Abstract
Problem: What is "canon" in games, who gets to define it, and how does it differ from player interpretation and developer intent?
Approach: Tim Cain defines three distinct concepts — canon, interpretation, and intent — and explains how each operates independently, using Fallout's character Harold as a recurring example.
Findings: Canon is whatever the IP owner says it is, interpretation is whatever the player gets out of the game, and intent is whatever the developer thought was true when making the content. All three can coexist even when they contradict each other.
Key insight: Arguments about "what's canon" are usually arguments about interpretation. Recognizing the distinction between canon, intent, and interpretation resolves most debates — because each belongs to a different party and none can override the others.
Three Definitions
Tim establishes three clearly separated concepts:
Canon
Canon for an IP is whatever the owner of the IP says it is. It's that simple. For the original Fallout, that was Interplay; now it's Bethesda. If the owner says Harold is a ghoul, he's a ghoul. If they say he's a mutant, he's a mutant. The developers who made the game do not define canon — even Tim himself says "I'm not canon."
Interpretation
Interpretation is whatever you, the player, think the game means — what you got out of it. The best part of interpretation is that you can't be wrong. Nobody can tell you that's not what you experienced. Players will naturally differ from each other, and that's fine. Interpretations are personal and valid by definition.
Intent
Intent sits somewhere between canon and interpretation. It's whatever the developer who actually made the content thought was true when creating it. Tim and his team weren't sure if Harold was a ghoul or a mutant — they thought of him as "this weird ghoul-looking thing that may be a mutant with a plant growing out of his head." That was their intent. No one can argue what the creator's intent was — not the IP owners, not the players.
Why "Death of the Author" Doesn't Work for Games
Tim directly addresses the common counter-argument: "Death of the author — we players define canon." His response is blunt: players have no consensus. For any game, you'd end up with millions of different canons. And the people who seem to represent "the community" are often just the loudest, most frequent posters online — likely a minority of the actual player base. He suggests googling "tyranny of the majority" alongside "death of the author."
Games Present Contradictory Evidence
Tim points out that games frequently contain contradictory information by design. NPCs may outright lie to the player because they have an agenda. Log entries may conflict. Evidence can be intentionally vague. This means you can't simply point to an in-game source and declare it definitive proof of what's "true" — it may not be true even within the game's own context.
Why Intent Is Special to Tim
Tim loves discussing intent with other developers. He doesn't care much about the legality of canon, and he can find player interpretations online. But when talking to fellow developers, his go-to question is: "When you did this in the game, what was your intent?" Intent can cover system mechanics, story points, even art style. It frequently aligns with both canon and player interpretation, but it doesn't have to — and that independence is what makes it valuable.
The Bottom Line
When Tim sees people arguing about what's canon, what he actually sees is people discussing their interpretations of the game. And when it comes to his own games, he's content with his intent. Canon, intent, and interpretation can all coexist peacefully — they belong to different people, and recognizing that resolves most arguments.
References
- Tim Cain. YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzGea7I7CO4