How do you prefer route splits to be handled?

[Magical Glace]

I considered the If section for this, but I felt it would be better here.

Basically what the title says. How do you like your route splits?

The series has done these, to my knowledge:

1. The game outright asks you. This is done in FE8, after Chapter 8.

2. The game bases which route you take on which group of characters you trained most. This is done in FE6 Illia vs Sacae, which is chosen based on whether you favored your Pegasus Knights or Nomads. It's also done for Pale Flower of Darkness in FE7.

3. The game bases it on the cumulative EXP of your lords. This is the Wallace vs Gietz route split in FE7. If the EXP is above a certain point, you go Route A, and below gets Route B.

4. The game doesn't outright ask you... rather, it gives you two villages to visit. The one you choose determines your route. this is done in FE6's Western Isles, being the Lalum vs. Elphin split.

Or would you like something entirely new? For example, basing it on the amount of dead enemies in a certain map.

Personally, I just want the game to ask me up front. I want to spam my pegs but still go to Sacae without bothering with Sue and Shin, or spam my mages yet abanton yucky fighters and be able to fight Jerme in FE7. Or get Wallace back while using my lords. It's the simplest and allows the player the most freedom.

[lonelyVoxel]

1. The game outright asks you. This is done in FE8, after Chapter 8.

I am biased towards FE8 in most senses, but I too like that the game asks you which set of levels you want to play. It's annoying when the other party joins back, since they're only 3 and you have all of the other units.

2. The game bases which route you take on which group of characters you trained most. This is done in FE6 Illia vs Sacae, which is chosen based on whether you favored your Pegasus Knights or Nomads. It's also done for Pale Flower of Darkness in FE7.

I didn't like this at all. I tried to get the Ilia route in one of my playthroughs, only to see that an errant extra level was given to a Nomad.

3. The game bases it on the cumulative EXP of your lords. This is the Wallace vs Gietz route split in FE7. If the EXP is above a certain point, you go Route A, and below gets Route B.

I feel like this method is silly. I use Lords quite a bit, so I feel like that I'd end up only getting one of the chapters each time I play.

4. The game doesn't outright ask you... rather, it gives you two villages to visit. The one you choose determines your route. this is done in FE6's Western Isles, being the Lalum vs. Elphin split.

This one would have been worse in my mind if it wasn't for a small number of chapters or if I didn't know in advance. A little bit silly, but controllable at the least.

Comments in bold

[Irysa]

I think rather than outright asking, having more choices in the story that influence where you go and what happens would be for the best.

[Maritisa]

I like the idea of mechanics-based choices, but only if they could be clearly telegraphed either in dialogue without making it feel stilted or being a branch based on events that could really and truly go either way.

A good example would be perhaps branching based on if you wiped out every enemy on the map, or if you bolted straight for the boss and seized the throne... Or maybe the throne is seizable without killing the boss, so there's a condition flag if you take the throne without killing them. Be it for story reasons (Eg: Person marked as boss is a "Lyon" type character or somesuch) or out of difficulty/feasibility. (Like Gharnef showing up when you might not have starlight... or Zephiel making an earlygame appearance where the only thing stopping them from being defeated normally is high stats... Meaning clever tactics and/or luck can kill him early.)

Though it does really depend on context imo. I liked what FE8 did just because of how it was explained. "Do you want to go with Eirika or Ephraim?"

The game gives you a little teaser at Ephraim, but at the same time the player may want to stick with the lord they've spent time training. And for any subsequent playthroughs you can just pick the route you didn't choose. And given how big a choice it is, it should be simple and to the point like that.

Mechanics-based choices should really revolve around decisions you made in the chapter where they would change. Stuff like EXP distribution is both convoluted and can be overseen by the player easily without foreknowledge, possibly giving them the impression there isn't even a choice at all. As such, stuff like which village you visit, how many/what enemies you kill, if a certain area was visited... These things can be telegraphed in the chapter itself. They don't have to be clear as day but they can be hinted at enough to let the player know there may be more than one end to a chapter.

[Acacia Sgt]

I suppose I like it most when you're given the option to choose. Although if we go beyond that detail, I'd also add that I'd like it if it were more of a true split. As in, the party splits up instead of just going one path or the other, like RD Part 4. Although I'm aware that for a series like FE it's probably not the most viable way, since even in RD Part 4 you still played through all 3 paths in one playthrough.

[BrightBow]

Maybe you shouldn't be asked directly but the game definitely shouldn't decide the route based on factors that you don't even know about. Like that Pegasus Knight/Nomad nonsense in FE6.

It should be more like FE5 did it in "Chapter 15: The Two Paths" where you are given the choices between... well, two paths. Even if you are not asked through a textbox, you still get to make a decision that is clearly communicated.

And there should be a justification for why there is a different map. Like, in the above example, the justification in that you are approaching your goal through different routes. By contrast, the Jermen/Kenneh map gives absolutely no justification for why the levels of your mages resulted in your team getting to a different map... especially since it's still the very same scenario.

Edited February 22, 2015 by BrightBow

[Jotari]

It should be more like FE5 did it in "Chapter 15: The Two Paths" where you are given the choices between... well, two paths. Even if you are not asked through a textbox, you still get to make a decision that is clearly communicated.

I'll expand on this point because damnit I decided I would bring it up as I read the thread. FE5 essentially gives you the two village option from FE6 except it conveys the difference much clearer. The map has two different size of escape points you can leave through. Both on complete opposite ends of the map with a path leading up to them. Before the start of the chapter Leif's two advisers talk to him about how best to get to where they're going. One is a coastal route another is a forest route. They debate the pros and cons that exist in universe which also conveys the advantages and disadvantages of it in universe. Overall the game makes it extremely clear what the two choices are and eventually asks you which one you want to pick like FE8 but still implements it into gameplay, which is more often than not a good thing.

If the choice is as straight forward as two different travel routes then there really is no better way to do it than FE5's version. The EXP version is ridiculous, would likely never be figured out naturally (especially the lord one in FE7) and pretty much discourages the use of certain units. However what I want from IF is something they haven't really done so far, and something mentioned several times so far. Actual plot based deviations based on what you do in chapter. Multiple chapter goals are cool and adds an extra layer of reputability to the game, unlike the traditional route split which basically adds fake length by forcing a replay and not giving anything new other than a map. If there's a plot based reason why we're doing different things because we spared certain enemies then it's a different experience and, in my eyes, a much better reason to replay the game. Additionally to what has been suggested, I would like it if our character's deaths effected it too. Like for example, if we had a Pelleas like unit that dies in gameplay, you could end a conflict prematurely and go on a completely different route to the end goal. This would give perma death some actually meaning beyond being the player enforced gameover that it tends to be. Don't reward killing characters like Shadow Dragon does but give some kind of compensation, most ideally in altered content. This could also encourage new players to move on from casual mode as it would mean certain parts of the game are, logically, only accessible if you're playing for realzies.

[Julius Nepos]

I like the idea of certain factors influencing the route you take, as long as they make sense story-wise. For example, if we were to get a game with two opposing factions, recruiting a certain character who is important to one faction could influence your route (e.g. a faction A with an important character a and a faction B: recruiting character a will lead you to a route in alliance with faction A, while not recruiting character a will lead you to a route in alliance with faction B).

On the one hand the game shouldn't explicitly say "if you recruit this character you will go to route A, if you don't you will go to route B", but it should be implied to make it clear enough.

What's most important to me is if it makes sense story-wise. I would like it just as much if the game outright asked "Will you take route A or B?" as long as it makes sense story-wise (like the Eirika-Ephraim route split in FE8).

[Maritisa]

Jotari your suggestion involving the implementation of variation based on permadeath is exactly what the series needs to make classic relevant again. That's something I'd been thinking of myself for a while now but if IS ever implemented it themselves I would actually have a reason to play on classic instead of casual. >.>

Though that bit is for a different thread. ^{_{(Which I had to unsubscribe to because they kept spamming me with replies D:< I was all "why won't this thread die yet?!")}}

I like the idea of being able to retreat from a story battle if things get seriously bad, and have that actually have repercussions on the plot... But that's a ton of work for any game longer than a few chapters. Or things like where you can actually talk the enemy boss out of fighting and have them surrender instead of having to massacre them. Would have liked that in FEA's chapter with Mustafa, with how the game builds that they don't want to fight any longer and all that.

[Jotari]

The series has many examples of talking a boss down from fighting. However usually our protagonists are amazing at convincing people their boss is obviously evil so talking down a boss always equals making them joining you. Seeing them just surrender is something only Eltshan has done from what I can recall. Which would have been nice if it had some gameplay based difference between the two variations of his death. Personally I would have given the player the option of the Earth Sword or Aless.

[ZeroEnigma]

I am perfectly fine with split routes but now when one is completely garbage compared to the other *cough* Erika's Route. But expect for that I approve of the idea of split routes adds diversity to the game its also a really mean way of forcing the player to play through the game again to see the other route >:(.

[NekoKnight]

As long as it's not determined by the level of certain units. There are certain chapters I NEVER played in Blazing Sword, my favorite game, just because the units I liked to use were not the right level to play the alternate missions.

I think a system that passively changes your route, ie by actions you take within a chapter, is the best method. As mentioned above, opting not to kill a boss, finishing a chapter within a certain number of turns, and so forth.

[Knight]

1 and 4 preferably.

[X-Naut]

Please not exp, that tends to be poorly telegraphed and often results in favoring a particular group of units.

The direct prompt is adequate, and in-chapter choices is great but could be done better. For example, instead of two villages, there could be two bosses and which one you kill first determines your route. Or, have multiple chapter completion objectives that affect the outcome.

[Book Bro]

I like the way Sacred Stones did it way better than the other options. I think a mix of the game outright asking you + having to choose between objectives during a chapter would be the best. A late-game, RD part 4-style split on top of that would be cool too.

[Shadow Mir]

1's a way more appealing option than 2 and 3 (largely because the part where certain units' levels and EXP affected where you go was never hinted at at all), though I wouldn't mind 4.

[Jedi]

I'd like Thracia's version which was clear and defined. Although I'd like multiple splits like FE6 did.

[Ein]

I'd rather have none.

[Rapier]

Anything the game does as a consequence for something that the player did is bullshit when it is not hinted before, in my opinion. The villages case in FE6 is a terrible example, and so are the branch routes in FE7, because at first sight the player does not even know the relevance of visiting a specific village instead of the other, or leveling up a certain kind of character more than others.

Sacred Stones does it well and so does Radiant Dawn because they allow the player to choose their path instead of locking them to a fixed path for unspecified reasons.

That said, I have nothing against route splits that do not ask the player their opinion about it, as long as they are hinted before (ie: Imagine the player kills all units in a chapter before seizing, and then the route is split based on this. It is only acceptable, in my opinion, if the player is warned that killing all units before seizing will cause repercussions).

And they must not be silly, also. An imaginary scenario where recruiting an ordinary unit will lead the game to take a completely different route is such an example, because its importance is too little for the game to depend so much on it story-wise. It would be silly if by letting Sain die or recruiting Erk the game would turn to a completely different path.

[NinjaMonkey]

Either not at all, or how Radiant Dawn did it.

[Topaz Light]

I pretty much agree with the sentiment of being okay with just about any method so long as it makes sense in-universe as to why it would affect the route you take.

As far as, like... forewarning? as to which factors will affect the route split, and how... I think it really depends on the context of the route split. Ideally it'd be foreshadowed in some way, or hinted at, but I think that, unless it's supposed to be a simple choice or something of the like, simply outright telling the player straight-up exactly what to do to get each route is kinda no fun.

Basically, they should hint that a route split will take place, and hint at what to do to unlock each path, but let the player put the pieces together themselves.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Starlight36

[Sniper Knight]

Alternate routes only accessible on subsequent playthroughs might be cool. Kind of like with Eliwood's/Hector's Route, except with individual chapters. Beat the game to get access to alternate chapters.