A canonical story is a story which follows on from established events and worlds in previous works. If a story does something which contradicts previous works held to be in the same universe then it is said to break with canon. Canon can be useful as it allows you to establish a story and explore it over many works, and it can be troubling in that it then restricts you as you have to make new characters, technology/magic and events work within the established logic lest you be accused of violating canon. In games you have the further problem that you are either prevented from doing multiple endings, having to establish a "canonical ending" in any sequel or find yourself having to do a lot of extra story writing and level design that may never get seen.
It is possible to retroactively make works non canon, in games one such thing being the Castlevania handheld games when later entries in the franchise hit.

Zelda Breath of the Wild has been seeing some discussions recently and some of the more interesting criticisms concerns "the timeline". Now it was the understanding of many that a few games might have had direct sequels, Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask for instance, but for the most part it was a common theme that the developers could use to make a story. In films such a thing is seen in James Bond where a given James Bond might revisit locations and characters but as a whole it is treated more as a setup for a story, the setup however being one that everybody knows.
In more recent years though a "timeline" for Zelda was attempted to be constructed by fans, though as the series features time travel it was less of a time line and more of a time flow chart, and as the timeline creators seem to opt for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics... for something less complex maybe look at street fighter sequels. Nintendo was seemingly hesitant to give the seal of approval for any such timeline, or provide their own, and thus we are back at it being a worldbuilding setup but not necessarily a story one. Breath of the Wild then being something of a rejection of the timeline idea in the eyes of some.

Other examples in games. The Dead Rising series saw a completely non canon/reimagining of the second game to instead star the seemingly beloved character from the first game in Dead Rising 2: Off the Record. Such alternate universes/what if scenarios can also play on some established lore but subvert it such that those playing with an understanding of previous works may get to experience something anew. In computer games the latter is less common but it is a long established practice within pen and paper role playing games that may be based on an established work.

Thus far we have not even brought up the ideas of alternate universes (immensely popular in comics), different vantage points/while this was happening (some of the Crysis sequels and spinoffs being this, Resident Evil also playing with this on several occasions, even within the same game), unreliable narrators, and fan works (sometimes referred to as fanon).

This is a new feature on GBAtemp where we discuss and explore concepts, mechanics and similar things found within games. We already have a very long list of things to cover but suggestions and guest spots are welcome.

To that end what are your feelings on canon within games? How important is it to you? Do you have a different interpretation of any of the points brought up? Do you have any favourite examples of use, abuse or misuse of canon within games? Any examples where you felt things trying to adhere to canon hobbled the resulting game?

 

[ars25]

Walking sentient Heart not heartless. Kairi restored his heart

Yeah that's why I put technically since by definition a heartless is a heart that lost it's body

 

[wormdood]

This GB Zelda lark had me curious so I went and found a manual, does indeed appear to follow on in the English one at least. Knowing Zelda manuals though I am going to have to find the Japanese one.
View attachment 110644

im not really sustained by that . . . it reads like it could have happened after 99% of all zelda games . . . let me know if you find a Japanese one

 

[SANIC]

im not really satisfyid by that . . . it reads like it could have happened after 99% of all zelda games . . . let me know if you find a Japanese one

On the official time line it comes right after

Yeah that's why I put technically since by definition a heartless is a heart that lost it's body

Isn't the definition of heartless a body with out a heart. Because Sora had a heart when it was restored meaning he isn't a heartless. Nobodies don't have hearts.

 

[ars25]

On the official time line it comes right after


Isn't the definition of heartless a body with out a heart. Because Sora had a heart when it was restored meaning he isn't a heartless. Nobodies don't have hearts.

Nope very confusingly a heartless has a heart but can't reobtain it's body. While a nobody doesn't initially have a heart but does have a body

 

[The Real Jdbye]

I don't really care, but then again most games I play aren't direct sequels, so they're not connected much to the previous entries. That gives devs a lot more freedom to do whatever they want, so it's not really an issue.

View attachment 110622​

A canonical story is a story which follows on from established events and worlds in previous works. If a story does something which contradicts previous works held to be in the same universe then it is said to break with canon. Canon can be useful as it allows you to establish a story and explore it over many works, and it can be troubling in that it then restricts you as you have to make new characters, technology/magic and events work within the established logic lest you be accused of violating canon. In games you have the further problem that you are either prevented from doing multiple endings, having to establish a "canonical ending" in any sequel or find yourself having to do a lot of extra story writing and level design that may never get seen.
It is possible to retroactively make works non canon, in games one such thing being the Castlevania handheld games when later entries in the franchise hit.

Zelda Breath of the Wild has been seeing some discussions recently and some of the more interesting criticisms concerns "the timeline". Now it was the understanding of many that a few games might have had direct sequels, Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask for instance, but for the most part it was a common theme that the developers could use to make a story. In films such a thing is seen in James Bond where a given James Bond might revisit locations and characters but as a whole it is treated more as a setup for a story, the setup however being one that everybody knows.
In more recent years though a "timeline" for Zelda was attempted to be constructed by fans, though as the series features time travel it was less of a time line and more of a time flow chart, and as the timeline creators seem to opt for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics... for something less complex maybe look at street fighter sequels. Nintendo was seemingly hesitant to give the seal of approval for any such timeline, or provide their own, and thus we are back at it being a worldbuilding setup but not necessarily a story one. Breath of the Wild then being something of a rejection of the timeline idea in the eyes of some.

Other examples in games. The Dead Rising series saw a completely non canon/reimagining of the second game to instead star the seemingly beloved character from the first game in Dead Rising 2: Off the Record. Such alternate universes/what if scenarios can also play on some established lore but subvert it such that those playing with an understanding of previous works may get to experience something anew. In computer games the latter is less common but it is a long established practice within pen and paper role playing games that may be based on an established work.

Thus far we have not even brought up the ideas of alternate universes (immensely popular in comics), different vantage points/while this was happening (some of the Crysis sequels and spinoffs being this, Resident Evil also playing with this on several occasions, even within the same game), unreliable narrators, and fan works (sometimes referred to as fanon).

This is a new feature on GBAtemp where we discuss and explore concepts, mechanics and similar things found within games. We already have a very long list of things to cover but suggestions and guest spots are welcome.

To that end what are your feelings on canon within games? How important is it to you? Do you have a different interpretation of any of the points brought up? Do you have any favourite examples of use, abuse or misuse of canon within games? Any examples where you felt things trying to adhere to canon hobbled the resulting game?

I have to correct you there, there is an official Zelda timeline seen in the Hyrule Historia book.

 

[th3joker]

i would hate to see a pink darth vader in a video game where darth maul can fight aginst rey

 

[TotalInsanity4]

i would hate to see a pink darth vader in a video game where darth maul can fight aginst rey

I'd like to remind you that in the Extended Universe there was canonically an alternate reality version of Darth Vader that turned back to the light side and wore all white

 

[chrisrlink]

also in fanfictions let me give you an example (it's half cannon) I'm currently writing one based on DBZ/DBS (working on DBZ first) it follows the arcs in the manga/anime Frieza---->Android/Cell---->Majin---->SSG etc difference is i added one key per....creature (Sonic) into the mix I also write Pokemon ones more based on the game plots (Anime sucks imo) but all events happen in the Mega Timeline I'm Talking HGSS FRLG and BW/2 also in that timeline oh and I'm a lead character speaking of the Pokemon Anime it's not cannon in a major way it blurred the Non/Mega Timeline for one (XY/XYZ) I understand rewriting BW's plot cause of Fukushima Nuclear plant incident (and the subsequent cancellation of the Team Rocket V. Team Plasma 2 episode special but blurring the non/Mega timelines in the anime was a big nono in my book (I feel I contradicted myself)

 

[Zense]

Consistency in video game narratives, either across multiple games in a franchise or within just a single telling of a game's story, can definitely tickle my fancy when done right. That being said, I think that the manner in which games develop canon which I enjoy the most is when future games don't just springboard off of the story and setting of a previous game with direct callbacks to events that the player has already seen, but when future games start introducing lore that begins to redefine and re-contextualize canon. It always gives me the biggest sense of wonder and incites the most amount of eager questioning when a narrative introduces lore or information pertaining to what happened/was established in previous games which paints those events in brand new lights. I can even enjoy when future games end up retconning past events, so long as those retcons are believable withing the physics of the world and don't directly contradict past events. Off of the top of my head, a game franchise which I find does both of these well is (perhaps controversially) Kingdom Hearts.

I completely agreed with your point until you mentioned kingdom hearts as an example... I find the way the Star Wars games are included in the universe a great way to develop a franchise. Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2 are excellent examples on how to carry the story from one game to the next. Kingdom Hearts, having played all except 3D which I've come half way through, seems to me to be trying to patch holes that arise from new elements added to what seems to have been planned to be a single game story. I gotta say, though, that I enjoyed every KH game until I played 3D...

It seems like OP isn't aware that Nintendo made their own timeline? I believe they've said that it is only as a fun experiment, and I can see how this is fun for fans.

Dragon Quest needs to be mentioned too. 1-3 had a nice way of carrying on a story, but the later games were also fantastic even though they were separate stories. Can't wait for DQ11!

 

[chrisrlink]

don't forget SM/USUM being parallel worlds in the same timeline (Mega)

 

[Nekomaru]

Wow, I am astonished by the level of this discussion (maybe I spent too much time on the Switch hacking forum lol). I think that video games have to fulfill at least one of the two criteria:

1. Give the player fun.
2. Provide an immersive, cathartic experience.

As long one of the conditions is fulfilled, staying in canon is secondary. It feels solid when a franchise with a few games keeps coherence but as time goes by, new generations of consoles and players come around and the long-running series just cry for a reboot. Otherwise you can try to painstakingly follow the canon and fall behind (in The Bold and the Beautiful manner).

Let's have a look at a few examples:

- When the fans decided what becomes canon: Mass Effect 3 original ending controversy and "Retake Mass Effect" fan action which forced the Extended Cut on the devs. Less obvious example - how Sonic "furry" fan creatures insitgated the character creation mechanics in Sonic Forces.
- When there are several co-existing more and less canon paths: Drakengard series. Each game splits beautifully in a couple of endings, which became starting points for multiple novels or manga (technically spin-offs but hard to rank in importance or fun). Drakengard 3 was purposefully tying all branching endings into a single multiverse - deep metash**t!
- When the canon gets supplemented or enriched by non-canon: Bayonetta and Bayonetta: Bloody Fate Movie. I love both but found it really cool how non-canon anime captured the spirit of the game and provided additional psychological depth to the main cast.

Examples outside of the video games: iconic characters from both DC and Marvel Comics have been rebooted, killed, resurrected, replaced, retroconned both in multiple media. Can you tell me the canon story of Superman or Batman in an A4 page?

Take-home message: in the end every single player decides what is canon to him/her. It follows the concept of "concretization" of a work of art, developed by the Polish philosopher Roman Ingarden. To each his own canon then. Enjoy!

 

[kuwanger]

I'd say there's four types of games/series in relationship to canon:

1) Games that try to tell an involved story through a collection of works exploring a lot of different ideas that are often in conflict with each other. Done well, this invariably has include things like unreliable narrator and mythos/rumor. Few games actually try this and most that do fall short, but most people tend to gloss over it because of the difficulty of writing such a work.

2) Games that try to tell an involved story, but it's clear that it was not what was originally intended. Hence, after a while, the story tends to go bad because of the inclusion of too many cooks/writers, which tends to devolve into people rage quitting the series at some point. This can also be an example of (1) done badly, also.

3) Games that either start as an original game and use it as a mythos to make more or otherwise are ally drawn from a shared mythos. To that end, there still has to be some cross-game consistency or people will be irked at how unrelated the games are where it's clear the labels are merely window dressing.

4) Games that really don't have a canon except whatever happens to be made up to continue the pretext for what can only jokingly be called a plot. Usually gamers can enjoy these games even when they wildly in contradiction with previous games precisely because they've not emotionally invested themselves in the story.

Most games in a series fall into (2) and/or (4). I'd say Final Fantasy is (3). I'm not sure if I could point out an example of (1), but then I'm not really into epic stories (usually). In general, though, people become more emotional invested the higher up the list and more concerned about canon precisely because it feels like the game developers are telling a story within a story through the interconnected stories. It's that depth that makes one become emotionally attached and hence hostile when the "relationship" turns sour.

So, that's what canon means to me: that which is unsaid by being said and hence has more value than it would have for being told.

 

[gameboy]

is final fantasy 7 canon after all the extra stuff?

 

[Taleweaver]

I disagree, everything up until the Wind Waker was clearly written with a single storyline in mind, and it's entirely possible that Nintendo was writing with a split timeline in mind with Twilight Princess

That said, I do appreciate that Aonuma told the dev team for BotW to ignore the timeline, that way the fans can, as you said, so the busywork

So...with whom do you disagree, exactly?

I haven't followed the Zelda timeline...I just used it as an example of people bickering about where BotW fits on the timeline. My opinion on it was (and still is) that previous works shouldn't get in the way of the storywriting. If the timeline itself was good up and until wind waker...all the better.

 

[SG854]

What does it mean to me?
Absolutely nothing. I usually skip story in games. They usually suck anyways.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

So...with whom do you disagree, exactly?

I haven't followed the Zelda timeline...I just used it as an example of people bickering about where BotW fits on the timeline. My opinion on it was (and still is) that previous works shouldn't get in the way of the storywriting. If the timeline itself was good up and until wind waker...all the better.

I was disagreeing with you saying that fitting stuff into a timeline shouldn't be Nintendo's job

 

[Beerus]

i only care about cannon in anime *cough* *cough* naruto fillers
but i am really salty that they changed p5 protagonist name exactly when i beat it i never saw it coming

 

[Jayro]

I love when a game just thrusts you into battle or whatever, and the story slowly reveals itself to you subtly, without much hand-holding and at a good pace, keeping you interested. I also love exploring the lore of games, like Splatoon. Lore gives you more places to branch out into, should they ever make prequel games.

 

[Taleweaver]

I was disagreeing with you saying that fitting stuff into a timeline shouldn't be Nintendo's job

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I understand how that got interpreted, but I meant it more in the sense of "it shouldn't be their main priority". Of course, if the first games were set up like that or there weren't any conflicts...then there's obviously just benefits to be had.

 

[thewarhammer]

I really think that the canon is important, but not something to be deemed as the most important thing in a game.

Taking Zelda as an example, the fanbase worries more with the series' timeline than the creators themselves (as Aonuma stated himself, the timeline was created with all of the fan commotion behind it in mind). Almost all the games from the series can be played in any order, with literally any of them being needed to understand the other games. I really do think it's nice to have an official timeline as it really improves the experience IMO, but it's not ultimately necessary in this case, as the games aren't made with the necessity of knowing what happened at the prior games in mind.

Kingdom Hearts on the other hand is the opposite. It directly follows the past games, being related to every past event. The main problem is that Nomura heavily relies on plotholes to release more material and "buy more time" to think on something instead of develop the story further in a better way. Luckily the final result is good enough, and the gameplay remains solid as ever.

But canon have it's issues. Depending on the game, the publisher can "change it's canon" for the sake of marketing and sales. For an example, we have Street Fighter 2010, which was a very bad move from Capcom US trying to sell the game relying on another IP.

The main problem with the canon IMO is the inability of some people to differ canon from easter eggs/fanservice. You can shot down a Rathalos in MGS Peace Walker, but it doesn't mean they're part of the same world. Overwatch is literally packed with stuff from several Blizzard games, but it doesn't mean they share the same universe. It really pains me everytime a new fan theory is brought to light just because the game creators wanted to please the fans with a little easter egg.

358/2 starts during the end of Kingdom Hearts and the whole beginning tutorial happens inbetween the end of KH1 and the beginning of COM. thats why you see the Organization members that were killed in the beginning. as for your Roxas Confusion he (and Namine) were made when sora released his heart, and the reason why Sora got his body back was because of kairi giving his heart a "Physical Form" in the same vein as Ansem SOD was in the first KH. While roxas had his real body(So technicaly Sora up untill the end of KH2 was a walking sentient Heartless). So thats why Roxas and Sora could exist at the same time.

Yeah that's why I put technically since by definition a heartless is a heart that lost it's body

Actually, no. A heartless is born when someone loses his/her heart, the heart being taken by the darkness within it and turning into a Heartless itself. What happens with the Nobodies is that, if they are strong willed enough, their body and soul "remains together" after losing his/her heart.

Sora isn't exactly a good example for this as he had (at one point at least) three hearts (two and a half, to be more specific) within him, this being the reason behind Roxas appearance when Sora became a heartless. As Kairi is one of the Princesses of Hearts, she could erase all the darkness in Sora's heart, making him return to his normal self again (and being a Princess of Hearts, her heart can't turn into a Heartless).

But as Sora's Nobody (which is Ven's Nobody technically speaking) continued without his heart, he kept existing. With Naminé is a little bit more complicated, as she's a Nobody of both Kairi's heart and Sora's body and soul.