Fire Emblem Engage Review: Popstars Save The World

I am still very new to Fire Emblem; Three Houses was my first foray into the franchise and initially I wasn't interested in Engage at all. The gameplay in the trailers looked fun, but there didn't seem to be a storyline and the new art style was too ostentatious for my taste. First impressions are often wrong though, and after watching some YouTubers playing Engage, I decided to pick up a copy as an impulse buy.

Gameplay

One thing Engage does really well over Three Houses is balancing the various units and encouraging diversity on the team. Armored units have better movement for example, while magic users are good for support. The various infantry units each have unique traits and roles now, such as halbediers having guaranteed follow-ups while heroes give the party damage boosts.

The weapon triangle from past titles makes a return: sword > Axe > Lance > sword; Martial arts beats thief, mage, and archer. The triangle further discourages class homogeneity by inflicting a "break" status effect on units that are attacked by one they are weak against. Units suffering from "break" cannot counterattack, which encourages planning and mindfulness of enemy compositions. Engage's main gimmick - the 'Emblems' (heroes from past games), whose power can be called upon for a set number of rounds, plays into the player power fantasy and are fun to use while still being limited enough that they do not let you plow through levels.

Story

A human named Alear awakens with amnesia from a thousand year slumber. Through the years they were protected by their mother - a divine white dragon, who is embroiled in a conflict with the dark fell dragon Sombron. Twelve magical "Emblem Rings" can be "Engaged" with to gain power from phantom-like beings from other worlds (past Fire Emblem games), which Sombron plans to use to conquer the world.

My biggest issue with Engage is the focus on 'bonds' and 'friendship' as a theme while Alear's relationships are based almost exclusively on people worshiping them for their status as the "Divine Dragon" rather than that trust having to be earned. Everybody, including rival kingdoms, just get along. Loyalty is never tested because Alear is the only path to avoiding the apocalypse. Non-villains (mostly parents) get about 1 chapter before they are offed or forgotten about. Actual villains have the opposite problem in that they are recurring and get a big sob story dump right before dying rather than revealing it organically through gameplay and interactions over the course of the game. The player is also expected to have pre-existing emotional connections to the Emblems, so Engage doesn't bother to flesh them out beyond one-note cutouts. Support conversations with allies aren't much better and typically boil down to something about cuteness or muscles that just isn't fun to listen to.

Engage's art direction has spawned many toothpaste and "popstars playing warriors" memes.

The writing on the whole is goofy and I can't tell if this was intentional or not. The game seems to take itself seriously for the most part, but then the characters say and do things so silly that it has to be some attempt at comedy. For example, Alear has two caretakers that start a literal Alear fan club. Two other companions regularly make animal noises and another man keeps trying to lick and smell sauce off of Alear's clothes. It is possible there is just some cultural difference in humor I am not getting. The narrative also suffers from contrived storytelling, juvenile dialogue, plot induced stupidity, and telling rather than showing. The narrative tries very hard to pull off plot twists, but they all end up being pointless, such as having Alear die and revive twice in the same mission, orSombron (the Big Bad Evil Guy) dispersing the Emblems just so Alear can call them back seconds later. Sombron's goal keeps changing as well. First it's to conquer Elyos, then it's to raise his kingdom Gradlon from the sea, then it's to leave Elyos to conquer all other worlds, and finally it's to locate the Zero Emblem (whatever that is).

Paralogues also felt disjointed from the rest of the world because they just appear on the world map with no context. It is not clear why you should go there or why you're fighting or how this "strengthens your bonds" with an Emblem. The Emblems make the fight out to be a mock battle but then they kill your units for real. It would've made more sense to have the Emblem fight on your side against some evil from their world. For comparison, in Three Houses the relevant characters tell you about their paralogue and you go to the location indicated because you care about this person. You understand why you are there, why you are fighting the enemies you are, and why you get the reward that you do.

Conclusion

Apparently the team that worked on Engage is not the same one that made Three Houses, hence the wildly different styles, and I enjoyed Engage for different reasons than Three houses. One is colorfully flamboyant, silly, and has good gameplay mechanics and balancing. The other is bleaker with a more serious narrative and deeper characters. Very different beasts. Three houses is the type of game I derive more enjoyment from playing; enough to sink 300+ hours into it. While I had a good enough time with Engage, after my first playthrough I felt no desire to replay it anytime soon. Maybe in a few years time I'll get the itch to return.

Related Reviews:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Legend of Vox Machina: Season 3

Music to Level Up Your Day: MHW Iceborne

Top Best / Worst Games of 2024