Should "Pick your Path" be a series mainstay?

[Fabulously Olivier]

I think they can do 2 routes exquisitely well, but not 3+ (and yes, Fates was bad because plot elements made to facilitate the 3rd ruined the core premise of the other two). 

 

Realistically, I really like both route splits and single story games. And games where they are telling a linear story over multiple separate arcs (Geneology, RD, etc.). They just need to reign in their ambition and focus on quality, whatever form that takes.

[Samz707]

Only really when well written.

The only game to kinda do it right so far in my experience was Three Houses and even then it's too early. (Fates technically takes longer, but it ultimately fails to actually do anything with that longer time and the writing ultimately means it might as well have been after one chapter like 3H)

They should do a single path again I'd say.

[Metal Flash]

If it is to come back, I want it to be three-four games down the line. Right now, I just want a single, finished and cohesive storyline for the next entry.

[joevar]

preferably no. just give one canon path to give less headache for both player and developers in terms of overall narrative. i dont mind for "smaller" branching path tho.(something like good , normal, and best ending.)

[Dark Holy Elf]

I'm mixed on it.

On the one hand I think that exploring multiple paths is inherently interesting, and that Three Houses is by far the best thing Fire Emblem devs have ever written, so obviously more stuff like that is good. I know some people seem to have a sentiment of "IntSys/KT isn't good enough at writing to handle multiple routes" but quite frankly some of their single-route stories are pretty diastrous tbh, so I've never felt that argument has much weight.

I also know that I will, at this point, have an incredibly hard time going back to stories like Shadow Dragon in which a good boy protects the status quo and a feudal power structure which places him at the top from a pack of cartoonishly evil villains.

But I'm definitely not opposed to a single-route game, and it might be nice to try one again. Just... please, please, please, give me more things where I'm on the side taking agency, rebelling against corrupt power structures, and making the world more progressive and equal.

[Jotari]

On 7/31/2022 at 10:47 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

I also know that I will, at this point, have an incredibly hard time going back to stories like Shadow Dragon in which a good boy protects the status quo and a feudal power structure which places him at the top from a pack of cartoonishly evil villains.

 Bit off topic, but let's examine this with each pre Three Houses Lord and what they're fighting for.

Marth is pretty much doing exactly that. Even Medeus seeks to invert the power structured of Archanea rather than change it. The most interesting part of this conflict that gets in no way examined are the humans(?) living in Doluna who seem to agree with this world view that dragons should be the upper class and humans should be second class citizens.

Alm doesn't fight for the status quo at all. He fights against the status quo in both Sofia (via Desaix) and Rigel (via Rudolf). The feudal power structure does result with him on top, but that's not his express reason to fight as he only finds out in the end, and even then he chooses to overthrow the ultimate representation of authority on the continent, being the remaining living god.

Sigurd dies fight for the power structure, but it's a but more nuanced as he's also betrayed by that very power structure, twice, and eventually killed.

Seliph as a counter point to Sigurd's subversion plays things pretty straight, ultimately doing the same thing as Alvis did, dividing the continent up amongst himself and his cohorts.

Leif is less fighting for his feudal right and is more fighting for his own survival as the focus in Thracia is that no matter how much he runs, the empire will always follow him and hurt those who are dear to him. The game even ends without the war being finished.

Roy is the first Lord in the franchise who successfully repels the invasion of his home land meaning he never has to reclaim anything. So his feudal rights are never put under threat. What ultimately fights for us humanity itself, though he doesn't really know that until the end as Zephiel isnt exactly vocal about his "kill literally every human" policy.

Lyn is a funny case in that she expressly doesn't care about her feudal rights, coming from a different culture entirely (though one where she's still a noble, had he clan survived). But her feudal rights are thrust upon her as her uncle is so terrified of her mere existence he just keeps trying to kill her.

Eliwood and Hector fight cultists more than a war so it's never really an issue.

Eirika and Ephraim have a typical Marth story, only instead of dragons they're fighting literal demons who want to cause as much suffering as possible. So definitely fits into the cartoonishly evil part.

Ike as the archtypical commoner Lord (even though Alm did it first) is not fighting for a feudal system that puts him on top and, in fact, outright rejects the lordship he is given. However he does fight on behalf of Elincia so he is upholding the old power structure, it's just not his goal. He's more about people than systems. The one who is about systems is Ashnard, the villain, whose goals and methods are pretty much the same as Edelgard only he has in addition a desire to release a dark God just for the lulz. 

Micaiah (also an unacknowledged commoner lord) is a pure nationalist through and through,  which is different to fuedalism. Its not about Pelleas for her, it's about Daein,  whatever form that takes. If she were more ambitious she could have taken the throne in part 1, but she didnt want to. Its only when everyone begs her to do so does she take power for herself. In terms of power structures, Radiant Dawn is not kind to Begnion's Senate at all, but overall it's end game is more high concept philosophy than politics, coming to the rather unique and realistic view that even if religion is flawed, it does help us so gods should stick around, at least until humans can evolve into something more.

Awakening's world isn't even developed enough to make it really clear if fuedalism is even a thing. I guess Maribelle exists suggesting it is, but Chrom's title suggests he's actually a religious leader, not a king! Which the game ignores entirely. Ultimately he's in the same position as Roy where his authority is never questioned and he's fighting for humanity, though unlike Roy he's a bit more aware of that fact.

Corrin fights for their family, though the routes alter what that means, be it blood family or adopted family. The whole story is a bit of a mess with the bloody family being a lie and everything being orchestrated by a raving mad Dragon from another world. But throughout all of that Corrin never actually fights to uphold any system or for his own power. They eventually become a monarch of Valla...But that's a kingdom with like no living people in it at all.

So yeah ultimately only around half of the games have protagonists fighting to uphold a system that benefits them. Marty, Seliph, Eirika and Ephraim are the most straight examples with Roy, Chrom Micaiah and Ike being borderline. Alm and Lyn are outright rejections of their society while Sigurd is a complete subversion and the whole conversation is kind of irrelevant to Eliwood, Hector and Corrin.

[vanguard333]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Ike as the archtypical commoner Lord (even though Alm did it first) is not fighting for a feudal system that puts him on top and, in fact, outright rejects the lordship he is given. However he does fight on behalf of Elincia so he is upholding the old power structure, it's just not his goal. He's more about people than systems. The one who is about systems is Ashnard, the villain, whose goals and methods are pretty much the same as Edelgard only he has in addition a desire to release a dark God just for the lulz. 

I know this is beside the point, but I wouldn't consider Alm a commoner lord as he isn't a commoner; he's secret royalty. Ike actually is a commoner.

I would say that there's another important difference between Ashnard and Edelgard: Ashnard only sees people in terms of military strength and really does just simply want the strong to rule over the weak, while Edelgard wants a system where those best-suited for each job fill that job.

[Jotari]

11 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I know this is beside the point, but I wouldn't consider Alm a commoner lord as he isn't a commoner; he's secret royalty. Ike actually is a commoner.

Ike is also secret nobility. Gawain had to have been a noble in the preAshnaed Daein to have gained a knighthood and become one of the four riders.

11 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I would say that there's another important difference between Ashnard and Edelgard: Ashnard only sees people in terms of military strength and really does just simply want the strong to rule over the weak, while Edelgard wants a system where those best-suited for each job fill that job.

I think Ashnard sees things less in terms of military strength and more in terms of strength of will. If he just plain believed the person with the most muscles should rule he'd be bowing down to Degehensea. But the dragons don't have the right to rule because they don't have the will to do so.

[vanguard333]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Ike is also secret nobility. Gawain had to have been a noble in the pre-Ashnard Daein to have gained a knighthood and become one of the four riders.

Ike is still a commoner. Greil was indeed former nobility; emphasis on "was" and "former". By the time Ike was born, Greil was nothing more than a common mercenary and an outlaw living under an alias. Greil himself outright said that he is no longer Gawain:

Black Knight: I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. I would prefer it if you used your proper weapon, so that I might see you at your full strength… General Gawain, Rider of Daein.

Greil: That was my name... once, but I threw it away.

 

19 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I think Ashnard sees things less in terms of military strength and more in terms of strength of will. If he just plain believed the person with the most muscles should rule he'd be bowing down to Deghinsea. But the dragons don't have the right to rule because they don't have the will to do so.

You have a point. He probably sees it in terms of both power and will.

[Original Alear]

So yeah ultimately only around half of the games have protagonists fighting to uphold a system that benefits them. Marty, Seliph, Eirika and Ephraim are the most straight examples with Roy, Chrom Micaiah and Ike being borderline. Alm and Lyn are outright rejections of their society while Sigurd is a complete subversion and the whole conversation is kind of irrelevant to Eliwood, Hector and Corrin.

Don't think ur posts are not being read.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Ike is still a commoner. Greil was indeed former nobility; emphasis on "was" and "former". By the time Ike was born, Greil was nothing more than a common mercenary and an outlaw living under an alias. Greil himself outright said that he is no longer Gawain:

Black Knight: I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. I would prefer it if you used your proper weapon, so that I might see you at your full strength… General Gawain, Rider of Daein.

Greil: That was my name... once, but I threw it away.

 

You have a point. He probably sees it in terms of both power and will.

That's really do different from the situation of Alm, Micaiah and Byleth. All of them have secret ancestry, but it does not influence their upbringing and theirnstation (yes, even Alm, he inherited Rigel because he conquered it by the sword, being Rudolf's son was justnpolitically convenient, Mycen even says in Gaiden it didn't necessarily have to be Alm that carried out Rudolf's plan, though Rudolf hoped it would be).

8 minutes ago, Original Johan Liebert said:

 

Don't think ur posts are not being read.

Damn auto correct. My phone tried that every time I write Marth.

[vanguard333]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's really do different from the situation of Alm, Micaiah and Byleth. All of them have secret ancestry, but it does not influence their upbringing and their station (yes, even Alm, he inherited Rigel because he conquered it by the sword, being Rudolf's son was just politically convenient, Mycen even says in Gaiden it didn't necessarily have to be Alm that carried out Rudolf's plan, though Rudolf hoped it would be).

Byleth I would agree is a commoner in that Jeralt raised him as a common mercenary, and the position of teacher at the monastery is not exclusive to nobility. I would argue though that he isn't a lord as the lord characters are Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude... or at least, that's what I would be arguing if the Silver Snow route didn't exist.

Micaiah... that one's tricky. On the one hand, for most of the game, she is a classic Joan-of-Arc. However, her abilities are because of her brand, which is revealed in part 4 to have originated from her being the true heir to the Begnion Apostleship. She turns down both the position of Apostle and Empress, but the fact that Sanaki offers the position(s) to her demonstrates that the position would've been available and it would've been solely because of her bloodline; she has no ties to those positions otherwise.

I haven't played Gaiden, so I'll have to take your word for it in regards to Alm. However, while he might be a commoner lord in Gaiden, he is definitely not a commoner lord in Echoes; not with that line from Mycen removed and instead there being entire scenes where the other characters gush about how there was always something superior about him, and let's not forget the sword that only he can wield because it only allows royalty to wield it.

Edited August 4, 2022 by vanguard333

[Jotari]

57 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Byleth I would agree is a commoner in that Jeralt raised him as a common mercenary, and the position of teacher at the monastery is not exclusive to nobility. I would argue though that he isn't a lord as the lord characters are Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude... or at least, that's what I would be arguing if the Silver Snow route didn't exist.

Micaiah... that one's tricky. On the one hand, for most of the game, she is a classic Joan-of-Arc. However, her abilities are because of her brand, which is revealed in part 4 to have originated from her being the true heir to the Begnion Apostleship. She turns down both the position of Apostle and Empress, but the fact that Sanaki offers the position(s) to her demonstrates that the position would've been available and it would've been solely because of her bloodline; she has no ties to those positions otherwise.

I haven't played Gaiden, so I'll have to take your word for it in regards to Alm. However, while he might be a commoner lord in Gaiden, he is definitely not a commoner lord in Echoes; not with that line from Mycen removed and instead there being entire scenes where the other characters gush about how there was always something superior about him, and let's not forget the sword that only he can wield because it only allows royalty to wield it.

Ill make a dedicated topic for this when i get home (though I'll note now that Ike also has a sword named after the idea of royalty that only he can wield, no, it's not Ragnell).

Edited August 4, 2022 by Jotari

[kratoscar2008]

Hell yeah.

As usual the fanbase seems to hate things that the average non hardcore players like so its funny to see people say they didnt succeed when their overall reception seems to say otherwise which is why I think we are going to be seeing multiple paths for main games (Leak notwithstanding) and leave the single routes to Remakes.

The only thing I think they need to do is stop trying to keep the 20+ chapter tradition. They kinda did with CF but that was because they ran out of time. They should not be afraid of doing 10 chapters route if thats enough to tell the story.

With avatars being a series mainstay I hope we get something akin Tactics Ogre or Der Langrisser in regards to multiple paths. As in rather than having them split after a short common path, you get path divergences betwees routes. Like Der Langrisser has the main light path but then you choose Imperial route and then you can choose to stick to imperial or go Chaos and if you go Chaos you stick to Chaos or decide to go against both light and chaos powers.

And hope they do "everyone becomes friends" path again. I am very sure that the people against it is a very huge minority compared to those who want it. Comparing the reactions of Hopes allegedly having a gold path on here or reddit to Youtube or non FE centric gaming sites tells me I am mostly correct. Heck I even saw that when Cindered Shadows was leaking and many were hopeful for a Gold path due to the Lords all being playable.

IS is ambitious and I hope they dont revert back to single routes again like the fanbase wants. Which I am hopeful because the fanbase also complains about unit customization but IS has only doubled down on this.

[Samz707]

On 8/11/2022 at 4:25 PM, kratoscar2008 said:

Hell yeah.

As usual the fanbase seems to hate things that the average non hardcore players like so its funny to see people say they didnt succeed when their overall reception seems to say otherwise which is why I think we are going to be seeing multiple paths for main games (Leak notwithstanding) and leave the single routes to Remakes.

The only thing I think they need to do is stop trying to keep the 20+ chapter tradition. They kinda did with CF but that was because they ran out of time. They should not be afraid of doing 10 chapters route if thats enough to tell the story.

With avatars being a series mainstay I hope we get something akin Tactics Ogre or Der Langrisser in regards to multiple paths. As in rather than having them split after a short common path, you get path divergences betwees routes. Like Der Langrisser has the main light path but then you choose Imperial route and then you can choose to stick to imperial or go Chaos and if you go Chaos you stick to Chaos or decide to go against both light and chaos powers.

And hope they do "everyone becomes friends" path again. I am very sure that the people against it is a very huge minority compared to those who want it. Comparing the reactions of Hopes allegedly having a gold path on here or reddit to Youtube or non FE centric gaming sites tells me I am mostly correct. Heck I even saw that when Cindered Shadows was leaking and many were hopeful for a Gold path due to the Lords all being playable.

IS is ambitious and I hope they dont revert back to single routes again like the fanbase wants. Which I am hopeful because the fanbase also complains about unit customization but IS has only doubled down on this.

Eh, just because the average player likes it doesn't nessarily mean it's a good thing. (The Tomb Raider Reboots literally being an entirely different genre, but it's a genre that  casuals would be more interested in for instance, I'm sure Warriors gameplay probably appeals more to the average casual but I doubt it'd improve the franchise if we ditched the strategy games entirely.)

I wouldn't mind a shorter campaign with multiple paths, but even then I'd prefer that more to be somewhat like Echoes, two groups going through the same war but at different locations, so both are still canon.

Golden Routes are hard to do, harder still to do well, (Even Awakening has elements of this with the dumb crap that happens in the Spotpass stuff like Emmeryn being alive.) it's better to commit to a darker story than undercut it with a forced "and everyone was happy" ending. (it really only works in games with lots of choices, where the Golden Route is instead of paying for a DLC route that's better, it's actually about making all the right choices and playing well the entire game to earn it.)

 

 

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Eh, just because the average player likes it doesn't nessarily mean it's a good thing. (The Tomb Raider Reboots literally being an entirely different genre, but it's a genre that  casuals would be more interested in for instance, I'm sure Warriors gameplay probably appeals more to the average casual but I doubt it'd improve the franchise if we ditched the strategy games entirely.)

I wouldn't mind a shorter campaign with multiple paths, but even then I'd prefer that more to be somewhat like Echoes, two groups going through the same war but at different locations, so both are still canon.

Golden Routes are hard to do, harder still to do well, (Even Awakening has elements of this with the dumb crap that happens in the Spotpass stuff like Emmeryn being alive.) it's better to commit to a darker story than undercut it with a forced "and everyone was happy" ending. (it really only works in games with lots of choices, where the Golden Route is instead of paying for a DLC route that's better, it's actually about making all the right choices and playing well the entire game to earn it.)

 

 

Bouncing off this point, I feel multiple routes kind of takes away from character deaths in a big way. Like the death of Ferdinand or Hubert in Three Houses doesn't feel like an event at all, because there's no loss in the narrative. They're just alive and well when you play another route. Though as I'm writing this I'm trying to make a comparison and realize Fire Emblem has never truly tried to hit home with a death other than its various parental figures (which, as Jearlt and Mikoto show, are slated to happen in route splits anyway). Only ones I can think of is Sigurd, Rajaion and Athos, and for the latter two they're kind of almost glossed over and slightly random. That being said, if there was a route split in the original Genealogy of the Holy War where Sigurd just lived, I think it would severely undercut the event (as a bonus thing in the remake for non-canon fun I wouldn't mind though, my values set be weird that way).

Counter to my point, they did manage to sell Elise and Xander's death pretty well in Birthright despite the route split. So it's not really an all or nothing. A good narrative death is still a good narrative death, I suppose (then again Elise's death is also kind of pure melodrama). But for all the Elises and Xanders dying, you also have Benny and Charlottes dying in completely unceremonious, forgettable and meaningless manners (though for Benny and Charlotte specifically that actually kind of works as in universe they are less important than any other playable characters).

I've kind of devil's advocated myself out of my own argument, but in spite of that I think I do have some sort of point. Death is meant to be a big consequence. It's sad because a character is gone and they're not coming back. All that they are is lost. But when you can just hop over to an alternate timeline and continue the story, they're kind of not.

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Bouncing off this point, I feel multiple routes kind of takes away from character deaths in a big way. Like the death of Ferdinand or Hubert in Three Houses doesn't feel like an event at all, because there's no loss in the narrative. They're just alive and well when you play another route. Though as I'm writing this I'm trying to make a comparison and realize Fire Emblem has never truly tried to hit home with a death other than its various parental figures (which, as Jearlt and Mikoto show, are slated to happen in route splits anyway). Only ones I can think of is Sigurd, Rajaion and Athos, and for the latter two they're kind of almost glossed over and slightly random. That being said, if there was a route split in the original Genealogy of the Holy War where Sigurd just lived, I think it would severely undercut the event (as a bonus thing in the remake for non-canon fun I wouldn't mind though, my values set be weird that way).

Counter to my point, they did manage to sell Elise and Xander's death pretty well in Birthright despite the route split. So it's not really an all or nothing. A good narrative death is still a good narrative death, I suppose (then again Elise's death is also kind of pure melodrama). But for all the Elises and Xanders dying, you also have Benny and Charlottes dying in completely unceremonious, forgettable and meaningless manners (though for Benny and Charlotte specifically that actually kind of works as in universe they are less important than any other playable characters).

I've kind of devil's advocated myself out of my own argument, but in spite of that I think I do have some sort of point. Death is meant to be a big consequence. It's sad because a character is gone and they're not coming back. All that they are is lost. But when you can just hop over to an alternate timeline and continue the story, they're kind of not.

Even then it depends. (Jeralt's hit me hard somewhat even when I was spoiled, I rolled my eyes at Mikoto's because I barely know this flat cardboard cutout of a person and Awakening's plot had me glad when Emmeryn died.) 

Jagged Alliance 2, another kinda SRPG-y game, like Echoes would do, has Units reacting to other units dying, since certain mercenaries are family members/lovers/enemies of each other. (So for instance, Ivan the strong Russian who's basically the game's Jagen kinda, will be upset if his Nephew Igor dies and due to the game having a morale system, will actually suffer penalties due to it.)

Even in FE7, Matthew's death hit me hard later when the game has Leilia's death scene but acknowledges Matthew is dead.

For at least 3H, I can see it kinda working since the game has Byleth follow a different side essentially (even if it's essnentially 3 sides against one side), so yeah, sometimes a character is just alive by default, but other times you'll have to kill them yourself, (even if you do admittingly get the option to spare them) so it at least there, they go from "Named Mini-boss" like past FE mini-bosses/bosses to be someone you know as a character. (even if 3H's design means you'll likely only care about them from a previous playthrough since if you've invested in a character to get their supports, you've probably recruited them already.)

At least to me, FE simply needs death reactions and honestly maybe ditching the Training wheels Rewind that makes it so easy to avoid having anyone die. (Though that would require some good not-too hard design to work well, which 3H fails at several times.)

Though even without Death Reactions, 3H's voice acting and honestly good character writing helps, FE simply needs to make sure to have compelling characters, I kept the 3H cast alive because I loved them, I kept the Awakening cast alive entirely because I wouldn't get replacements if they died, even in FE7 with Matthew and other characters like Fiora I felt bad for getting them killed.

Stuff like the Monastery with it's unique dialogue helps the characters feel more like people than I care about.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Samz707

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Even then it depends. (Jeralt's hit me hard somewhat even when I was spoiled, I rolled my eyes at Mikoto's because I barely know this flat cardboard cutout of a person and Awakening's plot had me glad when Emmeryn died.) 

Well the thing about Jealt's death is that it's not route dependent. As in he dies in the same way no matter what happens because his death (Three Hopes aside, of course) is before the actual route split (despite the game offering it like ten hours before that >.> ). So that plot point would be the same in a linear or branched narrative. So it's not really what I was getting at. I was more talking about how I don't really feel like I'm killing a Three Houses character when I face them in battle as even if they die, they're alive and well in another route. The worst offender of this is Dimitri in Verdant Wind, whose death is barely even a footnote. But even if more of a big deal had been made about it, like in Crimson Flower, it still doesn't feel to me like Dimitri is dead, because it's just one scenario and not the actual loss of narrative potential.

 

[kratoscar2008]

5 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Eh, just because the average player likes it doesn't nessarily mean it's a good thing. (The Tomb Raider Reboots literally being an entirely different genre, but it's a genre that  casuals would be more interested in for instance, I'm sure Warriors gameplay probably appeals more to the average casual but I doubt it'd improve the franchise if we ditched the strategy games entirely.)

I wouldn't mind a shorter campaign with multiple paths, but even then I'd prefer that more to be somewhat like Echoes, two groups going through the same war but at different locations, so both are still canon.

Golden Routes are hard to do, harder still to do well, (Even Awakening has elements of this with the dumb crap that happens in the Spotpass stuff like Emmeryn being alive.) it's better to commit to a darker story than undercut it with a forced "and everyone was happy" ending. (it really only works in games with lots of choices, where the Golden Route is instead of paying for a DLC route that's better, it's actually about making all the right choices and playing well the entire game to earn it.)

 

 

Nah I disagree. I think people should have something enjoyable than trying to make them feel bad. I dont have issues with Houses per se because you can get all the characters sans Lords/Hubert/,Dudue in houses and since I like Dimitri much more than Edelgard and Claude I just think of his path as canon but there are people that have and they should have that path that fixes that issue for them. Dont like it? Just think of it as non canon like those who dont like Emmeryn paralogue existing. But seems like the fanbase wants to whip those people into things they wouldnt like (Like those wanting more restricted class system because they cant just stick to the "canon" classes so they want others to be restricted because they cant hold themselves back).

Its more out in general. I was thinking more in general mainly because of Fates or Persona 3. 2 games that have a bittersweet ending which causes 2 sides to clash, those who value the theme and those who value their attachment to the characters. In Fates you have the former shunning Rev while you have the later appreciating the happy path is a thing (Sans Scarlet) while for Persona 3 those who support ATLUS hints at undoing the bittersweet end of Persona 3 and those who rather keep the theme.

In general I do not like having to get attached to characters and then just screw them off. Shame Hopes had no gold end but I appreciate characters like Geralt and Rodrigue being given a timeline where they dont have to be fed to Byleth's and Dimitri's character arcs.

 

In short let us have happy endings and just think of them as fever dreams that dont exist (Like with Emmeryn,  let us save her as you brush it as the Grimleal recapturing her and sacrificing her).

[Samz707]

34 minutes ago, kratoscar2008 said:

Nah I disagree. I think people should have something enjoyable than trying to make them feel bad. I dont have issues with Houses per se because you can get all the characters sans Lords/Hubert/,Dudue in houses and since I like Dimitri much more than Edelgard and Claude I just think of his path as canon but there are people that have and they should have that path that fixes that issue for them. Dont like it? Just think of it as non canon like those who dont like Emmeryn paralogue existing. But seems like the fanbase wants to whip those people into things they wouldnt like (Like those wanting more restricted class system because they cant just stick to the "canon" classes so they want others to be restricted because they cant hold themselves back).

Its more out in general. I was thinking more in general mainly because of Fates or Persona 3. 2 games that have a bittersweet ending which causes 2 sides to clash, those who value the theme and those who value their attachment to the characters. In Fates you have the former shunning Rev while you have the later appreciating the happy path is a thing (Sans Scarlet) while for Persona 3 those who support ATLUS hints at undoing the bittersweet end of Persona 3 and those who rather keep the theme.

In general I do not like having to get attached to characters and then just screw them off. Shame Hopes had no gold end but I appreciate characters like Geralt and Rodrigue being given a timeline where they dont have to be fed to Byleth's and Dimitri's character arcs.

In short let us have happy endings and just think of them as fever dreams that dont exist (Like with Emmeryn,  let us save her as you brush it as the Grimleal recapturing her and sacrificing her).

I can't agree, sometimes fiction wants to have a sad ending, or at least not perfect, and bad thrown-in "Oh no Emmeryn was alive!" stuff only ever undercuts it usually. 

Also no, as someone who started with a reclassing game (Awakening), having fixed classes allows for a more focused experience, as the devs can fully predict what units the players have and work around it, 3H can't really predict what units you have so even if you avoid all meta, it's clearly not as well-designed for what units you have as FE7 or Echoes. (Still better than the disaster of Awakening admittingly.) 

And from what I hear about Hopes,

Spoiler

you have to earn Jeralt/Rodrigue surviving that game via doing side quests and such, it's something you earn, by default, both of them die unless you do certain things as opposed to just dropping money on a golden route.

 

Personally, I don't mind beloved characters getting screwed if it feels like it's natural, it's why I like how FE7 is in retrospect almost a kind of tragedy considering how FE6 happens afterwards.

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Samz707

[vanguard333]

1 hour ago, Samz707 said:

I can't agree, sometimes fiction wants to have a sad ending, or at least not perfect, and bad thrown-in "Oh no Emmeryn was alive!" stuff only ever undercuts it usually. 

I agree. Not every storytelling punch needs to be pulled, and trying to undercut something that was originally an important consequence, just for the sake of a happier ending, is often exactly that: an undercut.

Incidentally, this debate has been coming up a lot recently thanks to a rise in alternate-timeline games like Final Fantasy 7 Remake and Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, both of which were falsely-advertised as something else (a remake and a prequel, respectively). Both games proved divisive for their story decisions, with part of the audience wanting to experience the advertised story and all its consequences and feeling cheated as a result even regardless of the false advertising, and others claiming that the advertised stories would've been bad and it's better that these games offered a happier ending for certain characters. I stand firmly in the former group; undoing established consequences for the sake of providing a happier ending is cheating people out of a more compelling story.

 

I should be clear that I don't mind games that are built to have multiple routes; just so long as they're fairly equal in terms of consequences, which is what Three Houses did. 

Edited August 13, 2022 by vanguard333

[Metal Flash]

On 8/11/2022 at 4:25 PM, kratoscar2008 said:

IS is ambitious and I hope they dont revert back to single routes again like the fanbase wants.

Way too early to make this claim, we`ve had one game since Three Houses, which a alternate timeline game.  At least wait until we`ve had a completely new game with a route split.

I also don`t get why route splits are better just cause less people want them. While multiple routes have their advantages, so does focusing on a single route.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Metal Flash

[Samz707]

3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I agree. Not every storytelling punch needs to be pulled, and trying to undercut something that was originally an important consequence, just for the sake of a happier ending, is often exactly that: an undercut.

Incidentally, this debate has been coming up a lot recently thanks to a rise in alternate-timeline games like Final Fantasy 7 Remake and Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, both of which were falsely-advertised as something else (a remake and a prequel, respectively). Both games proved divisive for their story decisions, with part of the audience wanting to experience the advertised story and all its consequences and feeling cheated as a result even regardless of the false advertising, and others claiming that the advertised stories would've been bad and it's better that these games offered a happier ending for certain characters. I stand firmly in the former group; undoing established consequences for the sake of providing a happier ending is cheating people out of a more compelling story.

 

I should be clear that I don't mind games that are built to have multiple routes; just so long as they're fairly equal in terms of consequences, which is what Three Houses did. 

The only real time I agree with punch-pulling is the opposite of how FE handles routes. (Except to an extent CF having a second actually meaningful choice.)

Call of Duty Black Ops 2 has a pretty unique campaign for a COD game with mulitple endings, getting a good ending is fairly straight forward, but it requires you to not fail optional secondary objectives and make the correct decision at certain plot branches, (The Missions stay the same, but certain characters survive/die depending on your choices and failing to keep them alive will result in a worse ending.) there is a "Perfect" ending which requires saving a character by doing something somewhat counter-intuitive, so it feels Easter-Egg-y (since it requires something that you'll probably only do on a second playthrough knowing what happens later and the actual cutscene for this feels a little self-aware about it.), but ultimately, you earn this "Perfect" ending by doing the correct choices and performing well in certain optional failable objectives.

So while there is an admittingly arguably kinda too happy "Best" Ending that undercuts the story a bit, it's something you probably got on a second go-around and it relies on the correct choices/performing well in gameplay as opposed to Fates where you just buy the "Best" Route, (or download the SpotPass Chapters to just undo deaths in Awakening.) it's earned as opposed to just given to you.

 

While I can't say for sure how it goes, I hear that Hopes

Spoiler

allows the player to prevent certain plot deaths and get additional recruitable characters, but this apparently requires doing literally every side-mission in the game and pick a specific choice when given the option, it's something you have to earn as opposed to just given to you.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Samz707

[kratoscar2008]

7 hours ago, Samz707 said:

I can't agree, sometimes fiction wants to have a sad ending, or at least not perfect, and bad thrown-in "Oh no Emmeryn was alive!" stuff only ever undercuts it usually. 

Also no, as someone who started with a reclassing game (Awakening), having fixed classes allows for a more focused experience, as the devs can fully predict what units the players have and work around it, 3H can't really predict what units you have so even if you avoid all meta, it's clearly not as well-designed for what units you have as FE7 or Echoes. (Still better than the disaster of Awakening admittingly.) 

And from what I hear about Hopes,

  Hide contents

you have to earn Jeralt/Rodrigue surviving that game via doing side quests and such, it's something you earn, by default, both of them die unless you do certain things as opposed to just dropping money on a golden route.

 

Personally, I don't mind beloved characters getting screwed if it feels like it's natural, it's why I like how FE7 is in retrospect almost a kind of tragedy considering how FE6 happens afterwards.

 

Well I disagree, specially if the majority of buyers would rather want that. I can't say for sure because well most non fans dont interact with Nintendo so them doing research and then reacting accordingly should be best. Also I remember reading that Koei was told to not undermine Three Houses with Hopes so probably the next game might include one.

As well as I disagree with fixed/limited classes. I dont want to go back to games where if I wanted to use an axe user I had to use generic looking gruff men or I had to bench a cute cavalier girl because there are already too many of them. IS can just work maps with the "canon" classes in mind and let players break it or do whatever they want and purists can stick with the classes.

4 hours ago, Metal Flash said:

Way too early to make this claim, we`ve had one game since Three Houses, which a alternate timeline game.  At least wait until we`ve had a completely new game with a route split.

I also don`t get why route splits are better just cause less people want them. While multiple routes have their advantages, so does focusing on a single route.

I meant that most people like multiple paths considering the success of Fates and Houses. Most of the support for single path I see here is from people thinking that they should dial back because they bit more than they could chew but I say no and keep chewing because the results speak for themselves in overall reception (Yeah I know the fanbase loves to hate on Fates but Metacritic and the sales show that Fates is generally looked favorably).

Edited August 14, 2022 by kratoscar2008

[Jotari]

Personally I thought Fates had the best idea for reclassing. Every character has one alternate class (with some late game methods to get anyone essentially anything). This greatly widens the pool of classes available to the player, but also serves well for the plot as it shows where the characters other skills lie. Outside of cases where they want to just abandon traditional class systems entirely like Three Houses, this is how I'd like to see reclassing handled in the future (including future remakes, as I have fun speculating what alternate reclasses would best fit what characters in existing games).