So what were your overall opinions about Engage?

[Hrothgar777]

(Deleted)

Edited August 3, 2023 by Hrothgar777

[SnowFire]

2 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Hey guys, I didn't want to create a new thread to ask this simple question, so here I am.

So as not to derail this thread, can I suggest moving the question over to the general questions thread?  I think that's the place designated for such matters.

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by SnowFire

[Sidereal Wraith]

A pretty good summation of my issues with Engage’s story, minus the problem with Chapter 11.

[Xander]

This game is extremely fun and entertaining. I am disappointed by the feedback I've been seeing about it (which will no doubt drive away any potential new players). The gameplay and map design was some of the best in the series, the combat animations were beautiful as well. I will not go into a write up about the story, lack of (new) character writing for any of the characters beyond Alear, and the blatant fanservice by introducing the Emblems of past heroes as a plot device to cover up for the lack of depth in the story since it seems like several others have already done so.

All of this to say, I loved the game overall and thought it was a fantastic overall experience. I don't like the direction the community has taken on this game, as I believe the criticisms, while fair to an extent, are being blown out of proportion to the point that new players will be scared away from even trying the game (personally, I almost passed this one up after seeing so many negative reviews).

Edited August 9, 2023 by Xander

[Gwyn]

What is driving away new players is mostly the tag line good gameplay bad story(and it's echoed by both people that like the game and people that didn't care for it from what I can tell) most potential new players aren't going to research beyond that. Also Engage players that still post around are mega aggressive on people coming from 3 houses, I've seen a few times people drop on discord that discourse in places like gamefaqs and the reddit has turned them off trying engage with stuff like getting downvoted just for expressing what they liked about 3 houses and asking if those aspects are also in Engage.

But really I just think the thing that repels people the most is just the visuals of it(cause lets be real, the number of people that would even start engaging with any online game place is generally much smaller compared to people just buying on impulse or general buzz). It's just the most immediate thing I've seen on people reacting, it's especially interesting cause I've seen a lot of people that super liked 3 houses but just couldn't get over how Engage looked.

There is some people that endear towards the whole Colgate meme but anecdotally it seems much more common to be offputting to people. Edited August 10, 2023 by Gwyn

[Harvey]

So far from what I've played I like that it's going back to the roots the series is known for. But gameplay wise I feel awakening is better than this in some aspects.

Classes feel underwhelming due to lack of interesting skills and the mechanics are very simplified. Thieves now are just for lighting up fog instead of opening chests, doors or stealing items. Swordmasters aren't what they used to be for instance and unlike  most FE games your earlier units are somehow not anywhere as good as the pre promotes..

story is alright so far. Atleast the characters are good and some have cool designs like Citrinne, yunaka, Merrin, Boucheron and others. I like the artstyle.

Somniel is alright. Though I love the monastery better.

 

 

[Xander]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:01 PM, Gwyn said:

What is driving away new players is mostly the tag line good gameplay bad story(and it's echoed by both people that like the game and people that didn't care for it from what I can tell) most potential new players aren't going to research beyond that. Also Engage players that still post around are mega aggressive on people coming from 3 houses, I've seen a few times people drop on discord that discourse in places like gamefaqs and the reddit has turned them off trying engage with stuff like getting downvoted just for expressing what they liked about 3 houses and asking if those aspects are also in Engage.

Incorrect. I speak from experience when I say as a veteran player I nearly skipped out on purchasing Engage after reading the sea of negative reviews online (go to youtube and type in Engage review, see if you can find one positive review where there isn't a war in the comment section). You're a Three Houses fan and that's perfectly respectable, but if anything, from what I've seen the majority of people criticizing the game are from Three Houses (which is the newest, largest, loudest subsection of the fire emblem fandom these days). Engage was clearly made to give a bit back to the day 1 fans and put out a serviceable story with great game design and gameplay, some of the best in the series (barring the final couple of chapters of course). It did its job.

[Jotari]

12 hours ago, Xander said:

Engage was clearly made to give a bit back to the day 1 fans and put out a serviceable story with great game design and gameplay, some of the best in the series (barring the final couple of chapters of course). It did its job.

Huh? Is there some kind of consensus on this? I thought the final chapters were great. Some of the paralogues I thought hadn't been play tested enough, but the final chapters were great. The final chapter specifically seems to be one of the most liked endgames in the series.

[Etrurian emperor]

12 hours ago, Xander said:

Incorrect. I speak from experience when I say as a veteran player I nearly skipped out on purchasing Engage after reading the sea of negative reviews online (go to youtube and type in Engage review, see if you can find one positive review where there isn't a war in the comment section). You're a Three Houses fan and that's perfectly respectable, but if anything, from what I've seen the majority of people criticizing the game are from Three Houses (which is the newest, largest, loudest subsection of the fire emblem fandom these days). Engage was clearly made to give a bit back to the day 1 fans and put out a serviceable story with great game design and gameplay, some of the best in the series (barring the final couple of chapters of course). It did its job.

I'm not to sure about that actually. Engage is definitely a more traditional experience than Three Houses, but in terms of story, tone and characters it seems to give back to fans of the 3DS era primarily, not so much day 1 fans who started on the NES or with Blazing Blade. And I think that be a perfectly valid approach if the 3ds era wasn't still so recent, and if Engage hadn't also taken the aspect of those games that didn't work along for the ride. 

There likely are a lot of Three Houses newbies criticizing this game, but I suspect also a lot of older fans who welcomed Three Houses as a story that finally moved away from the flawed 3DS approach only for Engage to immediately fall back on bad habits. And sadly that's a problem that could have been entirely avoided. 

In general I think Engage can be said to have been the right game released at the wrong time. If Engage was released after a string, no matter how small of games with a more substantial story then the more simplified take of Engage might have been seen as a charming change of phase rather than a fall back into bad habits. And while there should be room for both the styles of Three Houses and Engage I don't think taking such a drastic departure from Three Houses right after so many newbies flocked to the series was a good idea. That the gameplay discussion gets overshadowed by discussions about tone, sim aspects and Story is unfortunate, but a self inflicted problem based on bad timing. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Etrurian emperor

[lenticular]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There likely are a lot of Three Houses newbies criticizing this game, but I suspect also a lot of older fans who welcomed Three Houses as a story that finally moved away from the flawed 3DS approach only for Engage to immediately fall back on bad habits.

I would definitely count myself among that number. It's very tempting to try to overgeneralise and say tht new fans like x but old fans like y, but I don't think it's actually nearly that simple. For at least as long as I've been playing (since PoR) the fanbase has always been diverse and drawn to different aspects of the games and the franchise.

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

In general I think Engage can be said to have been the right game released at the wrong time. If Engage was released after a string, no matter how small of games with a more substantial story then the more simplified take of Engage might have been seen as a charming change of phase rather than a fall back into bad habits

I don't think that Engage did simple and charming well though. Stuff like the multiple overwrought and melodramatic death scenes just didn't fit if that was what they were going for. I see it more as a story that doesn't know what it's trying to be, and as such tries to shoehorn in what are supposed to be big emotional scenes where they just don't belong. I'm pretty sure I'd have had more fun with a big camp romp than with the half-measure that we ended up with. (And my favourite FE games are Three Houses, Path of Radiance, and Radiant Dawn, so my tastes definitely tend more towards deeper and more involved storylines.)

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

That the gameplay discussion gets overshadowed by discussions about tone, sim aspects and Story is unfortunate, but a self inflicted problem based on bad timing. 

I think there are a lot of weird self-inflicted problems with the gameplay as well. The map design and core tactical combat mechanics are largely great, but a lot of surrounding gameplay systems that weren't well-received seem like things that could easily have been prevented. I'm thinking things like the way that skirmishes are balanced, the way early-game characters are almost universally outclassed by later joiners, the gacha system for bond rings, strength training, the Tower of Trials, the reclassing and promotion system and internal levels, character building in general, leaving various systems out of the game at launch to then trickle them in as free DLC. They did a great job of some of the harder aspects of the game, but then scored some baffling own goals with some of the surrounding systems.

[Dark Holy Elf]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Huh? Is there some kind of consensus on this? I thought the final chapters were great. Some of the paralogues I thought hadn't been play tested enough, but the final chapters were great. The final chapter specifically seems to be one of the most liked endgames in the series.

Personally I thought the second to last chapter is pretty good though I'm not certain what I think about just how vulnerable it is to Warpstrats, to the point where even I (who tend to avoid such things) immediately warped half my team to reunite with the other half. The last chapter itself is pretty meh, though. Just a worse 3H monster boss. Every 3H final chapter is better imo, and I say that as someone who is on record as preferring Engage's map design to 3H's generally.

I have definitely seen a general feeling of "map design goes downhill towards the end of the game" (and I'd generally agree, aside from really liking 24) for what it's worth.

20 hours ago, Xander said:

Engage was clearly made to give a bit back to the day 1 fans and put out a serviceable story with great game design and gameplay, some of the best in the series (barring the final couple of chapters of course). It did its job.

Engage definitely has great game design and gameplay and it certainly succeeded in that regard. I just don't think it succeeded in story, and the game's reception kinda shows that. As lenticular mentioned the game doesn't really feel like it even succeeds at having a simple, happy, campy story, if that was the goal. And I'll be honest, I don't think that should be the goal. The list of Fire Emblem games most frequently praised for writing has very little overlap with going for that sort of style.

[Florete]

I liked all of Engage's lategame maps. The main problem I had was how illogical the avalanche map was. Instead of using the rocks to block, you just...let your units get smacked by an avalanche and pushed into rocks. Yeah, I'm sure that's not painful at all.

What I've come to realize about Engage's story, though, is that it's not exactly bad, per se, it's just so soulless. It feels like someone thinks that as long as you have pretty characters, well-animated cutscenes, and some basic tragedy bait, you only need the most basic, generic plot. I feel like they didn't care one bit beyond checking those boxes. Even Fates, for as much as its story gets clowned on (deservedly), doesn't feel this way to me. I believe someone, at some point in the process, honestly cared about the story being told in Fates, it just got too screwed up in other ways.

[Hrothgar777]

21 minutes ago, Florete said:

I liked all of Engage's lategame maps. The main problem I had was how illogical the avalanche map was. Instead of using the rocks to block, you just...let your units get smacked by an avalanche and pushed into rocks. Yeah, I'm sure that's not painful at all.

What I've come to realize about Engage's story, though, is that it's not exactly bad, per se, it's just so soulless. It feels like someone thinks that as long as you have pretty characters, well-animated cutscenes, and some basic tragedy bait, you only need the most basic, generic plot. I feel like they didn't care one bit beyond checking those boxes. Even Fates, for as much as its story gets clowned on (deservedly), doesn't feel this way to me. I believe someone, at some point in the process, honestly cared about the story being told in Fates, it just got too screwed up in other ways.

IMO the whole thing enjoyed a huge uptick in quality from chapters 23-25. Chapter 24 specifically was the pinnacle of Engage's writing. Had we gotten a story about the war from a thousand years ago and not, like, what we actually got, I think most of the haters would've backed off.

[Gwyn]

On 8/12/2023 at 1:36 AM, Xander said:

Incorrect. I speak from experience when I say as a veteran player I nearly skipped out on purchasing Engage after reading the sea of negative reviews online (go to youtube and type in Engage review, see if you can find one positive review where there isn't a war in the comment section). You're a Three Houses fan and that's perfectly respectable, but if anything, from what I've seen the majority of people criticizing the game are from Three Houses (which is the newest, largest, loudest subsection of the fire emblem fandom these days). Engage was clearly made to give a bit back to the day 1 fans and put out a serviceable story with great game design and gameplay, some of the best in the series (barring the final couple of chapters of course). It did its job.

Yeah sure you alone prove all the other examples on the internet incorrect 😉 .

My dude talk with normal people that aren't super deep into FE as a franchise. They're the biggest part of the pie that made 3 Houses a 4 mil seller. The veteran that almost didn't buy the game because they read negative internet takes ranks so low on the demographic that made a bulk of 3 houses sales vs the people that simply just did not buy it cause they didn't like the visual look of it.

 

[MeteorPhoenix]

On 8/13/2023 at 3:07 PM, Florete said:

What I've come to realize about Engage's story, though, is that it's not exactly bad, per se, it's just so soulless. It feels like someone thinks that as long as you have pretty characters, well-animated cutscenes, and some basic tragedy bait, you only need the most basic, generic plot. I feel like they didn't care one bit beyond checking those boxes. Even Fates, for as much as its story gets clowned on (deservedly), doesn't feel this way to me. I believe someone, at some point in the process, honestly cared about the story being told in Fates, it just got too screwed up in other ways.

This is where I'm at. Engage isn't the worst JRPG story I've ever seen, not even close. But I've never seen one where it was so clear that the devs didn't give a crap, at all. If you told me they had ChatGPT write the story, I wouldn't even blink. There's no passion, no art there. Someone had a checklist, and went one by one.

I respect Conquest 100 times more, because while Conquest's story was awful, someone clearly cared about it. With Engage, I get the feeling that nobody did.

Edited August 24, 2023 by MeteorPhoenix

[Etrurian emperor]

While I'm mostly critical of the story its also worth noting whenever Engage does something better than past games.

Take Elusia for instance. Its just a snowy version of Plegia, but also a version of Plegia that's better in about every single way. Elusia gets portrayed as a mostly good kingdom that's led astray, which is a development pretty much every Elusian seems bothered about. They're depicted as victims rather than just a country full of evil people. Meanwhile with Plegia there's nothing to suggest the whole place isn't rotten to the core. The playable characters from Elusia also care about their country and its plight, which is something Tharja and Henry didn't do. 

The conflict between Brodia and Elusia has more meat on its bones than that of Ylisse and Plegia. This is mostly because Gangrel was so cartoonishly evil that its obvious he's just using Chrom's dad as an excuse to satisfy his urges. But Hyacinth is probably honest when he blames Morion for all his attacks on his countries, and unlike Gangrel he's not fully himself when he becomes an evil warmonger. 

Engage's ''Gharnef'' can arguably said to be Veyle who's a lot better then Validar ever was. Validar had the unfortunate combination of being a bare bones Gharnef who's only original trait was that he was bad at being a Gharnef. Evil Veyle meanwhile has a much more enjoyable personality, and clearly has fun being so over the top evil. Veyle's not depicted as overtly incompetent and her mistakes can be more easily swallowed due to her being an evil brat rather than an old wizard. Even if we take Zephia as Elusia's Gharnef she's still more of an original character than Validar was. 

[MeteorPhoenix]

4 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

While I'm mostly critical of the story its also worth noting whenever Engage does something better than past games.

Take Elusia for instance. Its just a snowy version of Plegia, but also a version of Plegia that's better in about every single way. Elusia gets portrayed as a mostly good kingdom that's led astray, which is a development pretty much every Elusian seems bothered about. They're depicted as victims rather than just a country full of evil people. Meanwhile with Plegia there's nothing to suggest the whole place isn't rotten to the core. The playable characters from Elusia also care about their country and its plight, which is something Tharja and Henry didn't do. 

The conflict between Brodia and Elusia has more meat on its bones than that of Ylisse and Plegia. This is mostly because Gangrel was so cartoonishly evil that its obvious he's just using Chrom's dad as an excuse to satisfy his urges. But Hyacinth is probably honest when he blames Morion for all his attacks on his countries, and unlike Gangrel he's not fully himself when he becomes an evil warmonger. 

Engage's ''Gharnef'' can arguably said to be Veyle who's a lot better then Validar ever was. Validar had the unfortunate combination of being a bare bones Gharnef who's only original trait was that he was bad at being a Gharnef. Evil Veyle meanwhile has a much more enjoyable personality, and clearly has fun being so over the top evil. Veyle's not depicted as overtly incompetent and her mistakes can be more easily swallowed due to her being an evil brat rather than an old wizard. Even if we take Zephia as Elusia's Gharnef she's still more of an original character than Validar was. 

I don't think you're wrong, but you are using the worst parts of Awakening. If the only villain Awakening had was Validar, it'd probably be remembered a bit more poorly. But thankfully, Awakening has Gangrel, and the cutscene between Lucina and Chrome, and a usually competent story.

I agree with you that Engage story-wise has things it does better than Awakening and Fates. But I don't think it does anything well, is the problem.

[Jotari]

11 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

While I'm mostly critical of the story its also worth noting whenever Engage does something better than past games.

Take Elusia for instance. Its just a snowy version of Plegia, but also a version of Plegia that's better in about every single way. Elusia gets portrayed as a mostly good kingdom that's led astray, which is a development pretty much every Elusian seems bothered about. They're depicted as victims rather than just a country full of evil people. Meanwhile with Plegia there's nothing to suggest the whole place isn't rotten to the core. The playable characters from Elusia also care about their country and its plight, which is something Tharja and Henry didn't do. 

The conflict between Brodia and Elusia has more meat on its bones than that of Ylisse and Plegia. This is mostly because Gangrel was so cartoonishly evil that its obvious he's just using Chrom's dad as an excuse to satisfy his urges. But Hyacinth is probably honest when he blames Morion for all his attacks on his countries, and unlike Gangrel he's not fully himself when he becomes an evil warmonger. 

Engage's ''Gharnef'' can arguably said to be Veyle who's a lot better then Validar ever was. Validar had the unfortunate combination of being a bare bones Gharnef who's only original trait was that he was bad at being a Gharnef. Evil Veyle meanwhile has a much more enjoyable personality, and clearly has fun being so over the top evil. Veyle's not depicted as overtly incompetent and her mistakes can be more easily swallowed due to her being an evil brat rather than an old wizard. Even if we take Zephia as Elusia's Gharnef she's still more of an original character than Validar was. 

Not sure I agree with that assessment of Gangrel. Feels to me like he has a genuine bone to pick. But it's been years since I actually paid attention to Awakening's story.

[Humanoid]

Just finished the game, just a simple run through on normal. I'm obviously several months late so I probably don't have anything particularly new to contribute.

I was first going to call the writing perfunctory, but actually no, it's only perfunctory during its high points. The low points are far below that. I feel the beginning through to the completion of the initial recruitment phase (i.e. the four suspiciously symmetrical kingdoms) to aggressively stupid. After that it briefly rises to a level of "bog standard Fire Emblem", before then falling flat on its face as it crosses the finish line. Starts at an F, climbs to a D, then back to F.

Gameplay was alright as long as the definition of gameplay is restricted to the actual act of fighting, and not the layers of excess baggage stacked all around it. I'm talking about juggling different types of rings, the awkward skill inheritance system, engravings, the annoying and excessive amount of currencies, etc. C for the combat in isolation, D once all the cruft weighing it down is accounted for.

The Somniel I'll also give an F too, if only because there's no score of E. Yes it's less busywork than the monastery. But it's contextualised far worse, and the game completely failed in getting me to want to engage (pun not intended) with any part of the system. The place makes no dang sense and is filler for the sake of filler. Tangentially related mechanics like the donation/skirmish system are likewise best completely ignored.

 

That's it then. I'm absolutely certain I'll never return to the game, not to replay it and most certainly not to explore any post-game or DLC content. Two stars.

[Barren]

While I forgot which x user it was, but someone tweeted that the director of the game said that the game didn’t reach the heights they thought it could, felt that it was disappointing. And one of the directors Kenta Naganishi said that he plans on making the next game to be “less anime”

 

Some if not most of the game is quite anime but whether or not it’s a good thing that up to interpretation.

 

My biggest gripe is the game’s localization. I’m not a fan of it. It’s not as bad as Fates. That was a shit show. But there a number of dialogue changes that I wished was kept in tact. It seems like the vast majority where out of character from what the Japanese version intended them for them to be.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Humanoid said:

Just finished the game, just a simple run through on normal. I'm obviously several months late so I probably don't have anything particularly new to contribute.

I was first going to call the writing perfunctory, but actually no, it's only perfunctory during its high points. The low points are far below that. I feel the beginning through to the completion of the initial recruitment phase (i.e. the four suspiciously symmetrical kingdoms) to aggressively stupid. After that it briefly rises to a level of "bog standard Fire Emblem", before then falling flat on its face as it crosses the finish line. Starts at an F, climbs to a D, then back to F.

Gameplay was alright as long as the definition of gameplay is restricted to the actual act of fighting, and not the layers of excess baggage stacked all around it. I'm talking about juggling different types of rings, the awkward skill inheritance system, engravings, the annoying and excessive amount of currencies, etc. C for the combat in isolation, D once all the cruft weighing it down is accounted for.

The Somniel I'll also give an F too, if only because there's no score of E. Yes it's less busywork than the monastery. But it's contextualised far worse, and the game completely failed in getting me to want to engage (pun not intended) with any part of the system. The place makes no dang sense and is filler for the sake of filler. Tangentially related mechanics like the donation/skirmish system are likewise best completely ignored.

 

That's it then. I'm absolutely certain I'll never return to the game, not to replay it and most certainly not to explore any post-game or DLC content. Two stars.

Who says there's no score of E. Score however you feel. We're adults. We are masters of society! Also my school system genuinely had E grades.

[SnowFire]

On 8/26/2023 at 5:20 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

Take Elusia for instance. Its just a snowy version of Plegia, but also a version of Plegia that's better in about every single way. Elusia gets portrayed as a mostly good kingdom that's led astray, which is a development pretty much every Elusian seems bothered about. They're depicted as victims rather than just a country full of evil people. Meanwhile with Plegia there's nothing to suggest the whole place isn't rotten to the core. The playable characters from Elusia also care about their country and its plight, which is something Tharja and Henry didn't do. 

The conflict between Brodia and Elusia has more meat on its bones than that of Ylisse and Plegia. This is mostly because Gangrel was so cartoonishly evil that its obvious he's just using Chrom's dad as an excuse to satisfy his urges. But Hyacinth is probably honest when he blames Morion for all his attacks on his countries, and unlike Gangrel he's not fully himself when he becomes an evil warmonger. 

Hmm, I can't really agree here.  I think Elusia was done so much more poorly than Plegia.  Okay, both countries dragged into war in the past, and getting into war again now partially to avenge past slights.  Sure.

However, there's some problems.  Gangrel is doing his thing because he genuinely wants revenge and to butcher Yllisians.  He is directly following through on this plot point: you attacked us before, so we're attacking you.  That's good, it shows story unity.  However, Hyacinth is probably not!  We have lines after C14 (and possibly after C11 as well?  I forget) where Ivy basically says outright that Hyacinth was mind-controlled.  She has a line to Hortensia along the lines of "Father was never the same after Sombron woke up", and in general the narrative tone is one of pity for Hyacinth as a victim of the bad guys schemes (see C17).  So...  Hyacinth isn't following up on the Brodia - Elusia border clashes we learn so little about.  He's just serving Sombron.  (I guess you could claim that Ivy is an unreliable narrator who is shading the truth to better recruit Hortensia, but that isn't an impression I think the writer meant to send.)

Next up are the normal people.  There aren't any.  Okay, not quite, we have one: Lindon.  Maaaaaybe Mauvier too if you squint.  But we hear incredibly little about life for the common Elusian.  Ivy & Hortensia's retainers don't join up to fight evil, they join because their boss said so (Rosado is ready to fight you before C16, not already defecting, until Hortensia intervenes).  So the moral we get is that Elusians are either super-evil or super-dumb except their royalty who are awesome princesses & a mind controlled king.  There's one throwaway line about how Elusia is Sombron's country now in C14 (like, seriously, the post-C14 conversation with Hortensia in Solm is the closest we get to understanding what happened on the ground in Elusia?  What?).  How did the average citizen react to news about King Dragon eating the previous king?  Not that harshly since you're still fighting Elusian forces as late as C18, forces that don't care that Sombron apparently ate an entire town (C19).  Compare this to Awakening - Mustafa in C10 gives a good sense that there is opposition to Gangrel at home and the narrative talks about Gangrel's support collapsing in C11.  We also don't get a hand-wave where it turns out all leaders are wonderful and trustworthy unless mind-controlled (Walhart is also bad news), rather than the Engage / Sacred Stones idea of all attractive anime royalty being basically good people.

Basically, Elusia is very very flat.  I don't think the game really does care about the country - it's just there to have some humans to fight so it's not all Corrupted All Day.  Lindon is good, but he can only carry so much alone.  Plegia is much more interesting for "country whose religion accidentally worships the devil", although somewhat backstabbed by whatever the hell happens at the Dragon's Table in the third Act of Awakening (how many people were sacrificed, exactly?  Just the hardcore worshippers or everyone?).

[MeteorPhoenix]

Gameplay was alright as long as the definition of gameplay is restricted to the actual act of fighting, and not the layers of excess baggage stacked all around it.

This is something often lost in the general "story bad, gameplay good". No, the combat is good. The map design is good. But skirmishes and the Somniel also count as gameplay, and those are dreadful.

[Jotari]

20 minutes ago, MeteorPhoenix said:

 

 

This is something often lost in the general "story bad, gameplay good". No, the combat is good. The map design is good. But skirmishes and the Somniel also count as gameplay, and those are dreadful.

I don't think the response to the Somniel is awful. I think most people seem to have an attitude of "Better than Garreg Mach, but I don't really care about this stuff."

[MeteorPhoenix]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think the response to the Somniel is awful. I think most people seem to have an attitude of "Better than Garreg Mach, but I don't really care about this stuff."

I feel that that's worse because, who is the Somniel for? The people who like the Monastery really like the Monastery, and the people who hate it hate it.

The Somniel isn't for people who hate the Monastery, because it's the same damn thing, but ignorable (to a point). But it's also not for people who love the Monastery, because it's not integrated into the story, doesn't have updated dialogue, and it's not part of the core gameplay group.

So why is the Somniel even here? Why isn't it a series of menus?