Forum:What games do you consider canon?

I personally really enjoy lore and backstory in my rpgs. My first fallout game was Fallout 3 and it was so good (at the time) that I delved into the original games. Ever since I can longer play F3. Bethesdsa doesn't butcher the lore, but super mutants, and BoS ruined it for me. Back to the point, I would say Fo1, Fo2, and New Vegas are canon.

I dont consider FO: tactics or FO: brotherhood of steel to be cannon, nor anything from van buren. I like fallout 3 and NV's stories and plot. I dont really like the plots of 1 & 2, but the backstory, setting and histories are great so that makes it canon for me. but in any conflicts in canon between interplay and bethesda, then i side with bethesda. JimmyDreznaut017 00:59, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

I consider Fallout 1-3 and New Vegas to be cannon. I'm not sure about Tactics. Fallout BoS was a piece of crap(the game kept locking up on me everytime I beat the Mayor boss). I'm not sure about the Van Buren Fallout 3 since it was scrapped while it was in development.--Ryker6123:29, September 4, 2011 (UTC)~4:28pm 9/4/2011

Since Bethdesa is the Current Owner of the title I think 3 and NV are Cannon and 1 & 2 are Semi-Cannon but unless Bethdesa helps a little with Fool it won't be cannon Cory Jaynes 03:55, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

How are 1 & 2 semi-canon? Bethesda has stated that those games and 3 and New Vegas are canon. Even still, saying that the originals were semi-canon is like saying that Terminator Salvation rendered the first two (infinitely better) movies non-canon --Fezgod 03:59, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant by Semi-Cannon is that they are Cannon just that some parts Bethdesa can go back and say oh that didn't happen know what I mean Cory Jaynes 13:58, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Canon... and Cannon are not the same. You guys need to use canon. --MikeJTanner 22:50, September 20, 2011 (UTC)Mikejtanner

Oh the dreaded concept of retconn... 5t3v0 12:52, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

FO1, FO2, FO3 and FO:NV. FO1 is the original game, so obviously it's canon. FO2 is also canon, as we know. FO3 is canon, because of the name. FO:NV incorporates various things from FO1 and FO2, and it confirms Marcus heading east. He created a new town called Jacobstown, after the BoS Paladin Jacob, whom he refers to in FO2. There are heaps of reasons why NV should be considered canon, unlike BoS and Tactics. --Tag! 23:35, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not Fall Out is Fallout, so I think the correct designation is F1, F2, F3 and F:NV. ;) Brfritos 07:17, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * You think wrong. FO# is a perfectly cromulent designation. --Johnny Trash (Talk) 12:31, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * It embiggens the smallest radroach Fallout: Shades of Grey, coming 2012 13:13, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

I love how JimmyDreznaut017 says that he dislikes Fo1 and 2's storyline but likes 3's when Fallout 3's story is nothing but Fo1 and 2's storylines duct-taped together and painted to look good on the outside.  "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

I don't see why not all of the released games should be canon. Fallout 1, 2, 3, and NV are obviously canon since they're the main games. Fallout: Tactics has some contradictions, but according to the writers it's still half-canon. Everyone goes on about how Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel has a ton of contradictions, but I only found a couple in it, so I just ignore those and it's fine. I take anything from Van Buren with a heavy grain of salt, since the writers have already changed multiple things from it. 74.244.4.226 02:40, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

For me, F1, F2, F3 and F:NV are full canon. I think that F: Tactics is largely canon, elements from Van Buren are canon, but F: BoS is not canon at all. Q-35 22:27, October 18, 2011 (UTC)