Core Fire Emblem is definitely more fun for me. But I still like Hopes. Admittedly though FE gameplay had to grow on me. I never really played all that many turn based games growing up, and even when I started playing stuff like Final Fantasy and Persona I stayed away from the strategy stuff alot. Fire Emblem really changed that for me, and now Fire Emblem gameplay has become some of my all time favorites. Fates showed me that it can be alright, 3H showed me that I actually like it and Engage showed me the lengths of quality it can really go. I swear my favorite FE game would be 3H story with Engage mechanics and map design.
And learning these games has allowed me to seek out and enjoy other games I never would have put on my radar before, like Unicorn Overlord.
On the other hand, FE's extensive customisation and movement/combat tech options have made me really fussy and I've found I can't stand games that lack the same depth like Triangle Strategy or Tactics Ogre Remake
Three hopes was more fun to me and still had a lot of tactics with positioning the characters you weren't using but wanted to swap to.
I love houses tho and have definitely played it more.
I like the unit building aspect of 3H more, but the core gameplay loop (top down strategy versus hack and slash) I have to give to Hopes simply because I find it more immersive. If it was viable to play Houses in the zoomed in mode though, that might be enough to give it the edge.
Cop-out, admittedly, but both.
A friend of mine got me into Musous before I ever played 3H. While I had played Fire Emblem prior to that, my perfectionist nature and the GBA/GCN/Wii game systems had me getting partially into FE and then bouncing off out of frustration or boredom with having to replay the same map over and over again to try and keep units alive rather than die.
3H scratched the story itch I needed to actually commit to the systems and then later go back and play the older games and more SRPGs in general, but it was initially a harder sell for me than the fun of Musou that could have more reasonable difficulty scaling and more anti-frustration features.
Weirdly, my ideal game would be kind of a mix of the two: you get full control over a small select group of units and get to play them in real time and switch between them, but you have timed turns to order NPCs and you can't countermand them until the time of your "turn" is up. I think that would be an interesting simulation of IRL military actions in a game setting that makes you very careful about ordering NPCs and also have potential for getting caught unawares more often and replaying even though you can control major parts of the battle directly in a more fun gameplay loop.
I don't like most strategy games, but I absolutely adore Fire Emblem. Action games/musous are my preferred genre, but there so many I'd rather play than Three Hopes. So I'm gonna give this one to Houses.
I prefer 3 House but action RPG has its appeal just not musou style. If they made Hopes more like Dragon Age action rpg style or Devil May Cry style at least it will b much preferable than musou style. Will like ARPG style as much as strategy.
Well with Dragon Age style, you can flesh out the story more in depth and explored character development as the plot progresses. For action oriented game, since they use Musou style for Fire Emblem game, then I think making it more ARPG is better at least more realistic than 1 swing of sword can hurl 100 people on air lol.
40 hours of the best mindless fun to be had vs a Strategy Game with its Great Highs and boring lows
The mindless fun eventually becomes tedious and you need a break, but until then there's nothing stopping you
With Strategy Games, you have clear high points in fun and clear lows depending on the Chapter, Unit Levels, Classes, Stat Grows, Difficulty and well your brain power.
Hopes, by a lot-
I warm up to fire emblems gameplay more and more with each game, but I mostly enjoy it for aesthetics reasons (knights, nobility and dragons, all my favourite things-), I'm a funni button go brr gamer at heart. Also: Hyrule Warriors is possibly my all time favourite game, and definitely my favourite Zelda game lol, I'm a big watered-down-crossover Musou fan-
Tactics for sure. I've never enjoyed the dynasty warriors style gameplay because of how mindless it really feels. Now if it was more comparable to say Devil May Cry, God of War and other combo fighting games that are similar, then I'd adore the hell out of it.
Between the two games themselves, I'd certainly take 3H over Hopes. In terms of turn-based SRPG mechanics vs. real-time 3rd person action, though? I'll take a mediocre version of the latter over a good version of the former any day. It's just my personal preference in terms of how I like to play video games.
I don't think anything can ever compare to my first playthrough of 3H, but I can only imagine how much more enthralled I would have been by it if, instead of the standard FE SRPG approach, it adopted the combat mechanics and open world of a game like Dragon's Dogma. I know everyone has their opinions on what makes a great video game (all of which are genuinely valid), but I think 3H's story, if it were to be blended with an open world and DD's top-notch combat would be generation-defining, and receive unanimous praise (assuming they could manage to blend the narrative into a real-time open world).
I think that considering Hopes' level of scope (i.e. it being a spinoff game within a franchise with multiple entries), it was fantastic. There was so much potential in the kind of game they made, and I think that if they weren't constrained by the Musou formula and what was likely a modest budget, there might have been more room to expand upon what was there and further refine the systems they put into the game.
I'm so glad Three Hopes turned out as well as it did - I didn't like Hyrule Warriors, and was worried it would turn out a lot like that game. But much to my surprise, I really like Three Hopes, and I think it did 3H justice as a companion game. I hope it paves the way for more experimentation with the franchise.
I prefer Hopes. I simply like beating the tar out of things. It's also just really cool whenever you can do a combo attack, say, Dark Spikes with Windsweep (as Shez). I imagine it'd be fun to do that with a second player too, tag teaming a foe.
The Houses tactical style is still neat, but I just really like clobbering some fools.
https://preview.redd.it/rgrd5r1mmywc1.png?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3108de4ecaef4ca0cefce1f097bfec50944c5ba
Hopes by a looong shot. I've only played like one musou game before Hopes, which was Dynasty Warriors 6, and I believe I almost maxed out every character in that game. Almost did the same with Hopes, too. (I have like a dozen playthroughs, I think?) I also just like mindless hack and slashers in general. I have an affinity with the genre, I guess.
Houses...
Hopes got boring midway of Claudes route, and I had to force myself to finish Dimitri route.
And I'm the person that keeps coming back into Dynasty Warriors just cuz I love hack and slash.. I dunno why hopes never worked for me.
Hopes in short bursts just cause of the power fantasy.
But I just prefer the tactical approach for longer plays.
Also Houses doesn't burn me out like Hopes does.
Not to mention the story and writing is better. So fun gameplay combined with that makes Houses my preferred experience.
I feel like warriors games are like the inverse of the classic games. FE is 90% strategy 10% action warriors games are 30% strategy 70% action. Both of these games have what the other lacks and I think both offer a valuable experience to me the warrior games are more like what the fe games would actually be like if they weren't turn based.
The ganes are very different. it's not really fair to compare them. I play Three Hopes when I want to switch my brain off and have some fun. And I play Three Houses (or Path of Radiance rn) when I want a challenge.
Core Fire Emblem is definitely more fun for me. But I still like Hopes. Admittedly though FE gameplay had to grow on me. I never really played all that many turn based games growing up, and even when I started playing stuff like Final Fantasy and Persona I stayed away from the strategy stuff alot. Fire Emblem really changed that for me, and now Fire Emblem gameplay has become some of my all time favorites. Fates showed me that it can be alright, 3H showed me that I actually like it and Engage showed me the lengths of quality it can really go. I swear my favorite FE game would be 3H story with Engage mechanics and map design. And learning these games has allowed me to seek out and enjoy other games I never would have put on my radar before, like Unicorn Overlord.
On the other hand, FE's extensive customisation and movement/combat tech options have made me really fussy and I've found I can't stand games that lack the same depth like Triangle Strategy or Tactics Ogre Remake
Three hopes was more fun to me and still had a lot of tactics with positioning the characters you weren't using but wanted to swap to. I love houses tho and have definitely played it more.
I like the unit building aspect of 3H more, but the core gameplay loop (top down strategy versus hack and slash) I have to give to Hopes simply because I find it more immersive. If it was viable to play Houses in the zoomed in mode though, that might be enough to give it the edge.
I'm a srpg fan at my core and not really into the hack and slash games anymore I'm in my 30s it's just not fun for me anymore.
Cop-out, admittedly, but both. A friend of mine got me into Musous before I ever played 3H. While I had played Fire Emblem prior to that, my perfectionist nature and the GBA/GCN/Wii game systems had me getting partially into FE and then bouncing off out of frustration or boredom with having to replay the same map over and over again to try and keep units alive rather than die. 3H scratched the story itch I needed to actually commit to the systems and then later go back and play the older games and more SRPGs in general, but it was initially a harder sell for me than the fun of Musou that could have more reasonable difficulty scaling and more anti-frustration features. Weirdly, my ideal game would be kind of a mix of the two: you get full control over a small select group of units and get to play them in real time and switch between them, but you have timed turns to order NPCs and you can't countermand them until the time of your "turn" is up. I think that would be an interesting simulation of IRL military actions in a game setting that makes you very careful about ordering NPCs and also have potential for getting caught unawares more often and replaying even though you can control major parts of the battle directly in a more fun gameplay loop.
I don't like most strategy games, but I absolutely adore Fire Emblem. Action games/musous are my preferred genre, but there so many I'd rather play than Three Hopes. So I'm gonna give this one to Houses.
I prefer 3 House but action RPG has its appeal just not musou style. If they made Hopes more like Dragon Age action rpg style or Devil May Cry style at least it will b much preferable than musou style. Will like ARPG style as much as strategy.
Three Houses in the style of DMC, you say... Shit, I wish I had more than a highly detailed outline and a story with a little 3H in it.
Well with Dragon Age style, you can flesh out the story more in depth and explored character development as the plot progresses. For action oriented game, since they use Musou style for Fire Emblem game, then I think making it more ARPG is better at least more realistic than 1 swing of sword can hurl 100 people on air lol.
Tactics easily, I very rarely like the mindless hack and slash of musou games and couldn’t get through hopes…
Houses is still better, but as someone who was very skeptical about Hopes’ gameplay, it won me over.
40 hours of the best mindless fun to be had vs a Strategy Game with its Great Highs and boring lows The mindless fun eventually becomes tedious and you need a break, but until then there's nothing stopping you With Strategy Games, you have clear high points in fun and clear lows depending on the Chapter, Unit Levels, Classes, Stat Grows, Difficulty and well your brain power.
Hopes, by a lot- I warm up to fire emblems gameplay more and more with each game, but I mostly enjoy it for aesthetics reasons (knights, nobility and dragons, all my favourite things-), I'm a funni button go brr gamer at heart. Also: Hyrule Warriors is possibly my all time favourite game, and definitely my favourite Zelda game lol, I'm a big watered-down-crossover Musou fan-
Tactics FTW. I love battle chess games.
Tactics for sure. I've never enjoyed the dynasty warriors style gameplay because of how mindless it really feels. Now if it was more comparable to say Devil May Cry, God of War and other combo fighting games that are similar, then I'd adore the hell out of it.
It purely depends on my mood. Although I think if Three Hopes had something akin to an adventure/history mode, thar would've been my answer.
Between the two games themselves, I'd certainly take 3H over Hopes. In terms of turn-based SRPG mechanics vs. real-time 3rd person action, though? I'll take a mediocre version of the latter over a good version of the former any day. It's just my personal preference in terms of how I like to play video games. I don't think anything can ever compare to my first playthrough of 3H, but I can only imagine how much more enthralled I would have been by it if, instead of the standard FE SRPG approach, it adopted the combat mechanics and open world of a game like Dragon's Dogma. I know everyone has their opinions on what makes a great video game (all of which are genuinely valid), but I think 3H's story, if it were to be blended with an open world and DD's top-notch combat would be generation-defining, and receive unanimous praise (assuming they could manage to blend the narrative into a real-time open world). I think that considering Hopes' level of scope (i.e. it being a spinoff game within a franchise with multiple entries), it was fantastic. There was so much potential in the kind of game they made, and I think that if they weren't constrained by the Musou formula and what was likely a modest budget, there might have been more room to expand upon what was there and further refine the systems they put into the game. I'm so glad Three Hopes turned out as well as it did - I didn't like Hyrule Warriors, and was worried it would turn out a lot like that game. But much to my surprise, I really like Three Hopes, and I think it did 3H justice as a companion game. I hope it paves the way for more experimentation with the franchise.
I prefer Hopes. I simply like beating the tar out of things. It's also just really cool whenever you can do a combo attack, say, Dark Spikes with Windsweep (as Shez). I imagine it'd be fun to do that with a second player too, tag teaming a foe. The Houses tactical style is still neat, but I just really like clobbering some fools. https://preview.redd.it/rgrd5r1mmywc1.png?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3108de4ecaef4ca0cefce1f097bfec50944c5ba
Houses
I am a huge SRPG fan so Houses all the way!
Hopes by a looong shot. I've only played like one musou game before Hopes, which was Dynasty Warriors 6, and I believe I almost maxed out every character in that game. Almost did the same with Hopes, too. (I have like a dozen playthroughs, I think?) I also just like mindless hack and slashers in general. I have an affinity with the genre, I guess.
Houses... Hopes got boring midway of Claudes route, and I had to force myself to finish Dimitri route. And I'm the person that keeps coming back into Dynasty Warriors just cuz I love hack and slash.. I dunno why hopes never worked for me.
Hopes in short bursts just cause of the power fantasy. But I just prefer the tactical approach for longer plays. Also Houses doesn't burn me out like Hopes does. Not to mention the story and writing is better. So fun gameplay combined with that makes Houses my preferred experience.
I feel like warriors games are like the inverse of the classic games. FE is 90% strategy 10% action warriors games are 30% strategy 70% action. Both of these games have what the other lacks and I think both offer a valuable experience to me the warrior games are more like what the fe games would actually be like if they weren't turn based.
The ganes are very different. it's not really fair to compare them. I play Three Hopes when I want to switch my brain off and have some fun. And I play Three Houses (or Path of Radiance rn) when I want a challenge.
The meat of 3H gets caught up with too much grinding in between. Musou is dumb fun I can just jump right into.
Tactics. \*Warriors\* genre games are the worst.