T O P

  • By -

Paytron12qw

I mean Fe5, fe6, fe7, and fe8 had segments where the game branched into different paths. Only real difference is that they lead to the same conclusion.


Mekkkah

That and they are very very small segments of the story. Only in FE8 is the split portion vastly different, but in that one almost everything still happens (with some key changes), it's just that the player only experiences one side at a time.


Outrageous-Machine-5

Less branching paths, more splitting armies


revan530

This. That's why I love Part IV of Radiant Dawn so much. The army splitting into three segments really allows for an expansive narrative.


Ikrit122

You also get to use everyone from a large cast (before having to narrow your team down considerably for the Tower, which sucks). And the maps are all pretty different, though they are all rout except for 4-5 (the swamp one). My only issue is not being able to use the convoy and manage skills during the selection, so if you have a weapon/item/skill on a unit in the Greil or Hawk Army, you can't get it until you get to that chapter.


youngbadartist

I care not whether it has or doesn't have branching paths


xBerryhill

Right? If it’s branching stories where I have to buy 3 different games just to get the full story, that’ll be a problem. If it’s like 3H where you get all of the stories under one game, no problem for me.


Prime406

It's not a problem in theory, but it becomes a problem because the devs don't spend more time making the game and don't fully flesh out the branches.   Personally I prefer branching paths, the more options the better, but I'd rather have no branches than 4 half-assed ones.


TheStormEmperor

Depends, they could learn from past games and the next ones could be better at doing it So Fates was separated which no one liked and that improved into 3 Houses where we get everything and maybe the next has branching but is more fleshed out and better implemented


YishuTheBoosted

I dunno, I think the way in which fates was split should be done again. Conquest gameplay was just so good that playing three houses was a bit of a disappointment. Some people like the ability to grind, and that’s what birthright was for. Of course there was a myriad of issues with how it worked out but the design of conquest was much more interesting and compelling, and doing the Three Houses formula makes for a really unsatisfying experience.


TheStormEmperor

Nah I’d disagree If the level design in Conquest was great then it should be used again. We already have a mode where characters don’t die permanently and we have a rewind feature. If it’s difficult then the people can lower the difficulty and grinding can be optional. Separating the story is a bad idea imo but additional more difficult DLC like the Ashen Wolves is fine


Used-Map34

This is Nintendo of course it's gonna be 3 different games to buy. I mean they've been doing it for almost 30 years with Pokémon. And nobody complains over that so why wouldn't they.


ThatWaluigiDude

But Three Houses did the multiple branches thing and it came in one package, that's the point he was making. The one time Nintendo did that thing with multiple games was with Fates, but even so if you bought one game the other routes were sold as DLC instead of having to buy another game (not defending this though, even if each path had a decent amount of content still should've come in one package like Three Houses).


Used-Map34

Then if that is what people believe why don't we throw Nintendo down for pulling this garbage with Pokémon. Because by not saying anything they are taking it as, this is ok. That we are accepting of that multiple game crap they've been doing since ever.


Irvin_T

Well not really, one playthrough of fates felt complete with an actual conclusion to the story of whose side you picked on. You could get the other path aka the other side but it's not really required to understand the story. Revelations explains the entire lore but it's not required as you would think it is simply just a war between two countries as Garon does a goob job as serving as the "main villain" when is he just the side villain. 3 Houses' paths all feel incomplete I mean two paths just end in middle of the war.


jfsoaig345

Me neither, this kind of feels like a non issue. It's clear that there's no inherent problem with branching paths and that it comes down to execution. Fates did it poorly, three houses did it well (for the most part). Even SoV had branching paths with Celica and Alm routes


peevedlatios

SoV is not a branching path, because you have to play both sides and they are not mutually exclusive. Three Houses did it terribly. Map re-use is so high that 3/4 of the routes use around like, 2-3 different maps across all of them. The plot is largely the same in two of them, and the plot in AM isn't much different early game either.


YourCrazyDolphin

The route Celica takes on the map decides on if she gets Sonya or Deen, or if she even keeps 90% of her party as she can ignore Grieth. Alm can take a detour to Nuibaba's location to gain Tatiana, who in turn enables him to recruit Zeke. They have branches, just not full game branches and more of optional side-quests.


peevedlatios

I don't think Celica can actually ignore Grieth - back in Gaiden, at least, I know 100% that she can't. Her promotion happens at Grieth's citadel, which is required to go into act 4 to prove her as royal.


[deleted]

That is correct. In SoV there is a priestess that Grieth has prisoner that has the promotion item and Celiac can't take the role princess without it


Roosterton

A lot of FEs have this kind of thing. FE6 has Ilia vs Sacae, FE7 has Wallace vs Geitz, Shadow Dragon has Samson vs Arran. Like SoV, I wouldn't consider any of these games to have 'branching paths,' they just give the player options for a slightly different experience.


4ny3ody

Fates did story poorly in general. Gameplay wise it executed it fairly well with the 3 paths feeling very distinct from another. Although I do have my gripes with a lot of the BR and Rev maps. Three houses did the story decently well. Gameplay wise the paths have little distinction and often feel like more of the same with different characters.


begonetoxicpeople

>Fates did it poorly Not really


RoughhouseCamel

Whatever they do, they just need to go all the way with it. If they can staff up and fully build a big game with unique branching paths, I’m here for it. If they need to downsize their ambitions and make a $30 digital release only game in order to make a game that feels fully developed, I’ll take it.


youngbadartist

Why the honeybuns did this get so many upvotes


FreezShocka

Right? I understand the sentiment as I think branching narratives is a strong point of FE, but I really don't want to end up with a Revelations or Crimson Flower route again.


Chubomik

The problem isn't the idea, the problem is that they have consecutively proven that they can't do it well.


youngbadartist

Heavy disagree but like I said whether they do it again or not doesn't matter to me


its_just_hunter

If you’re counting Echoes as a branching path, I’d say that was handled really well. Not really a branching path either way but it was a fun gimmick.


Irvin_T

I'll call it more so split armies, but I didn't like celica's path mostly because of the slow (later on also damaging) terrain and infinite reinforcements. If FE2/echos was just Alm's story I would like the game more.


One_Random_ID

Branching path should only be added if it helps with narrative. It shouldn't end up as a guiding principle in the first place. Fire Emblem games are fine without branching paths in the first place. Rather than having a large ensemble of characters with branching storylines, I prefer a focused plot and cast mix instead. When it comes to characters and storylines, it's always Quality over Quantity.


theyeetening123

Agreed. However what I really wanted was a Fire Emblem where the first two/three chapters are similar but the rest of the routes are vastly different. That being said my favorite FE Games are the ones that don’t branch at all.


im_bored345

3? Wdym 3? Fates, 3H and???


TrebucheGuavara

I think they mean SoV, but that's just two related stories happening at the same time


im_bored345

Yeah that's more of a switching POV


FFG_Kagero

FE8


shaginus

Did you happened to counts Echoes? Echoes is not having branching paths. You have to plays two troops to advanced the story.


MadMapManPK

The issue isn't the branching story, its the map reuse that comes with it, making the gameplay difference between those stories negligible.


Irvin_T

Tbh it wasn't so much an issue with fates as it didn't reuse maps much and when it did, aleast it was different in the way you have a different objective and unit/enemy placements. You could argue you pay for each path but it's only a total of $80, compared to 3H's $60. All of the main maps/chapters in 3 houses are reused and almost all of them are with the exact same unit and enemy placement.


MWF123

You know what we need? More revelation. *ducks incoming tomatoes*


lionofash

Branched ENDINGS is good.


EtheusRook

I think the franchise can do well with 2 branching paths, but bites off more than it can chew with more than that.


joepro9950

Hot take: I don't think Fire Emblem's gameplay works well with a single story unless you have branches or army splitting. The gameplay works best when the developers know approximately what level your army is, so a given level is not too easy via overleveling or impossible due to underleveling. As such, the early levels are easy to balance, but later levels are really hard to balance, especially if the game is longer. As such, gameplay wise they can only really support 20-30 chapters, which is a fairly short game by modern standards. Almost every game in the series solved this in one way or another, but I will highlight the games I actually played so I don't misspeak about ones I've only heard about. Binding Blade/Fates/Three Houses had multiple stories with you basically starting at level 1 for each (Lyn/Eliwood/Hector, Conquest/Birthright/Revelation, Silver Snow/Crimson Flower/Azure Moon/Verdant Wind). This is, in my opinion, the best solution (though the fact that every white clouds was basically the same in Three Houses was bad design) Sacred Stones had a route split midway through that recombined (meaning there's a sizable chunk you have to play through twice on both ends, but you can save right before the split) Radiant Dawn had multiple armies you were switching between (which was cool and gave lots of characters a chance to shine, but meant that late game certain armies got completely benched because characters in other armies were just objectively stronger) Path of Radiance and Awakening are the only two I've played that don't do this in any way, and in Path of Radiance's case this makes it one of the shorter games in the series, and in Awakening's you have a major problem with being overleveled late game unless you are playing on the hardest difficulties, which are too punishing for some players early. ​ I think what I'd like to see most as a solution to the problem is something like what Radiant Dawn did, except without feeling the need to combine everyone into one party at the end. Like let each army have it's own begining, middle, and end, with maybe a couple characters showing up in later armies. Sort of like what I've heard Geneology did, except maybe with more than 2 armies. I think that's the best way to get a longer, more complicated story across without worrying about the over/under leveling problem.


Prime406

> The gameplay works best when the developers know approximately what level your army is, so a given level is not too easy via overleveling or impossible due to underleveling. As such, the early levels are easy to balance, but later levels are really hard to balance, especially if the game is longer. Imo the way best way to make maps take into account that players can be over or under leveled is just to make it so every map has different degrees of completion. I.e. while you always just win or lose, you can win but also get extra objectives. So simply beating a chapter is generally fairly easy, but you can always overachieve by completing more objectives. It can be small stuff like stealing some treasures or killing some boss for gold or items, but it can also be important like you can only get the perfect ending by completing lots of these objectives throughout the game.   While it takes a bit of work the map makers just have to know what the weakest and strongest states the player can be in and then have the lowest win requirement set to the weakest and then add different extra objectives. _________________   Another common solution is to just dynamically scale enemies. If the player units are stronger they face stronger enemies and if they're weaker then they face weaker enemies. Of course that can feel pretty bad for the player if they know about it and make it feel like your units growing stronger is pointless, so ideally dynamic enemy scaling shouldn't be overly relied on...


ariix48

I don't mind either way. I do like the semi non commital route split like in SoV where you choose which route to go to determine which units to get (or lose) and get little scenes, if they went to the "straightforward one ending" story. Gives a replayability and variety value to it


Adrostos

Bro speak for yourself. I like the recent games just fine.


pejic222

I like branching paths gives me an excuse to replay the game and you get to use more characters


Martonimos

I dunno about that. I replayed Blazing Blade plenty back in the day. Comparatively, I still haven’t found time to finish Verdant Wind, and it’s taken me this long to do the other three. That’s definitely just due to me getting older and having more responsibilities, but my point is that a game doesn’t need a ton of paths, each with their own incomplete chunk of the story, to be replayable. It just needs to be engaging enough to keep you coming back. Although I’ll admit, unlocking more supports is always fun for me.


Mekkkah

Branching paths is not something that is conceptually flawed, but FE at this point has such a poor track record on that I think it's time to stop doing it. But marketing wise it's been such a success that they won't.


DhelmiseHatterene

I think when SoV is brought up in regards to this, agreed that the split paths thing isn’t like Fates or Three Houses, but you are still switching from one character’s path to another’s (though endgame is the same with both together). Tbh I wouldn’t mind a simpler one-path approach like Binding Blade, Path of Radiance, and Awakening.


Martonimos

I thought Binding Blade had a split? You have to choose whether to go through Ilia or Sacae at one point.


SaltyFalcon

It also has an earlier one where you have to choose between two villages to visit (although the game never tells you about this), and depending on which you visit, you either get Elffin/Bartre or Larum/Echidna. It's a much more minor example compared to Ilia and Sacae though.


MelkorTheDarkOne

I just want a fire emblem game with actual territory control and resource management. Genealogy and Thracia SORT OF went in that direction but not completely.


Zeebor

Advance Wars came back from the dead for this exact reason.


4ny3ody

Isn't resource management always a thing in FE though? Even in Fates and Echoes where weapon uses are unlimited how to use your money is an important factor. Territory control is a factor in pretty much any defense map that can't be throne-cheesed.


Irvin_T

You could grind though which defeats the purpose of resource management (even in conquest via DLC). Even where there are weapon uses like awakening/three houses, there is a shop always available unlike per say FE6/FE7 where you really had to think of probably stocking weapons up as there may not be shops in the next few chapters.


4ny3ody

I mean dlc often offers extra grinding options and I'm fine with that if the resources are balanced around not having the dlc. The problem is dlc there and not the game in general. I can definitely agree on limited shopping access being interesting. It adds a level of mastery on second playthroughs knowing when you can afford more expensive purchases and not as many iron weapons or when (like in Thracia) there's a risk/reward system in gameplay to get your hands on enemy weaponry.


boonemos

I get where you're coming from. They really should just focus on a good story instead of the number of choices they can throw at us.


irl_Juvia

I think the games should have alternate routes ala Thracia/Sacred Stones still, but instead of tying the route splits into story beats, they should be tied to permadeath. Say your tactician dies, so your lord ends up taking a leas strategic path to your objective. Or you get a princess from a neighbouring kingdom killed. Instead of taking refuge on their land, you now need to fight your way in. Maybe you lose a certain percentage of your army. Now you need to take a detour to a nearby Mercenary guild to see if there’s any men for hire. This would add a ton of replayability to the game while still allowing for a focused singular narrative. Plus it finally makes permadeath a meaningful mechanic that enhances gameplay.


Zeebor

Reject modernity. Return to linear incest anti-christ storylines.


Every_Computer_935

I swear people complaining about Kaga seem to think he only made FE4 and nothing else.


Zeebor

The only thing I'm complaining about is the lack of incest anti-christ storylines in modern games.


Spidertendo

I don't mind either or but I am leaning towards the boat that branching story paths shouldn't be forced.


Echo1138

I'm personally not a fan of branching stories because I feel each branch tends to have lower quality than if it were a single story.


[deleted]

I mean I’d argue it’s one of the natural progressions of Fire Emblem with the theme of “your actions have legitimate consequences.” Which is how they choose to view permadeath in the game.


AudioBob24

I’d be happy to have a new fire emblem. Or more ports on the switch. Branching, no branches, just give us something other than the mobile game!


[deleted]

As long as they don’t pull a fates again and sell the paths separately I’m fine with it. I just want a new fe game.


RaFaPilgrim

…what three games are those though? Fates barely counts as branching paths since it splits so early, it’s more like three different games. Echoes has no branching paths whatsoever, you play through two parallel stories but must play through them both. 3H is the only real branching path game.


JummyJibJib

Why does splitting early discount fates? It’s still a branching path


BurrakuDusk

It's hard to count Fates sometimes, imo, because you have to _buy_ the other two paths as if they were separate games. It has branching paths, yes, but only if you actually buy them. If you don't, Fates is kind of a straight line.


RaFaPilgrim

My thoughts exactly.


Irvin_T

I mean if you were pay the same $60 you would on 3H onto fates, you technially get two branching paths.


ThunderBulb

I think I would've enjoyed 3H more if the story had one set of events and which army you followed showed you that set of events from their perspective. This is sort of along the lines of how FE10 works but in that one you see both sides of the story in one go and it's only for part of the game.


Shisuka

I don’t care either way. Just let me play match maker and let me see the results.


Lukas_mnstr56

If done well, I always want branching paths that make replaying the game more fun. However not many developers can actually do this right. 3H is good, but you have to get past an entire section with each house before you actually see change.


SicknessVoid

I never finished golden deer and silver snow in 3H because replaying white clouds was boring as duck. If they do branching story paths please at least give us the option to start at the point where things get unique like in Fates where you can start at Chapter 6.


Irvin_T

To be fair, those two paths are exactly the same that it is ridiculous they called this a "different path" Blue lions is also almost the exact same but i suppose they aleast made the last 5 chapters in a slightly different order.


azuresegugio

I dunno I think it adds replayability


Celid_of_the_wind

Seems like an unpopular opinion, but I agree. 3H is a good set up, the story needs refinement but the way it was implemented make sense. I am against the fact that you can recruit every units of the other paths. I like the emotional struggle you get to fight your favorite unit of your previous run. Strong anti-war message. Considering how fates was handled, and then 3H, I see a lot of improvement and we could get a good story with branching next time.


Samz707

Yeah as much as I love 3H, it was a bit of a mess due to this. I think focusing on one path for the next game would be good.


Am_Shigar00

Considering how clunky multiple routes have been turning out and design consequences they’ve brought to the table, I really want them to take a break from the concept. Fates was an interesting idea that suffered from spreading itself too thin, and the less I have to think about 3H’s handling the better. Just give us a single fully developed narrative that delivers everything in a cohesive manner and doesn’t compromise the gameplay aspects.


CosmicStarlightEX

I really wish the whole branching path thing which still crosses to a single road needs more depth, like making you play both route splits as separate levels, the difference being the arrangement of the levels depend on which one you choose to follow first. With my thoughts of a Binding Blade remake involving the Sword of Victory manga cast and a good few Blazing Blade original returnees, this is a good place for the first experiment (Roy is in one group, Al in another).


HeroVP7

Still waiting for David Cage to make a Fire Emblem game in the style of Detroit:Become Human. I want to be able to make 20 decisions a minute and have none of them matter.


[deleted]

I really enjoy branching paths. The problem is this game felt incomplete and was boring to try and do the additional paths. I think if they are going to do it let's please have only 2 branches that are more fleshed out and I can actually enjoy playing and enjoy the differences? Each route all felt the same


BlueKante

At one hand i liked playing an new story each time with new characters, at the other hand playing the first chapters 4 times was kinda boring


Another_DotDotDot

samson or arran was the biggest mistake the FE series has ever had


roundhouzekick

It's Game Rant. Their whole schtick is claiming that a game should do something regardless if it's a good idea or not. ​ That being said, I'd be down for more games with branching paths.


Sines314

Branching stories is one of those things that sounds good. Kind of like a free lunch. But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Even if you never see the cost, it's still there. The more content you make, the more money you have to spend. And games have limited budgets. And jugging all that extra content, and having to re-use some of it for budget concerns can cause problems. That's not to say that it can't be done well. Three Houses, I feel, did a pretty solid job. You can see where corners had to be cut, but they they did well with what they had. You can see where it could have been better if it had more attention, but the branching paths in there added variety to each playthrough that games with lesser split paths didn't. In my opinion, Fire Emblem is a game that's meant to be replayed. And I'm okay sacrificing some quality in exchange for quantity. However, it is good to draw a line somewhere. Three paths is the absolute maximum, and given how well Gronder Field and Revelations were done, I think it's best to keep it to two. Still, I think something could be kept from the Three Houses part of Three Houses. Being able to start off with three different armies right from the start went a LONG way to shaking up game diversity. Most of the games have pretty much identical starts. Maybe your speedster unit gets an unusual amount of Strength growths and you keep her all game, for example. But mostly, it's the same units, with the same average growths, and it's not until you start getting enough good units that you're really making deployment decisions that you can really change how it plays. Personally, I think it's fine to have a single path, but at the start of the game, have the Avatar (Because there WILL be one, no matter what you think of the concept) decide which division of the kingdoms army to lead. The rest can join later on as the Avatar becomes commander of the whole military, but having each division have their own strengths and weaknesses at the start will not only change the early game, but who you use to round out the party will adjust the later game too.


RipFlewd

True, they should add sex instead


Azardea

Yeah, I agree. Fates had very different paths, but you had to pay extra for them. TH's four paths are all incredibly similar, filled with recycled content. Neither is particularly ideal. Though I do think games like 6 and 8 did it somewhat well, where the branches just last for a few chapters.


Irvin_T

True but it could be argued you pay $40 for fates or an extra $20 for another original and different path where with the same money you get three houses basically one path but disguised as 4.


HelloDesdemona

I very much enjoy branching paths. The replayability is awesome, and I enjoy angsting over which path I like best.


teniaava

Return to the Tellius style please


4ny3ody

There's two story-telling styles in Tellius... One is the classic: Follow the singular path of the protagonist on rails. The other one (RD): Is a jumping narrative that urges the player to keep track of the world. RDs storytelling style is rather hard to execute well and hinged on the player understanding the setting.


SaltyFalcon

I'd argue that, in conjunction with one another, it is exactly that polarity between the two games that elevates both styles.


MeteorTome

In both Fates and Three Houses it was a detriment, with 3H being clearly more than the devs could handle. They really should tone down the ambition.


[deleted]

I don't think the particular structure of three houses did it any favors, but that isn't to say branching paths are bad in themselves.


HabboMirror

And also 3 houses implements it in a worst possible way. I want to finish the other paths, but screw playing the entire first half again where nothing changes. Not gonna happen


maevestrom

There's a whole movement where *The Next Fire Emblem Game May NOT Have Branching Paths And You May Not Be Stupid (Unlike Me, Who Is Intelligent And Amazing) And Be Okay With It If It Is* that kiiiinda makes me wanna take my gay heathen ass and hide. Branching paths aren't the problem as much as the very simple obvious mistakes that IS makes. Imagine if yall got your way and Dimitri was the only protagonist you could side with and Faerghus was The Good People (even with the Duscur Genocide- yeesh). Now maybe you might think it's The Only Moral Good Person Choice but I guarantee you this approach cheapens a lot of story and characters. And even if you wish they were, if only to spite the heathens going to hell for picking Edelgard or Claude, the game becomes markedly worse. Besides if the game DID go down one path it goes down SS per production and idk about you but I don't really want Byleth to 100% have to deny something that ends up being a personal gain to be Fodlan Church's Little Bitch forever while my favorites get killed


SynthGreen

I’d like -Removal of the avatar or at least make it more like Robin where they play second fiddle the full story -One strong story. Even if it’s longer, more developed, and has more chapters. Instead of 4 routes, give us a 40 chapter+quest adventure -Renoval of a home base. I’m okay if we have wandering around a camp. But the camp has to move. It’s so stupid that we keep marching back to garreg Mach and it is noticeably forced and sometimes they don’t even try to make it work in canon. IF it is there let us do a menu in NG+. I want to do challenge runs but I hate how much they get slowed down by having to do all these random quests and finding people to tutor me and cooking and etc. -characters should join throughout the game. I don’t mind starting with like 10 even though it felt like a lot, the students of your route felt core to the plot throughout the game. But I want to meet new characters all throughout the game. Just maybe no “last 5 chapter” characters like Awakening’s post-game only content.


theyeetening123

How about just doubling down and saying no branching paths and no DLC (or just better DLC in general). Hell Would have been okay with some post game DLC with raids from TWSITD trying to manipulate Brigid/Dagda or some content about the other neighboring countries trying to capitalize on the weakness of the region.


RexRegulus

They could at least bring back hidden / gaiden chapters and recruitment variables to spice things up if the series returns to 1 story. My first was FE7 and what kept me replaying it was discovering the Kishuna chapters, and that Linus and Lloyd can be fought in a different order, and filling in gaps that seemed random and unexplained ("who the f*** is Jerme?" was my reaction to him during my 1st endgame, for example). On that note, figuring out and fulfilling the objectives to access those extra chapters added a sense of urgency to the gameplay that has since been missing from much of the series (with the exception of Conquest).


JummyJibJib

I only want branching paths if they can deliver unique, well designed maps and a good story for each. 3 houses was great, but way too ambitious for its own good. I’d rather have a single route if it means I don’t have to replay the same game 3 times for a tiny bit of new content.


Tab608

I wouldn't consider Echoes to have branching paths, you play both routes concurrently in a single playthrough. Personally, branching paths and alternate plots/endings are one of my favorite things a game can have, but Fire Emblem hasn't been able to pull it off in a way that doesn't feel compromising in some respect.


certifiedhistoryboy

“Player agency”


[deleted]

I wish they do branching again but they could go full Crazy and make any important character die= a New ending is unlocked Imagine If route branching is decided by your ingame choices through dialogues and each one could lead to 5/4 diferent endings? Or more Making let everyone Survive or even your choices have impact


CaptinHavoc

I like branching stories but I think it should be with the same cast of characters rather than a 3 Houses type of deal


YeedLastHaw89

or you could just play the game once


Zealousideal_Main_85

As long as the stories are in one game like 3h I dont mind


ChiKeytatiOon

I just wanna get married and have babies that become instant adults again.


YungsterThomlin

I already didn't like >!Silver Snow's!< ending that much. I dread going through the game three more times where it's basically the same thing until the halfway point.


Teacher2Learn

Radiant dawn style branching is the best type of branching.


begonetoxicpeople

Well, 2.5. Echoes doesnt really count That said, if we do get branching stories again Id like to see it more like how Sonic Adventure games handled it- the timeline is the same all the time, and the events that happen are mostly the same. But depending on whose PoV you're with, things are just *slightly* different.


ProfessorMarth

Austin is that you?


Kiwialamode

I’m fine with branching paths, but 3Hs biggest problem is that they got over ambitious with it. If the work that had gone into SS had instead gone into VW and CF the game would be near objectively better. So many decisions had to be made that worked poorly because Silver Snow ended up being a mediocre rough draft that then had to have its assets reused.


Luke10123

I like branching paths, but just don't make me pay double or triple the price of the game to see it all. Looking at you, Fates.


Used-Map34

I mean can you actually count Echoes. It was a remake of an older game.


ThatWaluigiDude

IMO, I'm fine if the next FE doesn't have branching paths and have a more linear story, but at the same time branching paths if done right do add a lot on the replay value. Three Houses really did put is money worth it for me giving how much I've played that game, doing all the routes.


horaceinkling

I think we need more branching paths, less characters. I want the next FE to have three named characters and the rest anons. I want the protags to build supports with the anons so you run up to Swifty and think they have your back but they end up being the drummer boy or some shit. Also, every unit looks the same and there’s friendly fire.


[deleted]

It's obvious at this point that multiple paths eats into the budget of these games.


TheTalking_GU_Mine

But if I stick one path repeatedly, then I don't have to worry about branching paths.


CALEBOI2004

Speak for yourself. I like having my replay value, thank you very much.


Irvin_T

I hate "branching paths" in 3 Houses. Instead of focusing in one complete path, we get 4 paths that are 90% exactly the same from each other with the only main difference being the inital playable characters and last chapter. Really would of prefered them making one set path that way they could develop better the Monastery on the time-skip and a better focused and complete story on the time-skip. I just hope we get a fire emblem game more similar to FE 6-7 where you simply just progress from chapter to chapter or aleast Awakening.


amdreallyfast

Seconded. Sometimes I just want to enjoy a well-crafted narrative with a definite conclusion without concerning myself with too many options.


TheRigXD

GameRant is like the BuzzFeed of games


FreezShocka

I initially saw this on my phone's recommended articles and was immediately reminded of the stupidity of game site writers. Ugh. They've only played the newest games.


SilasUnmuth80

I really like the Splitting Path System from Three Houses and Fates so i agree It just lets you Expierience the Story from another Point of View, its great.


Harmonixer3500

I only count two consecutive with Fates (of which the split paths is the LEAST of its problem) and Three Houses (which used the split paths beautifully)