And yeah, the 4 routes idea was nice but they lacked the budget to develop it properly. Next time I'd prefer a single route with lots of decisions (like chosing a map from 2 or 3 several times, deciding to ally with X or Y factions and so having different units...) but the same main goal (maybe diffeent endgame chapters) so they can use all the resources on making the experience more solid for everyone.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is Fire Emblem Three Houses the best game in the series?
- Thread starter Deleted member 58846
- Start date
In terms of gameplay, I still think Path of Radiance is the best.
In terms of overall presentation, yes. Huge step in the right direction, and a massive gamble that I think paid off. They'll learn a lot from Three Houses and still have a lot to be proud of. While the game is absolutely phenomenal, it's a bit too much. I'd like to see them make another game with one central storyline and really knock it out of the park. As others have said, the monastery is awesome the first go around, but to do it another 3 times... Keep the exploration aspect, but streamline it or make it more unique week to week.
I'll be interested to see what they can do with their momentum that continues to grow and grow. If they can take 3H, make the overworked/monastery aspect less repetitive, touch up the graphics, and keep doing what they're doing with character design, music, and the voice acting... The series is in a very good place.
In terms of overall presentation, yes. Huge step in the right direction, and a massive gamble that I think paid off. They'll learn a lot from Three Houses and still have a lot to be proud of. While the game is absolutely phenomenal, it's a bit too much. I'd like to see them make another game with one central storyline and really knock it out of the park. As others have said, the monastery is awesome the first go around, but to do it another 3 times... Keep the exploration aspect, but streamline it or make it more unique week to week.
I'll be interested to see what they can do with their momentum that continues to grow and grow. If they can take 3H, make the overworked/monastery aspect less repetitive, touch up the graphics, and keep doing what they're doing with character design, music, and the voice acting... The series is in a very good place.
I'm enjoying it a lot and it for sure is the strongest of the Awakening-and-up games, but overall, I think it's a step in the right direction. For all its merits, I definitely think there still is room for growth (there's lots of disparities in character quality for example and the maps feel more drawn out than challenging... but it's feeling optimistic so far.
It's the first one that I stuck with all the way through and it's likely my GOTY so I voted yes on this. It gets more right than wrong for sure.
Mechanically, I'm happy where it is now. There are so many QoL improvements that I notice are gone when I play the older games. I feel that alone is a great point for the game.
The story not being the tire fire known as Fates helps, too. I'm not saying it is great, but it's still serviceable. Haven't seen that since PoR, imo.
The first playthrough was great. I did a second file, but I haven't been motivated to finish it. I'll do it eventually, but it gets so weighed down by tutoring and monastery work. It also starts to make you notice how many times they reuse the same maps, even if you don't do any extra battles outside of quests and paralogues. I wish the difficulty wasn't a choice between steamrolling and unfair (not unbeatable, but it reminds me of Lunatic from Awakening. Thankfully, what tools you have are also unfair after a while.)
A solid 8/10 for me. I wouldn't rank any other game higher, but every other game has its own share of flaws. I don't have a perfect game, but I can enjoy all of them (Except maybe redoing revelations...ugh)
TL;DR - If it didn't reuse maps and have the sluggish monastery, then it would be the best. As it is now, it's just tied with a lot of the other games.
The story not being the tire fire known as Fates helps, too. I'm not saying it is great, but it's still serviceable. Haven't seen that since PoR, imo.
The first playthrough was great. I did a second file, but I haven't been motivated to finish it. I'll do it eventually, but it gets so weighed down by tutoring and monastery work. It also starts to make you notice how many times they reuse the same maps, even if you don't do any extra battles outside of quests and paralogues. I wish the difficulty wasn't a choice between steamrolling and unfair (not unbeatable, but it reminds me of Lunatic from Awakening. Thankfully, what tools you have are also unfair after a while.)
A solid 8/10 for me. I wouldn't rank any other game higher, but every other game has its own share of flaws. I don't have a perfect game, but I can enjoy all of them (Except maybe redoing revelations...ugh)
TL;DR - If it didn't reuse maps and have the sluggish monastery, then it would be the best. As it is now, it's just tied with a lot of the other games.
Last edited:
Three Houses has some of the best characterization in the series, I think, though part of that probably has to do with just how long you have to deal with them. I liked my Golden Deer Kids though.
Gameplay wise though, the part I prefer, wasn't as good as before though, imo. For all the customization you're actually given, choices aren't really all that meaningful. As was mentioned, every character can do pretty much everything anyway and the removal of weapons triangles, while I got over it for the sake of the game, was sorely missed and helped make class identity feel pretty weak outside of cosmetics. The length of the routes also makes repeat playthroughs tedious, so I simply haven't done them yet, despite thinking I would (though part of that is knowing secondhand that 80% of the raw gameplay doesn't actually change anyway). While just as easy (if not easier), Sacred Stones had 2 distinct routes, stronger class identity and a shorter, less bloated runtime, so I'd still put SS above 3H just for that.
I think in a lot of ways, it's a step in the right direction overall compared to the trainwreck of Fates, but it's still not quite where I'd like it to be overall.
Gameplay wise though, the part I prefer, wasn't as good as before though, imo. For all the customization you're actually given, choices aren't really all that meaningful. As was mentioned, every character can do pretty much everything anyway and the removal of weapons triangles, while I got over it for the sake of the game, was sorely missed and helped make class identity feel pretty weak outside of cosmetics. The length of the routes also makes repeat playthroughs tedious, so I simply haven't done them yet, despite thinking I would (though part of that is knowing secondhand that 80% of the raw gameplay doesn't actually change anyway). While just as easy (if not easier), Sacred Stones had 2 distinct routes, stronger class identity and a shorter, less bloated runtime, so I'd still put SS above 3H just for that.
I think in a lot of ways, it's a step in the right direction overall compared to the trainwreck of Fates, but it's still not quite where I'd like it to be overall.
I haven't played FE5, but as someone that loves Conquest, the map design in TH is significantly less interesting (but not quite as boring as Awakening/Birthright) and the story in TH isn't good enough to match the ironic enjoyment of the story in Conquest.
I answered yes only because there wasn't a "I haven't decided yet, but it might be" answer. I lean towards yes though.
I have not played every single game in the series, but despite it's flaws, Three Houses felt the most engaging to me. Fates Conquest gameplay was great, but the story was pretty shit and one of the worst in the series. Three Houses easily is my favorite story and characters in the series. The fact that it's from four different routes makes it interesting, despite part 1 being largely the same for all three houses, and part 2 reusing maps between routes. FE has done the split thing before, namely Fates (they were all completely different games) and Sacred Stones (different routes with different maps that eventually converge, but have the same cast of characters), and Gaiden/SoV. Gaiden had done that the best with being able to switch between sides at any time, and the maps and characters were different.
The monastery stuff I can see why people didn't like on subsequent playthroughs, and I had the same issues to a degree, especially on part 1. However I really liked the personality the monastery adds to the characters. Seeing things like choosing to give the item to Catherine or Shamir, and seeing them argue over it, was neat. The customization of characters was really fun, and my favorite thing about it is being able to optimize it on subsequent playthroughs when you understand how all the systems work. Overall I liked the monastery and academy setting as it added a way of bonding with the characters that isn't simply "marry them" or "have a silly conversation with them".
I think the difficulty left something to be desired. On my first run, playing on Hard seemed like a "normal" to me, but that got easier in my second and third playthroughs. I decided to do NG+ on my fourth playthrough (Blue Lions, not even to part 2 yet), and I regret doing that and not picking Maddening. What I had heard about Maddening (such as the moving Death Knight) made it sound more like frustration than challenging. Looks like I will probably be wrong there... My Byleth was able to one-shot (really two attacks, but in the same turn) the Death Knight on the second and third encounters with him in Part 1.
They are clearly onto a lot of great ideas in Three Houses, which I think they could easily refine and come up with an even better game. Three Houses was my personal GotY. It sounded like a lot of the development was done by Koei Tecmo... If this is what that partnership is capable of, I hope they continue to co-develop it with them.
I have not played every single game in the series, but despite it's flaws, Three Houses felt the most engaging to me. Fates Conquest gameplay was great, but the story was pretty shit and one of the worst in the series. Three Houses easily is my favorite story and characters in the series. The fact that it's from four different routes makes it interesting, despite part 1 being largely the same for all three houses, and part 2 reusing maps between routes. FE has done the split thing before, namely Fates (they were all completely different games) and Sacred Stones (different routes with different maps that eventually converge, but have the same cast of characters), and Gaiden/SoV. Gaiden had done that the best with being able to switch between sides at any time, and the maps and characters were different.
The monastery stuff I can see why people didn't like on subsequent playthroughs, and I had the same issues to a degree, especially on part 1. However I really liked the personality the monastery adds to the characters. Seeing things like choosing to give the item to Catherine or Shamir, and seeing them argue over it, was neat. The customization of characters was really fun, and my favorite thing about it is being able to optimize it on subsequent playthroughs when you understand how all the systems work. Overall I liked the monastery and academy setting as it added a way of bonding with the characters that isn't simply "marry them" or "have a silly conversation with them".
I think the difficulty left something to be desired. On my first run, playing on Hard seemed like a "normal" to me, but that got easier in my second and third playthroughs. I decided to do NG+ on my fourth playthrough (Blue Lions, not even to part 2 yet), and I regret doing that and not picking Maddening. What I had heard about Maddening (such as the moving Death Knight) made it sound more like frustration than challenging. Looks like I will probably be wrong there... My Byleth was able to one-shot (really two attacks, but in the same turn) the Death Knight on the second and third encounters with him in Part 1.
They are clearly onto a lot of great ideas in Three Houses, which I think they could easily refine and come up with an even better game. Three Houses was my personal GotY. It sounded like a lot of the development was done by Koei Tecmo... If this is what that partnership is capable of, I hope they continue to co-develop it with them.
I don't think it's the best, but it's my second favorite Fire Emblem. I only voted "first step back on the right track" because of Fates. I didn't think that was the right direction for the series.
That's pretty interesting, sounds like it may place near the GBA and Tellius games. Although, map design isn't all there is to it- a good map mixes it up from time to time with new objectives, items to get, and characters to recruit among other things.
and that's a pretty damning statement for Houses story, but I believe it lol
Verdant Wind and Crimson Flower were definitely more focused on telling a story, while Azure Moon was much more about how the people of that house developed and how the events that unfolded helped them grow. Silver Snow really felt like it was just a giant lore explanation to be honest.
I voted "no" cause I don't see any decline in modern FE, not at all. Fire Emblem Three Houses is definitely a great Fire Emblem, but it has flaws like every others.
Enemy's AI is a step down from Fates, the Monastery is redundant and boring in the second part and the plot, which is overall very good, is fragmented in the wrong way: Claude's story is the only one who has a proper closure, the others are quite incomplete. The map recycle is too bad if you play every route, too, and the new job system is a hit or miss.
I don't see any improvement nor I think it's a misstep: in general, this series is too good, even a "bad" game is still a joy to play (except Shadow Dragon maybe). 3DS' Fire Emblems are great.
Enemy's AI is a step down from Fates, the Monastery is redundant and boring in the second part and the plot, which is overall very good, is fragmented in the wrong way: Claude's story is the only one who has a proper closure, the others are quite incomplete. The map recycle is too bad if you play every route, too, and the new job system is a hit or miss.
I don't see any improvement nor I think it's a misstep: in general, this series is too good, even a "bad" game is still a joy to play (except Shadow Dragon maybe). 3DS' Fire Emblems are great.
Way too easy, not enough strategy, the monastery sucked.
Still not a bad game and I don't regret buying it, but I never even finished my first run. Just lost interest.
Still not a bad game and I don't regret buying it, but I never even finished my first run. Just lost interest.
I think everything about the game makes it a top tier fire emblem except for one major component. The map design. The battles are not nearly as engrossing in this one due to them.
I'd say 60-70 hours if playing slowly and doing every optional battle you can. Is easy, this I agree, but 100h is what it took me to do 2 entire routes on Hard, so I strongly disagree that the game is that long.
I also want to say that I definitely agree with the Monastery comments in here. Loved it the first time around, gradually liked it less and less with each new route. The game being more replay-friendly would put in a much, MUCH, more favorable view for me.
Getting rid of the multiple routes in favor of a more concise, coherent story is something I really hope they go for next time. They tried twice with this multiple routes thing and both times the story was weaker as a result, I think it's time for them to go back to basics.
Overall, a lot of great things in this game that if improved upon, could make the next entry one of the best in the franchise.
And on a personal note, I honestly don't really like the art style. The character design all felt so generic, although I will admit a lot of the post-timeskip outfits were pretty great.
Getting rid of the multiple routes in favor of a more concise, coherent story is something I really hope they go for next time. They tried twice with this multiple routes thing and both times the story was weaker as a result, I think it's time for them to go back to basics.
Overall, a lot of great things in this game that if improved upon, could make the next entry one of the best in the franchise.
And on a personal note, I honestly don't really like the art style. The character design all felt so generic, although I will admit a lot of the post-timeskip outfits were pretty great.
I am afraid my favorite series has moved on and left me behind. The monastery stuff sucks the life out of the game and all I want is to continue the direction of Path of Radiance which was utter perfection for me especially the map design and the focus on great and strategic battles.
I say that in the sense that Houses's story isn't bad enough to be enjoyed ironically (like Conquest's) but it's not good enough to be particularly enthralling, either. It does make up for that a bit in the supports and the character writing, but the story itself is mediocre, even by Fire Emblem standards.
I'm going to abstain from voting only because I've only played FETH and very little of FEA. From what I've played so far (I need to continue playing...), I really REALLY enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. FEA isn't for me. It failed to capture me after the first couple hours of playing.
Personally no.
But it really depends cause it's such a cast driven game.
My favorites are Path of Radiance, Radiant Dawn and Conquest. For different reasons.
But it really depends cause it's such a cast driven game.
My favorites are Path of Radiance, Radiant Dawn and Conquest. For different reasons.
I've only played Three Houses so I will refrain from voting.
However the monastery and the first half of the game really sucked for playing through different routes. They need to avoid shit like that for the next game.
With that being said, I really enjoyed the game.
However the monastery and the first half of the game really sucked for playing through different routes. They need to avoid shit like that for the next game.
With that being said, I really enjoyed the game.
No, it doesn't come close to the Radiant duology.
It's a big step up from the trash 3DS entries though.
It's a big step up from the trash 3DS entries though.
for me the games used to be difficult strategy rpgs with interesting maps and designs. every map sucks in the new games.
Too many little issues that really add up, also undoing some good things even fates did like gender locking classes
It's nice that they cut back massively on the waifu weeb bullshit from the 3DS games. There were a lot of opportunities for shitty "fan service", where I ended up pleasantly surprised by the fact that I'm not being forced to literally pet a scantily clad, big-breasted anime woman to "build support". (Those of you saying the 3DS entries are better, really need to clarify why)
The soundtrack is really good, though probably not the best. The monastery gets old on subsequent plays, but I've personally not replayed a Fire Emblem before. I give TH credit for the fact that it's been worth the early game slog every time.
Also some of my favorite lord characters in a long, long time. They are all distinct, with their own motivations. Support conversations added so much more in this game than in the 3DS games, at the very least. Seeing some of the nobility students struggle with finding their own identities amidst the excessive obligations required by their lineage really humanized them. Seeing things like Caspar struggling with the consequences a rash decision made five years prior, Ingrid coming into her own as a valiant knight despite pressure from home for her to be a dutiful heir and wife, or Edelgard breaking down her walls and opening up about her motivations, add up to be so much better than the literal trash from the 3DS games. Fates felt like a game I couldn't play in front of my wife, because I never knew whether the next scene with Camilla would feature big anime tiddies shoved in her brother/sister's face. I'm really glad that bullshit isn't considered part of the package anymore.
The maps could use some work, but I don't think I've played excellent Fire Embem maps since GBA, though I haven't had the opportunity to play either of the the Radiant games.
I'm also a huge fan of how durability and magic were handled. Never actually losing the weapons encourages their use. Making spells something you learn instead of equip is also awesome. I like the fact that, although you're never locked into a particular class path, the game encourages you to pick one and stick with it. Archery is a bit too good though, especially bow knights.
I don't know what games I'd put over Three Houses, but I'd definitely put it above the 3DS games and Sacred Stones at least.
The soundtrack is really good, though probably not the best. The monastery gets old on subsequent plays, but I've personally not replayed a Fire Emblem before. I give TH credit for the fact that it's been worth the early game slog every time.
Also some of my favorite lord characters in a long, long time. They are all distinct, with their own motivations. Support conversations added so much more in this game than in the 3DS games, at the very least. Seeing some of the nobility students struggle with finding their own identities amidst the excessive obligations required by their lineage really humanized them. Seeing things like Caspar struggling with the consequences a rash decision made five years prior, Ingrid coming into her own as a valiant knight despite pressure from home for her to be a dutiful heir and wife, or Edelgard breaking down her walls and opening up about her motivations, add up to be so much better than the literal trash from the 3DS games. Fates felt like a game I couldn't play in front of my wife, because I never knew whether the next scene with Camilla would feature big anime tiddies shoved in her brother/sister's face. I'm really glad that bullshit isn't considered part of the package anymore.
The maps could use some work, but I don't think I've played excellent Fire Embem maps since GBA, though I haven't had the opportunity to play either of the the Radiant games.
I'm also a huge fan of how durability and magic were handled. Never actually losing the weapons encourages their use. Making spells something you learn instead of equip is also awesome. I like the fact that, although you're never locked into a particular class path, the game encourages you to pick one and stick with it. Archery is a bit too good though, especially bow knights.
I don't know what games I'd put over Three Houses, but I'd definitely put it above the 3DS games and Sacred Stones at least.
Poll is missing "tied for best". It's a fantastic game and sits at the top of the series along with Path of Radiance.
but see this is your personal experience, the average experience is more like 40-50 hours on first play through.
It's hard for me to judge the game in the context of the entire franchise as I've only played Awakening, the three Fates saga, SoV, and Three houses. The latter is my favourite by a huge margin, I really, really adore it. So for now it's absolutely the best so far. With that said the game does have significant flaws and I've heard fantastic things on the Tellius games, as well as Genealogy of the Holy war so I would love to play them (if only they weren't so hard to access).
This is basically how I expect I'll feel about it when I give it a try, some day. Just crazy to think there's no market for a focused, serious SRPG anymore.
As far as I can tell, Three Houses fixes the biggest problem I had with series by having me seriously consider how they want my units to develop in the long term. Path of Radiance was my first FE, and while I love the game, I was annoyed at how blind the challenge is. It expected me to prepare for later challenges without giving me an idea of how I should be developing my units to meet said challenges, so I ended up restarting my first play through around the halfway point. This also wouldn't be a problem if grinding was allowed, but that's not as engaging as making unit development a more hands-on process.
I like how you need to play 100+ hours at least to get close to full completion, going through Part 1 three times though is too much of a hassle.
Also love how improvisational this game is where you can class someone out of their strengths to find hidden abilities that add a unique flavor of gameplay.
Also love how improvisational this game is where you can class someone out of their strengths to find hidden abilities that add a unique flavor of gameplay.
They should had the monastery having changes when time passed, it would make it more bereable
It's probably somewhere in the middle for me.
Monastery was a slog, especially ~40% of the way through when I maxed out my professor rank, and halfway through, when I got all of my skill proficiencies I needed(Lunatic). Ended up more or less skipping it for the latter half of the game, tea parties seemed cool at first, but I ended up just using them for the +1 charm. Sidequests also aren't that great. Maps are dull, don't feel visually distinct, and get recycled. Gambits are also potentially way too strong.
This all being said, most of the characters are good, paralogues created some more interesting battles, most of the music is stellar, and so on.
I liked it, but I can't quite put it up there with the best of the best that FE has to offer. Especially with it being probably the least replayable Fire Emblem thanks to how long the monastery takes for stuff at the beginning.
Then again, I like Marth's games the best, so what do I know?
Monastery was a slog, especially ~40% of the way through when I maxed out my professor rank, and halfway through, when I got all of my skill proficiencies I needed(Lunatic). Ended up more or less skipping it for the latter half of the game, tea parties seemed cool at first, but I ended up just using them for the +1 charm. Sidequests also aren't that great. Maps are dull, don't feel visually distinct, and get recycled. Gambits are also potentially way too strong.
This all being said, most of the characters are good, paralogues created some more interesting battles, most of the music is stellar, and so on.
I liked it, but I can't quite put it up there with the best of the best that FE has to offer. Especially with it being probably the least replayable Fire Emblem thanks to how long the monastery takes for stuff at the beginning.
Then again, I like Marth's games the best, so what do I know?
I have yet to play it. I really like PoR and RD, Awakening I didn't like because of the simplistic map design/goals.
I really want to play it but the monastery part I don't think I'll like it, so I'm waiting for a sale so I can buy it at a lower price and if I don't like it at least I didn't pay full price on it.
I really want to play it but the monastery part I don't think I'll like it, so I'm waiting for a sale so I can buy it at a lower price and if I don't like it at least I didn't pay full price on it.