Way too toothless an experience in my opinion, and for all it feigns interest in it's characters I was surprised how little actual effect your decisions have on them. While the game tries to argue against the harsh tribalism that defines wartime, it's mechanics betray the opposite: if somebody is on your team they will stay there no matter what you do, even if it makes no sense for their particular character. While I suppose this is meant to provide the player with the feeling of freedom , for me it had a more constrictive effect. I knew I could never make characters hate me or leave my class unless the story dictated it must occur (as it does in the Edelgard route when a very small handful of possible recruits will leave). Maybe this seems unfair but honestly, this is stuff that even a morally unimaginative company like Bioware had figured out in the late 2000's...characters should fight, even if they're on the same team, and the protagonist should actually have to make a stand and not just say whatever they know will make the support ranking go up while knowing that later they'll say the complete opposite. If you're going to make a story about the tragedy of decaying friendships, the characters actually have to have friendships that can decay in the first place.
I can't help but compare this to Genealogy of the Holy War, which of course I'm crazy for. I had characterized the writing in that game as broad but I realize now that it's actually highly efficient. The way the game presents these characters is mostly only seen through the opening cutscenes of a chapter, with the occasional vignette between units sprinkled in (if you spend a turn using the talk command on the battlefield). There is so much less dialogue compared to the hours and hours that can be found in Three Houses, and yet the characters in Genealogy were so much more vibrant to me after only a single playthrough. They felt as if they lived outside of me, that they had moments in their lives that I was not privy to. I could imagine the relationships between them in my head, imagine their downtime between battles as well as their maneuvers during combat. When characters in Genealogy of the Holy War get married, there isn't a cutscene, or even any dialogue. In fact the only thing that clues you in is that now the married units can exchange gold with each other. I felt the connection between these people even if it wasn't actively shown, and because of that the tragedy of their eventual fates hit all the harder. It's a narrative that felt spacious in a way that made me realize how constrictive so many games that present you with "moral dilemmas" actually are.
I'm rambling now so apologies, I'm not a writer. I guess the best way to sum up my feelings is that in Three Houses I felt that I was playing for the story, but in Genealogy I was just...playing the story.
I can't help but compare this to Genealogy of the Holy War, which of course I'm crazy for. I had characterized the writing in that game as broad but I realize now that it's actually highly efficient. The way the game presents these characters is mostly only seen through the opening cutscenes of a chapter, with the occasional vignette between units sprinkled in (if you spend a turn using the talk command on the battlefield). There is so much less dialogue compared to the hours and hours that can be found in Three Houses, and yet the characters in Genealogy were so much more vibrant to me after only a single playthrough. They felt as if they lived outside of me, that they had moments in their lives that I was not privy to. I could imagine the relationships between them in my head, imagine their downtime between battles as well as their maneuvers during combat. When characters in Genealogy of the Holy War get married, there isn't a cutscene, or even any dialogue. In fact the only thing that clues you in is that now the married units can exchange gold with each other. I felt the connection between these people even if it wasn't actively shown, and because of that the tragedy of their eventual fates hit all the harder. It's a narrative that felt spacious in a way that made me realize how constrictive so many games that present you with "moral dilemmas" actually are.
I'm rambling now so apologies, I'm not a writer. I guess the best way to sum up my feelings is that in Three Houses I felt that I was playing for the story, but in Genealogy I was just...playing the story.
5 Comments
Your username (and review) are hella based.
Nah, it's cringe.
Honestly as much as I love this game my biggest issue is how the story treats Byleth. I think there's something interesting about the ideas they put forth with them but it's so frustrating that the game goes out of its way to build them up as the Big Leader Everyone Loves when they're a blank slate just kind of learning how to be a real person.
I think it frustrated me the most on the Crimson Flower route where there's a part where the students actively make a choice to go with Edelgard and tell you why, and like, after getting Mercedes and Sylvain's supports on the Azure Moon route I expected them to say something about Edelgard's ideals and how they believe in the idea of getting rid of the crest system due to how much it screwed up their lives. Like, there's a legitimate ideological reason for them to turn on their country or the organized version of their religion and go with the person who's saying she'll tear down the existing social structure, and I was really curious about how they'd react to the whole thing. But nah, they tell you that pretty much the only reason they're here is because they decided to follow you, a person who taught them how to fight good and occasionally kind of acted like a therapist maybe because someone cared more about massaging the player's ego than engaging with the world they created.
I think it frustrated me the most on the Crimson Flower route where there's a part where the students actively make a choice to go with Edelgard and tell you why, and like, after getting Mercedes and Sylvain's supports on the Azure Moon route I expected them to say something about Edelgard's ideals and how they believe in the idea of getting rid of the crest system due to how much it screwed up their lives. Like, there's a legitimate ideological reason for them to turn on their country or the organized version of their religion and go with the person who's saying she'll tear down the existing social structure, and I was really curious about how they'd react to the whole thing. But nah, they tell you that pretty much the only reason they're here is because they decided to follow you, a person who taught them how to fight good and occasionally kind of acted like a therapist maybe because someone cared more about massaging the player's ego than engaging with the world they created.
Modern Fire Emblem:
>While I suppose [open ended mechanic] is meant to provide the player with the feeling of freedom, for me it had a more constrictive effect. I knew I could never [negative thing] unless the story dictated it must occur
>While I suppose [open ended mechanic] is meant to provide the player with the feeling of freedom, for me it had a more constrictive effect. I knew I could never [negative thing] unless the story dictated it must occur
SuperSpeedRaven
3 years ago