multiple [Multiple Path games] Do you really disappointed if the next game have a multiple choice/path ?

[drattakbowser]

Game with multiple choice is very stressful for me like Blazing Blade, Sacred Stones, Fates, Three Houses and Warrior Three Hopes. If a new Fire Emblem games come with another multiple choice and path I am really disappointed.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I think they can pull off two paths and then it tends to get bloated past that point. Of course, the series has had more games with multiple paths than without since coming to the West. That's just the norm, and I can't fault them for being ambitious.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

I wouldn't be excited about it, but nor would I be turned off by it. I'd be willing to play it, and look at it by its own merits. Even if the paths only make a marginal difference, I'd imagine it to be a good game at its core, so long as it retains essential FE gameplay mechanics. 

[ciphertul]

I honestly would like a single route for the new game. I just wanna be good guys beating up bad guys.

[Armchair General]

It kind of depends on how it's written.The three of the routes Three Houses are mostly of copies of each other, Azure Gleam wasted an lot of time in the Kingdom to the point where we'll never get an chance at killing off the rest of the Imperial nobility. Fates & Conquest are kind of justifiable, but they both have their share of glaring flaws.

 

I really don't believe that an route should be faction-specific, though. I kind of wish that they had alternate levels based on the player's choices.

[Shadow Mir]

Honestly, I would say that is a really really minor thing to fixate on compared to the game actually being enjoyable to play. Case in point: the Jugdral saga. One has a route split and the other doesn't, but that doesn't matter nearly as much to me as much as the fact that both games have so much weirdness that I want nothing to do with them in the first place.

[Fabulously Olivier]

Multiple paths is technically the series default.

 

Games with multipath:

Binding Blade

Blazing Sword

Sacred Stones

Fates

Three Houses

Three Hopes

 

Games that are technically multipath (adjacent split multi-faction narratives)

Gaiden (and SoV)

Geneology

Radiant Dawn

 

Strictly linear narratives:

SD

NM

Thracia

PoR

Awakening

 

And if we're being real, even Jugdral could be viewed as a multiroute sold over two games.

[Sire]

I think they need to focus on the more story and less on feature creep.

Can Multiple Paths, Avatar Characters, and a "Hub Area" be fun? Yes.
-- Does it have to be in every single game from now on? No.

Thing is, since Awakening brought S-Supports and Fates doubled down on the "Dating Sim" element (Tea Time/Expeditions for Three Houses/Hopes), I don't see Avatar characters not being present in future installments.
-- I'm also hoping they don't go down the route of the "Monastery Hub" of Three Houses again. It's neat at first, but it was too much fluff and not enough substance in my opinion. Fates and Shadows of Valentia handled just fine, although I do miss the Base Conversations from the Tellius days...

* * * * *

Back to multiple paths/choices, I don't mind. If there are multiple paths, I want them done well, otherwise I rather have a single well-developed route compared to several half-baked ones.
-- It sucks seeing routes that had so much potential only to be squandered by the end (TH Scarlet Blaze, Fate's Story).

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The goal of multiple routes is to make the game more replayable, but I've never agreed that a 30+ hour game should have to worry about that. I should be able to see everything in the game if I'm willing to put the time into one playthrough. Especially when they're not going to put any role playing choices that impact later events of the story. You can get a lot more done in the replay value department (and with considerably less effort) by just adding more stuff that the player can tweak. Difficulty settings, separate modes, reclassing, etc.

1 hour ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Games that are technically multipath (adjacent split multi-faction narratives)

Gaiden (and SoV)

Geneology

Radiant Dawn

I definitely would not count having multiple protagonists/viewpoints in the narrative as having multiple paths. Because there is no playthrough of these games where you can start with or skip Celica's/Seliphs/Ike's story. 

2 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

That's just the norm, and I can't fault them for being ambitious.

You can absolutely fault them for being too ambitious. If that's even the right word for this. The way I see it, they want to market a game on its replayability, it's choose-your-own-adventure-ness, and they're willing to cut corners in order to make the multiple routes thing 'technically' true when we all know how depressingly similar our second playthroughs of Three Houses ended up being by the end of chapter 2. The fact that all four routes take place in the same Monastery is just economical - it's a big worldspace they spent the entire dev time making for the SS route, they can't just make another that would have been appropriate for a different route. Previous Fire Emblem games with multiple routes were not like Three Houses. It was a bonus thing to make two players' playthroughs potentially different. In my experience I actually did not know FE6 had an Ilia route until ten years after playing, and that revelation was pretty neat. My interest in replaying the game shot way up from a "not gonna happen" to a "huh, maybe someday I dunno"

But even if you disagree with me and think Three Houses' route splits are the same thing as previous games, If some of the games in your franchise have problematic design in common, then it's no less a valid criticism to point it out and suggest not doing it in the future. A lot of these games are held back by "This is how it's always been" when they really shouldn't be. Metroid games always making you find the morph ball. A Sonic game always having cozy, nostalgic Green Hill Zone. Mario games always having Peach kidnapped by Bowser. Fire Emblem games having an evil brainwashed emperor villain. These don't have to be constants if the developers don't want them to be. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Use the Falchion]

Not at all, to answer the original question. What DOES grind my gears is when games have path-exclusive characters. It's why I play Revelation and Blue Lions over most routes when I play Fates and Three Houses - I want to recruit/gain as many characters as possible. 

[Florete]

3 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Multiple paths is technically the series default.

 

Games with multipath:

Binding Blade

Blazing Sword

Sacred Stones

Fates

Three Houses

Three Hopes

 

Games that are technically multipath (adjacent split multi-faction narratives)

Gaiden (and SoV)

Geneology

Radiant Dawn

 

Strictly linear narratives:

SD

NM

Thracia

PoR

Awakening

 

And if we're being real, even Jugdral could be viewed as a multiroute sold over two games.

You really can't equate the Elibe games to Fates and Three Houses here. In practice they are linear narratives, they just have slight, minor deviations. Most players will never even realize there was technically a choice to begin with. Three Hopes shouldn't be counted here at all as it is not a mainline game; if you're going to list it you need to also list FEW1, Heroes, and TMS. And Genealogy is completely linear, it just has a time skip to a new cast, you never choose a faction or jump between different perspectives.

[Fabulously Olivier]

10 minutes ago, Florete said:

You really can't equate the Elibe games to Fates and Three Houses here. In practice they are linear narratives, they just have slight, minor deviations. Most players will never even realize there was technically a choice to begin with. Three Hopes shouldn't be counted here at all as it is not a mainline game; if you're going to list it you need to also list FEW1, Heroes, and TMS. And Genealogy is completely linear, it just has a time skip to a new cast, you never choose a faction or jump between different perspectives.

FEW1, Heroes, and TMS don't attempt canon stories within the universe of a proper game. The difference should be much clearer than the difference between Elibe's split and Three Houses. But sure. Why not? FEW1 technically has a branch in its narrative - more in the Gaiden style. Heroes would be linear, albeit full of paralogues. And "I Can't Believe it's Not Idolmaster" is linear, I guess; I still need to finish it.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Fabulously Olivier

[Azz]

Personally, if they are gonna do a multiple route thing, I think they should focus on doing two routes. In the recent games where we've had three (Fates and Three Houses), the multiple routes just weren't very satisfying imo. Revelation as a golden route makes Birthright and Conquest moot from a story perspective while still being unsatisfying since 3 characters are unplayable for no real reason in Revelation making the idea of the 'everyone is here' route not so true. With the Three Houses, each route left you with something unfulfilled and unsatisfying. Silver Snow and Verdant Wind were carbon copies essentially, Azure Moon lacked world building and Crimson Flower is cut too short.

I think focusing on two routes would be best. For example, I think a route split ala Silver Snow and Crimson Flower would be really compelling if the Edelgard/Rhea dichotomy was further expanded upon and CF was longer. I think it would've made for a great game and could've been similar to what Birthright and Conquest attempted to be but without the golden route hanging over them.

In an ideal world, they would do route splits like Sacred Stones, which is my favourite way to do splits. We got more development into the respective lords, got to see their relationship with the main antagonist fleshed out and the story had slight differences depending on which route you played, adding to the replay value.

[Florete]

14 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

FEW1, Heroes, and TMS don't attempt canon stories within the universe of a proper game.

Neither does Three Hopes; it's an alternate universe. It's not in the same universe as Three Houses. It's not like Age of Calamity, which is intended as an actual extension of Breath of the Wild's story...and people still don't consider that a mainline Zelda game.

14 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

But sure. Why not? FEW1 technically has a branch in its narrative - more in the Gaiden style.

I can't tell if you're trying to say this as some sort of "gotcha" or not, but that's fine. The perspective-jumping of games like Gaiden and Radiant Dawn is cool with me, and you separated them in your list from the pick-a-path games, so there was no reason for me to criticize anything there.

The point here is that having multiple path options really is not the norm for the series. Fates and Three Houses are the only true examples of it. Sacred Stones is kind of a prototype/halfway version of it. Gaiden/SoV and RD switch perspectives, but are still single, unified stories. The Elibe games don't even register here imo.

...

I guess I should actually answer the topic question, which I didn't do because there's still a thread just like this on the front page and my answer hasn't changed.

Minor-deviation paths like the GBA trio and alternate perspectives like RD and SoV I'm fine with, but I'd rather they didn't try the separate routes style of Fates and Three Houses again. Those are the only two games in the series with route differences of such scale, and both have suffered directly because of it. While I'd prefer a single narrative, two paths might be manageable as a compromise, but no more.

And if @drattakbowser is still around, I'd like to ask why you put Blazing Blade with the others you listed, as its "choices" have no impact on events. Do you actually mean the Eliwood vs Hector choice? Because Hector mode is really more like a new game+ than what the other games offer.

[Fabulously Olivier]

25 minutes ago, Florete said:

Neither does Three Hopes; it's an alternate universe. It's not in the same universe as Three Houses. It's not like Age of Calamity, which is intended as an actual extension of Breath of the Wild's story...and people still don't consider that a mainline Zelda game.

I can't tell if you're trying to say this as some sort of "gotcha" or not, but that's fine. The perspective-jumping of games like Gaiden and Radiant Dawn is cool with me, and you separated them in your list from the pick-a-path games, so there was no reason for me to criticize anything there.

The point here is that having multiple path options really is not the norm for the series. Fates and Three Houses are the only true examples of it. Sacred Stones is kind of a prototype/halfway version of it. Gaiden/SoV and RD switch perspectives, but are still single, unified stories. The Elibe games don't even register here imo.

...

I guess I should actually answer the topic question, which I didn't do because there's still a thread just like this on the front page and my answer hasn't changed.

Minor-deviation paths like the GBA trio and alternate perspectives like RD and SoV I'm fine with, but I'd rather they didn't try the separate routes style of Fates and Three Houses again. Those are the only two games in the series with route differences of such scale, and both have suffered directly because of it. While I'd prefer a single narrative, two paths might be manageable as a compromise, but no more.

And if @drattakbowser is still around, I'd like to ask why you put Blazing Blade with the others you listed, as its "choices" have no impact on events. Do you actually mean the Eliwood vs Hector choice? Because Hector mode is really more like a new game+ than what the other games offer.

Three Hopes is at least as canon as Age of Calamity. Frankly more so. Every route in Three Houses proper is an equally canon alternate universe. Azure Moon, Crimson Flower, and Verdant Wind cannot all possibly occur at once because they are mutually exclusive. To that end, every single branch they introduce to that universe in any game is equally canon. Or no route is canon at all.

 

Age of Calamity advertises itself as a canon prequel, but it can only be an alternate timeline within the universe of the game. It is physically impossible for Age of Calamity to be canon within the timeline of Breath of the Wild, because it changes everything. That's fine to me, mind you since I am not a Zelda fan. But it isn't "more canon." People were rightly pretty mad when the game that advertised itself as telling the true war story did not in fact do so. The equivalent for Three Houses would have been if its Warriors game advertised itself as taking place in the age of heroes, only for the Three Houses protagonists to time travel, kill all the Agarthans and Rhea, and bring Fodlan to a new golden age thousands of years ago.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Fabulously Olivier

[Dark Holy Elf]

I feel like we've had this debate already, but as usual, my position is that I don't feel too strongly about whether the next game's route structure (though I do find the idea that multiple routes hurt the story very strange, since it seems to me to contradict the reality on the ground in this series). Either way I do hope that it continues to have the type of moral ambiguity that has become increasingly common in recent games. And failing that, if there is only one timeline, please don't force me to be a good little monarchist.

1 hour ago, Florete said:

Neither does Three Hopes; it's an alternate universe. It's not in the same universe as Three Houses.

I'd definitely say Three Hopes is in the same universe as Three Houses.

"Alternate universe", at least in my experience, usually refers to taking characters and putting them in a different, well, universe. Something like "what if Chrom were in Star Wars" or "what if Ferdinand and Hubert lived in our world and met up at a coffee shop".

That's not what Three Hopes is. It's very much the same universe as Houses: same characters, same setting, same history of the world leading up to start of both games. Details from one game are considered canon to the other (and in some cases, are necessary to understand the other), with the exception of irreconcilable timeline differences, naturally. As an example of what I mean: if one person said "Caspar's father is named Leopold" and a second person replied with "nope, only in the Hopes universe, not Houses", most people would look at person #2 funny, and for good reason.

Now, Three Hopes is certainly an alternate timeline. Although since Houses already had multiple alternate timelines already, this isn't really a major departure. Hopes' timeline alteration is arguably slightly larger (having major impacts on the story just a few months into 1180, whereas Three Houses' timelines don't strongly diverge until near the end of that school year) but not dramatically so.

[Benice]

...Wait, Blazing Blade has choice for routes?

 

Anyways, to be on topic, I don't think I'd be disappointed if they went with another game with multiple paths- I'd just be extremely apprehensive. The last two (mainline) games where they tried to implement different paths both were absolute messes in my opinion- Fates overextending and ending up with an extremely underbaked setting and a weak cast of characters, and Three Houses ending up with enough gameplay content for basically two routes, and a story with not much more meat than that- I haven't played Silver Snow, but I can say with certainty that Verdant Wind is pretty terrible narratively. Plus, TH was ambitious, which unfortunately led to it being rushed out the door at the expense of the graphics, gameplay, and likely the story as well.

This doesn't mean they can't do a game with multiple routes well; Both Fates and Three Houses had terrific parts to them. They both had great music, Fates introduced a lot of innovations for the gameplay, features the most unique units in the series so far, some truly outstanding maps, and the map graphics and their settings are pretty neat. Three Houses had a compelling idea for a story and a couple of really strong lead characters, expanded on Fates' MyCastle, vastly increased the amount of character interactions and put more stock into characters in general, introduced further innovations for the series' gameplay, and doesn't have Camilla. I do somewhat doubt their ability to put it all together into one game, but we've seen all the ingredients needed for a game with both good story and good gameplay across multiple games, and with how long they've been quiet before announcing any new FE game to us, maybe they'll have the time to polish an ambitious game this time!

[Florete]

2 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

But it isn't "more canon."

This topic isn't about AoC so instead of going into more detail I'll just respond to this: I never said AoC was "more canon." I said it was an extension of BotW's story. Both Three Hopes and Age of Calamity are equally canon, but only the latter derives its story from the game it is based on.

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Now, Three Hopes is certainly an alternate timeline. Although since Houses already had multiple alternate timelines already, this isn't really a major departure. Hopes' timeline alteration is arguably slightly larger (having major impacts on the story just a few months into 1180, whereas Three Houses' timelines don't strongly diverge until near the end of that school year) but not dramatically so.

Yeah, alternate timeline is probably a better way to put it, though alternate universe (AU) is usually how I see people refer to this kind of thing, no need for Star Wars. It doesn't change my point that Three Hopes isn't a mainline FE title. Like, I don't think people should be using numbers anymore to begin with, but no one is calling Three Hopes FE17 (or 18 or whatever number people think we're on).

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

30 minutes ago, Benice said:

...Wait, Blazing Blade has choice for routes?

Perhaps in the context that you can choose between Eliwood's Story and Hector's Story?

Also, there are a couple "route splits"... sort of. The two different versions of "Four Fanged Offense" and "Pale Flower of Darkness", for instance. Although, these aren't at the player's discretion, and are far less dramatic than the splits in the other GBA titles.

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Alternate universe", at least in my experience, usually refers to taking characters and putting them in a different, well, universe. Something like "what if Chrom were in Star Wars" or "what if Ferdinand and Hubert lived in our world and met up at a coffee shop".

One use of "AU" is "the same setting as the original story, but with some minor character/setting changes". Like, "what if Harry Potter were a trans girl?", or "what if Iroh's son never died?". Maybe it's an overly-expansive use of the term, but in that context, I think Three Hopes could qualify as an AU of Three Houses.

[Dark Holy Elf]

39 minutes ago, Florete said:

Yeah, alternate timeline is probably a better way to put it, though alternate universe (AU) is usually how I see people refer to this kind of thing, no need for Star Wars. It doesn't change my point that Three Hopes isn't a mainline FE title. Like, I don't think people should be using numbers anymore to begin with, but no one is calling Three Hopes FE17 (or 18 or whatever number people think we're on).

Hm. Different communities I suppose, because yeah I associate the term alternate universe with things like "coffee shop AU" or "western AU". Calling, say, Verdant Wind an AU of Silver Snow is pretty far outside the realm of how I'd use the term myself. Or to be fair and use an obviously non-canon example, I wouldn't call an exploration of "what if Claude never decided to come to Fodlan" an AU, either.

edit: Though to acknowledge @Shanty Pete's 1st Mate chiming in, maybe this is just me. Would you consider it fair to call Three Houess already a story of four different alternate universes, then?

I agree with you about the numbers but I think that's due to gameplay, not story. If Three Hopes had traditional FE-style gameplay I'd absolutely call it a mainline Fire Emblem game. It already feels closer to one for me than the other spinoffs, precisely because its plot does feel pretty grounded (unlike TMS, FEW1, or FEH).

[Fabulously Olivier]

If we're rejecting games based on gameplay, then I also formally reject Heroes as a mainline game.

 

And there's also a good argument to be made for excluding Trails of Cold Steel V... I mean Three Houses. (Note - I'm not being serious here, but I am for Heroes).

Edited September 11, 2022 by Fabulously Olivier

[Dark Holy Elf]

21 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

If we're rejecting games based on gameplay, then I also formally reject Heroes as a mainline game.

To be fair... we already do, don't we? At least, I don't remember seeing anyone call SoV FE16 and Three Houses FE17. It's not exactly scientific, but I just googled "Fire Emblem 16" and the results definitely pointed at Three Houses, not SoV.

Though I do agree with Florete's point that the numbering system has become increasingly silly regardless of what we count.

[Fabulously Olivier]

1 minute ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

To be fair... we already do, don't we? At least, I don't remember seeing anyone call SoV FE16 and Three Houses FE17. It's not exactly scientific, but I just googled "Fire Emblem 16" and the results definitely pointed at Three Houses, not SoV.

Though I do agree with Florete's point that the numbering system has become increasingly silly regardless of what we count.

Doesn't IS themselves count Heroes as mainline? Even though by any reasonable standard, it shouldn't be.

 

And yes, the numbering is silly on two counts:

It's more work than just abbreviating the game's subtitle.

Counting remakes as new numbers is absurd.

[Eltosian Kadath]

Personally, I am OK with Multi-Path Games (MPG), but I think Three Houses managed to be the worst of all versions of it seen so far. There is a lot of shared content between the routes that cannot be skipped (even with copying saves before the major split like you can do in Sacred Stones), and if there was a version of Three houses where you could skip past White Clouds, it would not be as bad. Three Houses burned me out on the similarity of its routes in a way none of the other MPGs did, and if the next game goes in a similar direction, I will be disappointed.

 

[lenticular]

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

That's not what Three Hopes is. It's very much the same universe as Houses: same characters, same setting, same history of the world leading up to start of both games. Details from one game are considered canon to the other (and in some cases, are necessary to understand the other), with the exception of irreconcilable timeline differences, naturally. As an example of what I mean: if one person said "Caspar's father is named Leopold" and a second person replied with "nope, only in the Hopes universe, not Houses", most people would look at person #2 funny, and for good reason.

For whatever it's worth, I would largely agree with such a person, although I would word it differently. I generally don't find a lot of value in the concept of canonicity of fiction. For works that are intended to be able to be played, read or watched as a standalone, I also think that it should be valid to analyse them purely on their own merits. So, for instance, I would see it as a bit silly if someone tried to analyse or understand The Two Towers Part 2 outside of the context of the rest of The Lord of the Rings. However, I think that it's entirely reasonable to want to discuss The Hobbit as a standalone work, without taking cues from The Lord of the Rings or the rest of Tolkien's legendarium. For analyses that focus on authorial intent, canon can be useful as a way to understand what the author(s) was (were) thinking, but I'm generally more interested in interpretations of the work.

As a somewhat silly example, Holst was somewhat infamous in Three Houses for how he never actually showed up. My tongue-in-cheek interpretation for this was that "Holst" didn't actually exist, but was Hilda's drag king/superhero alternate identity. This was a silly interpretation, definitely, and not one that was particularly supported by the text. But given that we never actually saw Holst, we were free to make up whatever we wanted to about him, and I liked that. Then Three Hopes came along and had Holst as an actual character. Does that make my interpretation of Three Houses even less valid than it already was? I would say no, though I recognise that many people would say yes. But for me, I am still looking at Three Houses as a stand-alone work, not as part of some larger Fódlan legendarium.

In a way, I think there are a few slightly disturbing connotations to the idea that it is only ever valid to view a work through the scope of the broadest possible canon. Personally, I have not played Three Hopes and have no desire to do so. (I tried the demo but didn't enjoy it; I've nothing against it, it just isn't for me.) So does that mean I'm no longer allowed to have opinions and thoughts about the story and narrative of Three Houses? I certainly hope not.

I'd even go a step further, and say that it is entirely valid to try to analyse and understand any individual path of any multi-pathed Fire Emblem game. I strongly suspect that the majority of players of Three Houses did not complete all four routes, that the majority of players of Fates did not complete all three routes. They are long games. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a majority of players didn't even finish a single route. As game developers, it would be bordering on incompetence for IS not to realise that most players aren't going complete Three Houses four times, so there is an onus on them to ensure that the game -- and its narrative-- must function as a complete unit based on only route. It's good to have extra routes add extra nuance, lore, and background, but I don't think that it should ever be required. To me, an analysis of Azure Moon is as valid as an analysis of Three Houses is as valid as an analysis of the two Fódlan games in combination.