Do You Think Nintendo/ INTSYS Will Do Multiple Releases Again?

[Truthblade]

So, Fates has been out in NA for almost two months, and has sold pretty well. Though, imo, it seems to be because of the fact it was split as two games. I heard that early before Fates was officially released, a lot of people were mad about the idea, and thought it seemed like a cash grab move. The multiple releases sure helped, but do you think that Nintendo is going to do this again?

TBH, I can't really see this happening again, at least not for long, as I am not sure if they can make enough stories for the "route split" idea before it gets too redundant. Anyway, what are you're thoughts?

Edited April 19, 2016 by Blade_of_Light

[Sentacotus]

I hope not but because it sold well blowing Awakening out of the water they probably will. Which is a shame because its kinda what made Fates unique and stick out.

[Roflolxp54]

Considering the large amount of disc-locked content, I hope not. However, considering sales and that this is the first FE game with multiple versions, I'm not sure.

[Miracle-Flora]

I'm honestly not sure, but as long as they aren't carbon copies of each other, (Thankfully the two versions of Fates aren't) I'd be fine with it.

[saisymbolic]

Honestly, the two game thing wasn't as bad because, unlike the Pokemon series, we really were given two different games that happened to be interconnected.

With that said, if they do decide to do a split game with different stories on each cartridge, I expect that they have learned their lesson in terms of plotting, character and world-building.

Fates is a pretty good game but there are many aspects of it that need to be rectified and done better.

[Sentinel07]

Well, Zelda tried the 2-game thing once with the Oracle games and then went back to normal despite both games being popular so who knows.

I personally hope not, especially since the Special Edition proves that both routes can fit on one cartridge. I just hope that, if they do continue, they listen to fan feedback and do a better job.

[Emblem Blade]

'Multiple' releases wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as the stories of each of the multi-released games don't contain information on the other game that is also released alongside it (Fates suffered quite hard for having this issue seeing how it was the same game but three stories that didn't need to be on three separate cartridges). If the games have to contain information on each other, at least make one of the games a sequel of the other so it's more of an actual storyline not something that could take place at the same time as the other.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Emblem Blade

[Book Bro]

I hope not. It could've been interesting, but it was ultimately just a cash grab. None of the three paths has a complete story, instead both versions have blatant "buy the other version and Revelation" moments, and Revelation aka the true path can't be purchased alone, with many plot points relevant to each individual version going unanswered or just teased as being answered in another path. Pacing is off because this was really a 40ish chapter story max stretched to 70 or so chapters total. It's not worth having three ok games when we could've had one really good one.

I could see them doing it again though, because it sells a ton. Seems Anna becoming more money hungry in recent games is rubbing off on IS.

[maybe]

i hope not

i mean i'm okay with them doing it once for fates but i don't want to spend 80 dollars on every fire emblem game

[Truthblade]

i hope not

i mean i'm okay with them doing it once for fates but i don't want to spend 80 dollars on every fire emblem game

Now that you mentioned it.....Yeah, I hope they don't do it again.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I'm pretty happy with paying $100 for Fire Emblem if it has this much content. I've already gotten more out of Fates than all but a very, very small number of games I've purchased over the past few years, so in terms of dollars per hour I have no cause to complain. And I suspect the two versions was a pretty big success in terms of marketing to the two different "types" of FE players. I'm less sure about Revelation, the reception to that feels more lukewarm, though I suppose it does have maximum shipping opportunities for those into that.

They can do whatever for the next game, I don't really care. I just really want to see the design philosophies of Conquest make their way into the next FE, whether it's one game mode or one game version or just the game in general.

[JasonMendez]

I wouldn't mind if they made multiple releases so long as they are each unique (please no Tharja/Gaius clones).

I like the way fates handled it, but I would have done something different for revelations honestly seeing as to how the kids are basically shoehorned into the game. Like awakening had the future past, Revelations could have been something like the events of birthright/Conquest happened and no one died and soon after a couple years Anankos starts his reign and the parents aren't as good as the kids (basically do what Genealogy did with the kids.)

[Emblem Blade]

I wouldn't mind if they made multiple releases so long as they are each unique (please no Tharja/Gaius clones).

I like the way fates handled it, but I would have done something different for revelations honestly seeing as to how the kids are basically shoehorned into the game. Like awakening had the future past, Revelations could have been something like the events of birthright/Conquest happened and no one died and soon after a couple years Anankos starts his reign and the parents aren't as good as the kids (basically do what Genealogy did with the kids.)

JP has semi-answered the conclusion regarding the kids already for Fates and seeing how Revelations was a walking spoiler of a game itself whereas it could have just been implemented into BR and CQ. Anakos' reign and rampage was before the events of each path funny enough and only RV revealed that mid-late game. A recap of what happened before or what will happen in the game is nice if it's treated before you officially start the story or if it happens in a DLC chapter so you don't complicate the story's meaning before it reaches the climax if it is anything like Awakening and Fates.

[nordopolica]

They made quite a bit of money, so I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted it again, but I'd be disappointed if they did. So much of Fates is already drafted from Awakening that if the next game is just Fates 2.0 it'd just feel gratuitous.

I hope they take the opportunity afforded to them by Awakening and Fates' success by branching out and trying something new - maybe completely new - or returning to FE's roots (which they've already done a little with Conquest's gameplay.)

Honestly I'm just sick of the Hoshido vs Nohr arguments like the fandom wasn't already fragile and divided

Either way I doubt we'll be seeing the next game anytime in the near future.

[NekoKnight]

One one hand, they made a lot of money on Fates so they might make a similar release in the future. On the other hand, I don't know if they want to be bound to the expectations (or production costs) of making 3 games again so maybe they won't.

A 3 game story could be amazing if it were done well (each story being equally valid, complete and consistent with the other routes), but if Fates is any indication, IS isn't competent enough to pull it off. All of the routes in Fates suffer from a severe lack of world building and the plots themselves are half filler and nonsensical. It's saying something when you need to buy 2 DLCs just to know what the hell is going on.

I'd much prefer IS putting all of their efforts into a single, coherent story. Another point is favor of one game is having access to all the classes/characters/items instead of a subset of them.

[nyainou]

I like multipath games. In fact, I love them. Things like timelines, alternate universes, etc. etc. are honestly my favorite things. What I don't like is having the story horribly split up into multiple paths stuck behind a paywall. That's awful.

I'd love it if they used this concept again, playing around with choices and how they affect the story. But I do not want to have to pay for multiple games just to get a story that is half-assed and hardly memorable.

..the worst part is, if they DID do this again, I'd pay a whole nother $80 just to get the special edition.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Only if they actually have a reason to split the game. I'm fine with Fates since each game tells a different story and has enough content to deliver a satisfying experience by themselves (not to mention that Pokemon does separate games for less), but I'd be pretty pissed if they made a Genealogy remake and sold Sigurd and Seliph's stories as separate games if that makes sense.

[nhaer042]

I don't see how this is something they could do again without treading very similar ground to Fates in terms of story. Also, as mentioned before, the multiple paths is something unique to Fates and makes it stick out (whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion) so I personally hope they don't do it again. At least not for a long while.

[Tolvir]

I'm not sure, Fates made a lot of money, which may entice them to do it again. The big reason I can see them doing it again was the advertised difference between Conquest and Birthright. One game appeals to the traditional fans and the ones that like a harder difficulty, while one appeals to the casual crowd and newbies. Other than that I dont think they will.

As long as they keep it like they did with Fates, and not something like Pokemon, I really wouldnt mind. It gives me options, but the problem is sooner or later they would get lazy with it, so if they do it for the next game that is fine, but if it becomes a staple of the series like Pokemon, then no.

[Mackc2]

I am kinda caught up because having to versions really limits what could actually happen and it would make fates less unique, I want this to be fates little gimmick that only comes back when it has to but on the other hand fates combined has more than any other fire emblem in terms of everything and it is hard to say I don't want another game with so much content because I do

[Thane]

Only if they actually have a reason to split the game. I'm fine with Fates since each game tells a different story and has enough content to deliver a satisfying experience by themselves (not to mention that Pokemon does separate games for less), but I'd be pretty pissed if they made a Genealogy remake and sold Sigurd and Seliph's stories as separate games if that makes sense.

I don't understand the Pokémon argument. People are not supposed to buy both versions of the game; the whole reason for why it's split in the first place is to promote trading between people. If anything I'd complain about them releasing a more definitive version a year or two after a new generation comes.

As for Fire Emblem, on paper, I wouldn't like it if they did the route split again. They stretched themselves far too thin with Fates and Revelation is set up as the canon path, and you can only get that as DLC or via special editions. They purposefully made it so that one version was more important than the others, and while that makes sense from a business standpoint, it doesn't exactly make me confident that they'd do anything differently the next time around.

[The DanMan]

I'd hope not. The routes in general feel a bit disconnected and "too different"; Birthright is way to easy until late-game, Conquest gets cheap late-game, and Revelation is gimmicky all-game.

I'll echo other peoples' sentiments and say that things definitely feel spread thin throughout the releases.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I don't understand the Pokémon argument. People are not supposed to buy both versions of the game; the whole reason for why it's split in the first place is to promote trading between people. If anything I'd complain about them releasing a more definitive version a year or two after a new generation comes.

As for Fire Emblem, on paper, I wouldn't like it if they did the route split again. They stretched themselves far too thin with Fates and Revelation is set up as the canon path, and you can only get that as DLC or via special editions. They purposefully made it so that one version was more important than the others, and while that makes sense from a business standpoint, it doesn't exactly make me confident that they'd do anything differently the next time around.

True, but those trading mechanics were designed for Japan (i.e. a very densely packed urban area). Doing those things outside of Japan was unreasonably difficult in most cases. Besides, I've never known trading to be a very major deal outside of 100% completionists (I just might not have been paying attention though, since my group of friends was more into casual-competitive battling).

As for Fates, the only reason Fates' route split doesn't work is because they decided to sell a third golden route as DLC (something that belongs more in the realm of fanfiction) rather than the conflict between each country. If there was no third route, I'd have called it the best implementation of game-splitting ever (not that it's a hard goal to reach *cough cough* Mega Man Star Force *cough cough*) as each game sells you a completely different story and gameplay experience with a well-justified in-universe reason for doing so. It'd also be slightly more balanced for PVP, since Nohr would be better bulkier and Hoshido more hurty. The problem is that in terms of story, marketing and PVP, there's literally no reason not to play Revelation and ignore the other two (it being the 'canon' route, revealing all information Conquest and Birthright's stories were ritually sacrificed to hide and giving you the ability to make any combination of overpowered teams you want).

[Jave]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, I feel that a Jugdral remake could take advantage of two routes (regardless of whether they're released as two separate games or not).

On one route, Gen 1 has Sigurd as the main Lord and Gen 2 has Seliph.

On the other route, Gen 1 has Quan as the main Lord and Gen 2 has Leif.

Sigurd/Seliph would pretty much be FE4's story and maps played straight (albeit adapted to more current, traditionally designed maps). While Quan/Leif has some new maps during Gen 1 (Quan, Ethlyn and Finn running into bandits prior to first meeting Sigurd, some maps later when they leave Silesse, and it ends with the tragedy at Yied Desert) and Gen 2 is mostly FE5's maps.

Then we get the 3rd route as DLC with Finn as the main Lord on both gens.

[Thane]

True, but those trading mechanics were designed for Japan (i.e. a very densely packed urban area). Doing those things outside of Japan was unreasonably difficult in most cases. Besides, I've never known trading to be a very major deal outside of 100% completionists (I just might not have been paying attention though, since my group of friends was more into casual-competitive battling).

As for Fates, the only reason Fates' route split doesn't work is because they decided to sell a third golden route as DLC (something that belongs more in the realm of fanfiction) rather than the conflict between each country. If there was no third route, I'd have called it the best implementation of game-splitting ever (not that it's a hard goal to reach *cough cough* Mega Man Star Force *cough cough*) as each game sells you a completely different story and gameplay experience with a well-justified in-universe reason for doing so. It'd also be slightly more balanced for PVP, since Nohr would be better bulkier and Hoshido more hurty. The problem is that in terms of story, marketing and PVP, there's literally no reason not to play Revelation and ignore the other two (it being the 'canon' route, revealing all information Conquest and Birthright's stories were ritually sacrificed to hide and giving you the ability to make any combination of overpowered teams you want).

I fail to see what that has to do with anything. You're never encouraged to buy both versions of Pokémon since they're virtually identical; Fates is not.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, there are many reasons as to why the route split in Fates failed; Revelation just happened to be the biggest offender. If Intelligent Systems did the same thing again, I'd have very little confidence in their ability to pull it off given their track record, and I don't think they want to go down that route again since it'll feel like they're just copying Fates, but who knows, maybe their dollar signs in front of their eyes are clouding their judgement.

Of course, if there were only two routes, it'd be much easier to develop and they could focus more on showing the consequences of whatever hypothetical choice you'd have to make, I'm not arguing against that, but I still think they should focus on making one large game instead.