It's been included in a few official timelines, so is it canon? Does it contradict anything?
I'm pretty sure it is in a similar status to the Fallout Bible, with parts of it being referenced as canon but the whole source material itself not being considered necessarily accurate to the lore.
Emil has referred to Tactics as being canon "in broad strokes," but the official wiki policy lists it as non-canon. Limbo is a bitch.
Does it actually contradict anything tho?
It's "canon" in that the events took place in the main continuity (the timeline the main games belong to). But the argument over canon status is a lot murkier than that.
Most players will agree that everything regarding the Calculator, Gammorins Army, MWBoS, etc did happen since these are mentioned in Fallout 3, 4, NV, and Wasteland Warfare. But some will differentiate the game from the game's events, saying the events are canon but game as a whole is not.
Most recently, Emil Pagliarulo did include Tactics on his explanation of the main continuity's timeline.
^The main contradiction is that a book in-game gives the BoS an entirely different origin story. For awhile the fan theory was that the book was straight up wrong, propaganda or misconceptions. New Vegas sort of confirmed that with Caesar suggesting the MWBoS began to forget important details about their past (they don't even know who Roger Maxson is lol).
(Edited by Saxhleel12)
Yesn't.
Yes, in the sense that parts of the game have been canonized by Bethesda. (Super mutants in the Brotherhood, a Chicago chapter, crashed Brotherhood airship fleet)
No, in the sense that the game as a whole has been explicitly stated to not be canon.
4
To note, the only time it was "explicitly" called non-canon the writers walked back on it. Other times it is referred to as partially or semi-canon. Hence the debate.
Even they've not stuck to one term.
(Edited by Saxhleel12)
^
Its status is non-canon until proven otherwise. Some parts have been referred to in other games or materials, other parts have not.
^This is incorrect.
The debate exists for a reason, as everyone above has explained.
It is especially nonsensical to say it's explicitly noncanon "until proven otherwise" given Todd Howard himself, the only person at Bethesda who ever used the term "noncanon" when referring to Tactics, included Tactics in the timeline of Fallout he gave to IGN in his interview with one of the TV show's producer-directors.
(Edited by Saxhleel12)
^
''This is incorrect.''
You're saying that all parts of the game have been referenced in other games and material?
Emil Pagliarulo stating part of Fallout Tactics is canon reinforces what I've said - parts are canon, the game as a whole is not.
Him adding the game to a timeline does not translate to the entire game being canon either. It gives context to when those events that happened in canon, happened in the timeline.
^^Where did I suggest that all parts of the game were referenced/canon?
Being part of canon is being canon. While we know parts of Tactics are not considered canon, no dev has ever stated what these parts are. Therefore we know more about how Tactics fits into canon than how it does not.
And frankly, if the single developer who started this debate in the community already admitted the game is part of the main continuity: I'm not too sure on trusting anyone on a gaming forum who suggests otherwise.
The argument that some parts of the game are canon but some aren't means it is noncanon also doesn't track. Every Fallout game has components which are not considered canon. Which is also why the Tactics debate nearly always boils down to semantics. Everyone agrees Tactics takes places in the main continuity, it would be outright ignoring the lore to say otherwise. But every player is divided over whether its status is canon, semi-canon, or non-canon.
(Edited by Saxhleel12)
^
We only know a handful of parts of Tactics that are canon. Not the other way around.
What do you think?
