Fallout 3 Canon

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:04 am

Sure thing sparky, keep on burning.

CombatWombat85 · Post by **CombatWombat85** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:35 pm

cheers fez- will try that

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:11 pm

It'll look a bit complicated to start, but once you try it out you'll get a feel for it. Don't worry.

CombatWombat85 · Post by **CombatWombat85** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:31 pm

Yep- got it working perfectly now- Thanks again.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:17 am

No problem, now you've got an excuse to try out all the other old games.

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:02 am

Almost the whole FOT story contained countless contradictions to the canon established in FO1 and FO2, starting right from the intro (the BoS being vault dwellers), the existence of Vault 0 itself (the makers of FOT most likely didn't know about the Vault experiment), they were also seemingly completely unaware of FO being an alternate universe that diverged in the 50s.

And while I don't really mind the deathclaws being hairy, why were they talking if that's years before the Enclave experiment, not to mention the distance? And that's only the beginning of what's wrong about FOT.

As for consensus, the consensus in the Fallout community is that FOT and FOBOS are not canon, and even the Black Isle people confirmed that before their Fallout 3 (Van Buren) was cancelled. Chris Avellone specifically stated that the aforementioned games are not part of the canon for future Fallout cRPGs. I hope Bethesda does the same. They did say they don't count FOBOS as canon, fortunately.

As for the articles being based on consensus and unbiased, and treating all sides equally, that's the goal of Wikipedia, not every damn site using the MediaWiki engine. All FOT stuff is going to be documented eventually, but marked as being non-canon. If we were to treat FOT equally to FO1 and FO2, why not FOBOS? FOBOS background is even more faithful to the canon than the FOT intro...

And what exactly do you consider too wordy?

Dexter · Post by **Dexter** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:37 am

As for the articles being based on consensus and unbiased, and treating all sides equally, that's the goal of Wikipedia, not every damn site using the MediaWiki engine.

Lemme ask you a question then. Who is the target audience of your Wiki?

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:53 am

All Fallout fans (and Bethesda, as a systhematized compendium of Fallout lore might be useful to devs, so that they do not make the same mistakes FOT devs did). And as I said, we're not ignoring FOT stuff. We're just labelling it as not being part of the canon. And from what I know, Bethesda won't use Tactics stuff as part of the canon setting. The view on canon presented in The Vault was supported by the Black Isle devs when they were still in charge of the setting, and unless BethSoft officially says something different, we won't change it.

Dexter · Post by **Dexter** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:37 am

Which raises another question. If Bethesda decided to include FOT, or in some other way contradicts or ignores BI's established canon, what takes presidence?

IMHO, I think you'd have to go with Bethesda. There's a chance there than Bethesda will be able to subsequently make a FO4, FO5, and so on. If you rejected Bethesda's revised version, you'd have to ignore all their FO games that followed.

I think the point here is that this could potentially get very convoluted. Ideally, I'd like to see the entire story told from the beginning in a spin-off novel series, like the Halo and Myst novels. That way we could all have something to agree on and go for there. If any of the other games (FOT or FOBOS for example) differed, we'd reject their version.

Maybe something to mention to Bethesda if they ever get a Fallout forum. Not sure they'd have any say over it, but it'd be worth a shot.

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:41 am

Well, if FO3 contradicts FO1 and FO2, earlier game takes precedence, like in the case of FO1 and FO2.