Poll: Should any of the endings of Fallout: New Vegas be considered canon? (Spoilers obviously)

[BrotherRool]

Also, it undermines the concept of fiction, which every thinking person is free to interpret as they see fit.

We're free to interpret fiction as we see fit but we're not allowed to talk about our interpretations with one another? What?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem, dude? You're acting like a huge jerk for no reason. If you don't like the discussion, fine. Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other things to talk about on the forums.

That is not what you are doing. You are not discussing interpretation. Properly used, the word 'canon' refers to real-world, factual events. Thus, you are trying to establish fact, not discuss opinion. I do not think it necessary to expound further on how absurd that is.

No you've misunderstood the question. We're not trying to establish a canon, we're talking about which canon we'd like to be established by the creators in their next game, if any.

Canon, when used in reference to fiction, which is a perfectly correct definition of the word means

[canon] refers to the overall set of storyline, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text

Fallout has a canon and has always had a very strong canon, as illustrated very thoroughly by the OP that entire events of Fallouts 2,3, and New Vegas all rely on a very specific path of actions in Fallout 1.

Giving the far reaching nature of New Vegas, as long as Obsidian make another game set in the future, New Vegas will have a canon because the setting will require certain decisions to have been made during F:NV. Unless a nuke dropped on New Vegas in the interim, in which case the storyline of New Vegas is canonically trivialised.

We're speculating on which ones they might choose and which ones we'd prefer. We're not and never have been attempting to establish a 'canon' although it might be an easy mistake to make if you skipped over the OP a little

 

[teebeeohh]

independent
i would like to see the NCR having to deal with their problems in a manner that is "expand" and the house ending doesn't fit with the themes of the games. it's also that if at some point all the factions in north america try to remake the US it would be more interesting if it was through diplomacy between mighty factions and just one conquering all(and lets face it if we give the NCR all the tech on the strip they can pretty much steamroll to the east coast where they might encounter resistance in the commonwealth)

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I say let the Legion win as cannon. An in the next game you can pick up all the left over groups that hate each other and band them together into a fighting force. Or what if Yes Man was in fact a tyrant who pretended to be nice and whom now has an unstoppable robot army thanks to you. Personally the developers can do what ever they want really as long as FO4 is comparable or better than the previous games. I guess cannon doesnt bother me so much in games, they might annoy me a bit like in Aliens Colonial Marines when a certain Aliens movie characters turns up alive. Its bloody stupid as that game is cannon - and makes the start of Aliens 3 complete nonsense. But apart from a "thats bullshit" i just get on with the game or movie.

 

[Nightmare99]

Also, it undermines the concept of fiction, which every thinking person is free to interpret as they see fit.

We're free to interpret fiction as we see fit but we're not allowed to talk about our interpretations with one another? What?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem, dude? You're acting like a huge jerk for no reason. If you don't like the discussion, fine. Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other things to talk about on the forums.

That is not what you are doing. You are not discussing interpretation. Properly used, the word 'canon' refers to real-world, factual events. Thus, you are trying to establish fact, not discuss opinion. I do not think it necessary to expound further on how absurd that is.

The discussion involves people talking about what they think should be canon. As we have seen from previous fallout games, they build on each other so one of the endings will likely become the "official" ending when the next game rolls out. It's not shocking that people would like to talk about a game that they enjoyed.

My personal preference, and ending I chose is an independent New Vegas. I can't say I set out with that in mind, it was just the consequence of all the actions that I took at the time (though I killed House more or less by accident lol).

If you don't like the topic, don't read it. You're coming across as a huge douche nozzle.

 

[Roxas1359]

Or what if Yes Man was in fact a tyrant who pretended to be nice and whom now has an unstoppable robot army thanks to you.

Actually if you look in it at the ending with Yes Man when he's more assertive, it's because House actually had a backup of his mind in the system, and I'd assume that over time he'd take over again and then erase Yes Man completely...okay if that's the case then I want the Yes Man ending to be canon! ^.^

 

[Ticklefist]

I think the independent ending is the wisest, most open route. Means a new story can start from anywhere and go anywhere.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Also, it undermines the concept of fiction, which every thinking person is free to interpret as they see fit.

We're free to interpret fiction as we see fit but we're not allowed to talk about our interpretations with one another? What?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem, dude? You're acting like a huge jerk for no reason. If you don't like the discussion, fine. Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other things to talk about on the forums.

That is not what you are doing. You are not discussing interpretation. Properly used, the word 'canon' refers to real-world, factual events. Thus, you are trying to establish fact, not discuss opinion. I do not think it necessary to expound further on how absurd that is.

No you've misunderstood the question. We're not trying to establish a canon, we're talking about which canon we'd like to be established by the creators in their next game, if any.

Canon, when used in reference to fiction, which is a perfectly correct definition of the word means

[canon] refers to the overall set of storyline, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text

Fallout has a canon and has always had a very strong canon, as illustrated very thoroughly by the OP that entire events of Fallouts 2,3, and New Vegas all rely on a very specific path of actions in Fallout 1.

No, Fallout does not have a canon. It can pretend to have one, but it can never have one. The definition of canon you gave has about a half-dozen philosophical contradictions to it, which I will not bother to discuss. Canon can never exist inside fictional space. Not ever. This is the only stance for the term that can be taken without hypocrisy. It honestly does not matter what Obsidian or anyone else says. For further reading, you can consult Dr. Roland Barthes' essay 'The Death of the Author.' Which is graduate-level literary theory.

Keep in mind, though, that I only agree with Dr. Barthes about 75% in the essay, but the establishment of the rights of the audience is more or less undeniable.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

That links to Barthes' essay, which I believe was translated by him from its original French. In a sense though, you fail to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the discussion of what you call canon, which in reality should be completely ignored.

 

[Frankster]

As much as i'd like to say Mr House ending is canon, since that would result in an uplifting of humanity it just wouldn't be fallout anymore if House succeeds. For the sake of the series, he must die!

Similarly, if they want to reintroduce legion as a credible threat, saying they conquered new vegas would be a start...Except hardly anyone went legion so would tick quite a few people off i imagine.

So that leaves the independent and NCR ending... If it came down to those 2, it would probably be the NCR so the devs wouldn't have to account for the different approaches that courrier could have when they finally take over the strip.

One thing id like to see cannon either way is the brotherhood succeeeds in retaking helions one

Oh actually about that yesman ending... The more i think about the more i reckon its a bait ending , you just know yesman will stab the courrier in his/her sleep or take control of the robot army. At worst who is going to run las vegas when the courrier dies? Yesman?
This is a bait ending imo, only bad consequences can come out of it.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I'd prefer if they just set it in a different area (preferably even a different continent) so they don't have to pick canons.

If not, then I'd prefer they manufacture a middle-of-the-road ending that means one of the factions (probs NCR) controls New Vegas, but not strongly and the other factions such as the Legion still exist.

If I really had to pick, I'd go independent. Talk about the mystical Courier as a legend with many of the details lost to get around the choices in the previous game, and have New Vegas as an independent entity.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

Also, it undermines the concept of fiction, which every thinking person is free to interpret as they see fit.

We're free to interpret fiction as we see fit but we're not allowed to talk about our interpretations with one another? What?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem, dude? You're acting like a huge jerk for no reason. If you don't like the discussion, fine. Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other things to talk about on the forums.

That is not what you are doing. You are not discussing interpretation. Properly used, the word 'canon' refers to real-world, factual events. Thus, you are trying to establish fact, not discuss opinion. I do not think it necessary to expound further on how absurd that is.

No you've misunderstood the question. We're not trying to establish a canon, we're talking about which canon we'd like to be established by the creators in their next game, if any.

Canon, when used in reference to fiction, which is a perfectly correct definition of the word means

[canon] refers to the overall set of storyline, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text

Fallout has a canon and has always had a very strong canon, as illustrated very thoroughly by the OP that entire events of Fallouts 2,3, and New Vegas all rely on a very specific path of actions in Fallout 1.

No, Fallout does not have a canon. It can pretend to have one, but it can never have one. The definition of canon you gave has about a half-dozen philosophical contradictions to it, which I will not bother to discuss. Canon can never exist inside fictional space. Not ever. This is the only stance for the term that can be taken without hypocrisy. It honestly does not matter what Obsidian or anyone else says. For further reading, you can consult Dr. Roland Barthes' essay 'The Death of the Author.' Which is graduate-level literary theory.

Keep in mind, though, that I only agree with Dr. Barthes about 75% in the essay, but the establishment of the rights of the audience is more or less undeniable.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

That links to Barthes' essay, which I believe was translated by him from its original French. In a sense though, you fail to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the discussion of what you call canon, which in reality should be completely ignored.

Oh Jesus what are you doing here. You're actively trying to shut this conversation down because we're arguably misusing the term canon. Go piss on someone else's parade if you have nothing to contribute.
OT I think that the next Fallout game will do a FO3 on it and try and distance itself from the story of New Vegas to avoid dealing with this question. If I had to pick a side, I think the NCR is a good bet. The only issue is that a highly powerful, logical and law abiding peaceful society supporting faction really isn't in the spirit of Fallout so I would love to see the NCR turn bad guy for a turn (or at least corrupt at an executive level), so that once again the odds are against you. I would personally love to see a BoS resurgence too from this game. I think that by the next game the legion will have dissolved. That's what all of the evidence suggests, and an independent or House controlled Vegas really doesn't change much and kinda makes the events of New Vegas pointless in the overall scheme of things.

 

[BrotherRool]

No, Fallout does not have a canon. It can pretend to have one, but it can never have one. The definition of canon you gave has about a half-dozen philosophical contradictions to it, which I will not bother to discuss.

I'm sorry dude but you haven't taken in anyone else in this thread and you've failed with me as well. It was fun to have someone refuse to accept or understand a very commonly used and clear term and then say to people that it 'kills discussion' whilst justifying yourself through intellectual snobbery of the best kind because it very blatantly fails and has to retreat 'oh by my super clever arguments are far to sophisticated and watertight to explain to you in this conversation we're having about it'

I know what the usage of canon here means, and everyone else whose been talking about it does. We know who the canon Revan is, we know about the levels of Star Wars universe canon 'ratings'. We use and understand the term 'head-canon', have opinions on canon endings and know what it means in terms of canon Fallout 2,3 and New Vegas using the NCR which can only exist if a specific quest in Fallout 1 is completed. We're having a conversation on this which each person is literate and understands the points of the other that we don't need to clarify and restate our opinions and it's fun.

It's very sad that you don't share that understanding of the conversation we're having and you're missing out on the conversation but telling us that our conversation doesn't exist, that green is blue for reasons that we're too simple to understand isn't going to get you access to that conversation, nor dissuade us from ours and you should probably just not read this thread.

 

[Agayek]

So what do you guys think? Do you believe any of the endings in New Vegas should be considered canon for future games? If so, which one and why? Or should they be left ambiguous?

They should pull a Daggerfall and make all of the endings canon.

If anyone asks how that happened, all they need to do is point at the Big Empty to explain it.

 

[TallanKhan]

Also, it undermines the concept of fiction, which every thinking person is free to interpret as they see fit.

We're free to interpret fiction as we see fit but we're not allowed to talk about our interpretations with one another? What?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem, dude? You're acting like a huge jerk for no reason. If you don't like the discussion, fine. Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other things to talk about on the forums.

That is not what you are doing. You are not discussing interpretation. Properly used, the word 'canon' refers to real-world, factual events. Thus, you are trying to establish fact, not discuss opinion. I do not think it necessary to expound further on how absurd that is.

No you've misunderstood the question. We're not trying to establish a canon, we're talking about which canon we'd like to be established by the creators in their next game, if any.

Canon, when used in reference to fiction, which is a perfectly correct definition of the word means

[canon] refers to the overall set of storyline, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text

Fallout has a canon and has always had a very strong canon, as illustrated very thoroughly by the OP that entire events of Fallouts 2,3, and New Vegas all rely on a very specific path of actions in Fallout 1.

No, Fallout does not have a canon. It can pretend to have one, but it can never have one. The definition of canon you gave has about a half-dozen philosophical contradictions to it, which I will not bother to discuss. Canon can never exist inside fictional space. Not ever. This is the only stance for the term that can be taken without hypocrisy. It honestly does not matter what Obsidian or anyone else says. For further reading, you can consult Dr. Roland Barthes' essay 'The Death of the Author.' Which is graduate-level literary theory.

Keep in mind, though, that I only agree with Dr. Barthes about 75% in the essay, but the establishment of the rights of the audience is more or less undeniable.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

That links to Barthes' essay, which I believe was translated by him from its original French. In a sense though, you fail to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the discussion of what you call canon, which in reality should be completely ignored.

First of all I would point out that what a word means is determined primarily by how it is used in sociey. Your use of canon as a term for a set of basic principles is itself correct but there are a number of accepted uses as you will see if you open a dictionary. Language is fluid, it changes and adapts with the people who use it and as uncomfortable as that is for some people, words do not have absolute, unchanging definitions.

But more to the point, just because you don't agree with someone's use of the word canon does not make the discussion the OP sought to ignite invalid. If i posed the question "how does the nutritional value of a tomato compare to that of other vegetables?" you would not invalidate the core of the enquiry just by pointing out that a tomoato is in fact a fruit.

Now, I will accept your idea that a single ending being declared "canon" -or whatever term you would prefer to use- would diminish the other endings has validity as it would devalue the choices the payer made in the game. However, in the context of a series where the next game will take place in a world shaped by the events of its predecessor, I would argue that the alternatives would be far worse. For the next game to not acknowledge one ending as the actual series of events for the purposes of continuing the story would leave you with two possibilities:

1) The story will be moved forward in such as way as to either invalidate all of the choices made throught the game, rendering them moot or to distance itself so far from these events that they can be talked about in non-commital vaugaries. This option would rather undermine the entire "the fate of the world rests on you" narative they went for with Fallout NV and in its own way would diminish the players struggles and choices.

2) They afford you the option at the start of the next game to choose how the last game finished (they couldn't do an import Mass Effect style as this was never planned for NV and the relevant flagging mechanisms etc are not present). For this to work they would either have to make four almost completely different games to reflect the one you picked, or, and far more likely, they would just water down the value of these outcomes so that the effect on the game world is minimal, in turn devaluing any choices you made during NV. Also, the biggest problem with this approach is each new entry in the series would become exponentially more complicated to make and while a part of me would love to see what could be done with an idea like this, it would rapidly become commercially unviable.

Just my two cents.

 

[Mister K]

I'll go with ambigious, because newer games should make it so that every player thinks that their choice was cannon.
But maybe there should be a slight hint of non-Legion scenario.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Independent is the way to go on a canon for the flexibility of the story (that or Unknown - which is just neutrally avoiding the question) because anything can spawn from it reasonably enough to continue on firm ground and not betray the player ending choice too badly in the process.

Like, House (considered fried and bodily dead for Ind. ending) could have had personality back up servers off-site and be rebooted at some point after the Courier is out of the picture (death, wanders elsewhere, decides to say f-it and get a bunch of cats, whatever). The NCR might control Vegas in the interim, but lose it when House's network comes back online. Legion might rally all their multitudes for revenge on the Courier for the death of their leader and/or take over in the vacuum left after the Courier dies. Of course - that happy faced robot was supposed to carry it all on perpetually after you, but really? The thing's a mental marshmallow. The first person in the door to hack him is the winner. Courier might find Ind. ending actually a problem after several years of boycotts - even though they promised to keep tourism up I think - by the NCR and make a new treaty - one not signed under extreme duress - that brings them in as oversight for a protectorate situation.

They can do a lot with it. It's open. NCR control is a little firmer, but it has some stretch in it. House in charge... you'd have to retcon his personality to think a compromise or a possible hostile takeover would fly. Legion is just a bad call - too hard to maneuver with for future stories, unless they are Legion based beginnings and that is a constriction I don't see this series imposing. Part of being "from the Vault" or "a random Courier" is the "blank slate" quality it confers on the main character - no history (or a very bland history w/o factions of the outside) to wrap the player up in is a hallmark almost.