Whats your stance on retcons?

R.Graves

R.Graves

Confirmed Retard
Personally. I think if they're explained well and have good reason for happening/existing. I mean Beth could handle retcons better but when going through my dads comics I've come across some pretty fucking insulting retcons. I personally dislike retcons that undo things rather than change them.
 
It depends how the retcon is presented. Here is an outlined example:
-Topic A is defined early on as part of the lore
-Sometime in the story things start going into depth (Topic B) and previously unrevealed information comes to light, which further explains Topic A.
-Topic A is no longer considered lore due to the revelation that topic B provided
-Topic C is introduced to continue the growing story and solidifies Topic B

But this outline only works on simple items, for largely grounded and firm facts of the universe there should NEVER be retcons to it as it could destabilize the entire structure. (aka FO 3-4)

Sometimes retcons are not just a redaction and filler but can be used effectively to explain previously established beliefs on loose subjects that hold no bearing to the core theme and setting.
 
Retcons are alright to me if they are used sparingly and for good reason. Like how the campaigns in L4D were originally their own stories before it was retconned to all of them being part of one large story due to players wanting continuity. Things like Jet being prewar in F4 is using retconning in a bad way, clearly not being used properly.

I don't fully believe that retconning something is the "mark of a shitty writer" since even a great writer may think up a better version of a previous situation after the fact and providing that the "better version" doesn't mess up the original version too much, then it should be okay.
 
I think they can be excellently done if they're sublte and utilize the original piece of lore in someway instead of just flatout overriding it and pretending it didn't happen.

Retcons are inevitable when it comes to comics. Decades of a consistent universe, and you're going to run into some hangups.
 
I am of mixed opinion on them, some work but most of them are terrible in general.
Fallout related I think they are mostly terrible but Fallout 2 also retconned some stuff and that did work.
 
It all depends on how they are used.
An example of a good retcon is during the extremis saga of an Iron Man comic, now we know Iron Man came about during the Vietnam war, but to sort of keep things a bit more modern, Iron Man's origin came from the Afghan war during the early 90's.
It doesn't contradict anything, and if you know the comics before hand, it doesn't take away your enjoyment from them. It just helps keep the comics updated. The stuff before hand is all still canon, it just now takes place a bit later than we first expected. (It does get weird when you get to stories that follow on from Tony's origin through). But it's more of a passing thing, it doesn't take up a lot of the story and is only there so newer fans don't have to read 50+ years worth of comics.

As we've seen before, Jet in Fallout 4 makes no sense at all. It ties in with a character's story from the second game. Again, I know Tony Starks origin also ties in with his character, but it's much easier to pick up a series of games of which five are considered canon, than a series of comics which have been coming out on a regular occasion since the early 60's. Plus, Jet in Fallout 4 doesn't do anything to update the canon, it's just there as an inconsistency. The worst retcon in Fallout 4 has to be that Ghouls don't need water to survive, as this was a major plot point in the first game.
It's not an update but contradicts Ghoul biology that's been established for years.

But then we get a series like Metal Gear, which are full of retcons. But the difference is that these were retcons in that the previous ideas are still canon. An example is Liquid Ocelot, which was retconed in MGS4 as being Ocelot on drugs. It doesn't take the enjoyment away from MGS2, in fact, it makes a lot of sense (and playing MGSV makes even more sense of it). But it doesn't contradict anything that's already been established.

Anyway, that's my opinion on Retcons.
 
As a long time comic book fan. I've grown used to retcons. I still hate it when they happen. But instead of raging about it I just try to ignore it and try to find things I like about the story or the characters.
 
Big No said:
Retcons are alright to me if they are used sparingly and for good reason. Like how the campaigns in L4D were originally their own stories before it was retconned to all of them being part of one large story due to players wanting continuity.
Click to expand...
I think it was the other way around, sort of. Originally, before release, they were all tied together. Then playtesters said it sort of sucked that your accomplishments at the end of a campaign were nullified in the next one, so they removed the references that indicated that they were tied together.
Then general audiences found out and liked the idea, so they changed it again and made it canon that they were tied together.

They retconned the retcon. omg double retcon what does it mean


The only retconniving I can think of that I don't hate is from the Legacy of Kain series. The retcons themselves are sort of lame, but the resulting narrative produced is so awesome that I find I don't mind them.
 
Depends of how its made. The dark knight trilogy proved it can work just fine, but on the other spectrum there´s garbage like the fantastic four.
 
The dark knight trilogy isn't retconning stuff though. It's a reiteration of Batman. Not exactly a reboot as the main series of Batman is still going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top