We've Moved! Just as Gamepedia has joined forces with Fandom, this wiki had joined forces with our Fandom equivalent. The wiki has been archived and we ask that readers and editors move to the now combined wiki on Fandom. Click to go to the new wiki.

Talk:Fallout canon

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Talkpage.png
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Fallout canon".
It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article. Please use the forums for these purposes.

This article states Canon as being officially part of the Fallout universe. I'm thinking official is the wrong word here, as it would accept everything as canon, The canon is more agreed then dictated, don't you think? Dan 08:16, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)

No. I haven't played Tactics or BOS, but here's an example of why certain things are not considered canon. In Fallout, the nations fought over the dwindling levels of oil available during the game no one drove cars because fuel was gone. However, in BOS they had the the main characters driving a car. Which is not possible because fuel was not very accessible by the time of the Great War.
It's parts of those games that hugely conflict with Fallout. Fallout 2 is accepted because most of the thing sin there are pop culture references or jokes. Which is different from saying the grass is pink which it clearly isn't. -- (Middle Man 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Who defined this?

Who defined this? I understand "Fallout" and "Fallout 2" stance, since they are standard canon definition. I know there are number of plot holes in Tactics which made it inconsistent with Fallout 1 and 2, but most of the other elements fits in the world. Obviously one can claim to be a purist and enforce even the minute style, that is just waste of time. (Please give explanation on the method current system was determined.)

As a note, the person in Fallout 3 teaser wore a BOS armor. Knowing that Fallout 3 occurs on the East Coast, I'd say that it is probably based off some elements of the Tactics plot. --Voidvector 10:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Remember the Vertibirds from Fallout 2 that the old Brotherhood could get? The people from Black Isle (like Chris Avellone or J.E. Sawyer) didn't consider Tactics to be canon and for some time, their word was official on that issue. Anyway, I've planned on writing a more elaborate article on the question of canon and inconsistencies between the games for some time, but I never got around to doing that. And yes, this is a delicate issue that the current stub doesn't do justice to. Some people consider Tactics and FO:BOS to be canon, while others don't, some consider Van Burent to be canon even though it wasn't published and others don't, some consider the words of Tim Cain or Chris Avellone to be canon while others rely only on information from the games themselves. Ausir 10:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Excerpt from "canon" banners:
  • Template:FOT: "[Fallout Tactics] is not considered part of the Fallout canon by many (but not all) people. Some of it can however be considered semi-canon if it does not contradict canon sources."
  • Template:JES: "It is not known whether any of [J.E. Sawyer's Fallout RPG] will be treated as canon in future Fallout games, but it might be treated as semi-canon if it does not contradict canon sources."
To Fallout Tactics, it is pretty much a flat out "no". To JES RPG, which isn't even an official game, it takes a "may be" stance. There is some lack of objectivity in here. Based on the wording of those templates, JES RPG seems more canon than Tactics. --Voidvector 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out, I fixed it. Ausir 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, a lot nicer now. --Voidvector 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bethesda Software's take on canon

I'm not saying this should be included now because Fallout 3 isn't released yet, so we don't know for sure their version of things. But this should be included at some point because they are the current holders of the franchise. We already know they are not taking Tactics and BoS as canon, so that could be included as well at some point. Just figure I post a point of it. -- (Middle Man 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Fallout Tactics mentioned in Fallout 3

If you ask Scribe Rothchild in Fallout 3 about the Brotherhood, he will tell you there is a Brotherhood of Steel organization in Chicago that has gone rogue (basically the Fallout Tactics storyline). This should confirm Fallout Tactics' canonicity in terms of Fallout 3.--Voidvector 07:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked Emil Pagliarulo and he said that they don't consider all elements of Tactics canon, just high-level events that don't contradict Fallout and Fallout 2. Ausir 08:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris Avellone

Wouldn't hurt imo to give an example of C A being wrong about canon. That one kind of seems loose to me. But then, I am indoctrinated by the Wikipedia 'cite everything' rule. VvAnarchangelvV 16:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vault 77

is the Puppet Man canon or not? (i think he is) 194.76.29.2 13:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He is - the Vault 77 Jumpsuit appears in Fallout 3. Ausir 13:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Van Buren elements in F3

While Van Buren is not considered canon, some minor elements were incorporated in Fallout 3 - Ausir could you poit those elements for me, please?--dotz 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The ones I noticed were Hei Gui stealth armor (in the add-on), the T-45d Power Armor designation and the Enclave symbol (it was in the JE Sawyer PnP, but it was based on Van Buren, and could have been used in some VB concept art too). Ausir 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I seems Chinese soldiers remnants motive appeares also.--dotz 08:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reference to Van Buren, this time in Operation: Anchorage:

"This armor appears to be a more recent prototype of the same HG stealth armor captured from enemy infiltrators at the Hoover Sabotage."

Ausir 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't know how Fallout wiki works, but most wikis are made to be neutral sources of information. So, for example, the bit about fallout 2 being considered inferior is not only biased, but also totally useless. Just say that the events in fallout 2 are copacetic to the general story line and be done. 24.247.156.217 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We aren't enforcers of failed policies like NPOV. "Pretty neutral" is enough. Besides, as a fan wiki, this has to reflect the opinions on the fanbase, not conveniently omit facts whenever they collide with the opinion of the current IP holder. 15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Buren and canon in general

I feel that no part of Van Buren should be taken as canon as it was an unreleased work (officially). Being that it wasn't released, thus unfinished, then the story wasn't (officially) polished, thus un referenceable for canon or comparison. If Bathesda took some elements and implemented them into Fallout 3, then only those elements are canon.

Also another note about Canon, Fans should keep in mind that the timeline of the stories is over hundreds of years after the great war, Things referencing the past can get stretched and exaggerated in that time ( being human thier record keeping can be embellished as no one is infallible) such as some elements seeming to contradict canon, could in fact be Canon embellishments, or things that got changed over the centuries through retelling ( such as the formation of the brotherhood could be embellished to add to the mythos) so to call something non canon because it isn't exactly as it was in the first game could be wrong, as it is simply this generations embellishment of the story (capital wasteland is cut off from western brotherhood in Fallout 3, so they have oral tradition due to not being in contact with the core brotherhood). It is small things like this, or a regional brotherhood chapter making up thier own rankings that show the humanness of the characters or factions. if stuck directly to what some fans call canon, you would end up with automatons that parrot everything in every game with no originality.

I also find the idea of a car being driven as non canon as laughable, as the same fans are seeing nothing wrong with the idea of vertibirds operating. (may be wrong on power source, if i am then this last thought can be redacted)

in summation, canon doesn't need to be an exact parroting of what came before, if embellishments and stretching of the events that occured before come up, then that is that generations canon, as that is what is widely believed at that time and place.

I am just glad that the fallout universe hasn't fallen into the trap of KotOR, where some idiot wrote a book making the main character male canon. if there is a gender choice in a game, then the sex of the main character should never be made canon. --75.61.64.118 22:57, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the hero of Fallout 1, the Vault Dweller, is canonically male according to Fallout 2. Ausir(talk) 23:04, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ausir for straightening that out, though I would have liked some feedback on the rest of what I wrote, it was good of you to reply anyway.--75.61.64.118 02:06, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'd say 99.96 % of fallout new vegas is cannon, but I could have sworn I saw a M4 type gun and a colt .45. That can't possibly cannon, can it? Next with all this stuff about oil in the fallout time line, all the cars in fallout 3 do not use oil, so what's the big deal? 2nd I was looking through the wiki for cool info and I saw that either fallout tactics or fallout bos had weapons that appeared to be pink, yellow and blue, easter bunny's weapons stockpile? No, seriously, why are they pastel colors. this is post apacalyptia not dora the explora. Also, can someone explain what happened to harold, really? Oh ya, and to all those people who want to rp like a real person in fo3, it's harder than it sounds(much easier to do in tes iv).

Well, even Fallout 1 has one modern gun, the Desert Eagle. Ausir(talk) 03:09, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Might I?

If its okay with all of you, I'd like to remove the "canon, not cannon!" picture. It's rather unnecessary and I'd like to remove, If i'm allowed.

I think it's funny myself (well, I put it there), and it's a common misspelling. Ausir(talk) 17:30, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Never mind then.

Add Fallout: New Vegas' Wild Wasteland perk to unknown canon and cut content to non-canon?

Or would such an operation be deemed unnecessary? --Solar Storm 19:35, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

As above... or was it below... ?

Should Fallout Shelter be above Fallout Tactics or below it?--Ant2242 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ToddCanon

Why are we listing the source of the quote from the Gamespy article as "ToddCanon"? This makes no sense. --Sablemalamute (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"ToddCanon" is a ref name. When you have a ref that is used at multiple points, you make a named ref like <ref name="ToddCanon"> to just briefly describe what the ref is. It's an organization thing so you don't have a single reference being referenced several times in the same article and can consolidate it into one ref line in the references section. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 07:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I also prefer descriptive and sometimes snarky names. This particular one is meant to be a shorthand for "Todd Howard on canon", which is about the only statement from the current IP holder on what's canon and what's not. Tagaziel (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks.--Sablemalamute (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)