Am i being the only one here who's wondering why there're so many series to Fallout3 alone that Fallout New Vegas should not be Fallout4 then? I started and completed Fallout2 yrs ago through my bro's introduction of the game and then realised "HEY! I need Fallout1 now!". So, i do the reverse and completed that too then. By the time that happened, it was just a few yrs later that my fingers ached for the release of Fallout3 but sadly, my system wasn't fit by requirements back then. That was Fallout3 the....ummm... which was that again..... SEE?? I CAN"T EVEN REMEMBER WHICH FALLOUT3 CAME OUT FIRST NOW !! Was it Tactics or Bro Hood of Steel? So, as i found out i couldn't play with the cd at my pc i decided to try out at cybercafes. No better luck. (I won't say what the prob was coz this was yrs back.) Then my CD went missing and i had to wait for another chance to get my hands on it again! And when i do, several other Fallout3 series have already been up and running in the market. Broken Steel... Anchorage... and i get confused thinking, "What are these then? Add-ons or full new game versions?" They're all named Fallout3. Why shouldn't each be known according to their releases? After all, the gameplay is different than the originals coz they were also similar to Diablo and likes. (Of course, there are those who say Fallout is not like Diablo n stuff due to the turn-based against realtime gaming method but those who did play & feel both really know what's meant there.) Fallout3 has mixed 1st & 3rd person shooter gaming style with the earlier versions which makes those loyal to Fallout lose interest. Furthermore, pleeeeeease..... what's with the overload of monster creatures in the later versions? The story goes awkward and just becomes a shoot 'em up game then. It's like Halflife!! Less monsters and better realism would do better for the game. Am i feeling the end of Fallout already with this lack of ideas attitude in this game? Was the idea of the road-warrior mashup until Fallout2 only? You guys killed the story for our chosen character that fit the bill in the 1st 2 series. I like the Brotherhood of Steel but it became a drag in Fallout3... all versions or series. Now, i can't even see New Vegas coz once again, i don't fit the requirements. Man, this was just with the GrandTheftAuto3 series!! Wtf, come to think of it?! Well, at least Rockstar games could develop new main characters in each of their GTA series but i can't say the same bout my once favourite Fallout now. It's shambles!!

Tactics and BoS were both spin-offs. Yes they were Fallout games but that doesn't necessitate calling them Fallout 3 and Fallout 4. As for New Vegas, I'm sure Bethesda could have called it Fallout 4 but this way Obsidian and potentially start their own Fallout series rather than releasing a one-off title.

Okay....so which games are canon and which aren't?

Of the original games Bethesda considers Fallout and Fallout 2 to be canon. Information in Tactics and BoS is potentially canon if it doesn't conflict with other sources.

If there is a discrepancy between Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout 3 I'd imagine the later game takes preference but that's murkier territory.

I don't believe any unreleased content like Van Buren or the Tactics Squeal is considered canon although it could potentially be included in a later game - as we're seeing with New Vegas.

Fallout 1, 2 and fallout 3, simple.

Fallout 3 has 5 dlc's; Operation Anchorage, Point Lookout, Broken steel, the Pitt and Mothership Zeta.

Fallout: New Vegas is a completly new game in the fallout era. You can compare it with GTA: Vice City and San Andreas.

i agree, i have a feeling NV won't be the only obsidian fallout game. pete hines made a comment a while back and he said "we are very serious about bringing fallout to the forefront of RPG's in a major way" thats an exact quote and then low and behold NV gets announced last year, now there are two companies making fallout games, so this all certainly fits pete hines and bethesdas comments regarding the fallout series, they also said that they bought the franchise in order to own it and develop it further. so obsidian making their own fallout games seems to fit in with those comments by betheseda quite well.

So Tactics is completely non-canon? I wonder why they made it that way in the first place.

I really think it's important that they should get the story straight. Make a new Fallout bible or something that sets the record.

And I hope NV doesn't turn out to be another Tactic. Where its inconsistencies makes it non-canon.

Bethesda considers some elements of Tactics to be non-canon. I also doubt Micro Forté decided to make a Fallout game that was non-canon, it's just that some setting and story decisions they made didn't line up with previous games. If this concerns you I should point out that there are inconsistencies between Fallout and Fallout 2 as well.

I don't see New Vegas being considered non-canon or partially canon.

If you want to discuss issues of Fallout canon I'd suggest checking the Fallout Universe forum to see if there is a recent thread on this topic. If not you're welcome to start a new one but I will warn you that these threads tend to run around in circles.

Alright thanks for the info. I know being canon or not shouldn't be such a big deal since they are all different games. But having the universe story/info straight is very important for the Fallout universe IMHO.

I think we all need to seperate the numbering system from Canon - the two aren;'t the same.

Think of it more like the GTA series - The number goes up when there's a significant engine/gameplay change.

Simples.

Complicated: There's little to no engine/gameplay change between FO1 & 2. (Today FO2 would most likely be considered a standalone expansion rather than a sequel by the mainstream)

Indeed - but the folks who did the numbering back then were different - so it doesnt count.

As I see it, the general explanation given in Fallout Tactics of the Brotherhood of Steel's methods, basic history, power structure and major goals are all totally accurate. Other than that you need to take the game with a grain of salt. For example, Tactics features the most unbelievably intelligent variants of Deathclaws and Super Mutants in the entire series- the Super Mutants especially are so well coordinated and organized in battle that it makes you wonder what happened to the zombie-like brutes in Fallout 1 and 2. They're building research labs for Pete's sake. And they don't even try to explain how the Deathclaw Matriarch and the rest of the advlts in her clan are capable of human speech, as there is no FEV in the game to experiment with. Finally I think their access to vehicles is massively exaggerated. Working cars and such are canon, as shown in Fallout 2, but this game goes a bit over the top. Patched up Humvees I can understand, but airships? World War II era tanks? Makes me wonder where they got these materials.

As for the game Brotherhood of Steel, it's total nonsense. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it's not canon at all.

Thank you for pointing that out. It's only small things that are not canon in Tactics. Like the Oil drums all over in a world were oil is no more. Also the furry/hairy deathclaws but here's the thing about them. The devs of FO1 and FO2 wanted other types of deathclaws. They were meant to have hair but the graphics did not support it. So when Micro Forté made tactics they asked questions. They thought the idea of a smarter subspecies of deathclaws was a good idea. Also the PA change was to much for sum to handle but now look at FO3, the PA is different and look at "Enclave PA" it looks alot like Tactics PA.

This "It's not canon" or "part canon" came from the fans of Van Buren. The people that want so much for Van Buren to be Canon. Van Buren is not canon because it was not made, Tactics was. Tactics does not have as many inconsistencies with one or two as it does with Van Buren. Tactics takes place between One and Two. Van Buren was to have locations in Colorado. The end game in Tactics takes place in Colorado. Take Cheyenne Mountain. In Tactics it was the home to the Calculator. In VB it was to be a huge radioactive crater home to many glowing ghouls. Point is Van Buren is not Canon so Tactics can't contradict it. So Tactics is canon, the story, the characters, factions and locations.

Plus Beth talks about Midwestern BoS in FO3.

SuperMutants were never Zombie-like brutes, especially not in Fallout 2 where they're founding towns, mining ore, operating a tactical station on the Enterprise, etc

Airships are very simple devices well within the Brotherhood's skill set - Aluminum structure to hold the balloon, efficently weaved fabric for the skin, Hoffman Apparatus to seperate the Hydrogen from Water. It Ain't rocket science - Its 18th Century Science!

Well on that, Fallout universe does have a "retro-futuristic" theme, like their technology was more advanced than our world yet the culture stayed around the 50's. I can understand the WW2 themed stuff and zeppelins. The Humvees and real-world weaponry doesn't fit in though.

I would not call the Super mutants in Fallout one and two zombie like. Second they are under the leadership of a Brotherhood General. Super mutants can be smart and remember everything of their human lives, like Marcus.



Like I said in another post, Talking hairy deathclaws was an idea that the Devs of FO1 and FO2 wanted. They wanted more then one type of deathclaw. Graphics would not support hair. Devs of Tactics thought it would be a good idea. I like their deathclaws.



FO3 has Flying machines they are called Vertibirds. FO Tactics does no have anything that flies in the game. Second FO3 aka Van Buren was to have alot of vehicles, police cars, fire trucks and so on. That was where fallout was going back then.

You're very much confused here. All those titles are nothing more than add ons and expansions to the default Fallout 3 game. There's only one Fallout 3. You can't play any of those titles unless you have the default game.

In essence, there's still only one company making Fallout games. Obsidian is developing New Vegas under contract by Bethesda, so it's still their game not Obsidian's. Obsidian is basically just doing the grunt work for Bethesda.

Micro Forté made Tactics, but IIRC Chris Taylor was responsible for overseeing that their work was in keeping with Fallout. (not 100% successful )

Characters like Lou, Marcus, and Fawkes are the exception, not the rule. The general behavior of Super Mutants in all three main Fallout games show them to be particularly unintelligent and completely lacking in tactical coordination when outside of the direct order of someone like the Master. If anything I'd say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlMIUbPOp-w is a good example of the typical comprehension abilities of Super Mutants. As for their tactical prowess, well, all they've ever done in every single Fallout game is charge into range of the player and unload whatever big gun they are wielding as fast as possible. They continue to do this in Fallout 3. In Tactics they used malicious tricks like hiding behind cover and setting up sniper posts at key locations. This is well beyond the capacity and training of any other group of Super Mutants we've seen thusfar in the series.



They might have wanted it, but that doesn't make it canon. Deathclaws evolved from lizards, not humans, and they don't even have vocal cords. The only way they could have developed human speech is through the FEV hyper-intelligence programs the Enclave put the West Coast Deathclaws through. This is why there are no intelligent deathclaws in Fallout 3, they simply do not exist outside of the area of former Enclave influence. Fallout Tactics simply redefined how Deathclaws mutated, contrary to all other Fallout canon. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but that it isn't accurate in the long-term view of the series.



Fallout Tactics DOES have flying machines- giant zeppelins that flew the Brotherhood to the Missouri area in the first place. They're shown in the initial cutscene. Now who supposedly built them? The West Coast Brotherhood of Steel. Yet they lack any form of vehicle technology in the first two Fallout games- so clearly Tactics redefined their technological capacity. Once again, I'm calling BS on the side of Tactics.

Well one thing you have to consider in Fallout 1 is that the Master svcked some brainpower out of some (or all) of the mutants to feed his psychic brain.

I believe he's refering to the Airships in the FOT intro.



Nonsense.

Can the BOS build a light steel structure - Yep, I'm fairly sure they know how to weld.
Can they weave? Yep - They make combat armour from Kevlar Fabric
Can they make a DC current? - If Vree can design a Laser pistol, I don't think a DC current through water to seperate it into Hydrogen and Oxygen is much beyond them.
Can they build and maintain a motor - Yes, they have working elevators.

Therefore, the building of an airship is clearly within the BOS' capability. They may not have the resoruces to build a fresh batch of powered armour, but an 18th century flying vehicle would hardly be a challenge.

I see no reason at all why the BOS could not have early 20th century style Aeroplanes and Gliders - they have the requisite skills to build such devices (lightweight structrure + fabric + Engine), just because they arent show in game doesnt mean they don't exist - its game logic after all (all you see is a representation of all thats there). If you can only coun't what you see in game, V13 has 3 innacessable levels (as they're shown on the vault of the future poster, but there's no physical way to get there).