Should Fallout 3 be considered canon?

CT Phipps said:
I used them in New Vegas. Unless you mean some other game.
Click to expand...

I mean the classic trilogy, Fallout 1, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics. Only the first one use caps as currency. The two other games use several other currencies. (more than one currency by episode, depending on the faction or location) but not caps, which are explicitly established to have lost its value in Fallout 2.
 
But yes, while I don't care about the West Coast as much as I care about the East Coast (even if Fallout 4 has grossly dissapointed me in developing the East Coast's story), I've got to say New Vegas really improved on Fallout 3's style. It felt dynamic, enjoyable, and well-written throughout. I didn't get quite the same level of enjoyment exploring but the writing was much better and everything hung together well.

As much as I loved the Fallout 3 expansions, New Vegas' were better by far.

I also loved the subtle "take thats" to Fallout 3 such as the "Evil Elder Lyons" character of Father Elijah and showing the BOS as pathetic than ascendant. I also loved the similar treatment of the Enclave.

I do regret it was an Easter Egg rather than canon that James wasn't from Vault 21, though. I think the stories could have been tied together better.
 
Yeah, but a statement that 'New Vegas is an expansion sequel to Fallout 3' is objectively false, no matter how you try to twist and twirl the facts to your liking and preferences.

CT Phipps said:
I also loved the subtle "take thats" to Fallout 3 such as the "Evil Elder Lyons" character of Father Elijah and showing the BOS as pathetic than ascendant.
Click to expand...
Your perspective on how things work is extremely messed up.

First, you try to tell me that video game writings doesn't need any consistency and somehow continuity would get in the way of good story, and now Father Elijah is 'Evil Elder Lyons'? Bah.

I would like to explain to how they are two completely different person with their own personality and, therefore, saying that one is an evil version of the other is completely false but.... tell you what, I'm going to do you a favor and continue ignoring you and your messed up perspective.
 
Black Angel said:
Yeah, but a statement that 'New Vegas is an expansion sequel to Fallout 3' is objectively false, no matter how you try to twist and twirl the facts to your liking and preferences.

Your perspective on how things work is extremely messed up.
Click to expand...

Okay.

First, you try to tell me that video game writings doesn't need any consistency and somehow continuity would get in the way of good story, and now Father Elijah is 'Evil Elder Lyons'? Bah.
Click to expand...

I say canon is a minor issue versus good storytelling. I also don't believe they're the same universe as the original games so it's not a big deal to me anyway.

I would like to explain to how they are two completely different person with their own personality and, therefore, saying that one is an evil version of the other is completely false but.... tell you what, I'm going to do you a favor and continue ignoring you and your messed up perspective.
Click to expand...

You don't see the characters as deliberate foils?
 
Prone Squanderer said:
Fallout 3 I can understand but why don't you believe that New Vegas is in the same universe as Fallout 1 & 2?
Click to expand...

To explain my model:

1. Fallout 1 and 2 take place in Universe 1

2. Fallout 1 and 2 happened in Universe 2 but so did Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas

For me, the biggest reason the universes should be separate is the timeline. Fallout: New Vegas follows the same timeline as Fallout 3 which has much of the world still devastated and in ruins 200 years later. In the original timeline, Arryo and the Shi symbolize the end of the Second Dark Age (Radioactive Age?) with the return of humanity to prominence and a "happy ending" overall. By contrast, New Vegas shows NCR making progress but that progress limited to California when the rest of the world should have mostly rebuilt itself by now.

Fallout: New Vegas is basically a setting I see as an extrapolation of the very different world and fundamentals of Fallout 3 versus a pure sequel to Fallout 1 and 2.

That's just my preference, though. I know most people prefer to think of F1, F2, and NV all taking place in the same universe--which is cool. I just think of that as Universe 2# versus the universe established w/ Interplay.
 
Ultimately, us as fans of Fallout, have no say in the matter about what is, and isn't canon.

Bethesda could literally say 'Fallout 1-2-NV aren't canon, and aren't even fallout games', and their statement would indeed be 'right'.

Stupid, yes, I know.

But go figures, exactly that happened to one of my favourite franchises, Alien, which now has Colon Mahreens as canon...
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Ultimately, us as fans of Fallout, have no say in the matter about what is, and isn't canon.

Bethesda could literally say 'Fallout 1-2-NV aren't canon, and aren't even fallout games', and their statement would indeed be 'right'.

Stupid, yes, I know.

But go figures, exactly that happened to one of my favourite franchises, Alien, which now has Colon Mahreens as canon...
Click to expand...
official canon doesn't mean shit tbh. I do to fallout 3 and 4 what many do with the matrix 2 & 3. it's called fanon discontinuity. and it isn't any less valid than what execs (who clearly aren't fans) say.

also fox can say aliens: colonial marines is canon all they want. it's not. besides wasn't that mostly just a marketing ploy?
 
R.Graves said:
official canon doesn't mean shit tbh. I do to fallout 3 and 4 what many do with the matrix 2 & 3. it's called fanon discontinuity. and it isn't any less valid than what execs (who clearly aren't fans) say.

also fox can say aliens: colonial marines is canon all they want. it's not. besides wasn't that mostly just a marketing ploy?
Click to expand...

Official canon means everything when it comes to the actual franchise.

Fans can say what they want, but the company is the one calling the shots.

I hate Fallout 3-4 as much as all of you guys, but I am forced to accept bethesda's decision as they make more of the franchise, regardless on how shit it is.

I just won't play the games.

Vote with your wallets.
 
R.Graves said:
why? does It really have to matter?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it affects the lore, the calcs of the series, the characters, etc.

Bethesda could add magic spells, make T51b postwar tech, and make the enclave into reptillian aliens from mars.

And it'd be official.


R.Graves said:
sure, new games will be made. but the fact that they get made doesn't make them canon.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

Who owns the franchise again?

They own it, what they say, is official, and unless you buy the IP, there's nothing you can do about it.

Until then, just feel lucky they aren't making the sales/ownership of Fallout 1-2 illegal or some bullshit.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Yes, because it affects the lore, the calcs of the series, the characters, etc.

Bethesda could add magic spells, make T51b postwar tech, and make the enclave into reptillian aliens from mars.
Click to expand...
were they to do such things it could only affect the current entry and the ones that come after. that would have nothing to do with fallout 1, 2 , NV or even 3 & 4. it would only ruin the franchise's future. not it's past. it would be, or rather, have to be, canon to the future games but not necessarily to the ones that came before it.

ThatZenoGuy said:
And it'd be official.
Click to expand...
and official canon doesn't mean shit. as I said it only makes a difference to games that come after a certain point. not even fallout 2 needs to be canon to fallout 1. but fallout 2 must be canon to NV. at least most of it. just as, regrettably, small portions of fallout 3 are canon to NV. but, for example, officially, fallout 4 is canon. but as it has virtually nothing to do with anything to do with previous entries (apart from small parts fallout 3 and two references to NV) it doesn't have to be canon to previous entries.
 
R.Graves said:
were they to do such things it could only affect the current entry and the ones that come after. that would have nothing to do with fallout 1, 2 , NV or even 3 & 4. it would only ruin the franchise's future. not it's past. it would be, or rather, have to be, canon to the future games but not necessarily to the ones that came before it.
Click to expand...

Except you'd still have to accept it, and praise it as the one true canon.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Except you'd still have to accept it, and praise it as the one true canon.
Click to expand...
No, I don't. That's what I'm trying to tell you. The only "one true" canon is Fallout 1. Everything after can be acknowledged or ignored at will, official or not. canon is only determined by the content of each individual game. and each individual game establishes the canon for itself, and only itself, with its references. The rest is up to fans.

/edit: I had removed this bit because it was sort of a rehash of an argument I made in my previous post. but I thought I'd include it anyway, as a sort of optional read, because it's a bit more clear here than it was my previous post.
No, I don't. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Fallout 2 doesn't have to be canon to fallout 1. However, fallout 1 must be canon to fallout 2 as many elements from fo1 tie into fo2. New Vegas doesn't have to be canon to fallout 1 or 2. however most of fallout 1 and 2 must be Canon to new vegas as they are referenced and acknowledged often. as luck would have it New Vegas barely acknowledges fallout 3. the only canon elements (as far as new vegas is concerned) are Adams Air Force Base and a brotherhood civil war. this model can be applied to fallout 4 as well, meaning fallout 4 doesn't ruin the previous entries, it can only ruin later ones. hopefully it will only taint the next entry slightly as 3 did to New Vegas.

What I'm saying is, based on this model, The only "one true" canon is Fallout 1. Everything after can be acknowledged or ignored at will, official or not. canon is only determined by the content of each individual game. and each individual game establishes the canon for itself, and only itself, with its nods and references. The rest is up to fans.
 
Last edited:
R.Graves said:
No, I don't. That's what I'm trying to tell you. The only "one true" canon is Fallout 1. Everything after can be acknowledged or ignored at will, official or not. canon is only determined by the content of each individual game. and each individual game establishes the canon for itself, and only itself, with its references. The rest is up to fans.
Click to expand...

Nah, I can totally ignore Fallout 1 and state the series truly began with Fallout 2. It happened with Assassins Creed.
 
CT Phipps said:
Nah, I can totally ignore Fallout 1 and state the series truly began with Fallout 2
Click to expand...
d3f.jpg
 
I honestly find Fallout 1 to have nicer combat in most cases.

No more humans in leather jackets with 100+ HP...
 
F1 is the best in my opinion the plot was actually good and the master was a much stronger villain than the enclave. I wish you'd have more things to do though.
 
Koveras said:
F1 is the best in my opinion the plot was actually good and the master was a much stronger villain than the enclave. I wish you'd have more things to do though.
Click to expand...

I think FO1 would have been fucking amazing if it had 2's engine (all the nice stuff it added...), and had a few more options.

Why not an option to keep the master alive, and let him atone by being nice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top