Yeah they kinda do. The canon of a game is the sole property of the company that owns the francise. If Bethesda were to lose Fallout, a new company would decide canon, and they could make anything they wanted not canon and we would have to go along with it (be it Fallout 3 or whatever).



If Bethesda were to do that then it would be the end of the Fallout francise, so they would never do that.

But if they were to do it, their additions would be canon. Like it or not.



2 out of the 3 groups you listed that "determine canon" are basically Bethesda. The other one ("Fans") don't really decide canon at all, we can speculate on and interpret parts of established canon or things that were left a bit unclear, but we do not decide canon. Otherwise the fan fiction section would be filled with "canon" stories.

Can you tell me one instance where what a fan said or did facilitated a formation of established canon?

Fallout 3 continued the story of Fallout 1/2 to a degree (the Brotherhood, the Enclave, Harold) while New Vegas continued those stories in addition to the story of the west in general. I personally feel that one of these is a slightly better sequel, but I still consider them both sequels as they're both continuations of Fallout 1/2.

As for canonicity, why is this even a debate? Fallout 3 and New Vegas are both canon like it or not, and I personally don't see anything wrong with that. Fallout 3 wasn't that bad.



I don't see anything wrong with Bethesda and Obsidian taking the elements of Van Buren that they liked and placing them in new games. It's better than letting good ideas go to waste.

I agree.

Its not really a "debate" though at all. Someone can say that Fallout 3 (or New Vegas for that matter) is not canon but they have absolutely no real argument to back that up, its them against the owner of the franchise. Fallout 3 is fully canon through and through.

No Fallout 3 wasn't a direct sequel. F:NV was. It was a sequel to FO2.

As I said, Fallout 3 is a sequal of the series continuity, Fallout: New Vegas is the direct sequal of events in the past 40 some odd years since Fallout 2 as well as the Vegas Region.

I don't see how Fallout 3 wasn't a direct sequel. Sure the NCR wasn't there (for obvious reasons; though they did get a brief mention), and there weren't many references to other post-war places in the west, but there was a fairly major continuation of Fallout 2 in the form of the Enclave. Fallout 3 isn't as much of a sequel to its predecessors as New Vegas for a multitude of reasons, but Fallout 1/2 were relevant enough that I'd still call Fallout 3 a direct sequel.

I don't really understand this whole "debate" here. I don't see how New Vegas could be considered F3 or F3 to not be considered canon at all, all New Vegas does is return to the West and references prior Fallouts. F3 just explores new lands but still references prior Fallouts. They are both the same, except for different developers.

The player has every right to pick and choose what they consider canon. Does that make it official? No. But what they experience is paramount to the official because it's their perception. Bethesda absolutely decides what is considered canon officially, but if someone wants to disregard Fallout 3, let them. There are aspects of a lot of the games that I ignore completely, and I will continue to. It's my experience, I'll do as I please.

This. If you dont like it tough luck...i heard enough of this complaining.

There was no continuations of the first two, just factions that Bethesda used on the other side of the country for some reason. Also NCR got no mention anyways what I mean is that FO3 has all the makings of a spin-off and NV has the makings of a true sequel.

And that's fine as long as it stays on your console.
When it reaches an internet forum and you start trying to convince the people whose "canon" is different than yours that they shouldn't consider anything canon (especially "canon" in the cases where it ACTUALLY IS canon..) that you don't, it becomes a problem-there's a lot of that going on around here.

Fallout 3 fan: I really liked destroying the Enclave in Fallout 3! It was a lot of fun!

Obsidifreak: Well you shouldn't!! That stuff shouldn't even be canon you stupid call of duty noob!

We have, sadly, a lot of that kind of thing going around here these days..

Factions that are there as a result of what happened in Fallout 1/2.



They did. On the Maxson family terminal in the Citadel Archives the settlement of Maxson is mentioned as being a state of the New California Republic.



Again, I don't see how they're not both sequels. I would agree with the sentiment that New Vegas is a better sequel, but I disagree that Fallout 3 isn't a sequel. Unlike New Vegas, Fallout 3 isn't set in the west, but it most certainly continues some story lines that originated in the west.

There are many members that have been here alot longer than I have that will tell you that this has been going on for alot longer than just recently. This is a trend that repeats itself every time a new game is released, from Arena to Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, and next up is Skyrim. The Fallout series is not exempt from this criticism. It a shame that this continues to happen, but what can you do about it, different people have different opinions...even if they try to force those opinions on others. :shrug:

Here are MY PERSONAL views.

Fallout 3, while being canon (as much I hate to admit it quite frankly) is not a DIRECT sequel to Fallout 1 and 2. Fallout New Vegas is a DIRECT sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, and ergo, is more of a "3" than Fallout 3.

Fallout "3" is the third game in the series, therefore it has the "3" but it does little to gain the "3", besides Bethesda putting the "3" next to "Fallout."

I might be able to agree with this if Obsidian owned the rights to the fallout franchise, but since they don't, that argument doesn't hold much water.

It holds tons of water my friend. Fallout "3" is set in a totally different place than Fallout 1 and 2, and most of the elements are not the same at all.

Fallout New Vegas is, in Josh Sawyers words, "A sequel to Fallout 1 and 2." Fallout New Vegas is a direct sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, FO3 is not.

...And what does that have to do with the continuity of the game? Just because it's located on the other side of the country doesn't make it any less of a sequel than 1 or 2.

Not true.

This. :foodndrink:

You can pretend that something isn't canon all you want. More power to you.

That's not going to change the fact that you are wrong in thinking that it isn't canon though.

OHHHHHHHH NO no this again all ready!!!!!!! FO3 is a canon game BETHESDA BOUGHT THE SERIES WHEN BLACK ISLE WENT BANKRUPT. It doesn t matter what anyone thinks. Fo3 moved the series to the other coast brought the fo2 Enclave remains to cw. Right or wrong in anyone s eyes that is what happened.

Fo3 lead dev said they felt the Enclave would have tried to get DC back too, sl that is why they r there.

FONV is a conon game as well, just becausd it doesn t say fo4 or 3 and a half doesn t mean a thing. Betheda owns the series owns nv so their is no way they would have Obsidian make a non canon game. They did it to extend the story of the west.

Stop saying one is garbage because they r both canon games and r equal in that respect.

Don t make me come back here and really look at these threads so I have to get involved in another vs thread. We just did this last week.

Yeeeaaaaahhhhhhh! :disguise:

:spotted owl:

Fix'd

I also find it quite amusing how is Obsidian suddenly used as a scapegoat.
I don't like certain canon choices, but that's the way it is. Am I a freak now? a cultist?

Good to see you still haven't lost your touch missus Carol.

What about BoS or Enclave? I'm a dike.

Yeah, forgot the Ray Bans.