encyclopedias having a trivia page right at the top of the book. Were you the one who put this on top of the portal? Again I ask, why does this merit its own page? What does this page accomplish that the individual pages cannot? The14th (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are making assumptions again (the very fact that you would ask that is insulting - especially since it is as easy as looking up the edit history). Since this is now the second passive-aggressive attack against my character, I am just going to go ahead and excuse myself from this conversation after I finish this reply. And for your information, no, it was not me that added this article to the front-page portal.

As for the rest, overviews do not need justification. They are an integral part of this wiki, and many users, especially lore junkies like myself, like to read content on a condensed article of collected references, instead of chasing down individual references across a myriad of other articles. And, of course, this way, we still have scattered references, as well as an overview - the best of both worlds.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘At this point, I do not feel all that inclined to argue my point any further. The article will stay, as it abides by this wiki's rules. So the only thing really being argued here, are our personal views, which is basically just a pissing contest. My advice, if you really have such an issue with this article, is to simply stay away from it, and focus on other aspects of this wiki. I do not even see this article on the front-page portal, so I see that as a non-issue, as well. GarouxBloodline 18:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you won't answer my question just proves what I suspected, this page does serve a purpose the individuals don't. It is an expression of your beefs with Bethesda, placed front and center on the FO4 portal to let everybody know this wiki has turned cynical. The14th (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This wiki is not cynical. I agree this page just needs to go. As outlined above everything here is incorrect in some manner.--Ant2242 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two cents:

Provides a quick rundown of bits of lore that were changed from previous titles. I think this kind of page could conceiveably exist for every sequel, as there are some major changes between them (such as ghouls not being a local mutation or the Enclave suddenly springing into being or the dumb Vault experiments introduced in Fallout 2), but should be kept short and itemized, with emphasis on a minimal number of words. Tagaziel (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The Problem here is that the items mentioned on the page as "retconed" are not so. This is not the addition of the Vault experiments, or (if the ghouls were to be a localized mutation or not [refs pending]) whatever. This page lists assumptions and common misconceptions as if they were retcons.

• For Example: Such as the entirety of the Great War section. Which is wrong. Completely and totally. It doesn't take into account for the possibilities that the (in-game) writer was lying or he was mentally deficient. Or the distinct possibility that the actual writer didn't know the lore. See Molly; whom uses the example of Liberty Prime successfully liberating Anchorage in the company's orientation.
• Or how about the entire section on cats being extinct. This was not mentioned Once in the series, however the Fallout community at large believed it to be true because there was little mention of them and the engines couldn't support them in the past. But yet this is still a common misconception.

--Ant2242 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Improvements[]

Why not discuss those topics here?

Aliens[]

The aliens appearing with the Wild Wasteland perk in FNV don't wear helmets, only suits without one. The respective article says "They seem to breathe a similar atmosphere that humans do…". -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought of the WW content, but decided to leave that out, since that there is no ambiguity with the canonical nature, there. It might just be simple enough, thinking about it, to simply state that this is the first time an alien has been see, wearing a breached environmental suit on Earth. You are right that there is a similar atmosphere - that is why humans can breath on Mothership Zeta. My guess is that the environmental suits are there to protect them from harmful pathogens and the like, but that is speculation, so distilling it all down would be the proper way to go. GarouxBloodline 17:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Since this is all speculation and not official cannon I move that this should be stricken. Furthermore let's not forget the possibility that the suits they wear could just be their version of a space suit. I also suggest that we move the speculation to the Zetan alien's talk page, as that is the correct place to discuss improvements on the topic.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not reading what I am saying 100%, then. Yes; the speculation should be removed. That has already been established. That does not detract from the fact, though, in that FO4 has given us the first legitimate appearance of a Zetan alien on Earth, without wearing a full environmental suit. This is a pretty important change, as it confirms that aliens are able to survive in Earth's atmosphere for at least short periods of time. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are still not reading what I meant, That there is no references to the aliens needing some sort of environmental suit to live on Earth. Let alone that it is one to begin with.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is my point. That has already been discussed, and is a point that we agree on - I have already re-written that section. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is that this is complete speculation and shouldn't be here. But rather on the Zetan alien creature talk page.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Great War[]

It was with China. Period. Thus we need to remove that section. Furthermore the claim you were making was conflating a misdirection on the part of the writer. Whom was trying to coerce his staff into finishing the project and save them by military evacuation. (I have since cleaned up the page. Format and bot errors repaired, however I believe that there is two sections that are either cut or I didn't find the parameters. This needs to be reviewed.)--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are getting this from. What is written, never suggests that the lore behind the Great War has changed. This section definitely needs to be re-written, to avoid confusion, but the point of it, is to show that there were some serious miscommunication going on right when the nukes started dropping, even among high-profile members of the government. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

... -_- The Miscommunication was with the director of the company with his employees. Not high levels of government. Again this section needs to be removed! Period!--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The director was getting his information straight from a general of the United States of America. I consider a general to fit that bit perfectly. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The director, again, was lying to his employees. The Colonel only gave a strange call to the director whom tried to tell him without saying so that the shit was about to hit the fan and it was best to keep everyone in the lab.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Cats[]

Again this entire section is biased on a previous Fallout community misconception. Never once in the Fallout series was there a single mention of cats being extinct prior to Mr. House. Which let's be honest, doesn't get out much. Thus it too needs to be removed.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right about one thing - the misconception should be removed, which is about half a sentence of content. The entire section, however, is not biased, and makes a very interesting point in that cats were nowhere to be seen in any of the games, with the sole exception of a single dead cat, until FO4, in which, all of the sudden, cats make a huge appearance, as if their existence was never in question. They were never confirmed extinct before, and now we have proof of that. But it is still a retcon to the lore, to all of the sudden have cats all over the place. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Because they never were in question. By a first hand account, they survived the Great War, the Great Winter, and the mutations. This is not a retcon, this is a correction of a common misconception!--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you tell me, next, that the existence of horses were never in question? It is a similar question - they appear in the All Roads novel, yet this was rendered a murky bit of canon. A dev said that they are extinct, yet that dev does not work for Bethesda, and in the same breath, admits that a donkey appeared in the classics.

Just like horses, the existence of cats were murky - until now, since it has been proven otherwise. We have people talking about cats in the classics, and we have wastelanders using the word 'Cat' in names and in conversation, yet we never see any cats, aside from the last cat known to be alive at the time, which turned out to be dead, after being sent to find it. A retcon can mean a mere addition to the lore - and this is certainly an addition to the lore of cats, in the Fallout universe.

"Murky" meaning Unsubstantiated then yes. It was never, ever. Ever. A proven fact that neither horses nor cats were extinct. Never Ever.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

New Gauss Rifle[]

Who ever said that this model of rifle is the German designed M72? If there is none, then this page is speculating and we must remove it.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no speculation. None. At all. Stop suggesting it. The only thing this section makes note of, is the very odd lack of appearance that the militarized Gauss rifle makes, even though two of the most advanced factions in the post-apocalypse, are bringing out their best equipment, yet are only using homemade variants of the GR. I am not sure why you are making a German model comparison, because I know that I sure have not made that comparison. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I could say the entire series makes such an odd choice in weaponry. Practically every two games the series switches up the weaponry. This still leaves two speculations; 1) that this new model is homemade, it doesn't look like it. 2) that there couldn't be another more than one model.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC

The choice is weaponry is not what is odd. What is odd, is that the militarized Gauss rifle variant, is nowhere to be seen, when more primitive variants are circulating the advanced factions. I removed the homemade wording, as that was definitely wrong to use. As for there not being another model, that claim has not been made. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Just Wow. .... All right, lets start with this. There is nothing stating that the Gauss rifle of FO4 is the M72. There is nothing stating that the Gauss rifle of FO4 is not also a military rifle. What makes you think that this new model is more "primitive" than the M72? There is no specifications of the M72 to even suggest this. Furthermore the fact that Bethesda would add another model to the series rather than keep using the same ones is practically their standard practice for them. It does not indicate that it is the re-imagining of anything.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Jet[]

Could there have been a pre-War drug of similar effect named "Jet"? Could Myron have found a way to recreate this pre-War chem? If so then why didn't the rest of the region know of its existence? Could Bethesda not have bothered to simply create a pre and post war checklist for loot regarding their containers? Did they even bother to know their own lore? Since all this is speculation then shouldn't we also add this to the Jet talk page, as is policy?--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This section does not tackle any of the speculative arguments that you are bringing up. None of them. What we do know, is that Myron created Jet, using post-War materials (such as brahmin dung). All other medicine, is shown in great abundance all across the American wastes, yet there have never been any sightings of a pre-War Jet. Now, in FO4, they have a vault terminal, talking about Jet from before the Great War. I do not care how anyone tries to twist this one, it is a blatant retcon. As in, not just a modification of existing lore, but a complete re-writing of it. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

... -_- except in pre-War containers across Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas due to game mechanics. Now we have people whom are unfamiliar with the lore and have decided to write in a "Jet" that performs a similar function as the post-War chem. If Myron no longer created the chem himself then fine, let the developers say so. Until then the possibility that there is two "Jet"s is still viable.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean the same containers that carry other impossible items? Like a rifle in a desk drawer? That is not an argument point. As for there being two variants of Jet, that is entirely possible. But outright saying so, is speculative, which is why I have not noted that possibility. What has been noted, is the Fallout 2, specifically stated that Myron was the original creator of Jet. Not just in dialogue, but in in-game monologues such as the ending slides, too. Now that Myron is no longer the original creator of Jet, that means there has been a lore re-write, no matter how the matter is looked at. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is one. The argument that Bethesda doesn't bother to know their own lore is still valid.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ghouls[]

Typhon; therefore this speculation should be moved to the talk page, as is policy. More possibilities; Could the family have been recently ghoulified? Did the Gunners use radiation weapons during the Quincy Massacre? Does Bethesda even know what a ghoul is?--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the points that you are bringing up, are being discussed in this section. None of them. What we do know, is the first ever example of a ghoul remaining a kid for over 200 years, has been introduced into the lore. Furthermore, the kid is shown as having the same mental capacity of a child, meaning that he has not mentally aged, either. There are no speculative arguments, here - this is a unique example never before seen in Fallout, and as such, is a small retcon of established lore. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

How? Give me specifics that Billy has been in the fridge for two hundred years. Could it not have been just as likely or more so that the Gunners were using Fat Men?--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What? If you do not know who Billy even is, and the story behind him being stuck in a fridge, and his ghoulified parents that thought he was killed over 200+ in the past, then you do not need to be arguing this section. Do your research on this point, and then come back, and we can discuss this further. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No. It is complete and total nonsense. Created by people with no knowledge of their own lore. It is Poor Writing At Its Worst.

....Now if you excuse me, I need to wait in my collapsed swamp home for my child for two hundred years with no water, food, or supplies. I'm sure he's fine, he only went next door to play with his friend.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Gen 3 Synths[]

Who ever said that Gen 3s couldn't be dismembered? They are completely manufactured biological machines. Apart from minor parts they are as human as cloned organs, albeit ones with sentientcy.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This section never once used the argument of whether a Gen 3 can be dismembered or not. As for the rest, you are wrong - in the Institute, the Sole Survivor gets a clear chance to see how Gen 3 synths are made, and their inner machinations are exactly that - mechanical. There is synthetic flesh and muscle, but that does not detract from their mechanical nature, which is entirely absent in FO3, in which a Courser is seen being made entirely of flesh, muscle, and bone. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it did, you just changed it. Synthetic flesh and muscle is exactly how I describe them. Bio-mechanical. How are they any different from the two seen in Fallout 3? If anything I say it confirms their appearance.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The only note that has been made about whether a synth could not be dismembered, is with Armitage, as he is set as essential, and literally cannot be dismembered in the vanilla game. As for the rest, did you watch the Gen 3 production sequence in the Institute, that showed exactly how they are made? GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at exactly how they are made you would notice that they are practically printing the biomass. There is no levers and gears inside the flesh. These are not anything like the Terminators.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Vertibirds[]

All our previous assumptions were on that the VB-02 was the first manufactured model. It apparently was not.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That was never my assumption. The 02 designation made it very clear that there was an earlier vertibird prototype. However, as it currently stands, only the Enclave have ever been seen utilizing vertibirds, with the only other known model, being clarified upon at the Museum of History, stating that they never made it past their early development stages. Now, in FO4, pre-War vertibirds are absolutely everywhere, as if their usage by the pre-War government was never in question. So now we have new, established lore, meaning a retcon. Please remember that a retcon does not mean a complete re-writing of the lore. That is not being suggested. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The assumption that the Enclave was the only ones flying vertibirds was shattered when they were described in Fallout 3. All fallout 4 does in introduce its older model.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Only in FO2, were vertibirds exclusive to the Enclave. Since FO2, the NCR, the BoS, and now the pre-War U.S. government are shown regularly using them. No assumptions are being made - additional details to established lore are being recognized, is all. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Only in FO2 were they believed to be exclusive to the Enclave. Since FO2 the NCR have been using captured units. The BoS may have been exposed to such units (I would bet on them getting a few as with were a part of the Sacking of Navarro). Now with FO4 we know that there was more to the vertibird than just the VBX02. This is not a retcon as nothing was changed about the VB02s.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

X-01[]

This is not a pre-War model, it was developed by the remnants of the military prior to collapsing for the rigors of their new environment.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. You are not going to convince me, that military forces outside of the Enclave, managed to create an identical model to what the Enclave spent decades inventing aboard the Oil Rig, and then managed to get them locked away in pre-War locations, all across the Commonwealth of all places, in numbers enough for factions such as the Atom Cats, to stock up on APA segments. You could have argued that random locations are not canonical, but we now have a fixed location underneath the sat array, as of the add-on Automatron. Not to mention that this is a retcon, regardless, as this model of PA has been referred to as advanced power armour - never x-01, until now. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not identical, it utilities the power armor frame built to replace the "recon armor". Further more there may be more internal differences between the two models. As for its post-War heritage, yes the references state so. As for the merchant inventory and spawned loot I tend to hold the view that Bethesda tends to treats their spawned loot as an afterthought.--03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not play semantics - you know full well that I was referring to the power armor design. Not the underarmour/frame, which is actually another retcon that should be addressed on this article. As for your reference, I cannot take that argument into account until a year is given. As it currently stands, this is still Enclave power armour that existed after the Great War. As for the afterthought argument, that would make sense under normal circumstances. But the Atom Cats have the only merchant in the entire game so far, that sells x-01 segments. That is not an afterthought - that was deliberate. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not referring to just the frame. This design, the X-01 is indeed using the older frame, which the APA might not even use. The examples seen in FNV do not have the telltale Fusion Core and accessing hatch thing. (...knob?) If you disagree with the X-01 pedigree as a USA Forces design then you are contradicting FO4 references. No, this is still "normal circumstances." Although I am unaware as to why Bethesda would decide that the Atom Cats would be the only ones who stock X-01 yet would still be using pipe weapons as arms. What does one have to do with the other, to put it simply they have the most advanced armor sets in the game by mechanics, and by lore have access to power armor. Yet they don't have the lore of choosing to utilize pipe weapons and the T60s.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Super Mutants[]

• Incurable is incurable. The way the virus is described to work, there cannot be a cure unless you create another retro-virus to infect the FEV hosts (super mutants) with their original DNA.
• Where did the Institute acquire their FEV? Also how much did they modify it themselves?

--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You did not read this section. That is apparent. I am also wondering if you have even done the quest-line involving Virgil. There is a cure now. Maybe for not all types of super mutant, but the fact is that a super mutant has now been cured. That is a clear retcon to the established lore. Not a re-writing of the lore, but a rather hefty addition to it, since not even the Master or Erkal came close to finding any semblance of a cure. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I read it, that is apparent. Yes I have done the quest line for Virgil. Again the cure can only happen if one gets reinfected with the FEV tailored with their original DNA. Which is what I believe is in Virgil's experimental serum. For although there is no reference to how that works we do have the conversation with ZAX 1.2 about how the FEV as a whole works.

Then it has been established. You recognize that there is a cure - how limited this cure might be, is not what is being discussed. All that matters is that there is in fact a cure now, in some form or fashion, which has never existed before in Fallout canon. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Cure" is the wrong word. The Virus has to be remade for each individual with their original DNA. Thus all the super mutants in the series cannot be cured without their original DNA.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Power fist[]

The model seen in game is some sort of "construction model." I don't believe this makes much sense but that is what (iirc) the FO4 Art Book said. What does the "Big Frigger" have to do with this model? It hasn't been in a game since Fallout Tactics.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Big Frigger has nothing to do with this model. Like the Gauss rifle section, it is only being noted that it is odd that the militarized variant of power fist, mysteriously makes no appearance in the game so far, even though they were a staple in the BoS' forces. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. However this isn't necessarily a retcon. As Fallout 4's new "industrial" power fist doesn't negate the military variants. Just adding more to how the power fist as a whole was utilized. As for the Big Frigger not being in the series since Tactics, this is the same problem with how the developers tend to replace all the weapons ever third game.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right - the industrial model does not negate the existence of the Big Frigger model. That was not the implication of that section, but I could see how the wording might suggest that. I made sure to re-write the section, along with the Gauss rifle section. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Or you could just remove the speculation from the "retcon" page.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Potato/Tomato[]

Neither plant is extinct. They are edible in FO3 and FNV.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This is #2, that makes me wonder just how much of FO4 you have played. You just described the problem. Potatoes/tomatoes clearly existed before FO4. But as the BoS scientists had detailed on a terminal aboard the Prydwen, they are now extinct. They left not room for ambiguity - they flat out said that the plants were extinct. GarouxBloodline 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Could the scribe who wrote that have been influenced by his Glowleaf tea?--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is speculative. The only thing known, is that Bethesda went through the trouble of adding a terminal entry, declaring that the potato/tomato are extinct, and have been for quite some time. Are they wrong? Are they right? Who knows, although FO3 contradicts this claim. That is why I am not outright saying that they are extinct - it is just being recognized that we do have a contradicting source of information. GarouxBloodline 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Cont:[]

I re-wrote the article quite a bit, to reflect our ongoing discussions. There was some bad writing of mine that needed to be replaced, and I just went ahead and removed the super mutant biology sub-section, as the argument there was pretty flimsy. As the discussion continues, I will keep making necessary changes as they come along. GarouxBloodline 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Quick question, what do the sections need a subsection? IE the third level headings--Ant2242 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the sections a bit more, when something occurred to me. This page could be the easily be the series retcon overview. It would allow us to keep track of the retcons on both the individual topic pages and this large collection. Similarly to what we are already doing with the cultural references.--Ant2242 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Should I just remove the section on the power fist and super sledge origins? It technically isn't changing anything previously written into lore, only adding details that was previously unknown.--Ant2242 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

+1 for removing the section on power fists and super sledge. Most of the stuff you craft in the game was military pre-war, but now people are crafting them more or less from scratch, so of course they will have less advanced versions. As such, I see no discrepancy between Fallout 4 and previous games for this. --Trifler500 (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

From "Edit warning"[]

Aliens

There is nothing indicating that their natural atmosphere is too dissimilar to the Earth's atmosphere. The outfit we see the aliens wearing could just as easily be a spacesuit. Therefore this concept that they couldn't survive on Earth without their helmet is speculation. As for the recon craft Theta pilot he may have broken his* (possible) spacesuit helmet in the crash. The resulting head trauma killing him, rather than microorganisms such as in the War of the Words or differing atmosphere.

The alien's gender is also unknown. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there any speculation left in the current version of the topic?

I've reverted some of your edits, making mothership a term again, rather than a name, linking your technology link, which wasn't useful in the context, to alien technology, and inserting "1" behind Fallout again, which has been there before in the page's history and serves for clarity.

This "special" encounter isn't yet listed on the linked "random" encounter page. And I will not do that, because I don't play the game. I've adopted the wording from before, might have been Garoux who used it first. And yet there is no "special encounters" page for FO4. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Should there be a "special encounters" page for FO4?--Ant2242 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

X-01 and APA

1) The X-01 is not referenced as 'Pre'-War. 2) The Enclave created the APA biased on the X-01, it is not the same model. 3) Gameplay mechanics such as merchant inventory should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a baseball. I'm not debating that the Atom Cats shouldn't have some X-01 pieces. Only that it is not as common as consistently restocked as T-45, 51, & 60. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Institute FEV variant

The way that FEV works is that when it infects a host it alters the host's DNA to what was programmed into the virus. There can never be a cure until a different virus infects said host with their original DNA. Altering it back to its original state. Virgil's "cure" most likely was specific to him. He specifically makes note of the increased muscle mass and hair as a side effect. Indicating that even with his specific "cure" the FEV's effects are present. Therefore the FEV Is incurable. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Power fist, super sledge, and Gauss rifle

Nothing there is a true retcon. Nothing stated before that the origin of the first two items were not civilian. As for the Gauss rifle, how is the non-origin of this one weapon a retcon? It is practically a series tradition to change the weapons in game every engine switch. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Vertibirds

Nothing stated that the VB02 was the only model of the Vertibird ever produced en mass. In fact the specifics of the placard in the Museum of Technology are "This is the most advanced aircraft of its kind ever developed, and the military hopes to press them into service by 2085." Let me take the moment to emphasize the specific part of the sentence, "This is the most advanced aircraft of its kind ever developed". Therefore we only assumed that the vertibird as a whole was in the prototype phase, rather than a specific model in development at the outbreak of the Great War. I am not debating that there was not continued development and eventual manufacture by the Enclave post-War. Just that we were assuming things pre-War. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Synths

Whatever the limitations are in the Gamebyo engine, its take on the synths in Fallout 3 are only explained rather than changed. As the 3rd gens are essentially printed cyborgs. Manufactured humans with programmed brains and a few mechanical/computational components. I have no idea where this 'Terminator style internal mechanical parts' theory came from. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ghouls

Nothing about the previous games lore regarding ghouls was deemed retconed. Bethesda clearly didn't write "Kid In a Fridge" well - let alone the characters. This is also the case for the ending of "Long Time Coming." How Eddie Winter survived two hundred and ten years without a stock of food, the ability to purify water, and the complete lack of both sanitation and things to do for that protracted period of time is just beyond hand waving. All this of course is ignoring the big hole in the wall for the treasure seekers/scavengers/and so-on to peer in and try to break in. To emphasize my point just listen to the dialogue between Nick and Eddie. Eddie literally calls himself a ghoul. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Any need for still discussing this topic? -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* Apparently arguing that a poorly written story most likely doesn't negate settled canon doesn't count. I suppose only in regards to how the ghoul biology in the series was argued and settled. But that is a different page.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As you say, "that's a different page." I don't think that comments about the quality of story writing belong in an article, this is board or perhaps talk page stuff. I've watched a youtube video about this quest – it is really poorly written.

I think, the isolation might be the reason for his mind not aging. A child can't learn without input, you know. Would have expected some more depressive theme, though. With the mentioning of an unknown adolescence state for Typhon and the adopted pre-teen, I deliver possibilities that could explain, why Billy remains in the body of a child. But without using it as a reason, that would be speculation. That might also serve as explanation for surviving without food and water; a child body's metabolism doesn't work like an adult's. But this last thing is, what really bothers me – because I am not able to believe what I just said… -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the problem. It just doesn't make any sense.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Jet

Jet was created by Myron in Fallout 2. Myron alone with several other characters states it specifically in game. Then the Fallout Bible states it. Neither Fallout 3 nor New Vegas contradict it, despite the Game mechanics (ie loot programming) having it in pre-War locations. However with the introduction of Fallout 4 we suddenly have a pre-War Jet. Could this Jet be the same Jet, with Myron finding a new way to create it? Could this Jet be a separate by similar chem? Could writers at Bethesda not bother to know their own lore before writing their games? There is no reference as to discern which is which and we should therefore make note of the possibilities. --Ant2242 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've kept your removing of the recipe lost. Must have been in the history of the article, else I hadn't it mentioned.

What speaks against the wording of the last sentence in this section? -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The other variants of Jet from before FO4 come from the Myron made recipe. Unless I'm missing something how I took the sentence was it could come from other variations not from Myron.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You never know if not some creator of later Jet variants found some or knew about pre-war Jet, and let this influence his own creation… ;) It doesn't interfere, does it? -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Potatoes (and tomatoes)

The exact terminal entry reads "According to some old botany texts we found, this appears to be combination of a now extinct plant". A now extinct plant. This might have become fact in 2287, and doesn't say anything about the plants' states in 2277 or 2282. It doesn't say they are extinct since "ages", as mentioned somewhere above.

But: I have the complete dialogue file from Tagz, where there are several entries about potatoes:

• "Shut up Jake. If I hear anything out of either of you, you'll both be peeling potatoes for the next year."
• "Come find me when you've got those potatoes."
• "I can't seem to get the potatoes right."
• "Hot potato!"

I've left out those related to the tato. I have found nothing that proves the also aforementioned NPC's discussions about the extinct state of the plant. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 15:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So, they are not extinct in FO4?--Ant2242 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems so. This one was pretty difficult, to leave direct contradictions out of it. I thought the former wording with the Glowleaf tea was too personal, not serious enough for a wiki. So I mention it, but don't put the two things into context.

When we have the creation kit and are able to extract specific dialogue files, then the quoted passages should be viewed in context, and the potato thing revised. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Cats

Answer to Ant's question: I've removed the "specifics on the Cat section" because this is a lore related article and not a board topic, discussing player's beliefs. The other "specifics" can be found in the references, no need to detail all in this section, as that would imply contradictions. At least in my point of view. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

True, I just assumed that the page explaining the confabulation would need the line of confabulation.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if my online dictionary translates "confabulation" exactly. In my understanding this term is in direct context with speculation and rumor, so I didn't use it. Wiktionary.org mentions "fable" and "tale" in the etymology. And at least the psychological meaning is "a fabricated memory believed to be true". Why deliver stuff readers could be bothered about? -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ant, but I thought, some of your changes weren't justified, so I've "undone" part of them. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I spend really a lot of time in revising the single sections. I wouldn't call me a lore junkie, like others claim to be. I do lots of research, here in the related Vault's articles, and also on other sources. I take every former version of each section into account, always looking into the article's history. I try to leave out every little hint of speculation, contradiction, change, etc., only presenting facts from before and from after FO4's release. All missing information, context, explanations are left to the reader's/player's imagination. If this is not what the article should be, then my edits can easily be reverted. But I think, the former version with all its negative comments and allusions – justified or not – was the reason for this process, to reconsider all those topics. -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You hard work defiantly shows, you are a fantastic editor!--Ant2242 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not aware, I was fishing for compliments… ;) -- -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)