Jump to content
Florete

I like Fates more than Three Houses

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I can't bring myself to go back to Fates. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the characters (the Nohrian siblings, Azura, Kaze, Saizo, and Rinkah, as well as the Awakening trio and Niles off of the top of my head), and Conquest had some really fun maps, but that's just one game out of three. Birthright felt like a slog to play through, and Revelation was too gimmicky for me (that map where you had to break the ice...ugh).

Fates story was terrible all around, and the less said about Corrin, the better. It's a shame, because I respect the idea behind Fates, and I can definitely see what it was going for, but unfortunately, it missed the mark by a wide margin. I also didn't like how they split it into three separate games, but it is a business, I guess.

Music wise, like all FE games, it had a great soundtrack. I really liked the changes to the pair up mechanic, although Awakening's will always be my favourite due to the sheer broken-ness. The animated cutscenes were really nice, I liked that they kept the same studio that did Awakening's, and they helped make certain events even more impactful. The inventory is definitely better than Three Houses' though.

On the other hand, Three Houses...

Byleth is better than Corrin. Being a silent protagonist means Byleth doesn't grate on my nerves like Corrin did, although I wish they'd drop the avatars already.

I prefer the music in Three Houses more than Fates. Edge of Dawn, Apex of the World, God Shattering Star, Between Heaven and Earth, Fodlan Winds...I could go on, but there's just so many fantastic tracks. The voice acting is really good, too. Jeralt's voice is really soothing, I love hearing him narrate inbetween chapters. Chris Hackney knocked it out of the park as Dimitri, and Joe Zieja as Claude...<3

Story wise, it's miles better than Fates. Does it have its flaws? Absolutely. CF doesn't deal with the remnants TWSITD until, like, the character endings. AM doesn't bother with any of that. How did the Agarthans come to be? There's a lot of unanswered questions, but they don't bother me that much. I admit, replaying White Clouds four times to get all the routes is a slog, but i try my best to shake it up.

Gameplay wise...the maps can be boring, but I play with animations off anyways, so it goes relatively fast. Cindered Shadows is a completely different story. I never want to play Chapter 4 or Chapter 7 ever again. I enjoyed the teaching aspect more than I thought I would, to be honest, and exploring the monastery is one of the parts I look forward to most.

The Three Houses cast is definitely my favourite, shout out to the Blue Lions for being the house where I absolutely adore all of the characters. Seteth was also a massive surprise, and Cyril is a sweetheart.

My major problems with Three Houses are...relatively few. I don't like how Silver Snow is basically a rehash of Verdant Wind, just without Claude. Seteth is great, but when Byleth, a silent protagonist takes the centre stage...it kinda falls flat. The final boss is good, though. The inventory annoys me. Why do I have to put my stat boosters into my character's inventory to use them? Why can't Felix use an intermediate seal while Sylvain is holding it?

Honestly though, Three Houses just appeals to me more than Fates, not to say it's all bad, it has some great characters and supports.It's all about preferences and opinions. And while I have a different opinion from the OP, I greatly respect theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are great, my two favourite games in the series. I prefer 3H slightly but I can see going either way.

IMO Three Houses blows Fates away on story. Not so much because Fates is bad at this (I mean, it's mediocre for sure, but no worse than like, half the other games in the series minimum), but because 3H is the first game in the series that really decided to stand up and say something useful, analysing what drives people to war and asking when revolution is justified. We're all still talking about whether Edelgard or Rhea is more justified seven months later. 3H still has some plotting problems but at the end of the day a good story is not defined by an absence of problems, at least to me.

I also think 3H's cast is just absolutely stellar (Fates has some excellent characters too). The characters are far deeper, more interesting, and fleshed out than the series norm. Comparing how much depth and ties to the setting that, for example, Felix has compared to that of previous characters of his archetype is a joke.

But Fates does a lot of things really right, and in particular its gameplay is just ludicrously good. Strategy RPGs are my favourite genre and I think Fates (particularly Conquest, but the base engine shared by all the routes is excellent) is my almost certainly my favourite for pure gameplay. That's incredibly high praise and I know it's a game I'll still be playing years from now.

I agree that its choice is handled better too (although it would have been better still if not for the way the routes are purchased... not because I begrudge the cost which is entirely reasonable, but because it means in many ways the choice is made at purchasing time unless you know you're gonna buy all the routes anyway or you got the Special Edition).

9 hours ago, Crysta said:

That said, it is okay to like bad, imperfect things. I like Dragon Age 2.

While I can't speak to Dragon Age, I don't think this statement is applicable here. Both Fates and 3H have high 80's on Metacritic and have huge fanbases (judging by things like how much support they get in Choose Your Legends, how much fanart they generated, etc.). By any remotely objective attempt to measure them you can't call them "bad".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your opinions, but I don't share them.

 

Fates just rubbed me the wrong way in so many regards. I didn't like (most of) the cast. I didn't like the story. I didn't like the difficulty. I didn't like the gimmick-based map design. And I didn't like the way the game's overt contempt for enemy-phase players like myself.

 

I won't call it a bad game. It just wasn't my game. And perhaps that's the best possible reflection of the franchise and it's community; all of the games are very different and we all have those that just aren't for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Florete said:

I wonder what would happen if I posted this on GameFAQs or Reddit.

Reddit is the worst place to have discussions on anything. The reply system is nice, but people always abuse the voting system, using it as "I agree/disagree with this" instead of what it's meant for (whether it contributes to discussion), which leads to legitimate posts being hidden from the majority. Regular message boards such as SF and GameFAQs are betting in that regard at least.

And yeah, I do agree that Three Houses isn't all that it's cracked up to be. One of my biggest issues with it is the story (mainly random differences between routes along with keeping some things). I'd say even Awakening's story is better than it.

Edited by MrPerson0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate both games, but for different reasons.
Fates, foremost conquest is superior in terms of gameplay and this matters more for me.
I still like three houses, but it is not quite challenging enough for me and the best part of its gameplay was the customization of the units. Fates had also customization, in the form of children. So in this part, it doesn't fall short (still the children weren't healthy for the story).
The story in three houses was solid, I liked it more than Fates one. 
The main problem in Fates was that I didn't care for the majority of the cast and the story. In three house are some more characters I care for.
In the end I think, Fates will despite its weaknesses be the game I enjoyed more, since the gameplay was fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I prefer 3H over Fates they both got things going for them. I personally liked the idea of the Children(not the end results) and the diversified classes. I do think while the story did overextend itself I do think 3H was better then Fates in that regard. But they both fall under the “Best FE... until the paint wears off” like the more of Fates and 3H I play the less I enjoy them. I have beaten RD about 50 times and it is still my back up game, but both especially 3H have bad replayablilty to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with gameplay but not with anything else. Yes Fates has more unique routes but since you pay for every single route that's to be expected and unlike 3H Fates released revelations which pretty much ruined both Birtright and Conquest from a story perspective. Birtright and Revelations are still worse than 3H when it comes to the gameplay part because birthright is bland and unlike 3H Birthright doesn't have the  large customization, combat arts, better magic system, demonic beasts or battalions to make the more boring maps more interesting. Revelations has a ton of gimmicks that end up hurting the gameplay more than hurting it alongside a story that is just as bad as Conquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like Fates more than 3H but I do think it handled the route aspect a lot better than 3H does.

Like yeah having to pay multiple times sucks and the map variety is very all over the place but at the least it lives up to having a different experience for a majority of the time.

In 3H you have well this:

  • CF: A route that while unique is also the most incomplete and is very short after part 1 totaling at 18 chapters.
  • AM: Solid route story-wise but doesn't really tell you much of anything lore wise
  • VW: Covers you most  lore but is undermined by SS existing and as a result of the SS/VW fusion hurts Claude's unique position as a character.
  • SS: Probably has one of the tighter routes, but at the expense of focusing on Byleth, whose not really a character. It's very sluggish and the BE don't really add much to the experience.

And to make matters worse each time you wanna replay you have to go through White Clouds which is fantastic on a first play-through but wears very thin later on. 3H has a fantastic story, great characters and a lovely soundtrack but it's a bit of a pain to replay considering the first half is always exactly identical.

Edited by mrwanton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing Three Houses is miles above Fates is lore and world building,

Of course we all heard the joke about Fates doesn't even have  a name for their land, but it's quite true reflecting the barebone lore in Fates

There were so many "single use" characters and locations, with little to no lore or explanation behind it,

for example, Duke Izana and Dukedom Izumo (no idea why it's called a kingdom in the game when it was rule by a duke)

We were never explained what's the deal about Izumo, who they were, why they refused to fight for Horshido, what's with Izana's connection to dragons. All we know about him was he won "5 times hair contests", seriously? He has roles in just one level, and have no significance after, or even worse, died in the very minor ritual just to convince Takumi to help Corrin.

Characters like these are all over Fates, such as kitsune and wolfskin as well. It's almost feel like watching comedy anime shows, they would create a new character and location just for one episode then never heard of them again. In Three Houses, almost every character on our side and location have a lore and a fairly reasonable arc.

Edited by Timlugia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Timlugia said:

Another thing Three Houses is miles above Fates is lore and world building,

Of course we all heard the joke about Fates doesn't even have  a name for their land, but it's quite true reflecting the barebone lore in Fates

There were so many "single use" characters and locations, with little to no lore or explanation behind it,

for example, Duke Izana and Dukedom Izumo (no idea why it's called a kingdom in the game when it was rule by a duke)

We were never explained what's the deal about Izumo, who they were, why they refused to fight for Horshido, what's with Izana's connection to dragons. He has roles in just one level, and have no significance after, or even worse, died in the very minor ritual just to convince Takumi to help Corrin.

Characters like these are all over Fates, such as kitsune and wolfskin as well. It's almost feel like watching comedy anime shows, they would create a new character and location just for one episode then never heard of them again. In Three Houses, almost every character on our side and location have a lore and a fairly reasonable arc.

I never understood the point of Izana's death. Why does he have to die in Revelation? I thought the whole point of Revelation was being able to recruit everyone in Fates, and yet Izana gets killed off? I know you could argue that it was enough to convince Takumi to help Corrin, but there are other ways they could've done it. They could've had Sakura convince Takumi to help Corrin after Izana did his ritual and assured him that Corrin was not an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the difficulty of 3 houses. You are on point. I was thinking the exact thing you said in my maddening run. Maddening kills the fun, they need a 4th difficulty. However, I cannot in good conscious agree that Fates is better, it's much worse. All of the campaigns should have more than 1 difficulty. Why tie an entire game to 1 difficulty? That killed the "choice" in Fates for me. Oh you want hard conquest? Too bad. Oh you bought Conquest, but like the other story/characters better? Give us more money.

The story in Fates is horrible. The main character continues serving her evil father for..reasons? I could never justify in my head why the MC would go back to her evil, abusive adoptive father. It's not really clear other than the story needs it to continue. So heavy handed. I got tired of it and quit early on in Fates after beating Awakening. I recently tried Fates again, and had the same issue. The game isn't likable. Oh, and you have to buy the game 3 times to get the whole story! They both have cheesy anime cliche characters, it's really personal preference, but I like that there's a lot of mystery to the story in 3 Houses, even if we rarely get a satisfying resolution. I don't like that Fates has pure evil and good (at least as far as I got). 3 Houses main characters (outside of a few characters that "slither in the dark") are all shades of grey. Much more interesting.

Fates has too many weapons/items with tiny differences and everything costs way too much. Progression is slow. It has a stupid "garrison chores" base building mechanic which is sooo of that time period and it's just as repetitive as exploring the monastery. Especially if you consider assaulting castles as a chore you need to do. And the fact you can recruit a level 99 person to your team from someone's castle in the beginning is odd. Yet outside of the MC, all of my characters felt weak AF. I don't like staves running out of charges either. All of the weird gemstones and class changing scrolls. There's a lot of feature bloat.

The Dragon Veins were a mechanic that was not fun imho and arbitrary. Most of the time it was either flip the switch or you lose, or it is pointless, but only select characters can touch them. Dragon form in general was strange, as I was given a super weapon early on that let me double attack, where the dragon could only attack once for half the damage, despite my "dragon specialization" I chose. 

Your're not wrong to like Fates more, I'm sure many do, I just can't agree. I a general dislike more than Awakening is why Nintendo kind of redid many aspects of the formula with 3 Houses.

Edited by Serenesforestlies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Gregster101 said:

I never understood the point of Izana's death. Why does he have to die in Revelation? I thought the whole point of Revelation was being able to recruit everyone in Fates, and yet Izana gets killed off? I know you could argue that it was enough to convince Takumi to help Corrin, but there are other ways they could've done it. They could've had Sakura convince Takumi to help Corrin after Izana did his ritual and assured him that Corrin was not an enemy.

I always rationalized it by thinking that they wanted each route to have only two "secret" characters... for some reason. Aka BR has Izana/Yukimura, CQ has Flora/Izana, Rev has Fuuga/Flora. Or maybe it's because Fuuga and Izana have the same recruitment conditions(or roughly so... right?). It's dumb either way for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished the fourth route of three houses and I don't expect I'll play the game ever again. And i'm reminded that I played each route of Fates once when it came out and then also put the game down permanently. I don't have a single memory of Birthright, but I have the save file to prove I did finish it. - so I'm wondering what I'll forget first about Three houses. I got a lot of game for my money in both cases, but both are just mid tier fire emblems, in my opinion. If I really wanted to split hairs, I'd say I like Fates' gameplay better, proportionally. Three Houses has better battle mechanics, but Fates doesn't have me doing busywork for 50% of the play time. And neither game has a route with good plot. Three Houses has an engaging plot, but it really comes down to presentation, like in Echoes. Hearing characters talk rather than just reading what they say. 

I guess the reason why I don't have as much vitriol when it comes to Three Houses is that the marketing was far more honest about what the game would be. I wasn't blindsided by a single thing. I'm still enthusiastic about the next fire emblem game, but they could do a very faithful remake of any game between 3 through 10 and I'd be shocked if that remake doesn't blow Three Houses and Fates out of the water in terms of story and gameplay. The bar is still just that easy to clear.

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cysx said:

I always rationalized it by thinking that they wanted each route to have only two "secret" characters... for some reason. Aka BR has Izana/Yukimura, CQ has Flora/Izana, Rev has Fuuga/Flora. Or maybe it's because Fuuga and Izana have the same recruitment conditions(or roughly so... right?). It's dumb either way for sure.

You forgot to mention Scarlet since she's only truly available in Birthright. And her death in Revelation still really pisses me off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gregster101 said:

You forgot to mention Scarlet since she's only truly available in Birthright. And her death in Revelation still really pisses me off

I guess I should have said MyCastle characters instead. Though I'd say Scarlet definitely doesn't qualify as secret.

Though yes her death is extremely dumb. Just Rev things I guess.

Edited by Cysx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. I get where you're coming from, but I'll chime in with my thoughts on the comparison...

Story - Long story short, to me it boils down comparing a mess (Fates) vs a piece that clearly needs more polish (Three Houses), I'll take the latter but obviously, "to each his/her own". The avatar's role in the story is at least more bearable in 3H. 

Choice - This is the probably the one where I have the most contention here. Let's get this out of the way first: Yes, Fates absolutely has the most consequential choices given to the player, no question about it. However...

Quote

When you make your choice in Three Houses, you know nothing of the impending conflict. You're choosing based on a little bit of the house leaders backgrounds and the most basic personality traits of the students in said houses (and also their appearances, which is likely more important for most people)

That's kind of the point. Fates' entire design is literally based on taking a side in an established conflict that's thrown in your face so much so that the marketing itself is centered on picking a side in said war as well as the basis for splitting the games. In the case of Three Houses, you know that there's a conflict that's going to happen at some point in the game because it's alluded to in the trailers and because it's a Fire Emblem game but the main choice you're given in the game has nothing to do with the conflict at that point in time, it is literally setup to pick the class you want to teach based on personality traits, appearances, etc as you said. The choices being discussed here fill 2 completely different purposes that this comparison feels kind of like asking an adult "Which animated show did you find to have more depth, the dark story of X playing on Adult Swim or the 'Harry Potter-like' Saturday Morning cartoon?"

Three Houses definitely dropped the ball when it kept giving players choices in cutscenes that don't really matter thus perpetuating the illusion of choice when the only real choice that matters was simply which bunch of characters do I want to play with first? Anyway, the point that I'm trying to drive at here is that this is kind of giving Fates a freebie when the main choices in the 2 games just served completely different purposes. One game was designed on that choice, the other just gave you a choice of something.

Gameplay - I'll definitely take Three Houses on this one. The unit customization is more flexible and while growths, proficiency and such SUGGEST which classes a character can work best in, nothing really flat out stops you from making anyone whatever you want barring the few exceptions and Weapon/Movement ranks requirements as opposed to the way Awakening and Fates handled it.

Quote

Other gameplay features: Teaching is interesting at first, but gets tiresome by the second playthrough, and while it can technically be skipped the game is heavily designed around it, making skipping it unoptimal. A lot of other monastery activities end up feeling like busywork that you do not because it's fun but because it's efficient.

As you said, it's something you can easily skip as for whether or not the game was designed around it... I dunno about that, you can skip the stuff and just get straight through the chapter battles just fine and getting the extra fluff from monastery is akin to just doing skirmishes on Awakening and Sacred Stones. The monastery definitely sucks after you've seen it once but given how it is optional, that's usually how you want something so far removed from the core gameplay to be if you don't care about it and don't want it to detract from the overall experience. One thing I'm definitely glad they did in Three Houses is cutting down on the number of skills because holy fuck did calculating enemy phase outcomes feel like a chore.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Florete said:

In Fates, you're given time to know the characters you have to choose between

I'm pretty sure you can't side with Nohr in Birthright, or side with Hoshido in Conquest. Therefore, the choice comes down to what version of the game you buy, and has nothing to do with "getting to know the characters".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

While I can't speak to Dragon Age, I don't think this statement is applicable here. Both Fates and 3H have high 80's on Metacritic and have huge fanbases (judging by things like how much support they get in Choose Your Legends, how much fanart they generated, etc.). By any remotely objective attempt to measure them you can't call them "bad".

Being popular doesn't make things good.

And yes, Dragon Age 2 scored similarly and I'm still calling it bad even though I like it.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heavily disagree with Fates handling the choice better. Unless you've already paid for another version, you're locked into the route you bought at the start. Also, Fates only gives you a little time to know the Royals. Most of the rest of the cast is completely unknown. Three Houses at least gets you in the door with a few traits about the main lords plus some tidbits on every student.

Some other points that describe my viewpoint.

1. I agree with the notion that having good characters can help with a bad story. Problem is that, at least in my opinion, Corrin is an awful protagonist (as well as just having an ugly design in general). The constant whining all throughout Conquest drowned out much of any fun I was trying to have on that route. At least with Byleth I can interpret it a little how I would like it, making their presence just a little more tolerable. When your game's main protagonist is that bad, it gets really hard to take the story as a whole seriously. 

2. One big aspect about Fates' gameplay I dislike is the buff and debuff system. It was poorly balanced, making some weapons borderline useless. I ended up almost never using Silver weapons because the ensuing debuff makes your unit a sitting duck afterwards. Dragon Veins could have been nice but are too gimmicky for my liking.

3. Another thing on gameplay, Fates' Pair up system is still broken, even if it isn't as broken as Awakening's version. It's still too easy to use it to save your skin when a unit is low on health or to have every unit have access to it. At least with TH's Adjutant system, it makes your choices more strategic as you have to decide which characters you want to stay in that support role for the whole battle. Also you can only have 3, making your choices even more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Florete said:

I bought the DLC in that first week, so I got the Ashen Wolves expansion the other day and started it. I've done the first two chapters, but I'm not sure I'll do any more, because I've finally accepted what I've been feeling deep down all along; Three Houses disappointed me, and/or is not the FE game for me.

 

I agree with you, mate. I cannot say whether or not Conquest is better than Three Houses, but it has definitely, overwhelmingly provided me with more entertainment than Three Houses has. The latter game is clearly not for me. And yet I did not see that coming.

After all the negativity that I had read about Fates, I honestly believed that Three Houses would be better on all accounts. How could it be worse than the Antichrist? And yet it disappointed me in most areas.
Tried it when it first came out, I only liked the Blue Lions roster. Tried it again when Maddening was first available, it was simply tedious. Now a new DLC with more maps and characters is available... well, I... found Hapi funny?

I always say that I got a 3DS because of Conquest, and I have spent hundreds of hours on twenty campaigns or so. Well, I got a Switch months before Three Houses was released (and the console remained boxed for half a year, maybe more), and it did not work for me. At least I got to know and enjoy other games.

You know what is ironic? Later I am going to play Chapter 27 of a Conquest campaign that I started earlier this month. No kidding.


Sure, Conquest's story is silly as fuck, but I take the game for what it is: a cartoonish story filled with cartoonish, one-note characters. And it is precisely because I take it as a joke that I can skip it all and focus on other assets, like its gameplay, map design, mechanics, difficulty, presentation, character design, menus, music... There is a lot to like there.

Three Houses's presentation is hideous. God, it looks horrible when compared to other Switch games! It looks terrible even when compared to first-party games from ten, fifteen years ago. The character models, specially their eyes look horrendous. The first time I saw Annette and Hilda within the game, I got scared.
Conquest's presentation, on the other hand, shone when compared to other 3DS games. Shadows of Valentia was more refined, but it would not surprise me if Conquest's presentation was among the top five of the entire library.

OK, OK, presentation can be superfluous, what about the gameplay? Three Houses is dumb easy. And for a game that won the "Tactical Game of the Year" or whatever, this matters, because, well, it should involve at least some tactics! Map design and objectives are non-existent, difficulty got confused with tedium, many units have no niche, class-trees are redundant and some classes were clearly favoured (reinforced by the lack of niche of numerous units)... It is displayed on a grid, yes, but it does not make it "tactical." It actually plays as a traditional turn-based RPG, but slower.

Well, the story of Three Houses is definitely better, I guess. It does not leave a bad taste in my mouth like Conquest did, but it did not make me think like some TV series or books. Not once. "What!? This is a game, it is not fair to compare its storytelling to other media!" What is it then? If I take it seriously, I am being unfair; if I take it for a cartoon, I am missing the super deep characters and super interesting story and interactions behind all the "cartoonish façade."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll grant you that Conquest had better maps, but that's about it. I'm only going to address Conquest, because to me Birthright and Revelation are basically worthless.

Gameplay: The unit customization is so expansive that no 2 playthroughs will ever be the same. I can completely ignore what a unit is "supposed to" be and make a team that is literally tailored to my exact specifications. And there's actually a reason to use silver weapons again.

Characters: I have quite an abundance of favorites in both games, but even then the 3H characters have more depth. Even the tropiest of 3H characters has incidental details to their personality and history that make them feel more real.

Story: lol no. All I'll say here is that for all its faults, I could watch 3H's story more than once without wanting to kill myself. Except the "twist" at the end of SS, that's some Gooron level BS right there.

Presentation: I've never been the type to get hung up on presentation. I'm not a hardcore graphics junkie, so while I did notice some blurry textures at times, and occasional slowdown in the monastery, it's not enough to bother me. And the full voice acting is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there is another aspect to consider.

Intelligent Systems always tends to "reset" a little bit whenever they go to another console. The first FE on any particular system is typically regarded as the inferior one, like how Binding Blade is inferior to the two GBA games that proceeded it, Fates is superior to Awakening, you get the idea.

To that end, I think it means we should pay very close attention to how the next non-remake Switch FE game does, because that will show how much they learned. Considering Fates was a huge step up from Awakening, I'll think we'll get a much improved take on Three Houses's mechanics in the next game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sentinel07 said:

Also, there is another aspect to consider.

Intelligent Systems always tends to "reset" a little bit whenever they go to another console. The first FE on any particular system is typically regarded as the inferior one, like how Binding Blade is inferior to the two GBA games that proceeded it, Fates is superior to Awakening, you get the idea.

To that end, I think it means we should pay very close attention to how the next non-remake Switch FE game does, because that will show how much they learned. Considering Fates was a huge step up from Awakening, I'll think we'll get a much improved take on Three Houses's mechanics in the next game.

As long as they dont have gameplay as bad as echoes, i'm good with anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sid Starkiller said:

Except the "twist" at the end of SS, that's some Gooron level BS right there.

Despite I like the general direction and theme of Silver Snow, I agree with you there.

The way Rhea

Spoiler

suddenly losing control and turned into Immaculate One was poorly presented.

Spoiler

She was recovering according to Seteth, and there was nothing in the courtyard irritated her to change.

While common theory was that Agarthan weapon has some kind anti-dragon effect (based on the name of cutscene "The Curse"), it's not elaborated in game.

The presentation would be much better if Thales said something along with his special weapon will rid all the dragons, then in the next chapter Seteth says Rhea is getting worse from the poisoning effect so Byleth must make government decision now. Then move on to the pre-battle scene with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sentinel07 said:

To that end, I think it means we should pay very close attention to how the next non-remake Switch FE game does, because that will show how much they learned. Considering Fates was a huge step up from Awakening, I'll think we'll get a much improved take on Three Houses's mechanics in the next game.

Interesting. I have not thought of that. 🤔
Fingers crossed, they will allocate more resources to map design and difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...