Should Fallout 3 be considered canon?

Sn1p3r187

Sn1p3r187

Carolinian Shaolin Monk
I don't know at the moment, in some ways I just think it's a different story told on a different side of the country and compares how bad some life on the East Coast United is after 200 years in comparison to the West coast. But other than that it's full of plot holes and it's generally just very bad. Thoughts.
 
Technically it is canon, because Bethesda owns it and they can make new garbage canon.
Personally I think it is offensive how bad it is and I pretend it was never made. For me there is;
Fallout
Fallout 2
Fallout 3 (NV)
 
I think with a couple of retcons to clean up lore inconsistency between small stuff like military equipment, historical events, and certain quests, most of Fallout 3 could be considered canon. Poorly written or solid average quests doesn't make the story events in it any less plausible. So I would say yes, but under retcons to Fallout 3. Not retconning other Fallouts to fit Fallout 3.

Fallout 4 is a bit of a stretch, considering how far-fetched it was. The Institute and the Brotherhood's raw power and technological advancements, combined with the abundance of high-tech equipment and existing AI systems, makes Fallout 4's entire lore set several levels more difficult to combine with the original Fallout's world. This is, of course, not even counting the least favourite quests of this forum, involving the ghoul kid and the Cabot family.

I mean, everything in Fallout 3 makes a boring story but fairly compares with other Fallouts in a still sane way. Factions have pros and cons, everyone has their (poorly-defined, one-sided) reasons for everything, and more explanations are given than not. Fallout 4 treats consistency like Michael Bay treats any of his movie scenes that doesn't have explosions in it.
 
No it's not canon. Its "story" is completely irrelevant to the core region, thus it is little more than fanfiction and can be happily ignored.

Deciding what's "canon" and what isn't is a completely subjective and personal choice. I would argue there is no value whatsoever in believing that Fallout 3 is canon, but if people want to convince themselves that there is, sure why not? I don't understand why you would want to believe that, but again, it's all just a matter of opinion.
 
"Canon" as a notion is pretty irrelevant. It only really applies to works with multiple authors, and the nature of works with multiple authors is that "the next person can just retcon whatever they want to change from anything done before."

Don't worry about what's "canon" with fiction, worry about what's meaningful, moving, thought-provoking, etc. Like the difference between "Bethesda's Fallout" and "some rando's Fallout fan-fiction" is that one of them can be monetized and the other can't. That's pretty much it.
 
It IS canon by Bethesda.
By all means that hellspawn shouldn't have existed in the first place. xD

On a side note Fallout 3 has become quite a decent game compared to Fallout 4.
It's a sad world. :(
 
Yes, it is canon by Bethesda and that how canon works :confused:.

There is no way we can change the definition of canon, the person or group or company that owns the IP decides what is canon and what's not.

What some people seem to be doing is confusing canon for lore, which many people decide for themselves if something is lore friendly or not.

Lore is how people perceive the universe of any IP or franchise and see if things keep matching to that perceived idea they have. That is why so many people say stuff like having lightsabers in Fallout is totally lore breaking but others say it fit's the lore because *insert any explanation you want here* :confused:.
 
Risewild said:
Yes, it is canon by Bethesda and that how canon works :confused:.

There is no way we can change the definition of canon, the person or group or company that owns the IP decides what is canon and what's not.

What some people seem to be doing is confusing canon for lore, which many people decide for themselves if something is lore friendly or not.

Lore is how people perceive the universe of any IP or franchise and see if things keep matching to that perceived idea they have. That is why so many people say stuff like having lightsabers in Fallout is totally lore breaking but others say it fit's the lore because *insert any explanation you want here* :confused:.
Click to expand...

Whoa. Really? I thought lore was the accumulated knowledge and background of the universe, and canon was the particular works that the original author accepted as genuine. Whether it fits the lore or not is whether it works within the rules of that universe. Lore can be made canon or non-canon. By this definition, only the original creators of Fallout all the way back in the days of Interplay can determine what is canon in its official sense. In that sense, that is why George Lucas and his words on the Original Trilogy is the subject of controversy - because while several followers of the OT believes that he ruined the lore, his word (combined with whoever else helped him write it) determines what is and is not canon.

But it's not the case with Fallout, as there were none of the developers in charge of the lore now that were part of Interplay Entertainment that developed the original Fallout. They cannot determine canon in the artistic and original sense, even if they can in the technical and official sense. Of course, there are many intrepretations and variants of this definition of canon, but this is the most definite definition I've ever heard of. Plus, it's one of the many official definitions of the word in many dictionaries. So everyone has their own opinions considering how loosely the term is used nowadays, but my personal belief is that only the original author of a work of fiction alone can determine what is canon or not. But considering how many of these authors are now long dead, especially when it comes to historical literature, I suppose the designation isn't very definite now. That is what makes it possible for followers of works to create their interpretation of which part is or isn't canon.

In short, Bethesda can make an official document detailing what and what isn't canon, but technically only the original developers and writers from Interplay can faithfully determine what is and isn't canon. But remember, this is only my interpretation of a popular and official definition, so this is more subjective than anything else. It is not necessary to argue with me on a personal opinion piece.
 
Earth said:
No it's not canon. Its "story" is completely irrelevant to the core region, thus it is little more than fanfiction and can be happily ignored.

Deciding what's "canon" and what isn't is a completely subjective and personal choice. I would argue there is no value whatsoever in believing that Fallout 3 is canon, but if people want to convince themselves that there is, sure why not? I don't understand why you would want to believe that, but again, it's all just a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
Isn't what you're describing actually Fanon? I'm pretty sure that Canon is what is dictated by the IP owner what happens and what doesn't while Fanon is what the fan dictates what is true and what isn't.
 
I'll respect Bethesda's "canon" the moment they understand what they even want it to be. Right now all I'm seeing is lore inconsistencies, copy-pasted plots and a cartoonish, 2D layered treatment of a nuanced video game series.

People can argue semantics all day. Doesn't change the fact that Bethesda's "Fallout" is irrelevant to the real Fallout series, in almost every respect.
 
It's canon, but it can be ignored and as it's in a different area, it's really pointless.

EDIT: Like Mr Chaos said. Who really cares?
 
Doesn't really matter. The West Coast Fallout games and Bethesda's Fallout games may as well take place on different planets for how dissimilar they are.
 
Well according to the general accepted description, Fallout 3 is 'canon' (as if Fallout 4). Even I can not get around that how much I dislike it. (I also don't like it that Star Trek 2009, Star Trek Into Darkness, and the upcoming Star Trek Beyond are canon either.)

But Fallout 3 (and Fallout 4) are in so many ways detached from the original two games, gameplay wise, how lore is worked out and treated, humor wise (Fallout 3's comedy is in general more crude than that of Fallout 1 and 2, though FO2 did drop the ball from time to time), portraying relative working worlds to a rather non functional. (this was addressed somewhat in Fallout 4 but still done very poorly).

Like with the Star Trek analogue I just mentioned, Fallout 3 seems to have little in common with Fallout 1 and 2 despite using material from its 'predecessors'. Change these and there is no connection at all anymore.
This comes from the fact that the gameplay it refitted too and the audience it is designed for is completely different than the Fallout 1 and 2 audience.
There were still a few elements left that allowed for some transition to the new game but in Fallout 4 we already saw that even these were weakened or removed (skills charts were removed in favor of perk 'trees' which were originally little skill modifications and bonuses) and Fallout 4 was even more of an open world shooter than Fallout 3 was.

I think that in the future the Fallout games will take even more inspiration from GTA, becoming a sort of post apocalyptic version of that game with some Fallout dressing.

Back to the subject, Fallout 3 is canon for the moment but don't expect me to defend that claim if it ever comes under fire.
Should the Fallout franchise ever be sold again for some reason and a new team would like to start over from a certain point, I think the best start would be declare everything after Fallout 2 to be non canon. (perhaps the new developers would be willing to make an exception for NV but it may have to be a casualty we are going to have to take)
 
Fallout 3 and 4 are not beyond saving lore wise. Better to keep New Vegas and salvage what we can. The new owners could just disregard or alter most of what Bethesda fucked up. Stick to other parts of the country and forget the EastCoast/Bethesda region of influence.
 
I personally think FO3 should be treated like Fallout Tactics, in terms of, its Semi-Cannon. The main plot, and most of the areas in game I would treat as cannon, however stuff like Little Lamplight should be declared 100% non-cannon.
 
TorontRayne said:
Fallout 3 and 4 are not beyond saving lore wise. Better to keep New Vegas and salvage what we can. The new owners could just disregard or alter most of what Bethesda fucked up. Stick to other parts of the country and forget the EastCoast/Bethesda region of influence.
Click to expand...

I would argue that Fallout 4 is beyond saving, lore-wise. It's a completely different tone and approach compared to the rest of the series. Fallout 3's events could be regarded as legends and myths, as has been discussed before - that way, how much of it is canon can be left ambiguous.
 
Fallout 3 and 4 are canon.
But it this case, canon can be considered a very loose term.

Tactics for example is technically non-canon, but it proves itself to be a better game that respects its story than what Bethesda has pulled out.

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind so much if we got a weird Doom like canon for the series.
Example;
Fallout 1,2, New Vegas- Universe 1
Fallout 3,4- Universe 2

That doesn't mean aspects of 1,2 and NV didn't happen in 3 and 4 and vice versa.
It just means Black Isle Studio/Obsidian and Bethesda hold their own Universes.
 
Fallout 3 and 4 will be canon when they explain how jet on the east coat makes sense. Until they do that, it's just better funded fanfiction (not even made by fans)
 
I wouldn't mind not considering it canon. I really hate how they raped the Enclave and BoS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top