Could the “choose your path” formula become the new standard for Fire Emblem?

[Water Mage]

With Fates and Three Houses, it seems that the that the “choose your path” formula was very well received by the fandom, but the question is, how will IS see that? Will it become the new standard for Fire Emblem? And should it become the new standard?

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if it became the new standard, it makes the story more interesting, gives the games more replay value and it’s a clever way for pre release marketing because it immediately gives people a hype topic to talk/argue about.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Water Mage

[PeaceRibbon]

I think more than anything we'll see the routes formula continued because it is an affirmation of the series gameplay working well. More chapters means more stuff for us to do and the more we get out of the games' fun mechanics. And limiting units based on route is a pretty simple but effective way to increase that replayablility further, on top of being easy story drama.

[Interdimensional Observer]

Always having multiple paths means there has to be multiple points of view and sides to a conflict. This has potential to become narratively worn and tired at some point.

Furthermore, it opens the possibility of always having an avatar of some sort, not exactly something that appeals to all.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[Mylady]

I believe branched paths will be the standard but structured differently from game to game. For example, not all will be "pick your side" maybe there's split armies or your quote  choices and other decisions will lead to different outcomes 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Mylady

[Yexin]

it could, but i hope not

i'm getting kind of tired of that honestly

[Slumber]

I hope not. I feel like FETH was a response to people who doubted IS could pull such a thing off after the lukewarm response to Fates' three split routes.

A good, streamlined experience with one or two splits that don't end up changing the overall story like IS liked to do from FE5-8 is also a good experience, and I'd hate to lose those because IS wants to juggle 3 or more whole stories with every game. FETH is good, but it feels like a game that could have been made even better by trimming some fat.

It'd be fine every now and then, but yeah. I enjoy tight, focused experiences more for FE.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Slumber

[Acacia Sgt]

I'd hope not.

Multiple paths has the potential to invite narrative dead-ends, or the cheap "multiverse means Schrödinger's canon" alternative.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Spare me.

[NinjaMonkey]

As someone who likes linear stories, I hope not.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I don't think so. Split routes mean bloated budgets. 

 

That said, route splits are great for replay value. The next logical step is mid-story route splits, and that might actually be welcome.

[Interdimensional Observer]

6 hours ago, Etheus said:

That said, route splits are great for replay value. The next logical step is mid-story route splits, and that might actually be welcome.

By which you mean the kinds of things they briefly did in FEs 5&6? Except with greater plot relevancy and not just "Roy/Leif went and fought in X instead of Y and recruited ABC instead of DEF"? And I guess there is Ephraim and Eirika, but honestly a remake for SS should make the routes simultaneous, with maybe a little choice to pick the "lead" lord in the ending or at the reunion.

 

8 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Spare me.

One of your criticisms is being forced to decide only an hour into the game for Fates and 3H alike, before you can get an actual feel for each route. Right?

This makes Fire Emblem the opposite of Shin Megami Tensei, where the route split comes at the beginning of the nonliteral 11th hour, not the start of 2nd. Would that be better for you? Or is that too late?

Edited August 20, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[Fabulously Olivier]

6 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

By which you mean the kinds of things they briefly did in FEs 5&6? Except with greater plot relevancy and not just "Roy/Leif went and fought in X instead of Y and recruited ABC instead of DEF"? And I guess there is Ephraim and Eirika, but honestly a remake for SS should make the routes simultaneous, with maybe a little choice to pick the "lead" lord in the ending or at the reunion.

 

One of your criticisms is being forced to decide only an hour into the game for Fates and 3H alike, before you can get an actual feel for each route. Right?

This makes Fire Emblem the opposite of Shin Megami Tensei, where the route split comes at the beginning of the nonliteral 11th hour, not the start of 2nd. Would that be better for you? Or is that too late?

Depends on what you mean by simultaneous. If it is implemented anything at all like SoV's simultaneous split, with forced reinforcement battles sent towards the uncontrolled party, I would want no part of that. That was one of the major contributors towards my strong dislike of SoV.

 

Sacred Stones meant a lot to me back in the day, and I would prefer that a remake keep the core structure more or less intact. All I'd really want would be a graphical/presentation bump, modern gameplay mechanics, modern quality of life features, and an extra difficulty mode. 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

42 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

One of your criticisms is being forced to decide only an hour into the game for Fates and 3H alike, before you can get an actual feel for each route. Right?

This makes Fire Emblem the opposite of Shin Megami Tensei, where the route split comes at the beginning of the nonliteral 11th hour, not the start of 2nd. Would that be better for you? Or is that too late?

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule that you need X amount of hours before a route split starts to work. I just don't see why it's productive to make three goddamned games each time. I even tossed an ill conceived draft of a thread for THIS very topic just ridiculing route splits and why they should stop. But I didn't hit post since I didn't and still don't have compelling arguments for why non route split fire emblem games are inherently better beyond all the pitfalls they can avoid.

"It adds replayability" some say, I don't think that's a problem game developers need to address at the planning stage. Or ever. From a business standpoint, all you need is for them to buy the game, it's no concern of yours how much they play it. Besides, Good gameplay and player choice adds replayability, not three mediocre stories with unsatisfying outcomes for the world and an ocean of loose ends. As for player choice, route splits are just "which game do you want to play", rather than a progression of choices that shape the world and influence the characters around you. Games like Mass Effect 3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are loaded with interesting choices and character interactions, but they end with the player being locked in a room with three buttons to press that each change the world in polarizing ways. In other words, their route split is at the end of the game and your available endings do not factor in any previous choices made in the story. That's why I don't think it matter where in the game your route split is it's always going to cheapen the experience.

I can't boldly assume route splits are the reason why Three Houses was delayed twice, but It doesn't sound farfetched to theorize a parallel universe where that game is just one better written game with a few meaningful choices regarding some factions and characters and also we played it last year.