Yes, and one of the best strategy games of all time. It is lengthy, full of great characters and awesome battles,and to me it was perfectly balanced on hard... not too hard not too easy, just the way i enjoy it.
... just epic.
... just epic.
-
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.
Is Fire Emblem Three Houses the best game in the series?
- Thread starter Deleted member 58846
- Start date
Hard mode is equivalent to normal mode in the other games. I typically recommend starting on it unless you are completely new to this type of game.
I'd like to try it but I'm locked in to a normal play through and no way I'm playing through the game twice.
It's the first one I've played (all of the Western ones save the Wii game) that I couldn't finish.
Just about every decision it made, I felt made the game worse.
-Monastery sections slow repetitive and dull
-Three storylines meant none of the characterizations or plots made full sense
-All (most) of the characters introduced at the start and no recruitment outside of grinding affection removed a series staple I enjoyed
-No weapons triangle similar to above
-Focusing on the monastery killed the sense of place for the world
-Letting you marry your students, ugh
Three Houses was probably my disappointment of the year.
Just about every decision it made, I felt made the game worse.
-Monastery sections slow repetitive and dull
-Three storylines meant none of the characterizations or plots made full sense
-All (most) of the characters introduced at the start and no recruitment outside of grinding affection removed a series staple I enjoyed
-No weapons triangle similar to above
-Focusing on the monastery killed the sense of place for the world
-Letting you marry your students, ugh
Three Houses was probably my disappointment of the year.
I've only played 3 games in the series, Awakening, Fates, and Three Houses, and 3H is the best of those 3.
So I won't vote since I haven't played a majority of the games, but I will say I like the direction that they took with this game. I'm interested with where they go from here, though if they just make each game a "school teacher" sim from here on out will be disappointing.
So I won't vote since I haven't played a majority of the games, but I will say I like the direction that they took with this game. I'm interested with where they go from here, though if they just make each game a "school teacher" sim from here on out will be disappointing.
I liked awakening more, but I LOVED three houses, and put 150 hours into it.
I wish they had an ability to pause the battles at any time like Fire Emblem Echoes did where you can then move around the entire scene. I kind of miss the weapon triangle and want it back but keep the claws as a neutral option.
I wish they had an ability to pause the battles at any time like Fire Emblem Echoes did where you can then move around the entire scene. I kind of miss the weapon triangle and want it back but keep the claws as a neutral option.
Thats what the internet says on Normal difficulty (40 to 60) which is what it took my wife to beat the game on Normal
not finding consensus on hard other than peoples own opinions. At 100 I played at what I thought was a normal pace and was stomping pretty much everyone till the normal fight
either way, even at 70 or even 60 hours. Playing that long at that dofficulty level in order to get 1/3rd of the story was not rewarding.
Ahahahaha no.
Map/objective design was the same bland stuff that the series has been mired in post Radiant games with the exception of Conquest. The problem with Conquest however was that most players couldn't slog through the story to get to the interesting maps. Monastery drags and there really needed to be at least a couple of recruitable in-battle units.
Also, hot take time - the class flexibility is hurting the series. Before, maps could be designed knowing that the player would have a thief, a cavalier, etc. That contributed to the almost puzzle like nature of the best FE maps. I need to get my thief to this location before this turn and so on and so forth. TH just throws chest keys at you and tells you to go nuts. Forget cool bonus items to steal.
Also, where are my villages dammit. And yes, the weapon triangle does need to come back.
Map/objective design was the same bland stuff that the series has been mired in post Radiant games with the exception of Conquest. The problem with Conquest however was that most players couldn't slog through the story to get to the interesting maps. Monastery drags and there really needed to be at least a couple of recruitable in-battle units.
Also, hot take time - the class flexibility is hurting the series. Before, maps could be designed knowing that the player would have a thief, a cavalier, etc. That contributed to the almost puzzle like nature of the best FE maps. I need to get my thief to this location before this turn and so on and so forth. TH just throws chest keys at you and tells you to go nuts. Forget cool bonus items to steal.
Also, where are my villages dammit. And yes, the weapon triangle does need to come back.
I'm a dirty GBA stan- FE7 remains perfection do not @ me.
Last edited:
It might as well be. The characters haven't been this memorable or likable since... ever. While Awakening had compelling characters, the 3H guys are just extremely hard to forget.
Different strokes for different folks I guess, for me as someone who've played and beat many previous FE games, I find this to be the best one, definitely the most fun I've had with a FE game ever and my personal GOTY.
It's a dramatic step up from Fates in terms of basic writing competence, and I think for normal humans it's a better direction for the franchise than doubling down on shameless pandering. However, the lack of difficulty and the padded nature of the Monastery segments really started to grate after a while, and I have yet to finish my second playthrough because of it. I don't want to sleepwalk my way through a game like this when each playthrough is like 40-60 hours long.
Say what you will about how hilariously awful Conquest's story is, that game has some solid-ass map design. It maybe goes a little too far in terms of trial-and-error cruelty, but it's also the most interesting the series has been from a gameplay perspective since the Radiance games.
Say what you will about how hilariously awful Conquest's story is, that game has some solid-ass map design. It maybe goes a little too far in terms of trial-and-error cruelty, but it's also the most interesting the series has been from a gameplay perspective since the Radiance games.
Great step in the right direction but I still feel like Shadows of Valentia (outside of the map designs) tops all of it. Magic uses HP which means you can't just roflstomp everything, the classes are better defined imo, I don't like the aesthetics of the classes in Three Houses as they're discount versions of the good stuff but fill the same role, and the world building and gameplay of the monastery is really bad.
Great game! Great character writing! Great support convos! But unless they combine the better drama/world/storytelling from Shadows of VAlentia with these new mechanics I don't think it'll ever top SoV. (that's ignoring subjective things like the aesthetics of a less modern world, the VN perspective giving a lot of insight into the main characters, and the art design/direction being better in almost every way to me as well)
Great game! Great character writing! Great support convos! But unless they combine the better drama/world/storytelling from Shadows of VAlentia with these new mechanics I don't think it'll ever top SoV. (that's ignoring subjective things like the aesthetics of a less modern world, the VN perspective giving a lot of insight into the main characters, and the art design/direction being better in almost every way to me as well)
I really can't call a game that gets half it's playtime total from doing nothing but running around a castle effectively doing nothing but a poor persona time management impression as "the best".
Still a good game though for the most part.
Still a good game though for the most part.
Selling more is only a mark of quality until it disagrees with your subjective worldview.
Feeling people are stuck in the past is a lot easier than considering that people might have legitimate reasons they like the older games.
It's the only one I've played so I guess I can't vote :P
I'm interested in going back and playing old ones, but the lack of Divine Pulse (aside from Echoes), is kind of scaring me off. I don't mind a hard game (I'm playing maddening mode in Three Houses), but it would be really sad to make a single mistake at the end of an hour long battle and have to redo it. So right now I'm kind of holding out for future games in the series and remakes, where they may put something like Divine Pulse in.
I'm interested in going back and playing old ones, but the lack of Divine Pulse (aside from Echoes), is kind of scaring me off. I don't mind a hard game (I'm playing maddening mode in Three Houses), but it would be really sad to make a single mistake at the end of an hour long battle and have to redo it. So right now I'm kind of holding out for future games in the series and remakes, where they may put something like Divine Pulse in.
I really enjoyed it but I wouldn't call it the best, I still prefer Genealogy of the holy war and POR more. Still a lot of complaints people have I didn't really have, hard mode was an okay challenge and for edelgard route, it got pretty tough near the end. I liked the school/monastery aspect, it probably gets tiring during repeated playthroughs but I'm pacing them out so I don't do them all in a month lol. The game is definitely a step in the right direction either way.
I'm not quite ready to call it yet, I do still have two paths (Church and Golden Deer) and there's the MYSTERY DLC that could add to the package substantially.
But it's definitely between this and Path of Radiance for me, I'm almost ready to give PoR another run just to refresh my memory, in any case Three Houses is the most I've enjoyed an FE game since.
But it's definitely between this and Path of Radiance for me, I'm almost ready to give PoR another run just to refresh my memory, in any case Three Houses is the most I've enjoyed an FE game since.
Definitely one of the best, yeah. I voted yes for simplicity's sake, but ultimately, the character writing really carries the day here. I may have issues with other parts of the fame, but considering how much time you spend just sorta hanging out with the main cast, that strength is paramount.
I do think though that the game, if not considered the Radiant games as a whole plot, has the best story overall, with a lot of lore and details, well written too (not as good as Echoes, but definitely an improvement over the others). Like, have you ever tried to read the books in the library? There are explanations about every family in the game and the subplot about the Blayddyd family assassination and Duscur is different from same kind of trope in other Fire Emblem.
To be pedantic, it's no longer a strategy game when the game allows infinite grinding and resources, therefore bypassing economy elements.
No, but it's damn close. The monastery gets tedious post time skip, there's not enough reason to use the majority of the classes, and the story crumples a bit under the weight of it's own ambition. A more refined take on Three Houses gameplay wise with a more focused plot could easily be the best game in the series.
three houses doesn't have infinite grinding or infinite resources outside of the joke difficulty mode, and he's talking about Hard in that quote
My story felt really incomplete and unsatisfying (I played as Black Eagles). I know I need to go back and look at other routes thouhg.
I feel like Fire Emblem is a series where it's not really possible for their to be a consensus "best game". It's a series that is always reinventing itself and as a result has a lot of fans who want very different things from it.
If we're talking Three Houses, I think that it lacks a good difficulty option, hard is too easy but maddening often just feels obnoxious and frustrating. Maps are reused heavily and the plot, while handled better than Fates still feels like it was hamstrung by being split into four routes. At the same time, it offers a ton in terms of unit variety and overall content (even if it is reused) and the writing is still decent enough overall
Another thing to note is that mechanically, it's extremely easy to break with things like stride and consistent access to warping. Fun to use, but if your looking for a challenge you'll have to impose it on yourself.
I like it a lot, but it's also the most recent game in the series, which might be influencing my opinion on it. I honestly don't know what my favorite is personally.
If we're talking Three Houses, I think that it lacks a good difficulty option, hard is too easy but maddening often just feels obnoxious and frustrating. Maps are reused heavily and the plot, while handled better than Fates still feels like it was hamstrung by being split into four routes. At the same time, it offers a ton in terms of unit variety and overall content (even if it is reused) and the writing is still decent enough overall
Another thing to note is that mechanically, it's extremely easy to break with things like stride and consistent access to warping. Fun to use, but if your looking for a challenge you'll have to impose it on yourself.
I like it a lot, but it's also the most recent game in the series, which might be influencing my opinion on it. I honestly don't know what my favorite is personally.
No. Not even close. TH feels like a diet Persona but still lacks even that. The story and characters not good at all, along with map design and other aspects. Especially not compared to Path of Radiance or the other FE. Obviously some aspects are better, visuals, etc. But the story and characters have gotten worse and worse since Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn. Those were the last two FE game where everything was actually written well, then it's just been downhill from there. Characters like Ike or the Black Knight are great because they had good writing and development. Can't say the same for a single character from Three Houses.
Still a good game for the most part and one of the my favorite games this year, but it is most certainly not the best FE game.
Still a good game for the most part and one of the my favorite games this year, but it is most certainly not the best FE game.
Last edited:
I chose "It's a first step back on the right track":
PROS
PROS
- Excellent character development that twists several conventions - some characters that I disliked were often turned around by explaining their backgrounds.
- Romance done right - not everyone needed to like everyone which lead to tighter writing and scripts.
- Legit English dub.
- Incredible production values.
- The King of Content (compared to other FE games).
- Game engine - while great for portraying large scale battles, often felt stiff & lifeless.
- Gameplay (from what I've experienced so far) is basic compared to titles past.
- Monastery becomes a grind midway through the game.
- Open-ended nature of class upgrades contributes to the "lifelessness" - visually, units lack personality and animation is notably used among all characters.
to be fair, that's more a symptom of the difficulty problems than anything else
when Maddening isn't being really obnoxious (and it's past the ridiculous difficulty hump of the first four chapters) Stride and Warp are reasonably well-balanced tools that allow key units to get a bit of extra mobility. Stride and Warp just speed up the inevitable "march your units forward and let the enemy suicide on them" gameplay on Hard
yes, and I actually like the monastery bit, makes you appreciate the characters more, they aren't just profile pictures you see during combat here
No, but I think it's a good entry. I appreciate the bigger focus on characters and the monastery has some cools ideas. I'm hoping the next entry focuses on a single group that branches out from story decisions rather than having multiple groups you pick from at the beginning.
While it could be improved, it's my GOTY and a strong contender for GOTG for me. Loved the vibe, setting, characters, music, stories. Only beat GD and BE-E so far
Conquest has the best gameplay
Awakening has the best characters
I voted yes for three houses because it has a good balanced mix.
On a side note, I hope the next FE moves away from Royals and Nobles. I want to start with a common villager/farmer group who aren't chosen ones or secretly Royals.
Awakening has the best characters
I voted yes for three houses because it has a good balanced mix.
On a side note, I hope the next FE moves away from Royals and Nobles. I want to start with a common villager/farmer group who aren't chosen ones or secretly Royals.
None of the poll options are a good representation of what I think about Three Houses.
Fates, and specifically Conquest, is the best Fire Emblem when it comes to anything that happens on the battle maps, which is 95% of what you do in a Fire Emblem game not called Three Houses. After Awakening—which was sort of a "greatest hits" summation of ideas from across the series in an extremely polished and appealing new package, and highly enjoyable on the surface—I had a checklist of all the problems with the systems design that held it back, and which I hoped would be addressed in the next FE. Awakening is excellent, mind you, but ultimately a casual-friendly entry/reentry point beset with a ton of issues involving difficulty design, class/skill balancing, map/objective variety, itemization and resource flow, player/CPU power asymmetry, and much more.
So I was awed and surprised when Fates came along and did the unexpected by addressing every single issue on my list—every one—while miraculously assuaging my concerns about the removal of weapon durability, and pushing the envelope with demanding forms of tactical thinking that aren't reducible to the arithmetical busy-work of a pure numbers game. Conquest, in particular, is peak Fire Emblem when it comes to posing an endless variety of specific tactical problems to untangle, from specific enemy pair setups to interactions of skills and map layouts. There are specific corridors or hotspots on specific Conquest maps that were more memorable experiences to me, to this day, than some entire video games.
Three Houses could very well be my favourite of the series holistically—ask me again in a few years—but I can't make a case for it as a definitive FE experience when much of what it accomplishes actually comes from taking the focus off the battling, which proportionally now accounts for far less of the total experience. I do think it's an incredible management game and also one of first-party Nintendo's high points when it comes to narrative—never a strength of this series traditionally. (Which, incidentally, is why I cannot comprehend the whole backlash against Fates from people who apparently merely see the battles as a way to get to the story and supports, because really: who are these people and why are they even playing this series? It's a perspective I find completely alien.) As with Awakening, I think the unquantifiable X factor of FE3H's cast and charm, combined with the sheer volume of new toys to play with, paper over a lot of systems/map-level issues that become apparent when you dig into the game deeply.
It unfortunately reverts to some of Awakening's worse impulses, if not to the same severity; and over multiple routes—or even within one route if you're comprehensive enough about unlocking Paralogues—it also becomes extremely apparent that the amount of playable map content in 3H is insufficient to support the ambition of the game. I suppose that happens when you're paying for one game and not two and a half like Fates—what we have is already a pretty amazing volume of content for a $60 experience—but 3H is still fundamentally one game's worth of maps and roster spots stretched out over multiple routes, and far closer to the branching experience of the Eirika/Ephraim split in Sacred Stones than to a project of Fates' remarkable scope. The redundancy sets in quickly. I also have very mixed views towards what the presence of Divine Pulse does to the difficulty design, pacing, and high-stakes tension—a noticeable effect even if you restrain yourself from using the feature. But 3H brings so much to the table outside of the core tactical experience that I think it's easy to forgive a lot of this. For one thing, the mechanics encourage a freer, more open spacing than was previously typical in FE—lots of room for movement and hit-and-run teamwork; less reliance on tight defensive clusters—and 3H is fresh enough in this respect that I don't even mind how much easier it feels as a result.
The thing is, Fire Emblem has historically demonstrated so many different impulses tugging it in varying directions that you can't pick a definitive favourite without excluding something else—much as how 3D Mario splits along exploration-oriented and platforming-oriented entries, or how 3D Zelda splits along dungeon-centric and world-centric experiences. Before Fates came along, I might have said my favourites were Path of Radiance and Awakening—two very different visions of the series with their own limitations and shortcomings. Now I'd say that Conquest has displaced PoR as the definitive campaign of the focused, propulsive lineage of perfectionistic endurance in the face of attrition; while Three Houses has displaced Awakening as the catch-all extravaganza with its own forward-thinking sense of identity.
Related reading: I wrote this about Conquest a while back, and also jotted down a lot of thoughts about my first route through FE3H. I wrote an even larger set of notes after my second route, but never posted it here; I might return to it once I've played even more of the game.
Fates, and specifically Conquest, is the best Fire Emblem when it comes to anything that happens on the battle maps, which is 95% of what you do in a Fire Emblem game not called Three Houses. After Awakening—which was sort of a "greatest hits" summation of ideas from across the series in an extremely polished and appealing new package, and highly enjoyable on the surface—I had a checklist of all the problems with the systems design that held it back, and which I hoped would be addressed in the next FE. Awakening is excellent, mind you, but ultimately a casual-friendly entry/reentry point beset with a ton of issues involving difficulty design, class/skill balancing, map/objective variety, itemization and resource flow, player/CPU power asymmetry, and much more.
So I was awed and surprised when Fates came along and did the unexpected by addressing every single issue on my list—every one—while miraculously assuaging my concerns about the removal of weapon durability, and pushing the envelope with demanding forms of tactical thinking that aren't reducible to the arithmetical busy-work of a pure numbers game. Conquest, in particular, is peak Fire Emblem when it comes to posing an endless variety of specific tactical problems to untangle, from specific enemy pair setups to interactions of skills and map layouts. There are specific corridors or hotspots on specific Conquest maps that were more memorable experiences to me, to this day, than some entire video games.
Three Houses could very well be my favourite of the series holistically—ask me again in a few years—but I can't make a case for it as a definitive FE experience when much of what it accomplishes actually comes from taking the focus off the battling, which proportionally now accounts for far less of the total experience. I do think it's an incredible management game and also one of first-party Nintendo's high points when it comes to narrative—never a strength of this series traditionally. (Which, incidentally, is why I cannot comprehend the whole backlash against Fates from people who apparently merely see the battles as a way to get to the story and supports, because really: who are these people and why are they even playing this series? It's a perspective I find completely alien.) As with Awakening, I think the unquantifiable X factor of FE3H's cast and charm, combined with the sheer volume of new toys to play with, paper over a lot of systems/map-level issues that become apparent when you dig into the game deeply.
It unfortunately reverts to some of Awakening's worse impulses, if not to the same severity; and over multiple routes—or even within one route if you're comprehensive enough about unlocking Paralogues—it also becomes extremely apparent that the amount of playable map content in 3H is insufficient to support the ambition of the game. I suppose that happens when you're paying for one game and not two and a half like Fates—what we have is already a pretty amazing volume of content for a $60 experience—but 3H is still fundamentally one game's worth of maps and roster spots stretched out over multiple routes, and far closer to the branching experience of the Eirika/Ephraim split in Sacred Stones than to a project of Fates' remarkable scope. The redundancy sets in quickly. I also have very mixed views towards what the presence of Divine Pulse does to the difficulty design, pacing, and high-stakes tension—a noticeable effect even if you restrain yourself from using the feature. But 3H brings so much to the table outside of the core tactical experience that I think it's easy to forgive a lot of this. For one thing, the mechanics encourage a freer, more open spacing than was previously typical in FE—lots of room for movement and hit-and-run teamwork; less reliance on tight defensive clusters—and 3H is fresh enough in this respect that I don't even mind how much easier it feels as a result.
The thing is, Fire Emblem has historically demonstrated so many different impulses tugging it in varying directions that you can't pick a definitive favourite without excluding something else—much as how 3D Mario splits along exploration-oriented and platforming-oriented entries, or how 3D Zelda splits along dungeon-centric and world-centric experiences. Before Fates came along, I might have said my favourites were Path of Radiance and Awakening—two very different visions of the series with their own limitations and shortcomings. Now I'd say that Conquest has displaced PoR as the definitive campaign of the focused, propulsive lineage of perfectionistic endurance in the face of attrition; while Three Houses has displaced Awakening as the catch-all extravaganza with its own forward-thinking sense of identity.
Related reading: I wrote this about Conquest a while back, and also jotted down a lot of thoughts about my first route through FE3H. I wrote an even larger set of notes after my second route, but never posted it here; I might return to it once I've played even more of the game.
Last edited:
You can reclass to gain better growth rates and weapons don't break. My point stands.
Can someone point out the best place to start in the Fire Emblem series of games?
I've not played any of the games before, but thinking of picking it up on Switch. I can easily purchase older games for older systems if needed, as I ideally want to find a good starting point so I'm not missing out on key story bits
I've not played any of the games before, but thinking of picking it up on Switch. I can easily purchase older games for older systems if needed, as I ideally want to find a good starting point so I'm not missing out on key story bits
You are asking the impossible. FE is infatuated with how blue your blood is.
All Fire Emblem games are self-contained. Three Houses as a good place to start as any other.
Just pick up Three Houses. Most entries aren't related by story.