[Stilton Disco]

Thing is, Awakening had nowhere near the wanky anime levels as Three Houses.
I think that's the point, it was pushed too far and the overall game suffered as a consequence. As I say, it's just about rebalancing things back a bit, and that's what they looked to have done here.

I think it's just a little bizarre take to think everybody who liked the new direction the series has gone would be theoretically ok with sacking off the actual core gameplay. What would be the point of the relationship simulator otherwise? I thought it's purpose was to support the development of your team for battle. I know people are suckers for all that shit but there's a limit to far you can take it.

Anyway the proof will be in the pudding when we can compare sales figures for this new entry with Three Houses. Then we'll know for sure.

I broadly agree, and think there is room for improvement, ideally with fewer, more meaningful interactions between characters. That's my main concern with Engage so far indact, it seems to be throwing dozens of dull, shallow characters at you that mean the sim side is reduced to a few lines of dialogue and the combat side is awash with disposable mooks that likely either won't be used or will be killed without any kind of emotional impact.

But the deduction based on the existing evidence, that more people would care about the relationship sim aspect being removed than the combat, is simple and really not soemthing you can argue, given sales and known facts about the viability of the franchise.

Ill be generous and say 10% of fans liked the game without the focus on relationships enough to buy it.

The other 90% of fans liked the game enough to buy it only after the introduction of the inclusion of a heavy focus on relationships, that means it was that included feature that made the game worth owning for that 90% of fans.

Hell, there's also at least some of those older players, like me, who now couldn't imagine the series going back to what it was and being worth my time. It's as important as the combat to me now. So there are likely also an unknown percentage for whom it is now more important too.

It's a safe extrapolation then, to say that the feature that a vocal subset of the original 10% dislike, is the most important factor in enjoying the game for the 90% that bought specifically for it, not the prexisting combat focus that they could have bought the games for, but didnt, and that if you were going to take a risk in removing one or the other with a new entry, then removing something possibly critical to up to 10% of fans is less of a risk than removing something definitely critical to 90% of fans.

Now that isn't to say I want either removed, I'm just pointing out how incredibly fucking stupid and selfish those demanding the relationships be either reduced or removed from the games entirely are being.

I personally would like to see fewer unique interactive characters, with much more and deeper interactions, coupled with the inclusion of generic troop units for the combat side, that would allow for disposable non interactive fighters that exist solely for battles.

That would allow those that don't like the relationships to be able to skip them more quickly, or ignore rgem entirely and use rhe troop units, while that massive majority that are buying because of relationships get a better quality, more meaningful experience.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

I personally would like to see fewer unique interactive characters, with much more and deeper interactions, coupled with the inclusion of generic troop units for the combat side, that would allow for disposable non interactive fighters that exist solely for battles.

Already got that, it's called Fire Emblem Warriors.

But really though. Tactical RPGs manage to exist without deep relations between characters. They're a niche genre, like all strategy/tactics games, but - as I keep saying - less broadly attractive doesn't mean a 'worse' game.

And giving the player characters they don't mind having killed off would actually improve the damn series, if you ask me. Because losses and failures are part of the whole strategy genre, and when your entire roster is characters you care about and absolutely can't stand losing, what do you get? Every single battle turns into a puzzle called "how do I finish this level without a single casualty" as well as "how many times am I going to have to restart it until I get it right". I know, because I am guilty of the same thing.

One of the brilliant parts of XCOM as a tactical game, is that your characters are plentiful, and they're only as indispensable as you make them to be. And if you're fighting a difficult battle against terrible odds, and have a choice to sacrifice one of your 'main characters' to complete the mission, versus facing many more hours of attempts and possibly even worse sacrifices, you can make that choice.

So... I haven't followed what this "Engage" game is about and how it differs, but if what you've implied is what I think it could be, then it has potential to improve both the character-development and the tactical-RPG elements of the game. By having characters that the player can choose to sacrifice so that others can survive.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

And giving the player characters they don't mind having killed off would actually improve the damn series, if you ask me. Because losses and failures are part of the whole strategy genre, and when your entire roster is characters you care about and absolutely can't stand losing, what do you get? Every single battle turns into a puzzle called "how do I finish this level without a single casualty" as well as "how many times am I going to have to restart it until I get it right". I know, because I am guilty of the same thing.

Something I love about Triangle Strategy is that you keep your Exp and your spoils after failing a battle, and you receive any used items. Units cannot die, and exp is gained through almost any action (using items, attacking, and abilities) so even when you lose you're still gaining a bit of exp in the background.

This is offset by all your units being unique and you're pretty much always outnumbered, so losing a unit in battle might mean losing a critical piece of your strategy which causes other units to easily fall.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I broadly agree, and think there is room for improvement, ideally with fewer, more meaningful interactions between characters. That's my main concern with Engage so far indact, it seems to be throwing dozens of dull, shallow characters at you that mean the sim side is reduced to a few lines of dialogue and the combat side is awash with disposable mooks that likely either won't be used or will be killed without any kind of emotional impact.

But the deduction based on the existing evidence, that more people would care about the relationship sim aspect being removed than the combat, is simple and really not soemthing you can argue, given sales and known facts about the viability of the franchise.

Ill be generous and say 10% of fans liked the game without the focus on relationships enough to buy it.

The other 90% of fans liked the game enough to buy it only after the introduction of the inclusion of a heavy focus on relationships, that means it was that included feature that made the game worth owning for that 90% of fans.

Hell, there's also at least some of those older players, like me, who now couldn't imagine the series going back to what it was and being worth my time. It's as important as the combat to me now. So there are likely also an unknown percentage for whom it is now more important too.

It's a safe extrapolation then, to say that the feature that a vocal subset of the original 10% dislike, is the most important factor in enjoying the game for the 90% that bought specifically for it, not the prexisting combat focus that they could have bought the games for, but didnt, and that if you were going to take a risk in removing one or the other with a new entry, then removing something possibly critical to up to 10% of fans is less of a risk than removing something definitely critical to 90% of fans.

Now that isn't to say I want either removed, I'm just pointing out how incredibly fucking stupid and selfish those demanding the relationships be either reduced or removed from the games entirely are being.

I personally would like to see fewer unique interactive characters, with much more and deeper interactions, coupled with the inclusion of generic troop units for the combat side, that would allow for disposable non interactive fighters that exist solely for battles.

That would allow those that don't like the relationships to be able to skip them more quickly, or ignore rgem entirely and use rhe troop units, while that massive majority that are buying because of relationships get a better quality, more meaningful experience.

As I say we'll find out how correct your 90%/10% ratio is when the sales figures come in for this game in comparison with Three Houses. Maybe you'll be proved right or Intelligent Systems were correct to rebalance the game to reintroduce a more traditional feel.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

.. when your entire roster is characters you care about and absolutely can't stand losing, what do you get? Every single battle turns into a puzzle called "how do I finish this level without a single casualty" as well as "how many times am I going to have to restart it until I get it right". I know, because I am guilty of the same thing.

That's the best part of the game for me, trying to figure that out

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

That's the best part of the game for me, trying to figure that out

I remember the first time I got hit with it, incidentally the first time I played the GBA Fire Emblem. Got my first pegasus rider character, and I really liked her design - and I say I liked her design because that's as far as I got to know her before I made an ill-considered move and was like... "Oh right. Archers." Aaand she was gone. XD

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I remember the first time I got hit with it, incidentally the first time I played the GBA Fire Emblem. Got my first pegasus rider character, and I really liked her design - and I say I liked her design because that's as far as I got to know her before I made an ill-considered move and was like... "Oh right. Archers." Aaand she was gone. XD

Haha totally!! I think I lost a pegasus rider that way. Powerful units but so vulnerable!

 

[Mickmrly]

Well Awakening wasn't too forced on all that jrpg shit, I remember playing it and it was easily ignored. Maybe that is the right balance, and Engage is going more in that direction. Three Houses took it way too far, and also removing the battle triangle made for a very boring easy game.

Did you try maddening mode? I can't remember if that was a DLC only thing or a feee update because I got the pass anyway.

 

[Mickmrly]

Something I love about Triangle Strategy is that you keep your Exp and your spoils after failing a battle, and you receive any used items. Units cannot die, and exp is gained through almost any action (using items, attacking, and abilities) so even when you lose you're still gaining a bit of exp in the background.

This is offset by all your units being unique and you're pretty much always outnumbered, so losing a unit in battle might mean losing a critical piece of your strategy which causes other units to easily fall.

Damn I should have Triangle Strategy for Christmas instead of Splatoon 3. It sounds great.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

Damn I should have Triangle Strategy for Christmas instead of Splatoon 3. It sounds great.

yeah the strategy genre suffers from the problem of "time wasted", whether you fail a battle (and all your progress reverts) or you perform so badly in a campaign / lose too many units so you have to start the save over again. TS does the opposite and rewards you for your time even if you lose a battle or don't win the battle perfectly.

it doesn't make the game "easier", just a lot less time wasted.

 

[teezzy]

Disgaea > Fire Emblem

 

[Chozofication]

Not a fire emblem fan (should I be?) but the new game looks a lot better than the old one. Though I do hate the blue/red haired character.

 

[Sejan]

I think the art is fine. The colors have a nice pop to them, but the split color hairstyle just looks stupid regardless of the explanation. I'll get the game either way, but I would strongly consider paid DLC just to fix the atrocious hairstyle. Here's hoping there are cosmetic options in the game.

 

[Franky Family]

Actually, I never took a good look at FE: 3H but this one might have the better artstyle. It's just that the main character's hair is unforgivably dumb. Nearly on the level of Lloyd Christmas

 

[Zefah]

Disgaea > Fire Emblem

Maybe systems-wise, but man, I hate everything about its aesthetic and goofy-ass setting.

 

[Hinedorf]

I personally loved 3 houses and this seems like more of the same. When you're trying to build a 50+ hour game on essentially cellphone/tablet hardware there will be some concessions made in order to make a good-playing game.

As of late you can see the companies who 1. Q/A their own shit and 2. Actually made the necessary concessions not to make the game run poorly.

Could give a fuck if it looks anime and plays great.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

Maybe systems-wise, but man, I hate everything about its aesthetic and goofy-ass setting.

I literally skip through the campaign scenes to get to the post-game. I couldn't tell you anything about the Plot or the character motivations of Disgaea 5 even though I crossed the 200hr mark awhile ago. The game is fine-tuned for grinding through dungeons at high efficiency.

In contrast, I think the "serious" strategy RPGs suffer from letting the serious plot drag on and interfere with the battles. They are packed with unwinnable battles, escort battles, and arbitrary character deaths for the sake of story e.g. you win the battle but still "lose" because that's what the story calls for, or a character dies/betrays/runs away because that's what the story calls for.

 

[Ferdinand the Cowfish]

The art is fine. I'll take bright and colorful over a grimdark palette every single time, even if the subject mater of the game is serious and grimdark.

That said, I can't say that I really cared for the social-sim aspects of 3H. I'm not sure they really added much to the game and I often found myself spending more time on that crap than actual battles, which isn't a good sign in a strategy RPG.

I also don't like that there isn't forced perma-death anymore. That should be a baked-in, no-compromise staple of the Fire Emblem franchise.

Still looking forward to checking out Engage and I'm glad to hear that the weapons triangle is back.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Not the biggest sample size, but Japanese chain reports Engage preorders double 3H in similar lead up to launch. Be interesting to see if that's an indicator of how things are going to shake out overall.

 

[Mickmrly]

Not the biggest sample size, but Japanese chain reports Engage preorders double 3H in similar lead up to launch. Be interesting to see if that's an indicator of how things are going to shake out overall.

I will be happy if Engage does do well and Fire Emblem grows even more, even though I'm not that into the game. I just hope they can have at least one big support/story focused game every two or three entires.

 

[John Day]

I'm sorry but that blue/red play on the characters feels so generic and atrocious to me. Of course, character wise I don't know shit. Maybe that levels out. But i can't just seriously look at them and not cringe.

Add to it that, as much as I've tried to get into FE, i just can't. The strategy combat, i dig, but it's just....everything else.

I'd wish they'd try and do a FE game without semi-blank main characters. I will sound ignorant, but the last few entries have been all the same to me on that regard .