I like Fates more than Three Houses

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

If I take the financial aspect into account, both games win and lose.

Three Houses has basically three complete games in once, whilst Fates has pickable DLCs.

Still Three Houses offered more for its price than Fates overall despite from the gameplay aspect Fates did better overall as classic FE game. 

I do not play FE for the story and that's why I had no issues with Fates's plot except that the avatar took too much of the spotlight.

[AvatarofDiscord]

17 minutes ago, Falcom Knight said:

If I take the financial aspect into account, both games win and lose.

Three Houses has basically three complete games in once, whilst Fates has pickable DLCs.

Still Three Houses offered more for its price than Fates overall despite from the gameplay aspect Fates did better overall as classic FE game. 

I do not play FE for the story and that's why I had no issues with Fates's plot except that the avatar took too much of the spotlight.

I heard someone say at one point

FE with good gameplay -> Mediocre Story

FE with kickass story -> Gameplay that makes you sleep

[MiaMain]

IDK, fates is the one game I just couldn't finish because every time I put it down I didn't want to pick it up again. I just didn't find the story good, the my castle gameplay was boring as shit, and the gameplay bugged me, since it basically relied on you abusing stat buffs/debuffs. I want to go back and play it, but less than I want to play 100 other games.

[Pikappa93]

I can only agree with Conquest gameplay and maybe prettier graphics, because 3H is kinda shallow in that department. 

Other than that, I find 3H superior in every way for reasons other people already explained better than I could. 

I'm noticing we're entering a phase in which it's cool to criticize 3H, and that's okay if you didn't like it, but baity titles like this... I don't know. Fates was criticized by everyone as soon as launch because its flaws were evident, this didn't happen with 3H because while it has its flaws too they're not as messy as Fates's. To suddenly say "Fates was actually good" after years of criticism looks like a mixture of based nostalgia for the 3DS era and claiming something controversial just for the sake of it. 

Just my opinion, of course. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Pikappa93

[Faustino]

While I respect your opinion, I absolutely don’t feel the same way.

Fates’ story was full of shit (especially Revelations), I don’t care about the cast that aren’t that very impressive, the map designs are awful, not a fan of the gameplay...I mean Fates has rubbed me the wrong way in many ways I consider it to be my least favorite game in the series. Not saying it’s bad or anything, I just don’t see myself ever touching that shit again.

That being said, Three Houses is far more superior than Fates in my opinion for reasons already stated and won’t bother repeating them.

[zuibangde]

45 minutes ago, Pikappa93 said:

I can only agree with Conquest gameplay and maybe prettier graphics, because 3H is kinda shallow in that department. 

Other than that, I find 3H superior in every way for reasons other people already explained better than I could. 

I'm noticing we're entering a phase in which it's cool to criticize 3H, and that's okay if you didn't like it, but baity titles like this... I don't know. Fates was criticized by everyone as soon as launch because its flaws were evident, this didn't happen with 3H because while it has its flaws too they're not as messy as Fates's. To suddenly say "Fates was actually good" after years of criticism looks like a mixture of based nostalgia for the 3DS era and claiming something controversial just for the sake of it. 

Just my opinion, of course. 

I never get why Birthright's gameplay gets criticised/ignored. It was designed to be easy and straightforward as an introduction to the series. My first ever FE game was birthright and I thought it was the a really great introduction to the series. In my opinion, it achieved what it was designed to do because it made me and many others sought for more FE games.  I honestly doubt many new or casual players to the tactical genre would really want to continue playing FE after playing Conquest.

Anyways, criticism for 3H happened right after launch too but every time someone says something negative about it, an army of people comes out to say how 'your opinion is wrong' and tries to invalidate their criticisms which is why nobody dared to criticize the game. I also don't think it's a 'cool' thing to citicize 3H...more like the honeymoon phase with the game is ending. For me, the more times I play the game, the more glaring the shortcomings are.

The only 'cool' thing FE fans like to do is to criticise Fates. 

[Seazas]

Fates was a degenerate game with so much wrong that it naturally tore the fanbase up after an already divisive Awakening

-Piggybacked Awakening rather than standing on its own to the point it literally shoved in Awakening characters

-The worst implementation of children that will never be topped in sheer ridiculousness, their characters aren't that good either

-Butchering localization for an already mediocre cast and story

-Jank character designing

-DLC Route that is objectively the best and undermined any true unique tragedy or unique point of choice Fates had 

-The villains were a laughing stock, even more than Slithers since they aren't blindly defended by an idiot like Xander

-Fates children in the Jpn version could marry grown adults

-"tECHNICALLY AN ADULT"

-Being able to pet units' faces and they could make weird noises

-Azura with a bunch of plot devices that show up suddenly and leaves the plot just as quick.

-Camilla getting cutscenes with complete zoom ins on her ass and titties

-"We trust Corrin so much we'll jump off a cliff for them!"

-""Anankos is the TRUE VILLAIN!"

The only good part of Fates was Conquest's gameplay.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Seazas

[Seazas]

50 minutes ago, zuibangde said:

I never get why Birthright's gameplay gets criticised/ignored. It was designed to be easy and straightforward as an introduction to the series. My first ever FE game was birthright and I thought it was the a really great introduction to the series. In my opinion, it achieved what it was designed to do because it made me and many others sought for more FE games.  I honestly doubt many new or casual players to the tactical genre would really want to continue playing FE after playing Conquest.

Anyways, criticism for 3H happened right after launch too but every time someone says something negative about it, an army of people comes out to say how 'your opinion is wrong' and tries to invalidate their criticisms which is why nobody dared to criticize the game. I also don't think it's a 'cool' thing to citicize 3H...more like the honeymoon phase with the game is ending. For me, the more times I play the game, the more glaring the shortcomings are.

The only 'cool' thing FE fans like to do is to criticise Fates. 

Being "designed as easy" doesn't excuse mediocre gameplay and feels like a bad excuse to deflect criticism. The gameplay is mediocre for many FE fans.

If Fates wasn't so awfully handled it wouldn't of been torn to shreds. Awakening was decisive and managed to move on way easier than Fates. Three Houses is flawed but it's still better than Fates by the sheer factor of not shoving in children purely for the sake of following Awakening's footsteps. 

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

1 hour ago, zuibangde said:

I never get why Birthright's gameplay gets criticised/ignored. It was designed to be easy and straightforward as an introduction to the series. My first ever FE game was birthright and I thought it was the a really great introduction to the series. In my opinion, it achieved what it was designed to do because it made me and many others sought for more FE games.  I honestly doubt many new or casual players to the tactical genre would really want to continue playing FE after playing Conquest.

I mean Birthright is kind of in an awkward position. There is Conquest that many will praise for its strategic gameplay and then there is Revelations, that seems to be pretty much hated by most of the fans for its map design. Meanwhile Brithright I think is like, not good not bad and gets mostly criticized for either being too easy or its map design being too bland?

It´s like Birthright is that kid that has one awesome bro and one bro no one likes, so it doesn´t stand out much.

[SwordsDude]

Fates was better especially conquest. gameplay is king for me.

Prefer awakening over fates conquest though.

Edited February 18, 2020 by SwordsDude

[Boomhauer007]

They were good at different things.

Conquest gameplay took everything the series had offered up to that point and challenged a lot of conventional fire emblem things, where three houses tried a lot of new ambitious things. 

Both had great music.

Three houses story is falling into the middle ground now that people are seeing its flaws, and fates is still at the bottom where it belongs. Luckily the skip button exists. 

Fates is much more replayable, higher difficulties in 3H are tedious without grinding the monastery segments, which is increasingly boring each playthrough. Also helps that the maps are actually different, people can complain about the route costs but I don't have a problem paying money for different maps over repeating the same ones like 3H.

Basically conquest > 3H > birthright >>>>>> revelation. Rev is legit down there with dark dragon. Like OG dark dragon.

[starburst]

8 hours ago, Seazas said:

The only good part of Fates was Conquest's gameplay.

I am not trying to change your mind, mate. But the way you exposed your ideas, listing all the issues you experienced while playing Fates, seems as if gameplay was just another bullet point on your list. And it clearly is not.

We may differ in how much weight we should assign to gameplay in the overall experience of the game. For me, it is like 70 % of the whole, but a 35-50 % seems more reasonable. So, if we both can praise Conquest's gameplay, it already did a lot right. And unless you honestly believe that the music, the presentation, the interface and menus, the difficulty, the re-playability of Conquest are all worthless, then the game already has enough points to at least worth checking.

Conversely, the gameplay of Three Houses bores me. I would give it a 10-15 out of 70. Therefore, and even if everything else were perfect, it would only have a low maximum rating in my view. You can argue that the gameplay is not that bad, and I would concede some points. But we would still need to asses everything else and start deducting all those points from the overall rating.

Yes, Conquest's storytelling is horrible. I give you that and will not contest it. But in my limited experience with video games, the storyline has never made me think the way books, films or TV series have. Maybe I have only played silly games, maybe what I admire in books, films and TV series cannot be easily reproduced in video games. Either way,  I expect very little from the story in video games and do not take it seriously. I do not feel bad about it, for I still appreciate the music, the presentation and, most importantly, the gameplay.

[Ottservia]

For as much as it may surprise some people(considering what I post on this forum) Personally I value gameplay over story in video games. Good gameplay can save a garbage or nonexistent story. A good story cannot save garbage or nonexistent gameplay. 
 

Overall though I do agree with a lot of the points made in the original post. I will forever stand by the opinion that fates did the route split far better than 3H ever could. Each route in 3H feels very samey and a lot of maps are reused between routes. All the stories(with some exceptions mind you) feel very disconnected from one another and could’ve been told without the others. Say what you will about Fates’s story but at least every route built off each other and a plot point from one route was expanded on in another which made for a much more satisfying experience.

[Seazas]

2 hours ago, starburst said:

I am not trying to change your mind, mate. But the way you exposed your ideas, listing all the issues you experienced while playing Fates, seems as if gameplay was just another bullet point on your list. And it clearly is not.

We may differ in how much weight we should assign to gameplay in the overall experience of the game. For me, it is like 70 % of the whole, but a 35-50 % seems more reasonable. So, if we both can praise Conquest's gameplay, it already did a lot right. And unless you honestly believe that the music, the presentation, the interface and menus, the difficulty, the re-playability of Conquest are all worthless, then the game already has enough points to at least worth checking.

Conversely, the gameplay of Three Houses bores me. I would give it a 10-15 out of 70. Therefore, and even if everything else were perfect, it would only have a low maximum rating in my view. You can argue that the gameplay is not that bad, and I would concede some points. But we would still need to asses everything else and start deducting all those points from the overall rating.

Yes, Conquest's storytelling is horrible. I give you that and will not contest it. But in my limited experience with video games, the storyline has never made me think the way books, films or TV series have. Maybe I have only played silly games, maybe what I admire in books, films and TV series cannot be easily reproduced in video games. Either way,  I expect very little from the story in video games and do not take it seriously. I do not feel bad about it, for I still appreciate the music, the presentation and, most importantly, the gameplay.

Except Fire Emblem has long been confirmed to stand out for being a strategy game focused on story and characters with every individual unit having a personality. Not the gameplay specifically. I could play better shit that makes my brain work more than any FE game if I badly prioritized gameplay over anything else. Gameplay is a boon for Conquest but not enough for me to say that shitty degenerate game was good. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Seazas

[Holder of the Heel]

With your path being decided before you even start up the game, I definitely disagree about choice, even if we don't make the House selection with a plot goal in mind. Especially since the plot choice in Fates was extremely underwhelming. They overhyped the writing hard. Pre-release I had the misconception that it was two nations of competing ideals, but foolish me, the games are literally black and white. Not to mention there's Revelations... just existing. Which is great in the sense that you can use all the characters you like, but the plot suffers for it. Admittedly, Three Houses also allows you to mostly get anyone you want, logical character motivations be damned. But ultimately a House driven story is told, anyone else is just tagging along.

 

God I honestly can't contribute much because I can't even remember much of Fates.

What I DO remember is that there were plot driven unit deaths in it, which touches on something that is perhaps my biggest complaint about this series as a whole.

Fire Emblem is GREATLY limited in terms of narrative by the existence of Classic rules. The fact that any non-main lord character has to be allowed to die at any moment without changing the plot means that there life is as equally as meaningless as their death. We can't have permadeath matter in the story unless the game's plot is willing to factor in a LOT of cast combinations (or else the list of characters needs to drastically decrease, which would just save one FE signature aspect by upending another).

I mean, characters do die in Three Houses in the plot, but never ones that you have. Arguably that's a good thing, because losing a character you've spent time and resources on because the plot killed them is going to ruffle feathers, and for good reason. And if no character you have can forcibly be killed, well then for the vast majority of people, no character is going to be killed because people won't allow it to happen. It's a complicated problem.

 

...Got side tracked a little there. All I can say is: Three Houses has issues, and they are big, whopping ones, that even inhibit the potential of its best qualities. But it's strong points all the same have impacted my way of thinking of and imagining, more than any of the 3DS games or Sacred Stones. Although someone can just as easily say, as I believe already has, that Fates fits that better. So ultimately that is just opinion.

[starburst]

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

For as much as it may surprise some people(considering what I post on this forum) Personally I value gameplay over story in video games. Good gameplay can save a garbage or nonexistent story. A good story cannot save garbage or nonexistent gameplay.

What?! I honestly did not see that coming. Like, ever. You got me there. 

 

1 hour ago, Seazas said:

Except Fire Emblem has long been confirmed to stand out for being a strategy game focused on story and characters with every individual unit having a personality. Not the gameplay specifically.

When has Fire Emblem been a standard of storytelling and character development?! I missed it all!

 

30 minutes ago, Holder of the Heel said:

Fire Emblem is GREATLY limited in terms of narrative by the existence of Classic rules.

I my opinion, it is actually simpler: the attachment towards certain characters and permanent death are there to affect you, the player, and not the story itself, which is only serviceable. You are not going to restart the chapter because the story ends after a non-lord character died, neither because you cannot complete the map without that unit; you are going to restart it (or not) because you like that character.

If anything, I see a bigger contradiction in spending a lot of resources in exposing a character to the player, and still letting the player recruit 30 or so units. Either they want you to care about a party or they want you to replace all fallen units. You cannot have both.

In any case, I use reduced parties to increase the challenge at the same time that I do not care about most of the cast (which I ignore or let die.)

[ZeManaphy]

Hmm.. So those are some interesting points. Fates was my first game of Fire Emblem, so obviously I have higher opinions than everyone else. 
 

Here’s what I think:

Story/Characters: 3 Houses wins here. Our debate on Edelgard proves how good the moral gray was handed, and characters generally designed less fan service, which I can appreciate, since we learn a more serious facts on the characters. I don’t think the characters are bad as people say in Fates, Camilla, Nina, Elise, Oboro have personality quirks with their background. That being said the problem I have it doesn’t feel like it need 3 Houses to be told. This game could have been just Dimitri/Rhea/Edelgard conflict. Claude honestly feels like a 3rd wheel- I know he’s supposed to find the truth of the Relics and Crests, but the “ defeat Edelgard “ plot takes for most of the Verdant Wind that it’s shoved in one explanation in the last chapter of Verdant Wind. More fleshing could have gone to Edelgard’s route who still did not convince me her decision was the best. No gender locks were great as well.

While 3 Houses does get the popular vote for better use of politics and in its world building being more shown off, I would like to say that Fates does a lot to provide world building at first glance. Going by music, I love how you can associate each music with the nations: Hoshido uses Japanese instruments, while Nohr uses European Instruments. Hoshidan Music sounds light and airy, while Conquest music is more grim. Character wise, the names reflect Japanese culture, Orochi, Takumi, and Sakura are all Japanese names, while Xander, Camilla, and Leo are Greco-Roman. The NPCs and playable characters are also designed to reflect Japanese and European clothing- you can instantly tell an NPC from what nation they are from by looking at their clothing. It’s those tiny details that makes me really love the art direction behind Fates. On contrast, the soldiers from the church and kingdom look identical, as well as the empire. Even soldiers from Almyra, which the natives are Tan-Skinner are generic white soldiers. Even classes are route locked, reflecting culture as well. I also love how they renamed Sage to Onmyoji and others to fit in that theme. 

I agree that Fates route split was better despite being behind a paywall. Despite reusing some maps, most of the objectives were different as well as the enemy layout. In 3 Houses, between AM and VW, the only maps that were actually exclusive  were Fhirdiad and Deirdru, while VW had Shambhala and Nemsis final battle. These maps which are shared are identical in structure and objective. 
 

Gameplay wise, I don’t see why people complain about BR and Revelation being a waste of a game while Conquest gets all the praise. Birthright was designed for beginners, while Revelation offered a mix between the two. I’m not sure I understand why Revelation maps are considered Gimmicky in contrast to Conquest’s maps. They are still really interesting to play and I enjoyed them a lot. As for 3 Houses, the first part is really slow, especially since you have to play all 12 chapters again on repeat playthroughs. Thankfully, New Game + exists so that slog is made significantly less tedious. The developers probably realized this, so that’s why it’s there. The monastery was good in concept, just needs a bit more refinement. Like maybe instead of always staying in the Monastery, you could be in Fhirdiad after retaking the capital, and explore around there. I like the social aspects like Tea Parties and Saunas, but the Monastery got boring over time due to it being the same old area. I also think the calendar schedule can bring really boring and tedious on repeat playthroughs, since you are required to do some activities before the final chapter. I found Fates’s my  castle so much more enjoyable since you can do activities and grind at your own pace rather than just have to wait a month before the main mission.

I’ve written a lot for now. In conclusion, I love both games to death, and I think they are wonderful games well worth your time. I got my brother 3 Houses and he loved it. Each has their strong points and weak points, although I do agree that I find Fates easier to replay than 3 Houses.

[Seazas]

1 hour ago, starburst said:

When has Fire Emblem been a standard of storytelling and character development?! I missed it all!

It's not a standard, but its writing as a whole is better than the lows Fates gave us. 

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Seazas said:

It's not a standard, but its writing as a whole is better than the lows Fates gave us. 

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).

[Timlugia]

3 hours ago, Holder of the Heel said:

 Pre-release I had the misconception that it was two nations of competing ideals, but foolish me, the games are literally black and white.

Honestly, it would be better if they just stick it as black and white, like Nohr being a true antagonist route, Corrin became a tyrant themselves, crashing all opposition in the end.

[Florete]

On 2/17/2020 at 10:17 AM, Timlugia said:

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

I agree with this, and I did actually consider writing a section on it, but ultimately I decided it basically goes alongside my part about the story.

On 2/17/2020 at 11:59 AM, Serenesforestlies said:

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.

This is wrong. As in, factually wrong. All of the campaigns do have more than 1 difficulty. Conquest hard does exist, as does Conquest normal and lunatic. Each campaign has its own normal, hard, and lunatic, and you get them all as long as you have that campaign.

21 hours ago, Pikappa93 said:

I can only agree with Conquest gameplay and maybe prettier graphics, because 3H is kinda shallow in that department. 

Other than that, I find 3H superior in every way for reasons other people already explained better than I could. 

I'm noticing we're entering a phase in which it's cool to criticize 3H, and that's okay if you didn't like it, but baity titles like this... I don't know. Fates was criticized by everyone as soon as launch because its flaws were evident, this didn't happen with 3H because while it has its flaws too they're not as messy as Fates's. To suddenly say "Fates was actually good" after years of criticism looks like a mixture of based nostalgia for the 3DS era and claiming something controversial just for the sake of it. 

Just my opinion, of course. 

I'm not others, and my opinion on Fates hasn't changed since I originally played it. I've always said it's a great game with a terrible story. As I recall, when it was new, that was actually the common sentiment, but nowadays it's become the series' punching bag. It feels like people forgot about the good parts of it because they were so focused on the bad. And my love of the game is certainly not based in nostalgia considering I began this series when I was 13 and Fates released when I was 25.

On the other hand, I've been pretty quiet on what I think of Three Houses until now, mostly because I was trying to force myself to enjoy it more than I really was able to. However, the idea of a "honeymoon phase" for new entries in a longer series is a thing and, well, they're called that for a reason.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Florete

[User name]

2 hours ago, Timlugia said:

Honestly, it would be better if they just stick it as black and white, like Nohr being a true antagonist route, Corrin became a tyrant themselves, crashing all opposition in the end.

But that's just 

Spoiler

Edelgard, she is a conqueror who does questionable things, and some people see her a evil tyrant, thats the character you want

no?

Edited February 19, 2020 by User name

[darkblade2814]

as someone who plays RPGs such as fire emblem for story, not gamepaly (although a good gamepaly helps) I feel like three hoses did a better job in this department, then again I'm a canon w**re who thinks Revelations ins the only path in Fates worth due to it being the canon one, but I like three houses due to none of the four paths being canon, so we can pick the one you like the most (Goden deer to me) without the need of only playing one route because of canonnicty, so yeah, three houses did a better job on telling a good story regardless of your preference and avoided an unintentional pitfall by not making any of them canon

EDIT: used an expression that came out wrong, I decided to change it, I don't want to get into trouble by accident (Again)

Edited February 19, 2020 by darkblade2814
correct use of words

[whase]

Reading through this thread I started to realize what I find important in a Fire Emblem game:

- Basic FE gameplay
I love the basics of the gameplay of FE, each FE has this which means I pretty much enjoy playing every FE. Points to both.

- Replay-ability
Playing with characters in new classes, new teams, new modes, difficulties, self-inflicted challenges, so far only SoV was pretty bad in this point and I still love that game. I'd give a slight edge to 3H but really both get full points here.

- Story
While 3H definitely had its flaws, it has some great moments that I love, and many mysteries that kept me hooked. Edelgard's story less so since I really couldn't find myself in her reasons, but the other paths made up for it. Same as Edelgard I felt for Corrin in Conquest, except it made less sense to me. Points for 3H.

- Worldbuilding
Maybe if I had any interest in Japanese culture I would be able to rate Conquest any higher, but as it stands, any worldbuilding Conquest may have done is completely forgettable. 3H doesn't have as much as I would've liked either, but it's still kilometers ahead of Fates. Points for Tellius 3H.

- Characters
I've been thinking a lot on this, and I think a huge part of why I keep replaying FE endlessly, is because I don't want to say goodbye to my  favorite characters. Playing a FE game is like visiting old friends again. And fact is, I don't find any Fates characters the slightest bit interesting. Whether that is because of them being too bland or to one-dimensional, I don't know, it's just how it is. 3H on the other hand, it is now the game with the most of my favorite characters. Huge point for 3H.

Add to this how hard I cringe at the fanservice of Fates, and the winner couldn't be more clear to me. 

That said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And tbh if gameplay and game speed are your main focus in an FE game, or if you really like Japanese culture, I totally understand picking Conquest over 3H.

[Etrurian emperor]

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. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Etrurian emperor