Are Bethesda Fallout promotional videos canon? Are the games themselves canon? Discuss!

[Jedi Master Radek]

The above examples generously provided by Rusty are a proof what corporate branding mixed with a free market fundamentalism can do to a brain. Stay away from drugs kids.

 

[Roguey]

That's as dumb as saying the graphic novel written by Avellone for New Vegas is non-canon because it's not in the game itself.

The Avellone GN is only partially canon because there's a page with horses and horses canonically went extinct.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Nothing published by Jewthesda is canon. They just hijacked Fallout franchise; a bunch of crooks and hacks

 

[Ninjerk]

Nothing published by Jewthesda is canon. They just hijacked Fallout franchise; a bunch of crooks and hacks

what franchise, there's literally one game

 

[KVVRR]

Explain to me Rusty. If a company has a PR event with cosplayers dressed as in-universe characters, do you consider this a part of the series universe? When cosplayer playing a character makes jokes with devs, is this a part of a given character characterization and should be treated on equal footings as a part of character story/characterization with the character portrayar in the game? If there is a story inconsistency in the game, but the cosplayer gives an in-character speech at the PR event that resolves the inconsistency, should we now pretend that this inconsistency doesn't exist in the game?

If the cosplayer is reading out lines that were approved by the people who own the IP, then yes, it's now part of the game's lore.
This is also called acting if you weren't aware. We even have people do it in front of cameras sometimes.

And there is no inconsistency. The video I provided is the only time any in-universe explanation was provided, ergo it is the in-universe explanation. If there was a conflicting explanation in-game, it would likely be considered 'more canon', yes. But there isn't.

You can't be serious. Do you also consider the S.P.E.C.I.A.L Fallout 4 promotional videos to be canon? You know, those PRE WAR vault-tec made animated survival videos that showed supermutants, supermutants behemoths, radscorpions, deadclaws, yao guais, mirelurks, ghouls, brahmin, AND THE FUCKING MYSTERIOUS STRANGER?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Explain to me Rusty. If a company has a PR event with cosplayers dressed as in-universe characters, do you consider this a part of the series universe? When cosplayer playing a character makes jokes with devs, is this a part of a given character characterization and should be treated on equal footings as a part of character story/characterization with the character portrayar in the game? If there is a story inconsistency in the game, but the cosplayer gives an in-character speech at the PR event that resolves the inconsistency, should we now pretend that this inconsistency doesn't exist in the game?

If the cosplayer is reading out lines that were approved by the people who own the IP, then yes, it's now part of the game's lore.
This is also called acting if you weren't aware. We even have people do it in front of cameras sometimes.

And there is no inconsistency. The video I provided is the only time any in-universe explanation was provided, ergo it is the in-universe explanation. If there was a conflicting explanation in-game, it would likely be considered 'more canon', yes. But there isn't.

You can't be serious. Do you also consider the S.P.E.C.I.A.L Fallout 4 promotional videos to be canon? You know, those PRE WAR vault-tec made animated survival videos that showed supermutants, supermutants behemoths, radscorpions, deadclaws, yao guais, mirelurks, ghouls, brahmin, AND THE FUCKING MYSTERIOUS STRANGER?

The videos are in-universe animations, so, yes. By that I mean that they are animations themselves in the universe that people would watch, not animations about things happening in the universe.
I can't tell if you guys are serious and don't understand the concept of canon.

 

[KVVRR]

Explain to me Rusty. If a company has a PR event with cosplayers dressed as in-universe characters, do you consider this a part of the series universe? When cosplayer playing a character makes jokes with devs, is this a part of a given character characterization and should be treated on equal footings as a part of character story/characterization with the character portrayar in the game? If there is a story inconsistency in the game, but the cosplayer gives an in-character speech at the PR event that resolves the inconsistency, should we now pretend that this inconsistency doesn't exist in the game?

If the cosplayer is reading out lines that were approved by the people who own the IP, then yes, it's now part of the game's lore.
This is also called acting if you weren't aware. We even have people do it in front of cameras sometimes.

And there is no inconsistency. The video I provided is the only time any in-universe explanation was provided, ergo it is the in-universe explanation. If there was a conflicting explanation in-game, it would likely be considered 'more canon', yes. But there isn't.

You can't be serious. Do you also consider the S.P.E.C.I.A.L Fallout 4 promotional videos to be canon? You know, those PRE WAR vault-tec made animated survival videos that showed supermutants, supermutants behemoths, radscorpions, deadclaws, yao guais, mirelurks, ghouls, brahmin, AND THE FUCKING MYSTERIOUS STRANGER?

The videos are in-universe animations, so, yes. By that I mean that they are animations themselves in the universe that people would watch, not animations about things happening in the universe.
I can't tell if you guys are serious and don't understand the concept of canon.

Vault Tec must have a giant crystal ball with all those post apocalypse mutants that they somehow know will exist in the future long after they're dead. It sure isn't just Bethesha using the brand to promote the new game they're making, no sir, this is completely meant to be integrated within the universe.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Explain to me Rusty. If a company has a PR event with cosplayers dressed as in-universe characters, do you consider this a part of the series universe? When cosplayer playing a character makes jokes with devs, is this a part of a given character characterization and should be treated on equal footings as a part of character story/characterization with the character portrayar in the game? If there is a story inconsistency in the game, but the cosplayer gives an in-character speech at the PR event that resolves the inconsistency, should we now pretend that this inconsistency doesn't exist in the game?

If the cosplayer is reading out lines that were approved by the people who own the IP, then yes, it's now part of the game's lore.
This is also called acting if you weren't aware. We even have people do it in front of cameras sometimes.

And there is no inconsistency. The video I provided is the only time any in-universe explanation was provided, ergo it is the in-universe explanation. If there was a conflicting explanation in-game, it would likely be considered 'more canon', yes. But there isn't.

You can't be serious. Do you also consider the S.P.E.C.I.A.L Fallout 4 promotional videos to be canon? You know, those PRE WAR vault-tec made animated survival videos that showed supermutants, supermutants behemoths, radscorpions, deadclaws, yao guais, mirelurks, ghouls, brahmin, AND THE FUCKING MYSTERIOUS STRANGER?

The videos are in-universe animations, so, yes. By that I mean that they are animations themselves in the universe that people would watch, not animations about things happening in the universe.
I can't tell if you guys are serious and don't understand the concept of canon.

Vault Tec must have a giant crystal ball with all those post apocalypse mutants that they somehow know will exist in the future long after they're dead. It sure isn't just Bethesha using the brand to promote the new game they're making, no sir, this is completely meant to be integrated within the universe.

Supermutants aren't ghouls you dingus.
Supermutants existed before the bombs dropped, FEV was a pre-war biological weapon.

And going by Fallout-world logic/physics, it wouldn't have been hard for them to know that an irradiated wasteland would have things like ghouls.

 

[KVVRR]

Supermutants aren't ghouls you dingus.
Supermutants existed before the bombs dropped, FEV was a pre-war biological weapon.

There are both super mutant AND ghouls in the videos. You can see people literally getting ghoulified and then being shot down by Vault Boy using VATS in them. At least watch the videos before saying that they're canon, for the love of god.
There's also BEHEMOTH supermutants in them - you can notice this not by the size but by what they're wearing, normal supermutants don't have a shopping cart on their back. Were those pre war as well?

it wouldn't have been hard for them to know that an irradiated wasteland would have things like ghouls.

this is literally a headcanon you just made up to cover your stupid idea of these videos being canon. could it be true? sure. does it mean that it was the writers' intention to even imply this was the case? fuck no, this is fallout 4 we're talking about, they just thought "uhhh it's fallout so it has to have muties mmmkay??"

 

[rusty_shackleford]

this is literally a headcanon you just made up to cover your stupid idea of these videos being canon

 

[rusty_shackleford]

And to be pedantic, they were capable of simulating what life would be like after the bombs dropped. Go read your original Fallout manual.

 

[KVVRR]

do you really think bethesda had the fallout 1 manual in mind while creating these videos <- this is a retorical question btw

explain vault tec knowing about your luck stat making the mysterious stranger appear you coward <- this is what I wanted you to answer, as implied by the repeat "you coward" attached to the follow up reply

 

[rusty_shackleford]

do you really think bethesda had the fallout 1 manual in mind while creating these videos

explain vault tec knowing about your luck stat making the mysterious stranger appear you coward

"do you think they had the continuity in mind when making them?!"
that's not an argument tho

 

[KVVRR]

do you really think bethesda had the fallout 1 manual in mind while creating these videos

explain vault tec knowing about your luck stat making the mysterious stranger appear you coward

"do you think they had the continuity in mind when making them?!"
that's not an argument tho

IT IS WHEN WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT CANONICITY
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION YOU COWARD

 

[rusty_shackleford]

do you really think bethesda had the fallout 1 manual in mind while creating these videos

explain vault tec knowing about your luck stat making the mysterious stranger appear you coward

"do you think they had the continuity in mind when making them?!"
that's not an argument tho

IT IS WHEN WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT CANONICITY
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION YOU COWARD

They're canon if they don't contradict a more authoritative piece of canon(e.g., actual in-game material.) I already answered this last night you dunce.

 

[KVVRR]

oh my fucking god
fine, everything's canon rusty, now go play some more fallout 76 while you cope in your mental asylum

 

[rusty_shackleford]

oh my fucking god
fine, everything's canon rusty, now go play some more fallout 76 while you cope in your mental asylum

Why is it so hard for you guys to accept that material published by the owner of an IP is canon as long as it doesn't contradict a more authoritative piece of published work?
Is this the first time you guys have encountered the concept of canon in fiction?

 

[RepHope]

Rusty is correct. A lot of you guys are making the argument that because something Bethesda did is retarded and doesn’t make logical sense that means it’s not canon. That is unfortunately not how canon works. FO4 Ghoul kid who spent centuries in a fridge and didn’t go feral is canon even though it’s retarded. If Bethesda says those videos are actual videos Vault-Tec made in-universe than it is canon they are.

Canon is whatever the IP owner says it is. Doesn’t mean it’s not stupid or that it doesn’t break the lore, but we already crossed that threshold when FO3 was released.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

Yeah Rusty is right (although I have no idea why he's continuing to argue the point because at this point it's pretty clear you guys aren't engaging with the substance of his arguments). Pretty much everything Disney has put out in the Star Wars franchise has been absolute bollocks, but no one is claiming it isn't canon because that's not the way that IP law works. Also, hate to break it to you guys, but retcons are a(n increasingly prevalent) thing in the endless recycling of a franchise. Bethesda could literally say "the events of Fallout 1 were all the fever dreams of an insane ghoul" and guess what? Fallout 1 is no longer canon.

Canon doesn't contain everything of quality from a franchise; that's just not the definition of the word. Canon contains whatever the IP holder says it contains.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

The discussion was not about if Bethesda can call things canon, but if them calling some shitty ad canon improves their game by decreasing ludonarrative dissonance. Which obviously is false.

 

[KVVRR]

Rusty is correct. A lot of you guys are making the argument that because something Bethesda did is retarded and doesn’t make logical sense that means it’s not canon. That is unfortunately not how canon works. FO4 Ghoul kid who spent centuries in a fridge and didn’t go feral is canon even though it’s retarded. If Bethesda says those videos are actual videos Vault-Tec made in-universe than it is canon they are.

Canon is whatever the IP owner says it is. Doesn’t mean it’s not stupid or that it doesn’t break the lore, but we already crossed that threshold when FO3 was released.

This argument implies that anything that "Bethesda" puts out is automatically canon regardless of whoever made it, and more importantly, wrote it. Say an entire diferent team was tasked with making promotional art/videos/etc that has no baring within the games other than aesthetics. You don't know who made it. You don't know who wrote it. You don't even know what the people that worked on the actual game themselves think about it. The content itself would be nonsensical if we were to assume it is canon, and for all intents and purposes there's no real reason to consider it canon in the first place, since it doesn't affect anything at all. Would you consider it canon? Would you want to consider it canon?
This is the case for the SPECIAL and VATS videos as far as I know. They're harmless to the overall canon, sure, but you shouldn't assume everything's canon just because the company behind the project released it. You'd go insane discussing something as simple as fucking Dragon Ball canon if this were the case.
Companies don't go out there and say what's canon and what isn't unless there's a huge backlash behind it or they NEED to to clarify something else, it's usually the people behind the project who does. If we go by your logic, why should we listen to them at all? Avellone says that part of the comic that showed horses is not canon? Oh no, sorry, he didn't say it through the Bethesda twitter account, so he can't say what is and isn't canon.

Ultimately arguing about this over the fucking Fallout canon is pointless since bethesda fucked it up from the go, so really, who cares.

The discussion was not about if Bethesda can call things canon, but if them calling some shitty ad canon improves their game by decreasing ludonarrative dissonance. Which obviously is false.

also this, I just derailed it

 

[Ninjerk]

lore was a mistake

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

lore was franchises were a mistake

FTFY

 

[Nano]

Copyright was a mistake.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Copyright was a mistake.

Humorously, TES lore is actually a fairly decent example of what such a scenario might look a bit like. Due to the nature of TES lore, Kirkbride is still regarded as being an authoritative voice despite not having worked on a TES title in years.