How likely is another game in this universe?

[Alef Zero]

That is, not necessarily a sequel (I wouldn't mind in the slightest though), but just any new game in Fodlan specifically. Direct follow ups seem rare (to my knowledge that is), but there were many games set in Archanea (the first game, shadows of valentia, awakening, although distant, was fates in the same universe? I didn't play it but I think so).

Obviously we got three hopes, and while it fixed many problems from the original and gave many a character more chances to shine, it was ultimately a different gameplay and game had it's own share of problems, including terrible endings.

Given that three houses is one of the most popular games in the franchise, do you think we will see more of fodlan? Or is it a closed chapter?

[Eltosian Kadath]

I find it a bit unlikely, as it is rare for Fire Emblem to have more than two games in the same setting, and we already have Three Houses and Three Hopes. If they were to do it, my guess is they would either go the route of Gaiden and look at another part of the world (like Brigid, Dagda, Almyra, or perhaps somewhere beyond that), or the Awakening way and look at Fodlan in a very different time period, like the ancient War of Heroes, or some war far in the future.

[Etrurian emperor]

I'd say a game set in Almyra or Dagda is at least decently likely. 

[Jotari]

I would say highly unlikely. Sure Three Houses was a big success, but so was Awakening and they didn't even give that a sequel. Most it got was some Fates cameos. Revisiting settings once they're done with it is simply not something they do. Archanea is the only exception and that's mostly die to it being very early in the franchise's history when it was still Kaga's pet project. The only possibility is if they work Koei again and Koei are the ones who decide to use Fodlan again because they're comfortable with the setting. But even then, where would you go with another Fodlan game? Sequels are going to face the canonical route problem (and probably have a pretty contrived conflict) and another parallel game based on the same conflict is going to be more than repetitive after the seven+ routes we got between the existing two games. Prequel is another option, but that's where Fodlans robust world building will come back to bite it as there's no obvious conflict to utilize. It would either have to be a Blazing Blade style lower stakes plot about a secret event in history, or you'd have to go so far back to the past and focus on one of the historical wars where you have only the immortals to work with from the established cast, and an ending that's preordained. People suggest using one of the other countries, and I would personally love that for creating series wide continuity between games like the old Archanea days, but a game set in Dagda or Almyra is going to be by design very different and not feature much overlap with Fodlan.

So all in all, not impossible, but I don't think it's very likely at all. It's just not generally how Fire Emblem does things.

[Revier]

Pretty sure we're more likely to get a Genealogy remake than a direct follow up. Not only is it hard to create a direct follow up in the same setting, given the nature of these stories, but a Genealogy remake is far more marketable, given that it can be easily sold as a proto Three Houses and has a fair bit of nostalgia around it, despite never formally releasing outside of Japan.

[Jotari]

22 minutes ago, Revier said:

Pretty sure we're more likely to get a Genealogy remake than a direct follow up. Not only is it hard to create a direct follow up in the same setting, given the nature of these stories, but a Genealogy remake is far more marketable, given that it can be easily sold as a proto Three Houses and has a fair bit of nostalgia around it, despite never formally releasing outside of Japan.

Yeah, but the issue there is that the Genealogy remake has been just around the corner for, like, seven years now. It's like the inevitable thing that's just not happening. The Nuclear Fusion of Fire Emblem games.

[Armchair General]

I kind of doubt it, unless it's an prequel that's set during one of the many wars set  in the backstory.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

If this were 2019/2020, I would have said yeah maybe (and would have been proven right). But they've already moved on with Engage. And that's the game I would point to as being the most likely entry right now to get some sort of followup. In fact, and I know I'll get pushback from Hopefuls on this, I'd even go so far as to say a Musou spinoff of Engage is more likely to be announced in 2024 than a Fire Emblem Remake.

Edited April 20 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Dark Holy Elf]

I'd say it's possible but not super-likely. The main thing that makes me think it's possible is that the 3H was very popular and (unlike Awakening or Fates) it was praised specifically for its setting... and yeah there's even a plausible dev team for the game that might specifically want to do more with said setting. But otherwise I agree that the series tends to move on from settings after a game or two, and Fodlan has had its two followed by the move on to Elyos.

If a second mainline Fodlan game does exist, I would agree that it's probably not gonna be a direct sequel, but there are a lot of ways to avoid route canonicity (prequel, or a jump to Dagda / Almyra / Morfis / etc., or even a game set during the timeskip similar to Thracia).

9 hours ago, Revier said:

a Genealogy remake is far more marketable

I certainly think a Genealogy remake is possible (though far from the given some of the fanbase seems to assume), but more marketable, let alone far more marketable? I'd definitely disagree there. It's easier to market connections to the most popular game in your series than needing to rely on "oh yeah I kinda recognize that guy from FEH/Engage" which is kinda what Genealogy would be outside of Japan for all but the hardcore fanbase.

[Jotari]

10 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

If this were 2019/2020, I would have said yeah maybe (and would have been proven right). But they've already moved on with Engage. And that's the game I would point to as being the most likely entry right now to get some sort of followup. In fact, and I know I'll get pushback from Hopefuls on this, I'd even go so far as to say a Musou spinoff of Engage is more likely to be announced in 2024 than a Fire Emblem Remake.

Musou Engage isn't something I've ever talked about. What would that even look like, I wonder. Three Houses at least had a pretty clear multi faction split to built a story around, while Engage is everyone against Sombron. Would we have stuff like Solm fighting Firene? Or would it be a game with basically just two sides? And from a gameplay stand point, how would Emblems work? Has Musou ever done something like them before? Could they be the key to making Musou gameplay actually good?

[Acacia Sgt]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

Musou Engage isn't something I've ever talked about. What would that even look like, I wonder. Three Houses at least had a pretty clear multi faction split to built a story around, while Engage is everyone against Sombron. Would we have stuff like Solm fighting Firene? Or would it be a game with basically just two sides? And from a gameplay stand point, how would Emblems work? Has Musou ever done something like them before? Could they be the key to making Musou gameplay actually good?

Story linearity isn't a problem. Some Musou games only have the one story campaign, after all. To avoid rehashing, it could take place a thousand years ago, during Sombron's first rampage.

Hmm, it would be interesting to see how Emblems could get implemented, yes.

[lenticular]

In the past, when FE has returned to settings, it's typically been in the immediately next game. Excluding remakes, the only time that FE has ever returned to a setting after having moved away from it is for Awakening, which is a weird case which comes with all sorts of caveats and asterisks. So for them to make Three Houses, then go off and do Engage, then come back to Fódlan would be largely without precedent. This doesn't make it impossible, of course, but I would be surprised.

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, lenticular said:

In the past, when FE has returned to settings, it's typically been in the immediately next game. Excluding remakes, the only time that FE has ever returned to a setting after having moved away from it is for Awakening, which is a weird case which comes with all sorts of caveats and asterisks. So for them to make Three Houses, then go off and do Engage, then come back to Fódlan would be largely without precedent. This doesn't make it impossible, of course, but I would be surprised.

I would barely even count Awakening. Given that they used basically nothing from the previous Archanea section. It's just Tiki and the visual image (but not the mechanical use) of the Binding Shield. That being said, however, they went back to Archanea after creating Valentia, and if that doesn't count because they're in the same psychical plain of existence, they went back to Archanea again after making Jugdral for Archanea Saga. Though, again, you might discount that because it was a spin off...ish.

[MeteorPhoenix]

16 hours ago, Jotari said:

Yeah, but the issue there is that the Genealogy remake has been just around the corner for, like, seven years now. It's like the inevitable thing that's just not happening. The Nuclear Fusion of Fire Emblem games.

I would also note that I don't think Genealogy is the slam dunk a lot of people think it is. Do you do a SoV, where you leave the same maps? That didn't help SoV very much. Do you make them smaller? Then you've changed a fundamental part of the game. Yes, it has a support system, but uh, not in a way that people that liked 3H will necessarily like.

What about all the questionable stuff? Is modern IS *really* going to show the whole Deidre thing in its full HD glory? It's one thing when FE is a niche property in 16 bit or whatever. But is Nintendo really going to allow all the incest stuff, untouched, spelled out? I legitimately don't think they will. I think they'll be asked to change a lot of stuff.

Genealogy is an incredibly complicated game to modernise and port to a Nintendo console, and it doesn't exactly have the same things that made Awakening and 3H massive hits. This is why I think it's always around the next corner. I have no idea how they adapt it in a way that a. sells better than SoV, b. gets approved by Nintendo and c. keeps the game similar enough.

[lenticular]

24 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I would barely even count Awakening. Given that they used basically nothing from the previous Archanea section. It's just Tiki and the visual image (but not the mechanical use) of the Binding Shield. That being said, however, they went back to Archanea after creating Valentia, and if that doesn't count because they're in the same psychical plain of existence, they went back to Archanea again after making Jugdral for Archanea Saga. Though, again, you might discount that because it was a spin off...ish.

Personally I would count Archanea and Valentia as all being part of the same continuity. It's the same world, the same time period, and has multiple crossover characters. If you'd prefer to classify them differently, then that's fine. There's not a lot to be gained from nitpicking terminology. But at the very least, I think it would be uncontroversial to say that Valentia is more closely related to Archanea than Elyos is to Fódlan. That said, you are right that I forgot about Archanea Saga. Though, as you say, that's also a weird special case that doesn't offer much in the way of precedent.