Invisible Kingdom getting all the goodies

[Alazen]

Personally I don't think IS is afraid of dark stories, they've done them before with FE4 and Mystery of the Emblem (poor hardin)

If IS wasn't trying to avoid "darkness" then Fates wouldn't have a Golden Ending Path where two warring nations buddy-up.

Anyway, the Invisible Kingdom is the Golden Ending as has been already gone over. That makes the other Paths lie in the dust.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Alazen

[Folt]

It invalidates it in my eyes because it is designed to be the best of the versions. Your FE11/12 analogy doesn't fit properly, this is more similar to the third versions of the Pokémon games than say Black/White to Black2/White2. They're designed to be the best of the games. If you had to choose between Sapphire or Emerald versions. You would have little to no reasons to ever pick Sapphire over Emerald. Better story, better features, etc. Just because Sapphire is it's own experience doesn't stop Emerald from being superior in virtually every way. It's the same with the third route it's designed to be the superior experience because of what I listed. The fact that this was released so quickly doesn't help the problem since they weren't able to stand on their own for a while before the superior version came out unlike Sapphire, Ruby, etc.

Being a Pokémon fan, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I've played both Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald, and given a choice, I'd play all through all three again. I had a blast fighting Team Magma as they were my favorite villain team of the two, loved Groudon as the version mascot, but I also found battling Team Aqua an interesting experience and facing Kyogre was also great. While Emerald had both teams and both legendaries, and even gave me thrills the other two versions lacked, Emerald isn't either Ruby or Sapphire, and it can't give me the satisfaction that Ruby and Sapphire gave me (and vice versa). No matter how much a version in Pokémon tries to be the superior choice, the little things always end up making me go back to the others, and I have a feeling that I'm not alone in feeling this way.

[Sunwoo]

Is this really true? Everything else that I have seen indicates that you can buy this after reaching chapter six of version that you bought.

You only need one version. I only have the physical copy of Hoshido, and I was able to download the third path just fine.

[S_Cero]

@Folt

I'm talking from a design perspective. I can like Sapphire more than Emerald, but that doesn't stop Emerald being designed to be the best version. You want to fight both teams instead of one inexplicably helping you even though they're both in the wrong? Emerald allows that. You want to get all the legendaries? Emerald allows that. A fleshed out single player competitive experience? Emerald has that. I can go on and on about how Emerald is designed to be the best but you surely get that by now. While our subjective opinions can differ it will not change how Emerald was made to be the superior experience.

[Folt]

@Folt

I'm talking from a design perspective. I can like Sapphire more than Emerald, but that doesn't stop Emerald being designed to be the best version. You want to fight both teams instead of one inexplicably helping you even though they're both in the wrong? Emerald allows that. You want to get all the legendaries? Emerald allows that. A fleshed out single player competitive experience? Emerald has that. I can go on and on about how Emerald is designed to be the best but you surely get that by now. While our subjective opinions can differ it will not change how Emerald was made to be the superior experience.

And yet, the finished game ultimately cannot satisfy me in the way that Ruby and Sapphire can. Yes, I can get all the legendaries. Yes, I can fight both teams. Yes, it has a competitive single-player experience. I want to battle Steven Stone? Emerald has that too. And yet, while it satisfies me in ways that the Ruby and Sapphire never will, all the little things that Ruby and Sapphire has that Emerald doesn't have means I will never look at Emerald as the version to end all versions. Emerald doesn't have Steven Stone as the champion. Emerald never has fights with Courtney. Emerald doesn't have more than one battle against Archie. Emerald doesn't have some Pokémon that could be found in the other versions.

And, this might be somewhat of a paradox, but Emerald doesn't have the lack of content access that make Ruby and Sapphire... well, Ruby and Sapphire. It doesn't lack a battle against the other version mascot. It doesn't lack new characters. It doesn't lack battles against one of the villain teams. Quite frankly, the fact that it appears to have everything is to me a clear sign that it is in fact not superior at all. I can't experience the limitations I would've had on the Ruby and Sapphire versions. I can't experience not having a certain legendary that was locked to the other version. I can't experience characters being where they are in the other version. And I can't experience Ruby and Sapphire, because in the end, what I am playing is Emerald.

Sometimes, being limited from receiving certain content for a route/game/playthrough is a rewarding experience in it's own right. All I've seen of Fates suggest to me that this too will be the case, and since I don't have to pay for three games when the work put in the game is larger than two, I am pleased with the lack of content in one route as I am with having a route that gives you twice the content, because I know that the experience I will get from all three routes will equal to about three games.

[S_Cero]

I think the problem of our argument lies on the fact you're judging them as a whole while I'm judging them as being standalone games. If you compare Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald based on them being a standalone experience then Emerald flat out wins as it provides the most features and least amount of limitations compared to Sapphire and Ruby. Emerald invalidates Sapphire and Ruby as it provides the quintessential GBA Hoenn experience if you were to judge the game on it's own. Basically what I'm saying if you had to get ONLY ONE of the three games then Emerald is the flat out superior choice. Of course there may be reasons to choose Sapphire/Ruby but they're extremely small when being judged as standalone game.

And for your second paragraph, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue. Paying to have less content is detrimental to the consumer. It kind of sounds like you have Stockholm syndrome to the version system or something lol.

Now GRANTED, the 3rd path subverts the problem slightly from my first paragraph by the strategy of making you own either Hoshido or Nohr before being able to buy this route. It keeps those two routes somewhat relevant compared to the 3rd route. But this is cause by a business strategy and not the merit of the game compared to each other.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Cero

[Tamarsamar]

For some reason or another, IS simply wants us to at least try Birthright or Conquest first. Make of that what you will.

This being said Conquest surely has the most value, as it effectively is a completely different game, being that it lack's Birthright's convenience features entirely. Birthright is arguably made the most redundant purchase in this deal.

[NekoKnight]

For some reason or another, IS simply wants us to at least try Birthright or Conquest first. Make of that what you will.

This being said Conquest surely has the most value, as it effectively is a completely different game, being that it lack's Birthright's convenience features entirely. Birthright is arguably made the most redundant purchase in this deal.

I'm told that the full story can be told exclusively with information gained in the Hoshido and Invisible Kingdom routes, so storywise, Nohr is the only redundant game.

[Jedi]

For some reason or another, IS simply wants us to at least try Birthright or Conquest first. Make of that what you will.

This being said Conquest surely has the most value, as it effectively is a completely different game, being that it lack's Birthright's convenience features entirely. Birthright is arguably made the most redundant purchase in this deal.

But even Brightright has a purpose, it has different stuff from the other w campaigns overall and it serves as an introduction (or we Hoshidans just like them and will probably play em on Hard/Lunatic) to the series.

All 3 have the production values gameplay wise to be standalone, people may be mixed on the stories (and tbh we don't have full translations or anything so its a bit early to even judge them as a collective.)

[Folt]

I think the problem of our argument lies on the fact you're judging them as a whole while I'm judging them as being standalone games. If you compare Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald based on them being a standalone experience then Emerald flat out wins as it provides the most features and least amount of limitations compared to Sapphire and Ruby. Emerald invalidates Sapphire and Ruby as it provides the quintessential GBA Hoenn experience if you were to judge the game on it's own. Basically what I'm saying if you had to get ONLY ONE of the three games then Emerald is the flat out superior choice. Of course there may be reasons to choose Sapphire/Ruby but they're extremely small when being judged as standalone game.

And for your second paragraph, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue. Paying to have less content is detrimental to the consumer. It kind of sounds like you have Stockholm syndrome to the version system or something lol.

Now GRANTED, the 3rd path subverts the problem slightly from my first paragraph by the strategy of making you own either Hoshido or Nohr before being able to buy this route. It keeps those two routes somewhat relevant compared to the 3rd route. But this is cause by a business strategy and not the merit of the game compared to each other.

Nope. Even as standalone games, I have enough reasons to pick Ruby and Sapphire over the "superior" option. Facing Groudon and Kyogre doesn't have the same "Oomph" in Emerald as they have in the other two because they're now optional content. So the plot has to be rewritten to account for this. Likewise, instead of getting to fight Steven after the Elite Four, we just get Wallace who isn't as good. That is again because something that was part of the main story has now become optional content. All in all, while Emerald has it's own stuff like teaming up with Steven to battle Tabitha and Maxie, it also doesn't have the finer points of Ruby and Sapphire, because Emerald had to change stuff to accomodate new content.

So, as for your issues with my second paragraph, lets use this game as an example:

I get Hoshido and play through it. I get stuff like katanas, naginatas, clubs, etc. and get to play around with the classes of Hoshido, and I fight against the enemies on the Nohr side who use swords, lances, and so on as well as different classes. I do get some Nohr weaponry and maybe capture some generics and possibly use some units who has a class from the opposite army, but I fight with Hoshido weapons most of the time. Since Nohr weapons inevitably get different effects, I learn how use the weapons on my side to compensate for the fact that the weaponry on the other side will likely be weapons I can't use. I grind, marry units to one another, get children, and eventually I get to the end and my army beats up the final boss. I get the ending and can celebrate with the Hoshidan kin who I've successfully helped stave off Nohr's attempt at conquest, and have probably made peace with the surviving members of Nohr's royal family. Perhaps I play through Hoshido again, trying to see if I can do a no-grind run this time, or maybe some other kind of run.

Or I play through the Nohr side. Nohr has limited Exp and Money and a harder difficulty, alongside more interesting objectives, so I focus only on a certain group of the army I have. I level them up, might get their children, and get to use the traditional weapons against the Hoshido weaponry. I help the kingdom of Nohr to ultimately conquer Hoshido, and along the way I eventually manage to convince the Nohr royal family to look into certain matters. In doing so, I reveal a secret, and fight the final boss at last. In the end, though I've conquered a nation who might not have deserved it, I've helped expose a shocking secret, and Nohr can begin a positive change thanks to this. The remaining Hoshidan kin might accept this and I can celebrate with the Nohr royal family. I could play through Nohr again and use a different batch of units and see how I fare with a new group.

The third route, by letting most units join you, also necessitates the need for a new story to make it possible for all tjese units to join me. And they do. I also get to use all the weaponry I had on both routes, but so does the enemy. I can grind up all the units (and may in fact need to do just that to make use of my favorite units from both sides) and try out interesting objectives, and there are units on this route that I may never get or keep. I resolve the Hoshido vs. Nohr conflict early and get to lead a combined enemy against the true villain. I get to him and I beat him. Deaths are kept at a minimum and everyone celebrates.

However, because this story is different from the other two, the way I experience it also become different: As the closest thing to a Golden Ending is this route, the way it influences my feelings and experiences will be different from the other two routes, and having little-to-no limits on what you can get also means that I'd have no particular feelings on the culture I'm using. I just use whatever gives me an edge. As the Golden Ending route or the closest to it, a big draw would be the ability to grind Nohr units (which will be necessary) and cross-cultural relations where units from the opposing armies become friends (whereas the other two routes show how they'd act as unrecruitable enemies which in itself is also interesting.)

As such, the fact that the third route gives you access to content from both sides becomes a blessing and a curse, since I see different things on this route than I do on the other routes, and vice versa. Thus, things that happen in this route will happen in ways that I won't get to experience on the other routes since this route gives me access to content from both sides. But also, paradoxically, having both content awailable on this route means that some things that left big impressions on me on the other routes won't happen on this route. Due to this, I cannot say to people that the Invisible Kingdom is the best and only version you need to play, because all of the versions are equally good in their own way.

The fact that I can't access certain content in one version (thus having that version lack the content for playable purposes) can in itself lead to good experiences. Thus, it is not the content, but how the content is used and not used that help make for a good experience. Having more content (in this case, having it accessible to you) does not necessarily make something objectively better than something that lacks it.

[Devola]

It's all very subjective, but I see no reason to play through Birthright ever again, and I'll only play through Conquest again for the difficulty, since the third path has the other two routes beaten in pretty much every regard. For the completionists out there, it also offers all the characters aside from I believe three, so it'll also be the path for those who want to breed the perfect army for the more difficult DLC maps that are sure to be released.

It baffles me that people claim that Hoshido/Nohr paths are incomplete because you can't access the other shop. That's such a tiny, insignificant thing! What a weird place to draw a line in the sand. Is a game like Shadow Dragon incomplete because it doesn't have reaver weapons?

Can someone explain to me how the third route invalidates the others? I understand that it has more characters and better shops, but that doesn't mean that the other paths are irrelevant. Lastly, what is the alternative? What would a "fairer" option look like? It doesn't matter if you think that this current method is unfair, if it is still be most fair option.

I will just quote Thane from above since he already answers the question fair enough. I think invalidate is too strong a word, a hyperbole, but in terms of being more "complete" and offering a higher replay value, and advantageous to future DLC or My castle competitions, the third route definitely has an edge above Hoshido or Nohr. More importantly, from my quote of Thane this is independent of endings, because I don't think an ending necessarily is what demarcates whether the game is more or less complete.

Yeah Nohr and Hoshido are two different paths but aren't necessarily offering more content than the other, they are more or less equal whereas here it is obvious there is a much bigger skew towards the neutral path. Perhaps, superior carries too much connotation so I'll just stick with higher replay value.

That said I think with this thread another thing that people need to consider is the difference in the generation of gamers you're talking to. Myself, as a veteran gamer coming from the earliest days of gaming I've played a lot of games with multiple unique paths and diverging story lines so Fates/IF isn't anything new to myself. However, as an older gamer I think there is a difference in mentality between thinking that these are 3 separate games, as Jedi keeps insisting, and feeling as if this was one game split into three. I think the latter is the sentiment of more veteran gamers, since we're more used to having a complete package so to speak -- or a re-release of a deluxe version if need be. I don't think this is a matter of being self-entitled as it is just coming from a different era and adjusting to the concept of DLCs and what people now consider "separate" games is still alienating. The definitions are just different simple as that, and I think trying to be hostile towards that difference is not exactly pleasant to read.

Even then if I do consider this as just one game it has more to do with the core gameplay itself. You may have three different story lines, objectives, characters etc... but essentially the core mechanics remain the same. I guess if I were to put forward standards more objectively I'd have to look into the core mechanics as being markedly distinct, generally upgraded. Well you have Pokemon but that is an altogether different beast, even then there is usually a cohesiveness that marks the games by generation. At the end of the day I consider the 3 versions more or less cohesively similar rather than distinct enough to consider as another game, or at least categorized under the umbrella. Again looking back at older games I don't consider different paths as being different games altogether, just because of exclusives or changes in objectives, I just consider them different routes or versions of the same game, the core mechanics remained in tact.

That aside I Thane's point already elucidates the matter as to why the Third Path has such an obvious edge above the other paths.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Devola

[Alazen]

I ask you, what warrented a Golden Ending? Didn't The Frozen Throne show us you can pass with an ambiguous, if not "unhappy" ending?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Alazen

[The Geek]

Even then if I do consider this as just one game it has more to do with the core gameplay itself. You may have three different story lines, objectives, characters etc... but essentially the core mechanics remain the same. I guess if I were to put forward standards more objectively I'd have to look into the core mechanics as being markedly distinct, generally upgraded. Well you have Pokemon but that is an altogether different beast, even then there is usually a cohesiveness that marks the games by generation. At the end of the day I consider the 3 versions more or less cohesively similar rather than distinct enough to consider as another game, or at least categorized under the umbrella. Again looking back at older games I don't consider different paths as being different games altogether, just because of exclusives or changes in objectives, I just consider them different routes or versions of the same game, the core mechanics remained in tact.

By that logic aren't Binding Blade and Blazing Sword the same game too?

Most people (myself included) who are happy with these being considered 3 separate games go more along the lines of comparing content compared to other FE titles.

6 chapters shared between all three, 22 (I think, I can't remember how many story chapters there are) unique to each route (even if maps are shared), plus however many Paralogues put the game lengthwise about equal to Blazing Sword and longer than about half the games in the FE series.

While I consider the games narratively to be one and the same, in terms of gameplay content each one is a full separate game in and of itself.

[Devola]

By that logic aren't Binding Blade and Blazing Sword the same game too?

Most people (myself included) who are happy with these being considered 3 separate games go more along the lines of comparing content compared to other FE titles.

6 chapters shared between all three, 22 (I think, I can't remember how many story chapters there are) unique to each route (even if maps are shared), plus however many Paralogues put the game lengthwise about equal to Blazing Sword and longer than about half the games in the FE series.

While I consider the games narratively to be one and the same, in terms of gameplay content each one is a full separate game in and of itself.

You seem to be forgetting that Binding Blade is a marked difference in gameplay from FE5, which is the more apt measure of considering the game as being different. With regard to FE7 well no doubt that it is more or less the same, which is a demerit in its own right rather than praise. Still at this point we'd be looking at the narrative itself, which separates the two as being entirely distinct by chronology. Story wise Blazing may have developed 6 a bit further but gameplay wise it does feel at best as a refined version but doesn't exactly evolve it much in the same way 6 brought about a new direction.

It would be unreasonable to think that Fates necessarily compelled to improve upon the mechanics because at the end of the day it is intended to use the same mechanics, I might expect different difficulties but the core remains in tact. They are at the heart of it intended to be different versions or retelling, so it is a matter of perspectives rather than development or chronology that need be measured. I think the marketing makes the intention crystal clear in this respect, in the same way Blazing and Binding are marketed and intended differently -- meaning there is nothing to interpret.

So I am not sure why there is a confusion in categorizing a prequel or a stand alone game from a game that literally markets itself as being diverging routes. Again for some of us who've played a lot of games with diverging routes or what have you I don't feel story, characters, or objectives is enough to justify calling it a different stand alone game. If you feel narrative and nuances in objectives are enough to justify as a stand alone then that is your own view. We'd just be going at this as either a glass half-full or half-empty, which goes beyond the original point since this is a matter of semantics now.

The point is whether or not the third route offers more. If semantics is brought up it is because I don't think a forum should be as hostile towards a difference in views, because it is reductive to simply claim them as being a matter of feeling self-entitled or not. Though really the semantics should be left to another topic altogether, since I think at the very least I've brought up that there is a difference in definitions and standards floating about in classifying things that aren't necessarily borne of negativity.

Going back to original topic again I do feel that the third route does offer more replay value as compared to the other two routes, and ultimately in the long run is much more likely to benefit from DLCs. That said answering the question of the OP do you feel the third route to be more rewarding?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Devola

[NeonZ]

Lastly, what is the alternative? What would a "fairer" option look like? It doesn't matter if you think that this current method is unfair, if it is still be most fair option.

Going with the Pokemon comparison, I hoped they'd do something closer to the 3rd versions. They're superior to the original ones in terms of content, often allowing you to get the legendaries that were formerly version exclusive, however, they still block you from a significant number of Pokemons from the other versions, rather than only 3 throw away characters like here. So, going with the Pokemon comparison, they could have allowed you to get both sets of siblings together, but in exchange you'd lose most of the neutral characters that were in both Nohr's and Hoshido's campaigns. The stores could work in a similar way - allow them to have new stories that sell a mix of goods from the other ones, but not every single one.

[CocoaGalaxy]

Man people, what's with the long threads.

I'll just give my own short comments then.

Do I want to play all three routes? Yes

Will I buy all three routes? Yes

For me, one way to look at the matter is the storyline, and the gameplay

I will admit that there are storyline "flops" in each route, but that won't dissuade me from playing a route just because that storyline has a flop

Gameplay wise, all three are different, or at the very least, different enough to warrant playing, so that's that.

(In a sense, the arbitrary headcount limit makes character selection more...interesting)

Going with the Pokemon comparison, I hoped they'd do something closer to the 3rd versions. They're superior to the original ones in terms of content, often allowing you to get the legendaries that were formerly version exclusive, however, they still block you from a significant number of Pokemons from the other versions, rather than only 3 throw away characters like here. So, going with the Pokemon comparison, they could have allowed you to get both sets of siblings together, but in exchange you'd lose most of the neutral characters that were in both Nohr's and Hoshido's campaigns. The stores could work in a similar way - allow them to have new stories that sell a mix of goods from the other ones, but not every single one.

To no one in particular, but all the Pokemon comparisons aren't good if you ask me.

For example, R/S/E still have the same "direction", whereas all the three games have different plots. It's true that there is character overlaps, but otherwise everything else is different. It's more problematic for the 3rd route though, so honestly I'm not sure what to say

Edited July 13, 2015 by CocoaGalaxy

[NeonZ]

Well, at least for the 3rd versions, Black2/White2 also changed to a model where they have an unique campaign, rather than just an expanded remake of the original ones. Although Black vs White and Black 2 vs White 2 still are basically the same story, unlike here.

Edited July 13, 2015 by NeonZ

[cogawak]

The fact that people are arguing that the 3rd route should have been separately purchasable implies that many of us just wanted to gun for the "golden route" so Intelligent Systems was smart in how they handled this. Naturally, most people are going to want to pick the option that fits with our consciousness the best and the main concept of the Fates branching story was to force us to make a hard decision. If I was Kamui, I would totally not want to pick one and betray the other. In fact, I might even only consider that route and ignore the other two. Forcing you to purchase one before picking the neutral route forces you to have to do the "Pick a side" decision that the creators really wanted us to experience. Having that third route available without the other two would completely wreck the emotional seriousness of having to make that rather painful decision.

That said, I would have been completely satisfied if both Nohr and Hoshido individually told totally unique and powerful stories that didn't seem inferior to the third route but this doesn't seem to be the case in many's eyes. I think it could have been feasible to make totally specialized experiences that didn't feel like inferior versions of endings compared to the neutral but...that just might mean that they need to put in further work into developing story in future installments.

As for the Pokemon arguments that people are having, we need to take into account that the third installments come significantly after the first two. There is always going to be some niche charming points that the early versions had but the reality is that Emerald is essentially Ruby&Sapphire_2.0 being released after more than a year of extra thought and development. In that year's time, major games such as LeafGreen and FireRed and Pokemon Colosseum came out and advanced the Pokemon game culture further. Working off the Ruby&Sapphire model, they mostly just added content such as the popular Battle Frontier while restricting some availability to make it a trading partner with the other two. There is no doubt that this "upgraded" version of the game is superior. You would make the developers cry if you said otherwise since their intention was to make a new and improved version lol.

Going back to Fire Emblem Fates, I don't think we really have the same scenario here. Sure, neutral route has the most content but that is to be expected. It's the route you have to pay extra after all. The neutral story might be superior....well that is regrettable but not entirely unexpected if the other two routes didn't diverge enough to feel like really special and totally different experiences from one another. Breaking game balance online? ...Well players should be tagged with their difficulty, whether they are casual or classic, and the route they chose. Honestly, the bigger balance breakers are those who play super easy difficulty and grind to have insane stats and own everything. But the AI is dumb so you all won't be losing to broken teams that easily...right? If you are still unhappy about others having access to more weapons and skills than you, remember that you can buy skills off people. If you picked Nohr...well, you got the challenge you were looking for! Maybe go find some other Nohr people for a more "fair" fight or something.

[Thane]

I think the Pokémon argument is irrelevant. This game is a much more story and character-driven game than Pokémon has ever been (barring maybe the fifth generation, which didn't have a third version), so the comparison simply doesn't work, at least in terms of story.

The problem isn't that the third route is "superior" in terms of story, the problem is that it the other two absolutely pale in comparison and are rendered irrelevant. Conquest in particular actively teases you with important plot points which remain unanswered by the end, which is downright insulting considering how much filler there is in that version.

[BrightBow]

The fact that people are arguing that the 3rd route should have been separately purchasable implies that many of us just wanted to gun for the "golden route" so Intelligent Systems was smart in how they handled this. Naturally, most people are going to want to pick the option that fits with our consciousness the best and the main concept of the Fates branching story was to force us to make a hard decision. If I was Kamui, I would totally not want to pick one and betray the other. In fact, I might even only consider that route and ignore the other two. Forcing you to purchase one before picking the neutral route forces you to have to do the "Pick a side" decision that the creators really wanted us to experience. Having that third route available without the other two would completely wreck the emotional seriousness of having to make that rather painful decision.

There is no painful decision there. Buying a cartridge is a decision between gameplay styles, not between sides. You don't know any of these people, so there is nothing emotional about the decision of which cartridge to buy. And once you can get emotionally invested and actually care, you are already getting railroaded by the script.

Edited July 13, 2015 by BrightBow

[NeonZ]

The story and gameplay issues are different matters. The Pokemon comparison is irrelevant regarding story, but it's pretty applicable regarding the gameplay balance and resources available between the paths. Hoshido and Nohr have a certain balance of characters, items and even classes that's completely broken by the third path and that didn't need to happen.

I do think that it's odd that the third route is being considered the "superior story" though. True, it's the route that incorporates the biggest amount of revelations in the story and features the heroes fighting against the true form of the "villain", but, from my point of view, at least, that doesn't really result in a superior narrative. In fact, some of those revelations and the contortions the story goes to make everything turn out fine just hurt the story itself.

I mean, in one of his few scenes in this route, Garon pretty much goes crazy for no reason and starts babbling about destroying both Hoshido and Nohr, something that pretty much only happens to make Marx turn against him early. They needed something to make the stupidly loyal Garon turn against him, and then basically just make it happen for no reason. That's the great writing that the other routes are supposedly missing?

Edited July 13, 2015 by NeonZ

[Alazen]

I wonder how much better the narrative would be if one Path was cut and the other was merged with the 3rd Path.

[Devola]

I think the Pokémon argument is irrelevant. This game is a much more story and character-driven game than Pokémon has ever been (barring maybe the fifth generation, which didn't have a third version), so the comparison simply doesn't work, at least in terms of story.

The problem isn't that the third route is "superior" in terms of story, the problem is that it the other two absolutely pale in comparison and are rendered irrelevant. Conquest in particular actively teases you with important plot points which remain unanswered by the end, which is downright insulting considering how much filler there is in that version.

I think it is also irrelevant of an argument because... Pokemon games are centered around trading so you aren't necessarily feeling locked out of what the other option has to offer, without having to shell an additional amount.

[Airship Canon]

I think it is also irrelevant of an argument because... Pokemon games are centered around trading so you aren't necessarily feeling locked out of what the other option has to offer, without having to shell an additional amount.

That's a thing: Pokemon is completely different.

You get a complete experience with Pokemon, since the point isn't for one player to get both games-- hell, notice they put barriers in your way up until Gen 6.

With Pokemon, the idea is that you get one of the versions, your friends get the other and you trade. The version split with Pokemon is to facilitate mutliplayer and social interaction on a meta level.

Here it's three different story routes of the same game. The Skyrim example is only "bad" in that Skyrim isn't a narrow-focused game and the choices between Imperials/Stormcloaks/Go Fight Alduin aren't overall as important as they are in FE- but on a concept level, it's the same exact thing.

Then with the story, it's blatantly clear they're not meant to stand alone-- especially with Aqua's lines on third path that imply a timeloop.

Here the concept is one player gets all three versions or they miss out. Pokemon and Fates are completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

[NeonZ]

The third version generally is clearly meant to be sold to the same people who bought one of the original ones. That why they turned Black 2 and White 2 outright into story sequels, after all.

Then with the story, it's blatantly clear they're not meant to stand alone-- especially with Aqua's lines on third path that imply a timeloop.

You can't get the third path without either Nohr or Hoshido though. Nohr and Invisible Kingdom seem to have contradictions if you attempt to use IK as background information for Nohr, so I'm not sure if this idea that the truth was being held back is really correct...