So what were your overall opinions about Engage?

[Etrurian emperor]

The most recent narrative that popped up is that Engage is a failure because it had relatively little staying power. I'd say that's a bit harsh. On release its sales were roughly on par with Three Houses which was one of the more successful Fire Emblems. So based on launch alone Engage can be said to have performed decently enough. And while Engage didn't have staying power this might not be as damning as it sounds. It common wisdom that the vast majority of video game sales occurs in the first few weeks. In general I don't think Three Houses should be the bench mark for Fire Emblem staying power either. Saleswise the game can be said to have done fine at worst, and while I think its a safe argument to claim the story was a failure the gameplay is considered to be good, if not great. So even if we can say Engage is a flawed game I think deeming it a failure is way too harsh.

On the note of the game being an anniversary title. I hear that argument a lot but it has never really clicked with me. Because aside from the cameos through the Emblems I actually don't think Engage does much celebrating. In terms of tone it only really celebrates the Fateswakening era rather than the entire series. Not just the darker and gritty Fodlan isn't taken into account with the tone but neither are the Archenea or GBA games, let alone the more political Tellius games or incest happy Jugdral. The royal + retainers setup that dominates the cast also can't be deemed a Fire Emblem tradition because only Fates had that set up. The overall story of the game being defined as a hunt for mighty Mcguffins doesn't really celebrate the series either since few Fire Emblems have that as a core theme. Even in games were you end up collecting mighty Mcguffins like the Archenea games its not the main focus.  Even Sacred Stones isn't entirely defined by the hunt for Sacred Stones.

 

[lenticular]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The most recent narrative that popped up is that Engage is a failure because it had relatively little staying power. I'd say that's a bit harsh. On release its sales were roughly on par with Three Houses which was one of the more successful Fire Emblems. So based on launch alone Engage can be said to have performed decently enough. And while Engage didn't have staying power this might not be as damning as it sounds. It common wisdom that the vast majority of video game sales occurs in the first few weeks. In general I don't think Three Houses should be the bench mark for Fire Emblem staying power either. Saleswise the game can be said to have done fine at worst, and while I think its a safe argument to claim the story was a failure the gameplay is considered to be good, if not great. So even if we can say Engage is a flawed game I think deeming it a failure is way too harsh.

My general belief is that first-week sales don't tend to have all that much to do with the quality of a game. Instead, they tend to say more about the strength of the brand and the quality of the marketing. If I buy a game immediately on release, it's probably because I like the series or because I've seen trailers and screenshots and think it looks cool. Or both. On the other hand, if I buy a game six months after release, it's probably because a friend recommended it to me, or I saw someone playing it on YouTube, or something like that. And in those cases, the quality of the game absolutely matters. My friends aren't going to be recommending games to me if they aren't loving them.

So, if a game has great sales to start with but then they fall off a cliff, I tend to interpret that as a lot of people being interested, but then not liking the game well enough to recommend it and get other people interested too. If that is the pattern for Engage (and I've not looked closely at the sales figures myself), then I think that bodes well for Fire Emblem as a whole but not so well for Engage itself. Though I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call Engage a failure.

One thing I would be interested to know, if anyone has the figures, is how well Engage's DLC did compared to Three Houses' DLC. I think that would be a nice way of comparing across the two games, of the people who bought it, how many liked it enough and were invested enough to want to spend more money on it.

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

This game is clearly meant to be a celebration of Fire Emblem, not unlike Awakening in that regard; the emblems are proof enough of that. Looking at it in that light, the game is a bit odd in regards to referencing the past games: it'll often quote lines from past FE games word-for-word in places where it would make perfect sense for the emblem making the quote to do so, such as Corrin quoting the sparring advice Xander gave in Fates' prologue when fought in Corrin's paralogue. But then, at the same time, it will do odd stuff like referencing something that only existed in Smash Bros. and not in FE itself (Emblem Ike's Great Aether), giving Ike his Radiant Dawn appearance when he's supposed to be representing Path of Radiance, or in some cases get important lore details from past games completely wrong.

Take Corrin's paralogue as an example: the map choice is fitting and most of the lore referenced is accurate, but then Corrin, when asked about the Yato, describes it as, "a divine blade, forged to bring peace to the world". Had Corrin said, "A sword that chose me to bring peace to the world", that might've been accurate, but anyone who has completed Revelations would know that the sword was not forged for bringing peace; just the opposite: it was forged so the Rainbow Sage could use humans as cannon fodder in the War of the First Dragons; the "great sin" that the Rainbow Sage refers to whenever he says, "I who forged the sacred blade; I who committed the great sin". It was one of only three bits of actual worldbuilding in all of Fates, so I remember it well.

I either totally forgot that or somehow missed it entirely despite playing Revaluation more than once. That makes me like the Rainbow Sage character a bit more.

[vanguard333]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I either totally forgot that or somehow missed it entirely despite playing Revaluation more than once. That makes me like the Rainbow Sage character a bit more.

It's in the chapter where the Rainbow Sage dies; before dying, he reveals that he is one of the First Dragons and that he was the one who brought humans into the War of the First Dragons by forging the Yato. I can't remember the exact dialogue, but I remember finding it one of the few moments of actual, interesting worldbuilding in Fates, and it made me like the Rainbow Sage character a bit more as well.

 

Now that I've played a lot more of Engage (though not even close to done my first playthrough; I'm just at the chapter where Veyle shows the four hounds her sibling's dragonstone, making them realize that another biological child of Sombron still lives), I think I can say some stuff about the gameplay:

1. I'm really not a fan of the weapons that cannot attack twice and cannot attack first. Their potential uses are too limited to really keep around; they're very situational unless given to someone who is already very slow and has high defensive stats; in other words, a general. One case I found particularly annoying was the hurricane axe: the only magical axe is one of these weapons. I gave it to Anna since I made her a warrior and had her inherit Emblem Leif's build+4 skill before chapter 10, so I thought it would be a good way to use her high magic growth. It would've been fun if not for the fact that any enemy will attack first and do a lot of damage since Anna's defense stats are garbage. If it weren't for the radiant bow, there would be no point in making Anna a warrior despite her starting as an axe fighter.

2. Having build be the stat that negates weapon weight and having it be its own stat with its own growth rates is an interesting idea, but I feel it is hindered by the game's low growth rates.

3. I would enjoy the somniel more if there were fewer minigames in it. It doesn't help that one of the minigames is a constant reminder that Alear is supposed to be a dragon but spends all their time in human form. This game has a panzer dragoon-style minigame and a protagonist that's supposed to be a dragon, and the minigame has said protagonist ride Ivy's wyvern.

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

It's in the chapter where the Rainbow Sage dies; before dying, he reveals that he is one of the First Dragons and that he was the one who brought humans into the War of the First Dragons by forging the Yato. I can't remember the exact dialogue, but I remember finding it one of the few moments of actual, interesting worldbuilding in Fates, and it made me like the Rainbow Sage character a bit more as well.

 

Now that I've played a lot more of Engage (though not even close to done my first playthrough; I'm just at the chapter where Veyle shows the four hounds her sibling's dragonstone, making them realize that another biological child of Sombron still lives), I think I can say some stuff about the gameplay:

1. I'm really not a fan of the weapons that cannot attack twice and cannot attack first. Their potential uses are too limited to really keep around; they're very situational unless given to someone who is already very slow and has high defensive stats; in other words, a general. One case I found particularly annoying was the hurricane axe: the only magical axe is one of these weapons. I gave it to Anna since I made her a warrior and had her inherit Emblem Leif's build+4 skill before chapter 10, so I thought it would be a good way to use her high magic growth. It would've been fun if not for the fact that any enemy will attack first and do a lot of damage since Anna's defense stats are garbage. If it weren't for the radiant bow, there would be no point in making Anna a warrior despite her starting as an axe fighter.

2. Having build be the stat that negates weapon weight and having it be its own stat with its own growth rates is an interesting idea, but I feel it is hindered by the game's low growth rates.

3. I would enjoy the somniel more if there were fewer minigames in it. It doesn't help that one of the minigames is a constant reminder that Alear is supposed to be a dragon but spends all their time in human form. This game has a panzer dragoon-style minigame and a protagonist that's supposed to be a dragon, and the minigame has said protagonist ride Ivy's wyvern.

Well I remember he's one of the first dragons, it's specifically that he brought humans into the war and that Yato's intentions were less than noble that went over my head.

[Anomalocaris]

On 6/29/2023 at 7:52 AM, DefyingFates said:

Heck, if there's one thing I've learned from how companies respond to feedback, they're likely to throw out everything Engage did instead of just the stuff people actually disliked, which is going to be a huge shame considering how complex and fun the maps are compared to Three Houses.

This is admittedly a concern. I've joked with friends that IS will, in response to Engage underperforming, go back to having mediocre maps because clearly that was the selling point of Three Houses while keeping the shallow story.

But I think they're smart enough to know why the games performed as they did.

[Mizerous]

On 7/2/2023 at 4:48 PM, Anomalocaris said:

This is admittedly a concern. I've joked with friends that IS will, in response to Engage underperforming, go back to having mediocre maps because clearly that was the selling point of Three Houses while keeping the shallow story.

But I think they're smart enough to know why the games performed as they did.

IS would be braindead to think people want Paper Mario Sticker Star tear stories.

[SumG]

On 7/1/2023 at 6:58 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

The most recent narrative that popped up is that Engage is a failure because it had relatively little staying power. I'd say that's a bit harsh. On release its sales were roughly on par with Three Houses which was one of the more successful Fire Emblems. So based on launch alone Engage can be said to have performed decently enough. And while Engage didn't have staying power this might not be as damning as it sounds. It common wisdom that the vast majority of video game sales occurs in the first few weeks. In general I don't think Three Houses should be the bench mark for Fire Emblem staying power either. Saleswise the game can be said to have done fine at worst, and while I think its a safe argument to claim the story was a failure the gameplay is considered to be good, if not great. So even if we can say Engage is a flawed game I think deeming it a failure is way too harsh.

I think you're being a bit too generous here.  I won't go so far as to say the game is a complete disaster sales-wise, but I have to imagine everyone involved is not happy with the total sales numbers to date.  The most recent numbers I see are that Engage is at 1.61 million units sold.  Meanwhile, Three Houses has 3.82 million units sold.  That's a massive dropoff, and while Three Houses has certainly had more time to sell games I don't think Engage is going to have the kind of word of mouth Three Houses did from casual players to change that number significantly from here.  Moreover, look at the other previous mainline installments in the franchise.  Fates has a total sales of 3.05 million units.  Awakening, released over a decade ago when the popularity of Fire Emblem has nearly at its lowest, still has sold 2.35 million units.  If you're a sales guy, I don't see how you can look at the sales numbers of Engage, coming off the best possible word of mouth from Three Houses, and not see a disappointment.

I'll agree that I would be disappointed if the next iteration of the game threw everything out from Engage, as I do think that there are some interesting and worthwhile aspects to Engage, aspects that are even better than the comparables in Three Houses.  But I would certainly expect the next mainline game to take much more from Three Houses than Engage.

[Gwyn]

I think the pure sales number arguments usually get very weak cause people fudge around so much when comparing the numbers to suit their narrative and a lot of bad comparisons are made.

A far stronger argument on Engage not being up to expectation for me is when you actually read up on a lot of developer interviews, several times they mention decisions like choosing Mika Pikazo as the character artist, the reasons why the story is an orthodox FE beat evil dragon story, the reasons for making Alear the way they did, etc were all to appeal to a wider audience. Exception being gameplay, I haven't really seen them comment on certain gameplay choices being taken to appeal to a wider/younger audience.

Now while nobody can actually know what their internal expectations for sales are it feels pretty reasonable to say that Engage doesn't seem to have broken outside the FE audience mold and really appealed to the intended wider/younger audience in any noticeable way? So on that front it seems like they didn't hit their goal.

What that means for the next IS project who knows, maybe they'll take another stab at trying to appeal to wider/younger audience with a different angle or they'll follow up more on being tonally what 3 Houses was. Again I repeat that most on what they commented on to appeal to wider audiences was in the context of art/story and not gameplay.

[Dark Holy Elf]

7 hours ago, Gwyn said:

A far stronger argument on Engage not being up to expectation for me is when you actually read up on a lot of developer interviews, several times they mention decisions like choosing Mika Pikazo as the character artist, the reasons why the story is an orthodox FE beat evil dragon story, the reasons for making Alear the way they did, etc were all to appeal to a wider audience. Exception being gameplay, I haven't really seen them comment on certain gameplay choices being taken to appeal to a wider/younger audience.

 

You're right and I've seen the interviews, but to me this makes me feel the devs are just... utterly disconnected with reality. An "orthodox FE beat evil dragon story" was their plan to get a wider audience? People don't, generally, like those sorts of stories! Except, of course, fans nostalgic for older games (especially Archanaea)... which are a fine and valid group to appeal to, don't get me wrong, but also the exact opposite of a wider audience! And ironically this has definitely played out to the opposite of their expectations; I think Engage is reasonably well-liked by the core Fire Emblem fanbase who has been with the series for a while, but really hasn't had good word of mouth outside this core community.

[Etrurian emperor]

9 hours ago, Gwyn said:

several times they mention decisions like choosing Mika Pikazo as the character artist, the reasons why the story is an orthodox FE beat evil dragon story, was to appeal to a broad audience 

I find that an odd reasoning from the devs. Since the typical stories of blue haired lords and evil dragons are not widely considered as the height of FE storytelling. The stories getting the acclaim being Tellius, Geneology, and Three Houses. For popular acclaim it would have been logical to stick as closely to Three Houses story as possible.

[Gwyn]

I don't understand the reasoning either but my main takeaway is that they were deliberately trying to make decisions to widen the appeal with their design approach. Getting people in that didn't play FE before.

It's just to me looking at the results it seems very misguided especially when I look at some series like Souls that organically grew pretty gigantic never really stepping away from the core things people really liked but maybe that approach doesn't fit FE for one reason or another.

It all does make you wonder what their next attempt at widening the appeal is.

Another oddity from what I heard is like there hasn't been much Engage content fed into FE Heroes which is just another little thing that makes it just feel like they gave up on Engage? I dunno.

[Saint Rubenio]

It really is odd how they reduced the story to the most milquetoast, by-the-numbers thing possible for "wider appeal" and then made the gameplay into something that seems entirely geared toward hardcore FE fans. While retaining the hub that was pretty much universally hated by those in 3H and having the most vibrant, whimsical artstyle yet in the series. It's a whole bunch of contradictions.

Well, since my prior post on page 1, I tried to replay the game on Maddening. I couldn't finish the run for one reason and one reason only: It was too tedious too play. Everything takes longer to load than it should, and much like the Monastery, the Somniel felt way more tedious the second time around. So I ended up getting burned out with the game.

Personally, at this point, I just wish they'll add an option to turn the hubs into pure menus in future games. I don't see the hubs going away, but please just let me expedite the process if I want. They make the games so much slower to play, especially because the Switch isn't powerful and has to take its time to load stuff. Somniel was an improvement simply because it had less stuff I absolutely had to do than the Monastery, but it was still a huge drag every time. Just let me get everything done in a few A presses, no superfluous animations, no canned voice lines, no running around, no loading anything.

On 7/2/2023 at 10:48 PM, Anomalocaris said:

I've joked with friends that IS will, in response to Engage underperforming, go back to having mediocre maps because clearly that was the selling point of Three Houses while keeping the shallow story.

I live in fear of this scenario. But not as much as "Engage and Three Houses's sales indicate gameplay is an irrelevant factor - let's only make sure the story is good", because judging by the general reception, that might actually work out for them. It seems a big part of the playerbase play mostly for the story and would be willing to ignore, or would be able to enjoy, simpler/poorer mechanics, map design and lower difficulty.

And hey, I'm not saying that's wrong. More power to them, I'm happy for them - but on a personal level, as someone who plays these games primarily for the gameplay and finds himself unable to enjoy himself if the FE game isn't at least somewhat challenging and/or interesting... Well, if they move to appeal to the majority and make more Three Houses, I'll never be able to have fun with a FE game again. That makes me really sad and I sincerely hope they finally learn to do both good story and gameplay in the same game.

...Though all things considered, worst case scenario, FEUniverse exists lol

Edited July 8, 2023 by Saint Rubenio

[Etrurian emperor]

The mentality of the devs in general was just weird this time around. Why were they so concerned for wider appeal when Fire Emblem has never been bigger? Its been a complete victory lap for the franchise ever since Awakening over a decade ago. Fire Emblem is arguably the most prominent B tier franchise Nintendo has at the moment. The time to make compromise in search for sales has long since passed. I get that Nintendo nearly killing the franchise must have been traumatic but that's been over a decade ago and its been smooth sailing ever since. 

Other weird mentalities aside from watering down the story for broader appeal, is that they deliberately set out to create a worse story because Three Houses already had the more serious, and ambitious tone. But this ignores that Three Houses did the heavy lifting in those areas in part because Fire Emblem just refused to do that for three games in a row(not counting Echoes). Even the benefit of setting Engage apart from Three Houses arguably doesn't compare to the advantage of not falling in bad, and widely disliked habits. 

[vanguard333]

13 hours ago, Gwyn said:

A far stronger argument on Engage not being up to expectation for me is when you actually read up on a lot of developer interviews, several times they mention decisions like choosing Mika Pikazo as the character artist, the reasons why the story is an orthodox FE beat evil dragon story, the reasons for making Alear the way they did, etc., were all to appeal to a wider audience. Exception being gameplay, I haven't really seen them comment on certain gameplay choices being taken to appeal to a wider/younger audience.

Why would anyone on the dev team think that a game like engage would be meant to appeal to a wider audience? It's an anniversary celebration game (or it would've been if not for the pandemic), it leans far more heavily on the gameplay than games like Three Houses and Fates, it leans heavily on nostalgia with the emblems and their paralogues, and the story is a classic, "Sword-wielding teenage human vs evil dragon" storyline with the only twist on it being that the game weirdly insists that the teenage sword-wielding human is a dragon despite all evidence being to the contrary; one glance at the game would tell anyone that it's a game intended for established fans, not a wider audience.

This just demonstrates to me that the teams at IS lately can't ever seem to just have one solid understanding of what the game they're making is intended to be;  there's always some sort of dissonance. I suspected as much with Shadows of Valentia, which felt like the dev team had different ideas on what type of remake it was supposed to be, and now here's a game where developer interviews outright confirm dissonance in the form of them not seeing what the audience for the type of game they were making would be.

 

Was their takeaway from Awakening that "Fire Emblem Greatest Hits" games appeal to wide audiences? If so, their takeaway from Awakening should've been, "games that actually have any marketing behind them appeal to wide audiences".

Edited July 8, 2023 by vanguard333

[Gwyn]

Maybe I'm having rose tinted glasses but the speed at which it seems engagement with Engage died down feels noticeable to me. But again maybe it was similar before and I'm just biased in my experiences but just looking around there is not a whole lot shit I'm seeing for Engage discussion wise, art wise, memes wise. 3 Houses I felt like I was still catching stray shares months after I already stopped playing.

[Etrurian emperor]

I think part of the reason is that there's honestly not a lot to talk about. With Awakening you could discuss the different results from baby making, with Fates you had not only the trainwreck aspect of the story, but also the side picking between the two kingdoms and their cast of characters. Echoes had both the acclaim from its general tone as well as the annoyance with Celica turning into a dummy, and Three Houses of course has a lot of lore to discuss, as well as the multiple factions we saw in Fates.

Engage meanwhile is too milktoast to really prompt lengthy discussions. The story is overly conventional, and even the twist that the main villain is an isekai character wanting to return home is only revealed at the very end, and not explored much. The cast being somewhat one note doesn't prompt much discussion either. I think its noteworthy that Yunaka, arguably one of the more well rounded characters did have some staying power compared to Clanne or Chloe.

[vanguard333]

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think part of the reason is that there's honestly not a lot to talk about.

I admit that I haven't finished the game, but I agree; there really isn't much to talk about with Engage. I've mainly just been talking about Alear not really being a dragon, and I'm tired of talking about it.

 

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

And even the twist that the main villain is an isekai character wanting to return home is only revealed at the very end, and not explored much.

I haven't gotten to that point in the game yet, but I know about that twist. Incidentally, one of my favourite shows as a kid had a similar, "The villain is an isekai character" twist and it was actually a really good twist that the show did manage to explore effectively despite it being revealed shortly before the final battle. That show was called Spider Riders. Spoilers for it below.

Spoiler

The premise of the show is that there's a magical subterranean world where its human civilizations are constantly being invaded by humanoid insect people called invectids, led by Lord Mantid. The humans fight back using elite warriors that ride giant armoured spiders into battle. The hero is a human from our world who finds the subterranean world and accidentally becomes a spider rider. There's a prophecy that a human from our world will be the greatest threat the subterranean world will ever face, so characters aware of that prophecy are wary of Hunter until they see that he's a shonen protagonist.

As the story goes on, it becomes clear that Mantid cares nothing for the Invectids and that his evil plan, if it succeeds, will destroy the subterranean world. Before the final battle, the main characters confront him about it. His response? "No; I do not care about your world." The protagonist realizes that Mantid is actually a human from our world, and Mantid confirms this and explains how he ended up in their world and why he wants to destroy it. It's honestly pretty good.

I wonder how this game's version of the twist will compare in execution once I get to it.

[lenticular]

7 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Engage meanwhile is too milktoast to really prompt lengthy discussions. The story is overly conventional, and even the twist that the main villain is an isekai character wanting to return home is only revealed at the very end, and not explored much. The cast being somewhat one note doesn't prompt much discussion either. I think its noteworthy that Yunaka, arguably one of the more well rounded characters did have some staying power compared to Clanne or Chloe.

Another thing that means there's less to talk about with Engage is the skill system. With Awakening, Fates, and Three Houses, there was a lot of versatility in how you choose to build individual characters and which skills you choose to combine. With the way that Engage bundles a bunch of skills into a single package in the form of Emblems, there just aren't as many choices. And then even when you do have choices... you often don't actually have choices. SP is in short enough supply, and grinding is unrewarding enough, that a lot of skills just aren't viable choices. So character building is mostly about choosing a class and an Emblem, and then throw on a couple of skills that seem reasonable.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it shifts the focu somewhats back towards the core tactical gameplay, and away from having too much focus on builds. Whether this is a good thing or not will depend on personal taste. And, if that was their goal, it's also debatable whether they really succeeded at it given how easy it still is to build an immortal dodge tank. But it definitely cuts down on discussion points.

[vanguard333]

18 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Another thing that means there's less to talk about with Engage is the skill system. With Awakening, Fates, and Three Houses, there was a lot of versatility in how you choose to build individual characters and which skills you choose to combine. With the way that Engage bundles a bunch of skills into a single package in the form of Emblems, there just aren't as many choices. And then even when you do have choices... you often don't actually have choices. SP is in short enough supply, and grinding is unrewarding enough, that a lot of skills just aren't viable choices. So character building is mostly about choosing a class and an Emblem, and then throw on a couple of skills that seem reasonable.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it shifts the focus somewhat back towards the core tactical gameplay, and away from having too much focus on builds. Whether this is a good thing or not will depend on personal taste. And, if that was their goal, it's also debatable whether they really succeeded at it given how easy it still is to build an immortal dodge tank. But it definitely cuts down on discussion points.

That's a good point; I know I would prefer a shift in focus away from the character building and back towards the core tactical gameplay, but it can reduce discussion compared to games that focus more on the character building. It doesn't help that general consensus seems to be, "replace your earlier units once later units in the same class come along", when previous games more focused on the tactical gameplay were generally a bit more nuanced in terms of which units were recommended.

 

Anyway, I just beat chapter 20 and saw how the game chooses to reveal the truth about Alear.

At this point, Zephia and Griss know thanks to Alear's dragonstone that Veyle carries with her that a child of Sombron's still lives, and they suspect that Alear is that child. So Griss tests the theory. At the same time, they just lost two emblem rings and are down to just two rings remaining. So, how does Griss test if Alear is indeed Sombron's child? He forfeits one of the two remaining rings to Alear and looks at how Alear summons it. Why not give Alear the dragonstone? Griss and Zephia don't care about the stone; they can't use it for anything else, but the emblem rings are something they believe they can't afford to lose. They have an obvious alternative that would enable them to test their theory; why wouldn't they try that first before handing over a ring?

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

That's a good point; I know I would prefer a shift in focus away from the character building and back towards the core tactical gameplay, but it can reduce discussion compared to games that focus more on the character building. It doesn't help that general consensus seems to be, "replace your earlier units once later units in the same class come along", when previous games more focused on the tactical gameplay were generally a bit more nuanced in terms of which units were recommended.

 

Anyway, I just beat chapter 20 and saw how the game chooses to reveal the truth about Alear.

At this point, Zephia and Griss know thanks to Alear's dragonstone that Veyle carries with her that a child of Sombron's still lives, and they suspect that Alear is that child. So Griss tests the theory. At the same time, they just lost two emblem rings and are down to just two rings remaining. So, how does Griss test if Alear is indeed Sombron's child? He forfeits one of the two remaining rings to Alear and looks at how Alear summons it. Why not give Alear the dragonstone? Griss and Zephia don't care about the stone; they can't use it for anything else, but the emblem rings are something they believe they can't afford to lose. They have an obvious alternative that would enable them to test their theory; why wouldn't they try that first before handing over a ring?

Well they'll have to steal them all from Alear again eventually anyway (which seems to be a trivially easy task), and handing over the Dragonstone could make Alear more dangerous than the difference Celica makes.

[Gwyn]

Def just kinda sad to me cause like seeing 3 Houses stuff all around for a while def added to the fun for me. I especially remember a good dozen of really silly twitter mini comics about it. But yeah def feel that myself that there isn't much about Engage that feels interesting to talk about outside of what this game means for the future of IS and what lessons they will take and what goals they gonna have for the next game.
I hope the rumored FE4 remake is gonna be a lot more fun and memorable, Engage just felt like it dropped and was forgotten in like a month and the DLC def didn't help the buzz with its structuring issues.

[vanguard333]

On 7/9/2023 at 11:55 PM, Jotari said:

Well they'll have to steal them all from Alear again eventually anyway (which seems to be a trivially easy task), and handing over the Dragonstone could make Alear more dangerous than the difference Celica makes.

I suppose; it's still weird that they rant about how much they can't afford to lose any more emblem rings, and then turn around and willfully give up another emblem ring to test their theory when another option was available, all within the same chapter. Griss even outright says to Marni and Mauvier that there's no point in attempting to steal the rings Alear has if they keep losing theirs.

 

EDIT: After playing through chapter 21, I now know what you @Jotari mean when you say it is trivially easy for the villains to steal the rings. At least in chapter 10, the reason given was that Evil-Veyle had to use a momentary distraction and a time crystal to steal them; it's still bizarre that she managed to remove the rings from everyone's fingers, but I guess she's just a really good pickpocket. For chapter 21, Alear dies, and then the rings are suddenly in Sombron's possession.

I kind-of understand it; the devs obviously don't want to actually show the moment of the rings being stolen because they have no way of predicting which rings any individual player will give to which characters, but some clever editing should be able to get around that; maybe even a dialogue scene where the characters say that the rings are being taken via fell magic and then the rings fly to Sombron in a cutscene, but the way that the cutscenes actually handle it just make it seem like the heroes just drop their rings to the ground of their own volition the moment Sombron even breathes within their vicinity.

 

EDIT: I just completed 23. A trend I've been seeing in quite a few stories lately is the main motivation of a female antagonist being that they want a child and they only see one extremely contrived and nonsensical way of doing so when they have other options, and it is a bit of a shame that this game is an example.

I get Zephia being narrowly focused on wanting a biological child; it reflects the game's themes of found family with her failing to realize Griss is true family to her until its too late, it's a neat contrast with Lumera who happily adopted the protagonist, and I guess it makes sense. There is one thing though that makes no sense to me: why did she want Sombron as the father? Zephia does not provide a reason for why it had to be Sombron and not a human or another mage dragon before she dies, and I fail to see any reason that makes sense given her backstory, experiences and motivation.

She makes it clear that she cares nothing for Sombron; she just wanted a child. She also knows that Sombron tried to murder every single one of his kids once he inevitably considered them "defective" in his eyes or he ran out of use for them; she even said that she didn't bother remembering them all because of how often Sombron would kill them, so she would know better than anyone that he would try to kill any child he had with her. She had thousands of years to find a human or another mage dragon.

Edited July 14, 2023 by vanguard333

[Hrothgar777]

When I started this game, I don't think I could've anticipated how much it'd grow on me. I shelved Engage for something like 1-2 months after I first got it, and here I am now, still playing it every single night long after first beating it. I thought this would be a pale shadow of Three House's glory but I was wrong. It's just as worthy in its own right, albeit in a different way.

 

I'm hooked on the sense of achievement after whiplashing from "total despair because this is physically impossible and I've been unlucky too many times" to the sudden sight of Louis or Alear being displayed as the battle's MVP. It pleases me to see how far I've improved from being unable to do Normal Mode skirmishes to doing like 2 a night on Hard Mode.

I never fell in love with the battles in Three Houses. It was part of the experience, but there was no way I could make that the centrality of my playthrough and be satisfied. And now, after having sat through the same lackluster story twice, I'm not 100% sure that I won't try again for Maddening when I finish (I'll probably beat Chapter 17 tonight). Maybe not because it'd be an even longer investment of time than my Hard Mode run, and because I don't know if I'll be able to do it if they just ignore my armor guy, but what I will say is that I'm not already fatigued. It is something that I'm half considering.

 

I frigging love Fire Emblem. Even their "disappointing anniversary game" feels like a technical marvel that I don't know how they fit onto such a low-powered console.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Hrothgar777

[Etrurian emperor]

Aside from not having a lot of ambition to begin with I also think Engage sometimes goes out of its way to take the least interesting route possible. Just to be safe I'll spoiler tag two examples.

Spoiler

Alear dying and actually turning into an Emblem, with Veyle or someone else becoming the new main character would be a very brave direction for the story to take, but instead Alear just dies twice in a row without it mattering. Even Alear being an emblem isn't really important since he's a super duper special Emblem who doesn't have to be stuck in a ring.

In the DLC facing darker versions who've grown bitter and traumatized enough to become your enemies would be as interesting as a multiverse setting allows, but instead they're just flawed zombies rather than your actual comrades.

Lumera dying and her relationship with Alear being explored would be more interesting than turning her into yet another dead Fire Emblem parent.

In the world building the conflict between Brodia and Ilusia is one of the few interesting aspect but here too they take the less interesting route. Brodia being expansionist and shady is mostly an informed trait. It exits, and its references from time to time but it also plays only a minor part in the plot. This version of Brodia is represented solely by king Morion and dies with him. And while Hyacinte makes some remarks over Brodian agression its still doesn't quite deliver the impression that Morion drove him crazy. In the end Brodia isn't really as different from Firene as it should be, and certainly not after Morion goes down.

On 7/10/2023 at 3:42 PM, vanguard333 said:

I get Zephia being narrowly focused on wanting a biological child; it reflects the game's themes of found family with her failing to realize Griss is true family to her until its too late, it's a neat contrast with Lumera who happily adopted the protagonist, and I guess it makes sense. There is one thing though that makes no sense to me: why did she want Sombron as the father? Zephia does not provide a reason for why it had to be Sombron and not a human or another mage dragon before she dies, and I fail to see any reason that makes sense given her backstory, experiences and motivation.

She makes it clear that she cares nothing for Sombron; she just wanted a child. She also knows that Sombron tried to murder every single one of his kids once he inevitably considered them "defective" in his eyes or he ran out of use for them; she even said that she didn't bother remembering them all because of how often Sombron would kill them, so she would know better than anyone that he would try to kill any child he had with her. She had thousands of years to find a human or another mage dragon.

Maybe dragons can't breed with humans in this world and Sombron seems to be the only male dragon left. Or maybe she wants a child she won't outlive by thousands of years. 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Etrurian emperor