Okay, In a thread recently a lot of arguing was done over the FO3 "Canon" i got on the all mighty wiki to get an idea about what they were on about, and well, I don't quite get it...
I get the basic idea of the canon concept of what is officially part of the FO3 world, but that's en extremely large unspecific thing. I don't get what makes one thing canon and another simply not, can someone tell me what is/makes "Canon"? thnx.

Ultimately, "Canon" is a load of [censored]. It's pretty much whatever Bethesda's employees put into a game, often contradicting real-world logic or common sense, or decent storytelling due to time or gameplay constraints. After something is put into the game it becomes canon, and then people spend hours squabbling over what is and isn't "canon" like it's some kind of holy scripture. What especially irritates me is that certain people whine if a mod is made which disagrees with anything in the original game(s).

Don't do "canon", man.

EDIT: AndyTBone's answer is much more succinct than mine

Canon is that little thing that everybody thinks matters, but doesn't.

Nowdays "canon" is what happened and what was said in Fallout 1, 2 and the so-called Fallout Bible.
Anti-canon is, however, anything related to Bethesda.

Personally to those obsessed with trolling about Beth and those who feel absurd love towards the Originals, I refer as the "Canon Crusaders".

I see both the originals and Bethesda as canon. Whatever is officially said gets added to the canon(officially true) record of events.

Canon is the official lore of the Fallout universe, in essence, it is whatever whoever holds the license currently, in this case, Bethesda, says is true, some might tell you otherwise, but they're either trolls or have no clue what "canon" means. Fallout 1, 2 and 3 are all canon unless at some point Bethesda decides to tell us that something we've learned is wrong, or someone else picks up the license and decides to label some past game as non-canon. Fallout Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel are not canon, because Bethesda says so. Anyone who tells you canon is anything else other than what I said is either a troll or has a very misguided perception of the meaning of the word "canon" when refering to fiction.

Sometimes, some fans will come out with some sort of idea of how things in Fallout should be, and they believe their vision of the Fallout universe is better than the official one, maybe they're even right, this is what has been called fanon, it can be interesting material for fan fiction and may lead to some fun discussions in the Fallout Universe forums, but other than that it's completely and utterly meaningless since it is not officially recognized as part of the Fallout universe and is thus entirely non-canon, maybe some time in the future, Bethesda will look at some fan theory and think "Sure, why not?" and just decide to add it in because it seemed like a good idea at the time, or, if the Fallout series manages to last that long, current fans might end up joining the ranks of the developers and decide to plant their favorite Epileptic Trees in actual canon, but otherwise, there is a distinct line between the two in that one has a bearing on the actual games and anything else related to the Fallout universe, the other does not.

This is the perfect answer.

yea, thanks for clearing that up for me, that's really all (and more) I needed to know.

I'm probably going to use that in future when all the die hard Enclave fans think the Enclave in the Canon Fallout 3 are worshipable.

Canon really has no meaning, either, since as you say any future developer or license holder can change any part of the story as they see fit. Technically speaking, this answer is completely correct, but you grossly over-exaggerate the importance of it. Really, it's just a setting, and usually a fairly ordinary one :shrug:

Also, that is the longest sentence which I've ever seen here.

Canon has a meaning. It is what truly happened. It can be changed, but what is canon at the moment is official.

...In a bunch of Bethesda employees' heads.

So is everything that became Fallout 3. They were made real in the form of Fallout 3, just as these ideas were made official writing.

And they can change their minds about what 'truly happened' any time they like.

The there is The Word of God that can directly contradict canon and still be true. Word of God is whatever the (original) creator says.

So, the 'word of god' is what is said in the first Fallout?

As said before, the "word of god" is whoever currently owns the franchise. Bethesda could say in Fallout 4 that the ocean actually swallowed up the west coast after the Great War, and that the events of Fallout 1 and 2 were all a simulation, and that would be canon.

Edit: So many typos...

MZ Zeta was canon, sadly. :meh:

Yeah :sadvaultboy:

I also remember people saying that Cyrodiil(in TES series) was supposed to be a jungle, but Bethesda changed it to its current state with the explanation that Talos did it. It has never really bothered me, but I can see why people get angry over it.

Technically, I would agree. In other case, I would disagree as far as which event would actually hold alot of water into the future. But as far as I concern, its usually the the main event that matters (good guy path as a added bonus) with a few tiny reference of what happens in the past. Everything else is practically subjective to how the event went as far as how the player interaction to these sidequest and DLC. These I would see that have a high potential of not existing at all.

That's pretty much my understanding. "Canon" only ever really matter in a videogame to the extent that it's needed for the sequel to make sense. For example, it's "canon" that in Fallout 1 your PC didn't go beserk and kill everyone in Shady Sands; and is probably "canon" that you went through quest to save Tandi from the Raiders. (Since in Fallout 2, the NCR is said to have been founded by Tandi after she inherited leadership of Shady Sands.)

Generally, I figure anything that's specifically mentioned in a later game of the events in a previous one - or that takes place in supporting media such as the Fallout Bible; or if there were to be official movies, novels, or comics based on the Fallout Universe - is canon. Everything else that isn't specifically mentioned, or didn't have to take place for events within the games to make sense, resides in the same realm of probability as Schroedinger's cats...

For example, nothing in Fallout 3 can technically be considered "canon" at this point. (At least beyond the main events that will have to happen regardless of what you did in the game...) I don't say that because "I don't like Bethesda, or anything they've done with the franchise" (which would be untrue.) Rather, it's simply because there's no Fallout 4, yet. We don't, as yet, know what needs to have happened in Fallout 3 (or what events from Fallout 3 get referred to in that game,) for that game to make sense. If in Fallout 4 my character goes to Megaton and learns of some Vault Dweller who saved the town years ago, then it will be "canon" that the PC in Fallout 3 didn't end up blowing up the city.

Or for Mothership Zeta, for instance - if in Fallout 4 I run into a group of NPCs who say "man, wasn't it wierd when that alien ship abducted the Vault Dweller?" then it will be canon. If there is no mention of it, then it's not canon.

What should also be mentioned is that "non-canon" status doesn't necessarily mean that it never existed. Simply that, for a videogame where the events are largely subjective and designed to be (at least slightly) different with each playthrough, I find it rather a silly concept to try and delineate each and every thing in every game with a fine-toothed comb. Anything not clearly discussed within the following game, or that needs to have happened for the games as a whole to make sense, "could have" happened.

It's largely up to the player. We're not talking about "canon" as a holy tome where everything has to make absolute sense as the immutable word of God, here. We're trying to apply a word that was originally meant as such, to a videogame where the player has always decided what happens in the game.

Edit: By my rationale, there's only a handful of events in the entirety of the Fallout franchise that need be considered as "canon." Those are largely a couple of major plot points from Fallout 1, because they have to take place for the setup of Fallout 2 to fit in. Very little in Fallout 2 would necessarily be canon, then, because Fallout 3 makes very little mention of any of those events. In fact, beyong showing up in Fallout 3 - making it "canon" that your PC in Fallout 2 had some encounter with him, and didn't kill him, I can't recollect anything at all that needs to have happened in that game for Fallout 3 to make sense.

In short, "canon" isn't about value judgements. It's simply what needs to have happened for the series as a whole to make cohesive sense, and have some unifying consistency. It's like Legacy of Kain, where in the first game you can choose the evil or good ending, but the sequel assumes you chose the evil one - making the evil ending "canon" within that franchise.

okay. So your saying canon is like the consistencies and validity through numerouse mention and referencing that the game and contents have. And, Harold (and dogmeat btw) is/are the only completely consistantly mentioned and reletively unaltered story/concept ect. And due to the fact that FO3 is reletively dispaned from its predecessors, it has little "set" canon, meaing it will need to rely on future canon.

off topic: I feel so smart using all this advaced english and concepts. (beleive it or not, these forums have improved my english and probably mental capacity a lot more then my school)

Nooo!

Ok, so I'm somewhat new to the Fallout games, starting with FO3, however I respect the older games' timeline and wanted to get into the universe more. So I got FO1 and for the life of me, couldn't get into it (gameplay) the story seemed awesome though. Being as the second game is the same gameplay wise as the first I thought I'd buy Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. (I know the game was released to mixed reviews, but thought I'd give it a try anyway)

Anyway, I thought it was Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel that was not considered canon. Looks like I got confused and spent my money on something that is irrelevant to the series I so badly want to learn more about. I guess that serves me right for not doing more thorough research on the game. I'm still waiting for it to come in the post!! :cryvaultboy:

Sorry for going a little off-topic.

Canon is more or less for good book keeping. Generally a series should show some consistency, or you'll confuse the heck out of a lot of folks. Canon is the "recorded events so far" that allow the writers to work on new products without confusing the consumer with contradictions and the like. Basically it's order and organization. Canon can of course be changed at any time but "retconning" is generally frowned upon in professional writing.

All of the main Fallout games at the moment are entirely canon save for a couple details; this includes Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3. The only non-canon details I can think of off the top of my head are the presence of some modern day weapons in Fallout 2. Fallout: Tactics, contrary to what some folks here have stated is semi-canon. The storyline itself is canon according to Bethesda, but a lot of the details are obviously not (modern weapons, the Brotherhood being able to produce new Power Armor, furry talking Death Claws, etc). Having a set canon allows Bethesda to create Fallout 4 (and Obsidian to create New Vegas) with a neat and organized framework that will prevent confusion.

As for the folks who don't like Bethesda's canon it's in their right to think what they want, and calling them trolls is downright rude and in itself trolling.