Would You Consider Fire Emblem Fates/Three Houses to be Multiple Games in One?

[Randoman]

So for those people who are familiar enough with Fire Emblem Fates/Three Houses routes, I was wondering if you'd personally consider them to be multiple games in one, specifically from a content/game development perspective. I ask this since I vaguely remember an interview where one of the head staff from Intelligent Systems said that Fire Emblem Fates had content/game development time equivalent to that of two games, hence why they split the game into two different cartridges (Birthright and Conquest). I'm curious regarding if you guys agree with that statement or not.

I'll admit, I haven't played either Fire Emblem Fates/Three Houses before, but I know there's a fair amount of shared chapters/maps/assets. To what degree, I don't really know, so I can't properly judge.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Fates definitely feels like multiple, closely-related games. Birthright/Conquest have mostly different casts (almost as different as Binding Blade vs Blazing Blade, more different than the two Tellius games), and diverge utterly after a short 5-map prologue.

Three Houses feels less separate, since White Clouds is over half the game and is the same on all routes... and in fact, for three of the game's four routes, the split occurs later still. The cast also overlaps much more strongly between the routes, too, to the point where no route has more than three unique PCs.

[Florete]

Wow, the 5 voters at the time of this posting all agree.

Fates yes, Three Houses no. Basically for the reasons Dark Holy Elf gave.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Fates represents three separate games, but certainly two with a meaty what-if DLC campaign. Two Fire Emblem games with unique casts, classes, paralogues, and the overwhelming majority of maps are different, rather than just having different story dialogue going into them. Even Revelations, with its tendency to reuse the content of the two other versions, is more unique than any individual route of three houses

[Yexin]

1) yes
2) no

no matter how many flaws i can say Fates has, you won't ever hear me say that Conquest, Birthright and Revelation feel like games made by recycling contents to an exhausting level (Revelation is debatable, but nowhere near 3H), and that they make you feel like they're unfinished products

on the other hand, these flaws are definitely present in 3H, precisely due to the fact that it features multiple routes

Edited February 18, 2022 by Yexin

[Jotari]

Not sure I have anything to add. Nine people are currently in complete agreement for Fates-Yes Three Houses-No.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

Not that there´s much to add, but the units in CQ and BR are quite different - Arthur v Subaki, Effie v Hana to compare the first squad of retainers as well as the classes and consequently skills you get to play with. A Hero will never be a Swordmaster and a Oni Chieftain will never be a Berserker. Also equipment, buildings in MyCastle.

Now TH on the other hand... every house has the same archetypes, with a few outliers (like Felix, whose combat doesn´t really have an equivalent in the other houses, Caspar whose all-around bad and Lorenz mixed weirdness) and one and the same class pool, excluding lords ofc.

[lenticular]

I said no and no, though Fates is certainly a lot closer than Three Houses. I think that the big thing that really stops me from thinking of Fates as being two full games is the story. Even putting aside the quality of the writing, I don't think that either Birthright or Conquest are really trying to tell a complete story that stands alone as a coherent whole. The three routes of Fates are just three parts of a larger whole.

There also is still a lot of content that's reused between Birthright and Conquest. Repeated characters (eg Silas, Kaze, Jacob; about a third of all characters on a given route in total) and therefore also the repeated classes that they carry. Also repeated maps like Notre Sagesse and Fort Dragonfall. And even just the fact that the two games use exactly the same mechanics. Fire Emblem games are always mechanically similar, but they also typically all introduce their own mechanical twists which is a part of the value.

Overall, I'd say that Birthright and Conquest combine to make about one and a half full games. Which is fair enough, since that's what they charged for them (at least until the e-shop closes, at which point they'll be much worse value).

Three Houses, on the other hand, isn't even close.

[Punished Dayni]

Interesting to note how Fates's chapters overlaps.

You have 8 between Br and Cq, 2 between Br and Rv, 3 between Cq and Rv and 2 between all three.

None of them are after Chapter 20 on any route, but that kinda concentrates the overlap to the first half of reach route, especially Cq where the not-overlapping maps are all divided by overlapping maps. All of Br's later overlaps are also maps that are much earlier in Cq, similar story with Cq's later ones.

I'd argue this and the shared characters between routes isn't enough for me to treat Fates as one game in all, but the overlap is still more significant than I'd give credit to.

[Fabulously Olivier]

No on both counts. Obviously, there is more work involved in multi-route games, but they contain so many reused map assets and characters that it isn't justified to call them the equivalent of developing multiple full games. It's more like developing 1.5 games in one.

[Elina]

I don’t think either could be considered multiple games because I feel that the choice element is a big part of the story of each game, and it is true that a lot of content is reused. That being said, unlike in three houses where you buy all three games in one, you have to buy each individual fates game separately if you want to play them all, so I could see fates being considered three games.

[Lynsanity]

On 2/18/2022 at 7:28 AM, lenticular said:

I said no and no, though Fates is certainly a lot closer than Three Houses. I think that the big thing that really stops me from thinking of Fates as being two full games is the story. Even putting aside the quality of the writing, I don't think that either Birthright or Conquest are really trying to tell a complete story that stands alone as a coherent whole. The three routes of Fates are just three parts of a larger whole.

There also is still a lot of content that's reused between Birthright and Conquest. Repeated characters (eg Silas, Kaze, Jacob; about a third of all characters on a given route in total) and therefore also the repeated classes that they carry. Also repeated maps like Notre Sagesse and Fort Dragonfall. And even just the fact that the two games use exactly the same mechanics. Fire Emblem games are always mechanically similar, but they also typically all introduce their own mechanical twists which is a part of the value.

Overall, I'd say that Birthright and Conquest combine to make about one and a half full games. Which is fair enough, since that's what they charged for them (at least until the e-shop closes, at which point they'll be much worse value).

Three Houses, on the other hand, isn't even close.

 

On 2/19/2022 at 9:20 AM, Fabulously Olivier said:

No on both counts. Obviously, there is more work involved in multi-route games, but they contain so many reused map assets and characters that it isn't justified to call them the equivalent of developing multiple full games. It's more like developing 1.5 games in one.

Yeah, I was coming here with a 1.5 games take as well. Even with the distinctive split class system, which I loved, you still have tons of flexibility between the avatar, Mozu, Shura, Odin and Laslow's class sets, capturable enemies, DLC... I'm pretty sure it's possible to use every Hoshidan class in Nohr and vice versa.

I've seen people rank Conquest near the top of their favourite Fire Emblems and Birthright near the bottom, and that's just wild to me. Like I can see why you'd prefer one over the other, but you'd have to overlook so much of their shared content, maps and mechanics to regard them as THAT different.

[Dark Holy Elf]

58 minutes ago, Lynsanity said:

I've seen people rank Conquest near the top of their favourite Fire Emblems and Birthright near the bottom, and that's just wild to me. Like I can see why you'd prefer one over the other, but you'd have to overlook so much of their shared content, maps and mechanics to regard them as THAT different.

To some extent I'm with you, I don't rank them as far apart as some people, but I get why one would. They're at least as different as Binding Blade is from Blazing Blade, I'd say - two games which also have almost the same mechanics and some limited overlap in maps (which isn't a real overlap in either case because enemy positions are typically completely different even when the geography itself is the same). Conquest vs. Birthright additionally has a very different design philosophy for their maps (as well as less important things like a different set of weapons). And since map design is important, I have an easy time seeing why someone might prefer one game over the other significantly.

[drattakbowser]

I dislike split team, story and path. Make me disgrace and disappointed. Shadow Dragon and Awakening are the only game I liked.

[Codename Shrimp]

On 3/13/2022 at 4:21 PM, Lynsanity said:

I've seen people rank Conquest near the top of their favourite Fire Emblems and Birthright near the bottom, and that's just wild to me. Like I can see why you'd prefer one over the other, but you'd have to overlook so much of their shared content, maps and mechanics to regard them as THAT different.

The shared content really boils down to them having the same base mechanics, but they play completely different.

Where Conquest puts difficulty more on maps, dragon veins, unit positioning and skills, birthright just inflates stats.

Where Conquest has different objectives, Birthright is Birthrout.

Where Conquest gives you units in a semi-consistent pacing, Birthright just throws units at you in the beginning, to the point by chapter 10 (4th BR chapter) you gotta bench like half the team

Where Conquest has one of the best unit balance in the series, Birthright has Ryoma. He is much much much stronger and centerlizing than Xander.

 

Conquest has by far my fav. Gameplay in the series, Birthright however plays much more like GBAFE, which is by far my least fav. FE era

Edited March 14, 2022 by Shrimpolaris

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

26 minutes ago, Shrimpolaris said:

birthright just inflates stats.

That´s more Revs´s thing I´d say, an example being Xander as the pinup boy of nerfs. Meanwhile Rev throws a Zerker in chapter 7 at you and Master Ninjas in chapter 11. Birthright just throws a lot more mobs at you than either CQ or REV.

Also, I said it before, but the units are pretty different, not just Xander-Ryoma.

But yeah, the power of good gameplay vs just meh.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Imuabicus

[starburst]

Fates is at least two different games and a (forgettable) DLC with extras.
Four Houses does not even have enough maps to be one complete game.