I like Fates more than Three Houses

[Gregster101]

12 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There are instances where Fates has merits over Three Houses. The moment to moment gameplay of Conquest is consistently better then most Three Houses maps. Its also worth nothing that despite Three Houses supposedly being a ''course correction'' from Fates I find the two games share a lot of flaws. 

In the end I don't respect Fates nearly as much as I do Three Houses and I'm a lot harsher on its flaws. The reason for this is that so much of what went wrong with Fates doesn't seem to be mistakes but deliberate acts of bad faith. In Fates I often feel that the developers know exactly what they should have done artistically but that they also refuses to do it because other factors took preference.

-The fact that you can marry the Hoshidan siblings is a perfect example of this. The very premise of the game is deciding between your birth or blood family, but because fanservice was given so much priority the devs somehow thought that sacrificing the entire premise of Fates was what was in the project's best interest. Being able to marry your supposed blood siblings will always be an unwelcome reminder that getting into the pants of your tsundere little brother or tomboy big sister was more important than the overall narrative of the game. 

-Garon being so terrible he infects the entire game also stems from a large part to the devs just not wanting to put any work into him. They had all the ingredients to make him a very interesting villain and there's enough in the game to strongly implies this had always been the intention. But good villains take work and apparently the writers wanted to go home early. There not being any world building probably also has to do with the writers just not wanting to put any work in the game. 

-The second gen of Fates actually has very strong characters but because fanservice and remaining in Awakening's comfortable shadow was such a high priority these characters had to be sacrificed on the altar of fanservice. Forrest is really great but because the writers wanted to have the benefits of a child system without the work required to properly implement it he will always be damaged by the deeprealm nonsense. 

-A lot of death scenes also hinge on the developers wanted the emotional impact of death scenes without putting actual work in them. Lilith is the perfect example. She's a gameplay mechanic and not a character, but because the writers wanted a tear jerker they suddenly pretended she was a character while her death didn't even affect her gameplay mechanics. Izana and Scarlet being the deaths on the golden route is again that they wanted the emotional impacts of death but not taking any risks that might upset players. 

With Three Houses I feel that things that don't work out such as the Deathknight are mistakes, things the devs wanted to work until time and budget ran out. With Fates a lot of things that don't work are designed not to work due to the team having a very warped sense of priorities. And that's frustrating because Fates had all the ingredients for greatness but the team just didn't want to use any of it. 

This is pretty much one of the biggest problems with Fates. They heavily prioritized fan service over having a coherent story and enjoyable gameplay (in two of the three routes anyway), and as a result, Fates heavily suffers from this warped mindset.

[Seazas]

8 hours ago, eclipse said:

FE's strength sure as hell isn't the story.  IMO it's the ability to accurately calculate what will happen on the battlefield, and plan around it (because even the "random" components like crit chance deal a set amount of damage).

It's what made this franchise memorable, the story and characters. It's not perfect but it's surely better than the fuck Fates was trying to do.

5 hours ago, Nickdos said:

Why is this shit allowed? The only thing tearing the fanbase is your lot that posts shit like this, asshole.

Sue me, I can describe games how I want. I didn't call YOU a degenerate for playing them did I? Get over yourself. 

[Lightcosmo]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 12:25 AM, Florete said:

Cursor movement is not as fluid as any previous game in the series, an issue that may sound small but is a huge problem over time. There's a longer gap than normal between enemies moving, which makes enemy phases longer than they should be because each individual enemy takes longer to do whatever it is they're doing. Together, this means each phase has a problem; I have to deal with awkward cursor movement on player phase and slow movement on enemy phase (I know I can skip enemy phase, but I still think this is a flaw).

Kinda late, but I agree with this so much. I use the pad to control the cursor because the other way is way too touchy, and it doesn't "snap" to the next tile smoothly like it should, and it's very irritating. I don't have much else to say on the subject, but this really got under my skin.

[ciphertul]

One thing I found bugged me a lot in 3H was if you made a mistake while moving a unit and tried to back up, it completely de-selected that unit. Man, that really made me upset.

[Eurydice]

On 2/19/2020 at 2:43 AM, Seazas said:

 

-"tECHNICALLY AN ADULT"

I feel like this is a massive problem with most Fire Emblem games and Fire Emblem as a whole and not just Fates. It's one of the big reasons why FE just cannot become my most favorite series. 

[Boomhauer007]

9 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

Birthright was designed for beginners,

I keep seeing this posted in this topic like it's a valid reason for poor design and I'm not sure why. You don't design entire games for beginners, you design beginner difficulty for beginners. If a game's lunatic mode is just march forward with the guard naginata and watch stuff die, then it's not well done. And removing all of the skills from enemies and making every single chapter rout/ kill boss isn't beginner design, it's just lazy. (And having rout maps with constant spawns is just obnoxious) Even Lyn mode, mode designed as a tutorial, has a defense map. 

Similarly, I keep seeing "revelation maps aren't that bad", but nobody saying why. I'd be genuinely interested to hear a defense of, for example, the first cavern map, the boat map, the ice bomb map, the floating island maps, the stealth map, or the elevator map. On a slightly more positive note, the red/ blue was was a cool idea, just too easy to take advantage of and not hard enough to force you into tough situations.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Boomhauer007

[Eurydice]

17 minutes ago, Boomhauer007 said:

I keep seeing this posted in this topic like it's a valid reason for poor design and I'm not sure why. You don't design entire games for beginners, you design beginner difficulty for beginners.

Plus FE Awakening already exists ? So the whole Birthright being for newbies and Conquest being for more experienced players felt....pointless. Awakening was already perfect for both groups and was one game whole. Both games also had a Phoenix Mode too,  so why not just make one full game for both parties and include the Phoenix Mode ?? Money, I guess ?? 

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

41 minutes ago, Boomhauer007 said:

Similarly, I keep seeing "revelation maps aren't that bad", but nobody saying why. I'd be genuinely interested to hear a defense of, the floating island maps

I don't like the other ones you listed but I will at least defend the floating island maps because I personally enjoy warp and puzzle mechanics.

One of my biggest complaints with 3H is the massive lack of map and goal variety. If they'd add more unique goals I'd personally like the game a lot more.

[Ottservia]

3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There are instances where Fates has merits over Three Houses. The moment to moment gameplay of Conquest is consistently better then most Three Houses maps. Its also worth nothing that despite Three Houses supposedly being a ''course correction'' from Fates I find the two games share a lot of flaws. 

In the end I don't respect Fates nearly as much as I do Three Houses and I'm a lot harsher on its flaws. The reason for this is that so much of what went wrong with Fates doesn't seem to be mistakes but deliberate acts of bad faith. In Fates I often feel that the developers know exactly what they should have done artistically but that they also refuses to do it because other factors took preference.

-The fact that you can marry the Hoshidan siblings is a perfect example of this. The very premise of the game is deciding between your birth or blood family, but because fanservice was given so much priority the devs somehow thought that sacrificing the entire premise of Fates was what was in the project's best interest. Being able to marry your supposed blood siblings will always be an unwelcome reminder that getting into the pants of your tsundere little brother or tomboy big sister was more important than the overall narrative of the game. 

-Garon being so terrible he infects the entire game also stems from a large part to the devs just not wanting to put any work into him. They had all the ingredients to make him a very interesting villain and there's enough in the game to strongly implies this had always been the intention. But good villains take work and apparently the writers wanted to go home early. There not being any world building probably also has to do with the writers just not wanting to put any work in the game. 

-The second gen of Fates actually has very strong characters but because fanservice and remaining in Awakening's comfortable shadow was such a high priority these characters had to be sacrificed on the altar of fanservice. Forrest is really great but because the writers wanted to have the benefits of a child system without the work required to properly implement it he will always be damaged by the deeprealm nonsense. 

-A lot of death scenes also hinge on the developers wanted the emotional impact of death scenes without putting actual work in them. Lilith is the perfect example. She's a gameplay mechanic and not a character, but because the writers wanted a tear jerker they suddenly pretended she was a character while her death didn't even affect her gameplay mechanics. Izana and Scarlet being the deaths on the golden route is again that they wanted the emotional impacts of death but not taking any risks that might upset players. 

With Three Houses I feel that things that don't work out such as the Deathknight are mistakes, things the devs wanted to work until time and budget ran out. With Fates a lot of things that don't work are designed not to work due to the team having a very warped sense of priorities. And that's frustrating because Fates had all the ingredients for greatness but the team just didn't want to use any of it. 

I actually agree with most of what’s said here. Fates’s flaws feel more so the result of a lot of developer in fighting and they had no idea what they really wanted to focus on. I’ll defend Fates’s story and characters to my dying breath but even I can admit the game feels like a confused mess at times. Camilla is by far the best example of what I mean. Do they want to write an actually deep, complex, and nuanced character or wank material? Choose one please because both aspects of her character detract from each other. They don’t mix and only serve to hurt her character overall.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Ottservia

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I actually agree with most of what’s said here. Fates’s flaws feel more so the result of a lot of developer in fighting and they had no idea what they really wanted to focus on. I’ll defend Fates’s story and characters to my dying breath but even I can admit the game feels like a confused mess at times. Camilla is by far the best example of what I mean. Do they want to write an actually deep, complex, and nuanced character or wank material? Choose one please because both aspects of her character detract from each other. They don’t mix and only serve to hurt her character overall.

They can, but it would require a very good writing team that agreed on everything.  Given how jarring the supports are when compared to the story, it felt like two different sets of writers tackled them.

[MrPerson0]

3 hours ago, Eurydice said:

Both games also had a Phoenix Mode too

Isn't Fates the only game with a Phoenix mode? Awakening, Fates, Echoes, and Three Houses have Casual though.

[Kiran_]

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I actually agree with most of what’s said here. Fates’s flaws feel more so the result of a lot of developer in fighting and they had no idea what they really wanted to focus on. I’ll defend Fates’s story and characters to my dying breath but even I can admit the game feels like a confused mess at times. Camilla is by far the best example of what I mean. Do they want to write an actually deep, complex, and nuanced character or wank material? Choose one please because both aspects of her character detract from each other. They don’t mix and only serve to hurt her character overall.

This is my biggest issue with Camilla. Like she had so much potential and I agree the mix hurt her.

 

On topic of Fates v. Three Houses, I'm firmly in the camp that Fates is absolute trash—but I can see why people liked it. Because I think the whole debate is so firmly in the ground of preference. And the worst part about it, is that I absolutely adore the concept of Fates. I still think it has the best concept of a FE game. Blood versus Family.

But I was SO, SO excited for Fates. I adored Awakening, and Fates looked like a great step forward for the franchise. My first bit of disappointment was the reveal of Inigo, Owain and Severa. And those are some of my favs from Awakening. But I wanted Fates to be it's own game. And already it was just using Awakening as a jumping off point. Then suddenly Gaius and Cordelia (and Tharja) were in the game? My fears intensified. This wasn't going to be a FE game. It was going to be a pandering mess of fan-service. But I still had hope. I understand marketing, so even though I disliked it, I was hoping that was the only bits they did.

The game comes out, I choose Conquest, because hello! And then Corrin starts speaking. And they keep speaking. And halfway through Chapter 3 I'm already annoyed at Corrin, and the story. Get to Chapter 8 or 9 and I actually put the game down. Because I don't want to play anymore. This is the first (and only) Fire Emblem game I've ever put down. 

I pick it up a week later, thinking maybe I was just too hyped for it and I keep playing. I get more than halfway and I put it down again. Because each chapter is annoying me. The supports are grating and I don't like many of the characters. Corrin I actually despise (this is both half personal and half the actual writing - I don't think his personality is awful, but the way in which the story bends to him is annoying, and on a personal level, I hate, hate, hate goodie-too shoes and naive heroes, which Corrin fits to a T), and the rest of the characters just feel like poorly written tropes.

My favorite part about Conquest is the gameplay — it is my favorite of a FE game.

Fast forward, and I hear Birthright is good, so I get that. I actually (reluctantly) finish it. But I'm not happy with it. The story is better than Conquest for sure, but it was a literal chore to play and get through. Revelations come out and I think, "Maybe this is better?", so I get that. I get maybe to Chapter 18 and I just can't bring myself to finish. And to this day, I still haven't finished it. Because it just didn't appeal to me.

The concept completely failed upon execution of the story, and the poor writing of the characters and plot really got to me. I always thought gameplay and story were the heart of video games for me. Fates made me realize that characters are the heart of video games for me. Without liking the characters, I can't play a game.

Something similar happened with Tales of Zesititra (and Graces), where I struggled to finish, not because the stories weren't great or the gameplay wasn't amazing. But simply because I found the characters unappealing. 

So for me Three Houses wins solely on its characters. I mean, I loved the rest of it as well, but what stood out to me about TH was the characters and where Fates failed the most for me was its characters. The rest of it (maybe not the story) I can go either way about, but the characters are what broke Fates for me.

[starburst]

8 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

In the end I don't respect Fates nearly as much as I do Three Houses and I'm a lot harsher on its flaws. The reason for this is that so much of what went wrong with Fates doesn't seem to be mistakes but deliberate acts of bad faith. In Fates I often feel that the developers know exactly what they should have done artistically but that they also refuses to do it because other factors took preference.

This is a very interesting point, mate; direction. And I agree with you; various "mistakes" in Fates were deliberate choices. They were not confused, they chose to go on with that.
 

8 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

-The fact that you can marry the Hoshidan siblings is a perfect example of this. The very premise of the game is deciding between your birth or blood family, but because fanservice was given so much priority the devs somehow thought that sacrificing the entire premise of Fates was what was in the project's best interest.

I actually have many, way more problems romancing the Nohrian siblings than the Hoshidians.
It is not the case explored here, but the tragedy of two characters who meet and fall in love with each other, to later find out that they are actually siblings is not new, or only related to some anime fetish. It can at least be a morally provocative plot.

On the other hand, romancing the people who grew up with you as siblings, regardless of the blood relation, sickens me. How can you romance your brothers and sisters?! There is no dilemma here. The relationship among (adoptive) siblings is infinitely more important than blood.
I know that it probably has been explored in different media, but I have serious problems with it. It is Conquest's worst offender for me, and I would perfectly understand if someone told me that they avoided Conquest precisely because of this.

 

6 hours ago, Eurydice said:

Plus FE Awakening already exists ? So the whole Birthright being for newbies and Conquest being for more experienced players felt....pointless. Awakening was already perfect for both groups and was one game whole.

How does Awakening address experienced players or players who want a challenge?! If anything, its "difficulties" are only comparable to those of Three Houses: Super Easy, Easy and Tedious. And none is engaging! Either it involves no tactics or is reduced to turtling.
I could understand if you told me that, despite its being easy, you enjoyed tearing apart enemies with a broken unit (pair.) It is not my type of fun, but it is at least palpable. Saying however that Awakening was "perfect" for newbies and more experienced players is a stretch. A very, very... very, very long one.

Edited February 19, 2020 by starburst
Grammar.

[SSJDennis]

Worst part about the game is not being able to skip the first part on any new game(plus).

Same chapters, with other cast. This isn't exiting, but boring. On Fates you get the jump to your choice, Three Houses should've had a jump to after time skip.

Game loves to auto-level anyway. Maybe just before, so you can use your NG+ points to "buy" all characters you want to recruit.

I stopped after beating it twice, couldn't stand a third time... really hate Claude...

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

11 minutes ago, SSJDennis said:

Worst part about the game is not being able to skip the first part on any new game(plus).

Same chapters, with other cast. This isn't exiting, but boring. On Fates you get the jump to your choice, Three Houses should've had a jump to after time skip.

I would not compare Fates pre-choice to TH. Fates pre-choice is essentially a prologue, while TH pre-choice seems to be the basis of the entire game, both for story and gameplay reasons (classes, skills, builds). I think skipping TH pre-choice in Fates would be more akin to being thrown from chapter 6 into Conquest somewhere around 16/17.

Also, the Fates-prologue alone has some interesting maps (looking at chapter 2, 5 & 6) that can play out somewhat differently depending on your Corrin.

[eclipse]

4 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Isn't Fates the only game with a Phoenix mode? Awakening, Fates, Echoes, and Three Houses have Casual though.

New Mystery started the Casual thing (along with some other things that people blame Awakening for).

3 hours ago, SSJDennis said:

Worst part about the game is not being able to skip the first part on any new game(plus).

Same chapters, with other cast. This isn't exiting, but boring. On Fates you get the jump to your choice, Three Houses should've had a jump to after time skip.

Game loves to auto-level anyway. Maybe just before, so you can use your NG+ points to "buy" all characters you want to recruit.

I stopped after beating it twice, couldn't stand a third time... really hate Claude...

If the post-timeskip thing was longer, I think this would work.  At least with Fates, the vast majority of the game focused on the route at hand.

[Sid Starkiller]

37 minutes ago, eclipse said:

New Mystery started the Casual thing (along with some other things that people blame Awakening for).

Well, the more casual fans (no pun intended) may not know that New Mystery is a thing, considering IS couldn't be assed to localize it.

[Hawkwing]

I just got around to making a favorite-to-least favorite list of my favorite Fire Emblem games and the reasonings behind it (even though there were a lot of greater-than-or-equal-to's), and then Three Houses comes along and wrecks it, reminding me why I don't bother ranking things. Personally, the debate between whether I prefer Fates or Three Houses is whether I like the game that has several strong highs points low weak spots, or the game that's good but not amazing all around. Going through the same points as you did:

Story:  Since I'm still on my first run of Three Houses, I can't give a final opinion on the gameplay and story, especially since I'm taking a "wait and see" approach towards the game. That said, Three Houses definitely wins in the writing department. Characters may still be tropey, but it's not at the forefront, addressing an observation/criticism I had of Awakening and Fates. The dialogue is pretty good, unlike Fates where it seemed like every other line I could find something to edit and where I thought it didn't fit the "sword and sorcery" tone of Fire Emblem at all. The worldbuilding is solid, whereas Fates had an infamous lack of it. It wasn't a high bar to achieve, but Three Houses beats Fates in almost all fronts while being good in its own right.

Doesn't mean Three Houses is perfect. I was impressed at several moments but never blown away, supports can last longer than they need to, and I am concerned about whether or not some of the intriguing plot points and mysteries that part 1 is setting up will pay off later on. Likewise, there are some elements of Fates writing I enjoyed, such as the boss conversations, battle dialogue, and the Faceless (They're a logical workaround a will based spell while being useful in other situations. Not every Faceless attack being planned adds an interesting if sadly undercooked dynamic to the war and makes for a solid setup to side missions. I can see them fitting in with in a different strategy game, with discussion and debates over their strengths and weaknesses, the best strategies to use them for, whether or not they're worthwhile, etc).

The Choice: Put bluntly, which path had the better characters (personality-wise) and story didn't me a damn to me. I borrowed Conquest solely because I heard it had the best gameplay of the Fates games, and I chose the Blue Lions because I heard they were the easiest group to start with. I gave Corrin and Byleth every kill that I could before the split because I knew they would be the only character present in every single route. The story in Fates came off as just a formality ways, since I made my choice the moment I bought the game, and Three Houses has it surprisingly early, with next to no knowledge of how the group you choose performs in gameplay. They're both flawed in different ways, but I have to give it to Fates, if only because you knew you were getting the easy, hard, or sandbox game the moment you bought it.

The Route: Can't really comment on Three Houses, other than I am interested in how the lord and group interactions differ between each route. Even on a first playthrough, it does seem like the game was designed around the Blue Lions, with the other routes being implemented later during development. I'm not looking forward to having to go through the same maps and mechanics every time I replay the game with a different house, though.

I'm still undecided about Fates route split. On the one hand, I am glad that if I want to play Conquest solely for the challenge, I can just buy that game, instead of having to get the whole package and find out that while there is a lot of content, I'm only interested in certain portions of it. On the other hand, you have to pay quite a bit of money if you want the full experience, and the ranging quality of Fates story and gameplay really call into question whether its worthwhile.

Fates gave more bang for your buck, but Three Houses costs less for more, so in a sense they're tied.

The Gameplay: Conquest has the best gameplay in the series, hands down. Few things are broken, the level design is excellent, you have to pay attention to enemy stats, skills, weapons, and positions in order to succeed, and you can't grind your way through or expect to beat the game with just one unit. It's not perfect, as while all the gimmicks are interesting, they're not always fun, switching from defense to attack stance require more hoops to jump through than it should, and several of the later levels overstay their welcome. The first half of Fates was the most fun I've had with a Fire Emblem game, while I was exhausted after nearly every map during the second part because spending an hour to two hours to sometimes damn near three paying attention to every single enemy on the map because they could and would kill you for any slip up wore me out quickly, to say the least.

My thoughts on Three Houses's gameplay needs some time to stew before I jump to conclusions, but while the maps and battles are simple, I still find them fun. Having more control over my units development is neat, it's nice that weapon ranks have a purpose beyond weapon triangle bonuses and which weapon a unit can wield, and I like the limited magic system and how my mages can use physical weapons if it comes down to it. Also, I frickin' love gauntlets and they're my favorite addition  of Three Houses and they need to be in every Fire Emblem game from now on. Yet the monastery often means I have to spend a hour doing the same repetitive tasks so I don't fall behind, which that quickly adds up, the long supports and story sequences means there' is a lot of waiting inbetween the interesting stuff, and it's a lot slower paced compared to the 3DS games. Fates wins, but again, part of that is simply because I need to spend more time with Three Houses.

The Difficulty: Fates had some more obvious differences between normal and hard and hard and lunatic, and the difficulty as a whole is very well constructed. If something went wrong, it was usually my fault in some way, and outside of a few gimmicks near the end of the game, any bullcrap I encountered was typical Fire Emblem bullcrap, like high hit rates missing or low crits activating and so on. I may as well complain about 90%'s missing in XCOM, since things like that can happen in every Fire Emblem game and are a risk the player accepts from the moment they press start. As I mentioned earlier, I do think that some of the later levels overstay their welcome, which combined with having to constantly check enemy stats and abilities and an increasing challenge that never lets up, led to me becoming more and more exhausted the further I got into the game.

Three Houses Hard is competent for the most part, if easier than it should be, while from what I've heard, Maniac requires exploiting the game. It seems like there is a difficulty inbetween missing, and I wouldn't be surprised if it''s added later, like maniac was. Awakening was somewhat similar in this regard, but I found the ease that one could do challenge run helped make up for it.

The Characters: I consider Fates cast to be one of the weakest in the series, but don't take that as me saying that I think they're bad. If you go in not expecting much depth, they can be surprisingly entertaining. Three Houses wins, though. They have more obvious depth, build on the games world, their tropes aren't at the forefront and several are deconstructed, and they're given more time to speak and comment on the plot. It'll just take a few more playthroughs before I decide how the Three Houses's cast ranks when compared to the other Fire Emblem games I've played.

The Presentation: I know you said music, but I wanted to talk about the presentation as a whole. Fates is a great looking game, building upon Awakening and then some. The battle animations are over-the-top and fun to watch, the animated cutscenes and artwork are extremely well done, and there is a surprising amount of detail on the models and maps. The in-game cutscenes may be rough around the edges, but even when laughing at them, I do appreciate that they went further than they did in Awakening. That said, the voice acting is hit or miss, even if I think Fates has the funniest battle dialogue of the 3DS games, there are some really questionable class designs, and it has more noticeable clipping issues than Awakening which would only become worse in Shadows of Valentia, and even Three Houses still has them. I think Shadows of Valentia is the better looking and animated game at the end of the day, but really, I have to praise both games for building off of their predecessor without resorting to copy-pasting, since I noticed that only a tiny handful of animations were reused between games.

Three Houses, while not necessarily a bad looking game, has so many hiccups in the the animations, models, and overall presentation that I would list it as a negative in a full review. I understand and accept that Shadows of Valentia was the result of working with the same engine for several years, so I wasn't expecting Three Houses's to have the same balance of strength and speed. Yet I'm still shocked that the battle animations have odd pauses inbetween attacks and the same animation repeats even when striking twice, the clipping issue remains but now they added floating Velcro shields, and the simplistic animations during supports aren't all that interesting to look at while some more engaging scenes are hidden behind a black screen. I know I should like a broken record regarding my criticisms of Three House's visuals, especially since I usually don't care about graphics, but the problems present are a little too glaring for me to ignore.

The music of both games is amazing, but saying that Fire Emblem has epic music is like saying the sky is blue, so it ultimately comes down to personal preference.

***

Once again, I think Fates is a game that has excellent high points and painful low runs, while Three Houses is good but not great all around. Both are on the lower end of my "least-favorite Fire Emblem" game scale, but I should stress that does not me I hate either game or think that they are bad; I'd just more likely to replay a different game in the series when. If you had to force me down and choose, I would say that Fates is the better game due to it's superior gameplay and presentation, but that comes with the caveat that Three Houses has stronger writing and I haven't beaten the game yet.

[Alistair]

44 minutes ago, Sid Starkiller said:

Well, the more casual fans (no pun intended) may not know that New Mystery is a thing, considering IS couldn't be assed to localize it.

In fairness, they didnt localize New Mystery because it didn't sell that well in Japan and because it was an end-of-life title for the DS not named Pokemon it was pretty much guaranteed to not do well abroad either. Just because they didn't localize it doesn't mean they were lazy.

 

In terms of the thread topic: y'know, it's weird. I think most of the main points I could talk about have already been said (Conquest gameplay, route split, quality of storytelling), so I'll just add that liking both Fated and Three Houses isn't necessarily mutually exclusive. Honestly, I think that's because they're selling themselves on different aspects: Three Houses is all about the metagame of student progression and recruitment while Conquest is all about airtight level design.

[grin_fish]

What a fun topic of discussion. Thank you for sharing your perspective.  I did enjoy playing fates, but I do like Three Houses better and I think a lot of that has to do with the characters.

Story: I think because Three Houses was tied to the monastery that this limited the scope of where they could conceivably travel to tell the story. Fates felt more like a sweeping grand adventure because the story led to different countries and had a bit more of an open world feeling. I do like the blood vs family aspect that Fates had going for it, and birthright had a pretty good story, but I think the story telling was really lazy on the conquest route (and Revelation is the only Fire Emblem path that I started and never finished due to disinterest).  Honestly, I don't really have a preference for either game when it comes to story, but I may lean towards Three Houses because I liked the characters from that game better.

Choice/ Routes: I really wanted a special edition that had both paths in one, but luck was not on my side. So, I went to the store to buy it on release day and the only version they had was birthright. So, I picked birthright. As for the outcomes of the choices: I do like that there were more unique maps between the paths in fates. I do think that Three Houses dropped the ball on that one. Although, my wallet liked how choices were handled in Three Houses better.

Gameplay: Conquest had some great maps! Birthright and Three Houses would have benefited from more diverse win and lose conditions. I do like the maps in Cindered Shadows especially chapter 5 and 6. However,  I have to give the win to Chapter 26 of Blazing Sword. 

I do like the monastery, but it started to wear thin after the second play through. I think  it would have held up better if there were more route specific events(maybe fishing with staff and students, collecting/ crafting furniture for our room, bonus scenes between characters outside of supports, etc) that could be triggered during exploration. But for me, teaching is still enjoyable. 

Difficulty: Yeah, I agree with you. Fates has a much wider variety of options.

Characters: Fates has my absolute least favorite Fire Emblem character...Peri. I didn't realize a single character could bring out so much inconsistent writing and negatively affect other characters until I read her supports. I like to collect things in games. I really like to collect supports and collecting her supports made something I enjoy very painful. There were some yawn worthy supports in Three Houses, but the voice acting really made everything much better. I loved the tension between Felix and Dedue in their supports. Please more of this, IS.

And I'm not sure if this is an unpopular opinion but I really like how we meet the majority of our party at the beginning of the game instead of the usual 1-2 characters ever chapter. I think it was a great way to shine more light on non lord characters. I feel like I got to know the characters better because they had speaking roles outside of their recruitment chapter. So, Three Houses all the way.

Music: Three Houses has some awesome tracks, but so does Fates. I think Three houses wins in Opening Theme song and boss battles, but Fates has it beat everywhere else.

 

[Eurydice]

20 hours ago, starburst said:

 

How does Awakening address experienced players or players who want a challenge?! If anything, its "difficulties" are only comparable to those of Three Houses: Super Easy, Easy and Tedious. And none is engaging! Either it involves no tactics or is reduced to turtling.
I could understand if you told me that, despite its being easy, you enjoyed tearing apart enemies with a broken unit (pair.) It is not my type of fun, but it is at least palpable. Saying however that Awakening was "perfect" for newbies and more experienced players is a stretch. A very, very... very, very long one.

I said this because FE Awakening was my first Fire Emblem game and I'm not the best at tactical games like Fire Emblem. Also Fates was pretty much split up to be more newbie friendly with Birthright and more aimed towards more experienced players with Conquest while Awakening was one full game that had more fairest towards everybody. 

If you found Three Houses and Awakening to be too easy, easy, and tedious then good for you. More power to you. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Eurydice

[ciphertul]

15 minutes ago, Eurydice said:

Also Fates was pretty much split up to be more newbie friendly with Birthright and more aimed towards more experienced players with Conquest

I don’t see how getting hit by single digit hit rates and missing with high 90s is “meant for experienced players”. Testing your luck with 50-60 range is one thing but it doesn’t matter how experienced your are when the game hates the player

[Eurydice]

5 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

I don’t see how getting hit by single digit hit rates and missing with high 90s is “meant for experienced players”. Testing your luck with 50-60 range is one thing but it doesn’t matter how experienced your are when the game hates the player

That's......not what I meant. 

[ciphertul]

5 minutes ago, Eurydice said:

That's......not what I meant. 

I know, but that is my full experience with conquest(Fate in general too). I get that you mean it’s more of a traditional FE more aimed at long time fans.

[Sid Starkiller]

8 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

I know, but that is my full experience with conquest(Fate in general too). I get that you mean it’s more of a traditional FE more aimed at long time fans.

That's just probability. Hell, I missed a 90% attack in 3H just the other day. The only time you're guaranteed to hit is at 100%. The only time you're guaranteed to miss is at 0%.