IcaroRibeiro said:
Engage is the successor to Fates especially Conquest* (but significantly easier than Conquest, which is the hardest FE in my opinion), while Three Houses is more like the successor to Echoes: Shadows of Valentia The gameplay is different, the art style is terrible, and the story is lackluster Map design is awesome easily top 3 in the franchise unlike Three Houses, where the maps are rather poor. Combat mechanics are refined, even more than Three Houses. It lacks a bit in RPG elements but is rich in tactical elements. It features a larger cast and is "Ironman-friendly," meaning it lets you lose units without much penalty (in Three Houses, if you let your units die, you're in trouble). Almost all characters will join you automatically, unlike in Three Houses, where you need to grind support to recruit them It doesn't feature the calendar system inherited from Persona. instead, it follows the Sacred Stones/Awakening structure, with story progression tied to maps and optional skirmishes if you feel like it. In my opinion, it's an FE game for FE veterans. If Three Houses was your only game, I'm not sure if you'll like it. |
Oh well, without the calander progression I doubt I'd like it as much. The tactical play while good and addicting wasn't really what made that game great. It was one of three pillars. That, the calander progression and the characters. I would hope for a Three houses sequel that expands on these ideas, namely expanded on exploration during the calander cycle, having an open world instead of just a hub town/school would blow skulls wide open.