What do you guys think about Three houses and the future of the series?

[Dinar87]

Personally I like the dark fantasy route they're taking, and even though I somewhat enjoyed the child units and a few other staple things in the 3ds games, it feels like Three Houses has found its own winning formula and I'm in love with it far more than any other fire emblem game, besides maybe the Tellius series (which I'm replaying right now actually on my Wii).

The characters are my favorite thing about the game probably, as well as the music and gameplay in general. I love being able to customize all my units to my hearts content and take the time to make everyone stronger! I really hope they keep this level of customization and level of quality in the future!!  

Here's one of my favorite bits of three houses' music
https://youtu.be/F40AySOCpWA -Fierce as fire

But enough about me, what do you all think about Three houses and the future of the series?

 

[Saint Rubenio]

Frankly? My answer would be "not for me" to both. It's going to be a bit of a negative post, so please bear with me.

I played Three Houses and I did not like it at all. The gameplay and difficulty were a mess, and I value those factors above all others, unless I'm playing a purely story-based game. It felt as though the focus was shifted from the maps and the strategic gameplay to the story and the monastery grind. If you like that, that's perfectly fine and understandable, but I do not.

As for the future of the series, Three Houses is the most mainstream FE there's ever been. With its overwhelming success, IntSys is obviously going to make future FEs more like it. They'd be fools not to. They know what's going to get them more money, and they're obviously going to go for it.

Now, I'm not saying that Three Houses is "bad". I understand a lot of people enjoy what this game does, and I'm truly glad for all the people that have found their dream game in Three Houses. I may be the personification of the "filthy elitist scum" trope, but I do not see any reason to pick fights with others simply because their tastes differ from mine. I'm happy for all the Three Houses fans, I really am. I'm sorry if this all sounds too obvious, but I felt it was necessary to say it. It's all too easy to start fights in the internet.

Anyway. I'm happy Three Houses is so popular, but as for me personally? Being, again, the personification of the "filthy elitist scum" trope, I feel like I've been left behind by this franchise I claim to love. Really doubt I'll ever enjoy a new FE game, the way things are going. They're just not games made for me.

But that's all right. KagaSaga is the strategy series for me right now. I can only hope a miracle happens and we get a translation of the other Vestaria games. And if not, well, Berwick Saga exists and is looking like it may very well be my favorite game of all. So there's that.

[Von Ithipathachai]

Eeerrrghh...  I don't wanna say Three Houses is the worst Fire Emblem game I've ever played, but it's close.  The Monastery crap is so tedious to get through, especially on repeat playthroughs.  And the balancing and various other design decisions make me ill.  If you have to resort to gender-locking to prevent access to certain OP class and unit combinations, then you're doing something deeply wrong with those.

Three Houses is probably the most experimental game in the series since Thracia 776, and I can respect it for that.  But I hope it stays an experiment.  I'd prefer the next non-remake game to stick to a more traditional progression system if possible.  And this isn't even getting into Three Houses more or less being designed to ride Persona 5's coattails.

[vanguard333]

For me, Fire Emblem: Three Houses is a lot like playing through Breath of the Wild. It doesn't feel great overall when playing through it for large stretches of time, but it has those moments every now and then, when all the different gameplay elements work together, that the games rises to almost-perfection and feels fantastic to play through. I like how the gameplay is completely overhauled, as if sitting on a brand new foundation. It's isn't "like Awakening", nor is it "like the old FE games", and everything within it feels likes it's there as part of a particular goal, rather than just thrown in. Even the fishing mini-game, which I would normally dismiss as just being there because it's in every RPG, does feel like it has a purpose. The only thing I can think of that feels thrown-in is the adjutant system.

That said, it does have its issues; all of which create the feeling that the developers bit off more than they can chew. The fact that the developers admitted in an interview that the game is twice as big as they planned for it to be only increases my suspicion that this is the case. The characters are fantastic; easily the best since Path of Radiance, but the story relies heavily on contrivances and other issues. The map design can also be fairly lackluster a lot of the time, and there's the four missing chapters for Crimson Flower and the heavy amount of copy-paste between Silver Snow and Verdant Wind. The wanted to make the biggest, most grand, and best FE game yet, and I think they bit off more than they could chew. 

 

Like Breath of the Wild, I think what Three Houses does best, is lay the foundation for even better FE games to come. I would love to see a sequel that takes a lot of Three Houses' mechanics: explorable bases, battalions, the monster mechanics, how the combat arts work, etc., and make a truly great game by having a more refined story, better map design, etc. If they take the opportunity to learn from Three Houses: see what it did well and what it didn't do well, while also learning from the development cycle, then the future of FE looks very bright. 

[The Roger The Paladin]

Whereas I'm flat neutral. It's far from my favourite game. But it's also not particularly close to the bottom. I'm afraid I find the slow pacing of the monastery, while engaging for the first time... is an absolute mess on subsequent runs. Whereas with other games with slow segments I could thumb through the repeated segments without issue, the monastery does not afford such a luxury as it's so integrated with unit development, and in some cases, story progression.

While it exceeded my ever pessimistic expectations (I've got a tendency to expect the worst from things. Fortunately such a mindset means I'm pleasantly surprised when things go well, instead of disappointed when things go wrong. Does wonders for my enjoyment of things, as well as my planning for emergencies), it also kind of wore itself out by the time I'd played through enough times to get all the supports... so that when Jeritza and the Ashen Wolves DLC appeared... I could not be bothered on subsequent playthroughs. I just lack the motivation. To this day I don't know much at all about the latter, and I just youtube'd the former's supports because I'm too slack to do another run... especially of that damn pre-time-skip segment. I tell you I've come to appreciate Fates allowing you to start files from the moment the routes diverge so much more.

That said, I personally do appreciate the drop of the child mechanic. It got on my nerves when it was shoe-horned into Fates despite my enjoying it as a throwback to Genealogy in Awakening. I only ever want to see it again if we're getting a re-make of Genealogy. Knowing my luck, it'll turn out that Three Houses only missed it because it was one of those things cut for time.... and we'll get to enjoy (or in my case suffer) it again.

[Lightcosmo]

Overall I think the game did a lot of thing right, but the one thing I didn't enjoy that much was the gameplay. It's just missing something that makes it "fun", not counting balance of course, since they always fail that. Also, along with others, I find the monastery portion a bit too slow at times, and it could have been so much more in depth.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I think Three Houses represents a good future for the series, so long as they understand that its design, though good, suffers from bloat and needs streamlining.

 

Namely:

A smaller base of operations to explore (less travel time and loading time).

 

Fewer, more rewarding auxiliary battles.

 

Bonus experience to encourage faster runs. Also awarded for Seminars/Resting.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

Making Three Houses become a super RPG with exploring stuff and fulfilling requests was a nice change, but it's not actual the deal of the franchise.

Fire Emblem is supposed to be a round-based strategy RPG, and nothing else!

At least that's why I play this series.

[lenticular]

Personally, I completely unappolagetically love Three Houses and its mashup of game styles. A big part of that is because I love all the different genres being mashed together. I play turn-based tactics games, I play RPGs, I even play dating sims, life sims, and what have you. I also don't look to Fire Emblem games purely for the tactical gameplay elements. When I'm in that sort of mood, I play chess instead, which is always going to be a deeper tactical experience. For me, Fire Emblem has always been a combination of gameplay with characters and story. So I was always going to love Three Houses. It's supplanted Path of Radiance as my favourite Fire Emblem, and I've logged something ridiculous like 700 hours in the game. Obviously, I'm hoping for more of the same down the road.

That said, I hope that Intelligent Systems can refine their ideas further in future titles. Basically, I'm hoping that Three Houses was where they had all the new ideas, and what comes next is where they get refined. Because much as I love this game, there is a lot about it that could be improved. I'd love to see better difficulty settings. Maybe do what some action RPGs do and have one setting for "I'm only here for the story, give me super easy gameplay" and one for "I'm only here for the gameplay, so show me everything else as a bunch of (skippable) cutscenes with default options". If they have multiple routes again, let's add an option to quickly skip over any dialogue that we've seen before, which is a staple in visual novels. While we're at it, let's also see a bigger focus on interesting map design again. And so on and so forth.

Basically, if the next game in the series isn't trying to change as much and do as many new things, then I'm hoping that they'll have more time for polish and fine detail, and be able to make an even better game.

[whase]

I love Three Houses. There are some things that I could complain about, but the fact is, if the next FE has the exact same gameplay, I'd be first in line to get it. I also love a lot of the characters and the story was pretty good.

Only reason it didn't become my favorite game is because PoR has cemented itself as my favorite since a long time. If you objectively ask me which game I enjoy playing most it's 3H. (I don't even mind playing part 1 a hundred times, I replay all FE games continuously anyways.)

One thing I'd like to note is that I find the customization very fitting to the story of 3H, were they to just shoehorn it in without fitting it to the story for the next FE, I'd probably hate it just as much as the 2nd gen of Fates.

[Benice]

I've only played the first three chapters of three houses, (seeing as I don't own a switch and was using my friend's) and I can see how it would get old easily, not to mention grind-reliant on higher difficulties-my biggest problem was how verbose it was and how the maps were quite short despite the fact that there was about 3 hours of stuff to do between them. I DID enjoy the first three chapters, but I don't have a great sense of the game.

That said, the combat was vaguely confusing, and I'm not too fond of gambits or adjutants or any of that stuff; moving forward, I hope the franchise simplifies itself:

My favourite game mechanic-wise in the series was Radiant Dawn (other than supports)-I liked the skill systems, I liked height giving terrain bonuses. It was still failry simple, and that's as far as I'd want the series to go in terms of skills. I also quite liked base conversations, but more on that later.

My favourite game Gameplay-wise is Binding blade-it's hard, but I'd say not in a BS kind of way, at least most of the time.

 My favourite FE-style game overall is Berwick Saga. I was surprised that I liked it, but it combined many of the elements I enjoyed from the other fe games I played-I found Berwick's equivalent to Garreg mach to be far superior. It was smaller but still gave the sense that you were in a big city without making you walk around for 9,000 hours. It also featured base conversations (kinda.) Really, the only thing I can complain about for the game is that it's too hard for someone as bad as me with no easy way to make the game easier,and that's my problem, not the game's. And also the obscure requirements for some people to promote and whatnot.

I know that it's about as likely as Amelia being considered top-tier in FE8, but I kinda wouldn't mind Kaga going back for the next game or games- I feel like he could balance out the gameplay with more the classic FE elements. (Also a TRS remake, but shh...)

I guess, all in all, I just want simpler gameplay than what three houses provided, much like the GBA-era games.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The Fire Emblem parts of Three Houses were really good. It's just a shame that only 50% of the game was Fire Emblem gameplay while the rest was trend chasing tasks and fruitless grinding. If that other half is the future of the series, then it'll be time for the "wait and see" approach for new titles. When you get older, you witness a lot of beloved franchises lose their way, and you just kind of get used to it. If it weren't for Echoes, Fire Emblem would already be in the wait and see camp for me. It's been a rough decade.

[Thane]

3 hours ago, Falcom Knight said:

Fire Emblem is supposed to be a round-based strategy RPG, and nothing else!

It's worth keeping in mind that I believe it's Kusakihara who has said he's against this kind of thinking and has been at least since Echoes. 

Three Houses did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong. However, that's a very vague statement that could effectively be applied to any game in the series, or any game ever. I believe Etheus got the right of it when he said Three Houses needs some streamlining and that it'll be good for the franchise moving forward provided they understand what they did right.

The worldbuilding and how important the world as a whole is is taken to a whole new level in Three Houses. The cast generally feels well developed, with unique relationships between each other and ties to various parts of Fódlan and beyond. It gives the whole game a sense of being grounded in some kind of realism that the series never quite delivered on before. It also went in completely new directions with two of the lords, which is a welcome change for me, as one of my main complaints about the series before Three Houses was how...interchangeable many of the lords felt. Dimitri and Edelgard have arcs that are unique to them, and it's hard to see them working as characters in another game due to how well fleshed out Fódlan is, and the same can be said even for some support characters.

My main criticism of Three Houses is the seeming abandonment or brushing over of major plot lines where you're left to speculate why a character acted in a certain manner. I think this is primarily due to the game having needed more time in the oven, however, and not due to incompetence (well, not only incompetence). It is clear that developing multiple paths is a massive undertaking, and I think the next game in the series should focus on one narrative. You can implement choices throughout the game to a certain extent anyway, and if you need to do a route split, do it near the end so it's easier to develop and flesh out. 

Claude is another major criticism I have, but that may be an entire topic on its own. Sufficed to say, Kusakihara, the man I mentioned before, explicitly said Claude turned out to be more of a good guy than was intended, and throughout all of Verdant Wind in particular, I felt that. Claude's lack of personal attachment to the war could have worked, but instead it ends up making him come across as aloof and impossible to emotionally connect with. As the director himself stated, Claude ended up becoming another character than what was originally planned, which is why his attitude and actions in the first half of the game don't seem to correspond with his war phase self.

Here's the quote and the source: 

Quote

Claude started with the keywords “scheming hero;” I wanted to make somebody who would have his own machinations behind the scenes, the kind of guy you couldn’t hate despite his character. As I was writing him, I guess I ended up making him more of a “pure” good guy than I had originally intended. (laughs)

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Thane

[Ertrick36]

I'm excited for what FE will bring in terms of character stories and worldbuilding.  The latter in particular because it never was done quite as well as it was in FE:TH, where even these smaller noble families feel important and unique in their own ways instead of just being simple yes men to the bigger figures.  And I enjoyed what new mechanics they introduced, though I definitely think some rebalancing should've happened.

What I don't like is how 80% of my playthroughs feel like I'm just grinding.  Part of it is that the skirmishes feel very "fetch-questy", and by that I mean they're as deep as a puddle.  But this wouldn't be an issue if the game didn't make me feel obligated to teach the students.  The main issue is the schedule system.  It's meant to serve as a compromise between vets who want to just play the main bits of the game and newer players that want to grind, but it's ultimately bad for both.

The issue is that it isn't really a compromise as the amount of grinding you can do is limited but the amount of fights you can do is extended well over twofold.  Subconsciously, the limitation in time makes one feel obligated to take as much advantage of that time as they can.  Obviously not everyone is like this, but a lot of people will find themselves grinding incessantly in this game where they wouldn't in other games.  It's problematic because it subconsciously feels mandatory, not optional.  I can handle doing a billion playthroughs of Awakening or Fates because it doesn't feel like I'm forced to squeeze as much use out of my grinding as humanly possible.

So in the end I might be excited about how much better the stories in FE can get, I'm worried that future entries will make me want to replay them even less.  It's been almost a year since FE:TH had released and I'm still struggling just to beat more than the one route I've beaten.  Contrast that to FE:Fates, where I had all three paths beaten before the year was out.  Yeah, the story in that game sucked something fierce, but the gameplay loop was better.

[Thane]

2 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

So in the end I might be excited about how much better the stories in FE can get, I'm worried that future entries will make me want to replay them even less.  It's been almost a year since FE:TH had released and I'm still struggling just to beat more than the one route I've beaten.  Contrast that to FE:Fates, where I had all three paths beaten before the year was out.  Yeah, the story in that game sucked something fierce, but the gameplay loop was better.

I get what you mean. This really comes down to what you prioritize in games. What sticks with me is almost always the story and not the gameplay, at least when it comes to Fire Emblem. Conquest had brilliant gameplay but that's not the first thing I remember when I think about Fates; it's the writing, and that writing has been discussed to hell and back so I won't go into details. 

I acknowledge a lot of Three Houses' narrative shortcomings but I think the positives far outweigh the negatives, and I rather enjoy the gameplay as well. ...Minus Maddening same turn reinforcements.

[Metal Flash]

I enjoyed my time with Three Houses, definetly one of my favourite games in the series.

I find the gameplay fun, even if it is pretty easy to break if you know how. I would have liked to have seen less reuse of certain maps (looking at you, Fhaergus town) and I agree that Fates Conquest had better map design. The academy phase gets really repetetive on repeat playthroughs, and I wish the Black Eagles and Golden Deer got more involved in the events here.

As others have said, the world building in this game is great. Not only do we learn a lot about Fodlan, but we also see how past events have shaped the lives of those in the present. The map also looks great, letting us clearly see all the different locations. It is also helped by the strong cast, easily my favourite set of characters in the series. Though there are some characters I dislike, I can still understand them.

I liked the story, but found that certain plot points were just never fully resolved, like what happened with the Queen at the Tradegy of Duscur. Claude felt really disconnected from most of what was going on.

Probably the main thing from this game I would like to see in future entries, it would be an alternate way to increase weapon levels and the world building. The class system is the one thing i do NOT want back for future games.

[anikom15]

It will be interesting to see if the next game goes bigger or smaller. There are a lot of things that set a foundation for good things in the future. I am expecting the next game to refine and streamline many of the core elements of this game.

The skills system is good and I hope they use it in the future. I didn't like how they did classes though. I wish they would have kept the old two-tier class system instead of four tiers. They might also want to limit certain weapons to certain classes (e.g. bows), besides magic.

The monastery is fine. You only need to visit it once a month, and even that is arguable, for those that have a problem with it. If you do it just for the free stuff, it doesn't take very long to do. Maybe a way to streamline it, like an auto schedule, would alleviate the complaints. FE will continue to go in this direction. Fates had it; future remakes will probably have elements of it. It is a big part of RPG culture in Japan now and pulls a lot of people and money in. Look at how popular Animal Crossing is now compared to when it came out on Gamecube. People eat this shit up. That said, I would like to see more explorable locations in the future, or holidays and seasons, or some other way of making a change of scenery besides everyone's balls dropping.

The world-building, characters, story, etc. are all a big improvement from both Awakening and Fates, and probably the rest of the series. The idea that FE was this great beacon of JRPG storytelling is an anachronism born perhaps out of nostalgia. The world-building and stories were good, sometimes very good, but I feel like IS really wanted to step up to a new standard with FEs 15 and 16.

I think grinding should have been more minimized. Instead of professor level dictating the number of battles you can do per week, it should have been the number of battles per month. That said, you don't actually need to grind unless you are doing weird builds, but like Etrick36 said the game makes you feel obligated to spend time doing these things. Fates had the same problem actually. It's hard to ignore those exclamation points in the castle.

Reusing maps is disappointing. Stop that (unless there is a GOOD story reason).

The one complaint I don't get though is map design. If Three Houses' maps are bad, what's good? I think Fates had better maps, but it also had very different gameplay, so it's hard to compare. I would say that Three Houses' maps are consistently good. I used more strategy in the first chapter than in 3/4 of Awakening (that's an exaggeration ... maybe). Three Houses' maps actually have terrain, and I was rewarded for using that terrain in a smart way. Chapter 4 is one that comes to mind. The best way to approach that chapter is to make an S-shaped approach toward the boss, taking advantage of the cover tiles against the physical enemies and bypassing half of the battalion-armed units. It also gets you access to both chests on the map. I loved that the map coaxed me into that approach with just enemy positioning and terrain bonuses. No gimmicks whatsoever, and you are free to approach any way you like.

[Ertrick36]

1 hour ago, Thane said:

I get what you mean. This really comes down to what you prioritize in games. What sticks with me is almost always the story and not the gameplay, at least when it comes to Fire Emblem. Conquest had brilliant gameplay but that's not the first thing I remember when I think about Fates; it's the writing, and that writing has been discussed to hell and back so I won't go into details. 

I acknowledge a lot of Three Houses' narrative shortcomings but I think the positives far outweigh the negatives, and I rather enjoy the gameplay as well. ...Minus Maddening same turn reinforcements.

I prioritize story as well, and my problem is that 80% of the time I'm playing FE:TH I'm playing just another mindless skirmish instead of an actual story-related mission.  Part of it is a me problem because I feel the need to use the broken weapon exploit, but still.

It's really my only big complaint.  If they took more measures to make the grind feel optional, I think it'd be easier to play through it a second time, even with Part 1 being the same across the board barring some narrative discrepancies and the obvious difference between the transition between the two parts for CF vs. the rest of the paths.

@Etheus lists out a few things to help balance this all out in a way I think would make both sides happy without taking away from the overall experience they're trying to deliver.  One bit in particular, the bonus EXP thing, is actually similar to how I think Valkyria Chronicles handled this sort of dilemma - you could choose to grind skirmishes if you're a slow player, or you could rush to beat the missions as quickly as possible and still be rewarded for being fast because beating the maps fast earned you a better grade which meant more EXP and money.

And I do think the positives outweigh the negatives.  FE:TH offers maybe the richest experience a FE game has ever offered.  But with any big innovation, work could be done to better fine tune it for a more perfect experience, and I'm just hoping they'll take heed and try to make the experience more streamlined since they're definitely not gonna just revert back to the traditional style of FE games.

[Thane]

24 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

I prioritize story as well, and my problem is that 80% of the time I'm playing FE:TH I'm playing just another mindless skirmish instead of an actual story-related mission.

I get that in Maddening. Same turn reinforcements were a mistake.

[anikom15]

57 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

I prioritize story as well, and my problem is that 80% of the time I'm playing FE:TH I'm playing just another mindless skirmish instead of an actual story-related mission.  Part of it is a me problem because I feel the need to use the broken weapon exploit, but still.

It's really my only big complaint.  If they took more measures to make the grind feel optional, I think it'd be easier to play through it a second time, even with Part 1 being the same across the board barring some narrative discrepancies and the obvious difference between the transition between the two parts for CF vs. the rest of the paths.

@Etheus lists out a few things to help balance this all out in a way I think would make both sides happy without taking away from the overall experience they're trying to deliver.  One bit in particular, the bonus EXP thing, is actually similar to how I think Valkyria Chronicles handled this sort of dilemma - you could choose to grind skirmishes if you're a slow player, or you could rush to beat the missions as quickly as possible and still be rewarded for being fast because beating the maps fast earned you a better grade which meant more EXP and money.

And I do think the positives outweigh the negatives.  FE:TH offers maybe the richest experience a FE game has ever offered.  But with any big innovation, work could be done to better fine tune it for a more perfect experience, and I'm just hoping they'll take heed and try to make the experience more streamlined since they're definitely not gonna just revert back to the traditional style of FE games.

I suggest trying your second run only doing paralogues as optional battles. That's essentially what I did in my first run.

[Tediz64]

As I read the responses, a part of me hopes and wishes that actual makers of the game visit this site and review threads like this. I mean this is a treasure trove of feedback. Besides this site is probably the #1 or top of the list used by fans of the franchise (as far as I can see for English speakers). Like this could help them make the fans happy. Well, now that I've said that, I'll also throw in my 2¢

I couldn't say this FE is at the top of the list. I'd probably be like in spot #6 or lower. 

#1) I disliked the level of customization. I preferred the GBA and GameCube/Wii series style of setting up characters. Stick them in one class branch and leave them there. This is further compounded by my need to keep them in their "canon" class to keep their appearance matching. I dislike looking at Hilda in all that sharp pointy armor as a Wyvern Lord compared to her causal outfit she has in the monastery. Or Flayn dressed too gaudy as a Grimory (which also clashes with her personality) instead of her altered school uniform. Overall the system made me spend too much time optimizing them and leveling them as classes to improve their growth rates than fighting with them for fun. I didn't even mind Fates system or them having maybe 2 additional classes with the ability to add like one or two more. 

#2) for reasons already stated above. I didn't like the monastery segment of the game. It ate up way too much time. I remember my first play thru of each path was averaging somewhere between 50 - 80 hours but when I started not talking to people and skipping certain things, I made it past the first 8 chapters in like 3 hours (cause I was trying to grind the scenes of the goddess tower with everyone. Then I figured I could save the week before and just talk to the guard and change my answer choices then proceed to watch the scene then reset)

#3) also didn't like the balance of certain classes and how absurdly broken some where plus the gender locking they did. Overall I feel like playing with certain classes was more rewarding than playing with others and this felt pretty heavier in this game than in others. 

#4) I did love the world building and character development so that is a plus. 

#5) I'm sad there was no shape shifting classes. I miss my dragons

#6) I liked some new mechanics but feel they need refining. Like the giant monsters, the battalions, the pair up system, and so forth. I hope this was just an experiment.

#7) I love how they drop the child segment. Awakening was okay but eh. Fates was absolutely horrendous on how they executed it. Hope we don't have another waifu game created again

#8) I want them to figure out what they are doing or what their goal is of self insert avatars and figure out how to make them. It's weird having a silent MC. I liked how I was following the story of Ike and not supposed to imagine my self being inserted in the game itself or when they did execute it in the GBA series, I like how I was a helper for Blazing Sword but I was not relevant to the story. It was fun helping Lyn, Eliwood, and Hector. Awakening was done pretty good too but I doubt they can pull that off again. The ever evolving system present in Dragon Age and Fable are awesome examples. You can see how they change their tone and become new people based off choices you make. I loved my sarcastic smartass Hawk in Dragon Age 2. In Fable 3 I also enjoyed my character changing based off my choices and how the world interacted with me after. When I did a evil run, seeing villages scream and run away from me was rewarding. 

So overall, it did some good stuff and also did some bad stuff. It doesn't make it to the top of my list but for a fire emblem game, I was pretty happy at least giving it a shot. This was the first fire emblem game where I was more interested in playing other franchises than a FE.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Tediz64

[Faustino]

I love Three Houses and is only like the best Fire Emblem game I've ever played since Tellius. Definitely enjoyed it way better than the 3DS games, though I like Echoes as well. It's not exactly my favorite game in the series but it did made it into my top 5. 

The characters are definitely my favorite part of the game as well. The soundtrack is alright, some great music and a couple of them I'm not really fond of. The addition of Gambits to the gameplay was a nice touch, even though I rarely used it except when fighting monsters. I fail to see what the problem is with exploring the monastery because being able to do different activities and interacting with the characters on my free time while taking a break from the story was something I really enjoyed doing and have no problem doing it again.

P.S. I don't miss the child segments that Awakening and Fates had and happy it was not included.

As for the future of the series, I...uhh...well, I vowed that after Three Houses, unless it's a port/remaster of a past game, I will never touch a Fire Emblem game again. I'm completely satisfied with how much the game has delivered and exceeded my expectations that I doubt there will ever be a FE game that can top that.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Faustino

[Crysta]

I want less emphasis on player power fantasy and wish fulfillment, but I want them to continue to focus on and expand the world building. The tactical gameplay was pretty sound, if imperfect. I loved how they fleshed out the backstories and relationships between the characters - it makes them feel less like pieces on the game board.

Claude's more of a failure of initial concept delivery than inconsistent writing, though. What does he do in White Clouds that doesn't correspond with what he does in the second half of the game?

[NolanBaumgartner]

Something that 3H  has over most other titles in the franchise is that it's far more replayable, thanks to the flexibility afforded in recruiting and building characters. With enough effort you can field a completely different team composition than your last playthrough, as well as leaving certain characters behind to fight them in future battles. The Monastery segments can seem like a drag, but New Game+ is a godsend here - if you want to, you can easily cut down the grinding such that it feels like a more immersive base than in previous titles. And of course, you have four different routes to try. 

The build flexibility is a double-edged sword, as noted in many prior replies in this thread - but it makes the game a lot easier to pick up again. I don't think I ever completed a FE title more than twice before 3H, but this one is the sort of title that makes me not want to buy other video games for a long while. 

I thought 3H was bold to have the branching storylines, but I'd say every route except AM feels incomplete - with CF getting shortchanged the most. It's been discussed ad infinitum in this forum already, but I don't think the game delivers 100% on the ambition. As much as I like 3H, I don't get that "wasted potential" feel from other titles - e.g. Fates: Revelation was a terrible idea to begin with; Awakening made conscientious trade-offs to cater to new demographics. IS simply needed to put in more time to flesh out what was already good world-building and story telling, but the end result being a route being four full chapters short is a bit ridiculous. 

 

Are we going to see either the class flexibility or the branched routes in the next major release? For the former, I think IS will mostly keep the system but likely play up more to the individual strengths and weaknesses of characters to allow for some diversity - but not flipping the roster 180 in between playthroughs.  Narrative-wise, they will almost certainly go back to more linear storytelling - the branching routes work because with few exceptions, the game's roster congregates in one spot and is recruitable very early on. But that greatly limits what kind of stories you can tell - not only you can't have a sequel set in Fodlan (as it would force 3H to have a canon ending), would IS really want another story set neutral grounds among nations at an unease peace with nearly all the roster being of similar age and provenance? 

I also wonder what IS will do to involve the player in the story. Byleth is the result of IS trying really, really hard to have the player self-insert without fitting awkwardly like Robin in Awakening or not feeling like "you" such as in Fates. But the end result is that Byleth is just not an interesting character, more like an empty vessel through which the player represents themselves in the story. The end result is better than Robin, but it's hardly a positive either. Here, I hope IS will drop the customization/self-insert attempts and deliver a compelling major character instead. But I have a feeling the self-insert component and running-around-as-"you" is what they believe to be a major selling point among modern FE titles.

Edited April 25, 2020 by NolanBaumgartner

[Mylady]

Three Houses story is one of the best of Fire Emblem and the quality of writting should be the base for future games. 

But in future games there should be more restriction in classes by unit, and better, more strategic maps. Bases should stay, but make it a bit more dynamic.

Avatar can stay too, except in remakes, but don't make them the self fulfillment protagonist. Just make them the basic concept of 'my unit' and focus the plot in the lord. It's possible making an avatar without them being the focus of the story. Also if next avatars are silent, give them voice acting at least in conversations, and provide diverse quote options with different traits to customize their personalities, instead of making them canonically stoic. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Mylady