Ive been a Fire Emblem fan ever since 7 released in the west, played almost all of them since then. Last one I played was Fates, which I found an extremely off putting game. From the weird, nonsensical story, overly sexualized characters, weird relationship mechanics, strangely dark and glossed over themes, poor map design, etc etc. I just didnt even bother after that. Awakening also had some of these problems, but that was just a more overall enjoyable game. Fates just took these problems to a level that killed my interest in the series for a long time.
So are the switch games better, and actually emphasize strategy, or are they still designed for thirsty weebs first and foremost ?
But if it was up to me I'd probably rather play Three Hopes.
I didn't like it I'm 3H and then Engage makes it worse. In Engage, they give stat bonuses, so you should probably do it, but it's so tedious.you can outright ignore the base 95% of the time in engage and do just fine, you can't just ignore the base in 3H because it's half the game. when you're talking about stat bonuses, are you talking about meals or something? because you had to do a LOOOOT more meals in 3H. after getting a higher professor rank there's basically nothing to spend activity points on except meals
you can outright ignore the base 95% of the timeThat's exactly what I do, in both games.
three houses feels overambitious and engage feels underambitious
i have a hard time figuring out which i like more but it's probably 3H because edelgard <3
strangely dark and glossed over themes,
3 Houses is unapologetically dark, with no real designated good guys.
Those That Slither in the Dark are obviously the good guys.
Though as for player factions, the easiest way to describe it is that every faction thinks it's the good guys, and that they're doing the right things for the right reasons, but pretty much everyone is wrong about something . So in the end, everybody can wind up as an enemy to everyone else. And most of the conflict could be solved in about 15 minutes if everyone would just sit down and talk about things. But everyone's the hero of their own story - and you really only start seeing the ways in which they're wrong is if you play the other paths as well.
Though it's been pointed out that the color scheme itself can influence the perceptions of people who've played Fire Emblem games for a long time - the Kingdom is blue (the traditional color of the player's units), the Church is green (allied units), the Alliance is yellow (neutral units), and the Empire is red (enemy units). So more experienced players may be influenced into thinking Dmitri's path is the "good" one, the Church is your ally, the Alliance is mostly a distraction, and the Empire is the true enemy.
But as has been said, Edelgard is obviously the real hero of the game. Black Eagles/Crimson Flower best timeline.
i think it's a fair assumption for average gamers
probably a fair initial assumption for everyone, given how the nations are presented at first. but got dam rhea got on my nerves so fast
if everyone would just sit down and talk about thingsThey do that on the best route a bit before the final chapter.
From what I've picked up from Fire Emblem fans by osmosis, apparently Three Houses is one of the best in the franchise while Engage kind of sucks.Would you recommend three Hopes to someone who didn't like Houses?
But if it was up to me I'd probably rather play Three Hopes.
Only if they're incredibly stupid.
They do that on the best route a bit before the final chapter.
Would you recommend three Hopes to someone who didn't like Houses?
They do that on the best route a bit before the final chapter.
It would depend on what you didn't like about Three Houses, honestly.I hated the lack of a clear villain, and how they had to put TwSitSh to fit it...but ultimately those guys had NO role in the story.
I hated the lack of a clear villain, and how they had to put TwSitSh to fit it...but ultimately those guys had NO role in the story.
Three Hopes is pretty much the same, though depending on the path TwSitS are much more significant villains and you can oppose them more directly.I'm still curious, tbh.
The closest thing Hopes has to a clear villain is Byleth - and you can even subvert that if you choose to give up your quest for vengeance and refuse to kill them.
Hopes has a more ambiguous ending, though. The war doesn't actually end, and it's implied things are going to keep happening even after the game ends. And your main character arguably has less influence on the lords you can side with (though it also avoids the time skip, so they also don't have some of the dramatic changes they go through in Houses).
Would you recommend three Hopes to someone who didn't like Houses?it depends on why you didn't like houses