As someone that enjoyed the older games more than the newer ones in terms of pacing and map design, even if it's partially due to bringing back maps from the older games. I liked Engage's formula more for being closer to what I was used to. I will say in regards to the story, Engage is definitely one of the weaker narratives in the series. Not performed abysmally like Fates' routes, but just a bit too campy to fit in with the other games. There's also just the complaint where Three Houses was not fun to play with the original permadeath playstyle since the cast was pretty limited and your options after were slim, seeing as the maps had mechanics built around divine pulse and no sort of backup units for the most part
I keep hearing Fates routes being just awful, so glad it wasn't THAT bad haha. And yeah for all 3H routes I left permadeath off, if some of my cast died, there really would be no one left after...
@@jxfufu yeah, reading through them is an exercise in mental gymnastics half the time Birthright is alright but easy Conquest is pretty difficult And Revelations is simultaneously too easy, too difficult, and too tedious Three Houses at least had consistent balance for most fights except the dragons with miracle
The main reason why I will always think that fe3h > engage is recruitment and its tie to gameplay and world building. Like when you get Catherine you know you she is going to be good with her good base stats , join time , and she comes with thunderbrand. She standouts as a recruit since she has good stats,good join time as early as ch5, contributes more to the plot and the world of foldan, and as a unit can be used in the long run . In engage , it is sorta hey I am the prince of strength kingdom and my retainers are going to be replaced literally in the next chapters. Like wow Timerra cool gimmick or whatever anyways Panette is literally better. As well , in Fe3h , once you get another character and earn their trust, you get their paralogue which feels rewarding in terms of gameplay and story. Like getting Lorenz's paralogue will give the player a bit more about Lorenz and you will be rewarded with good items for the most part. I think engage having bad recruits and the feel of getting tons of characters that are going to be either bench or replace other units makes it for me a pretty whatever fire emblem game. Like I don't care if chloe dies she is such an annoying character and only used her for her stats. That fire emblem has always been strategy with people's lives on stakes. Overall engage is a good fe but if it got rid of the gimmicks in the last chapters in engage, improve the character design, and not copy old mechanics like the monastery it would probably be my favorite fe.
Yeah I think Engage improved on making the "monastery" activities better, but I hated how more vegetables would be found at the farm rather than your garden. Also agree on the integration of characters into the narrative and gameplay for FE3H. I don't know why Engage got rid of recruitment and adopted a more linear story. I remember benching Vander after chp 4, and never getting to see any of his bond conversations or knowing more about him cause I literally forgot he existed.
@@jxfufungage follows more with the original FE formula where you get a constant flow of recruits that you can use if the rest of your party dies to alleviate the problems of perma death. The problem is that time reversal exists, so the massive cast is not as impactful, and it reversed the original formula by making newer units generally better than your first ones. In the first game, extra units were generally on par or worse than your starting squad at base, so it incentivizes keeping your main guys alive instead
@@azurill_sun The time reversal definitely made it too easy. The starting characters in Engage were pretty bad compared to the latter half IMO, so since I never used the retainers, I never got to see their bond conversations or the like.
Man it's almost like Engage is better designed because it gives you units to fill up holes in your army when someone falls in battle and not just dump all your units on you at the beginning of the game. You better hope you don't lose anyone in the second half of Golden Deer because you're at best is only going to get Ashe.
Nice review! Very detailed!! I agree with you Three Houses is definitely more engaging than Fire Emblem Engage ever will be! 🤣 P.S Thanks for the comparison :')
![4 BRAND NEW INSANE CODES & NEW CONTENT UPDATE! KR LIVESTREAM UPDATE! [Solo Leveling: Arise]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s-LX3yfNvP0/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone that enjoyed the older games more than the newer ones in terms of pacing and map design, even if it's partially due to bringing back maps from the older games. I liked Engage's formula more for being closer to what I was used to. I will say in regards to the story, Engage is definitely one of the weaker narratives in the series. Not performed abysmally like Fates' routes, but just a bit too campy to fit in with the other games.
There's also just the complaint where Three Houses was not fun to play with the original permadeath playstyle since the cast was pretty limited and your options after were slim, seeing as the maps had mechanics built around divine pulse and no sort of backup units for the most part
I keep hearing Fates routes being just awful, so glad it wasn't THAT bad haha. And yeah for all 3H routes I left permadeath off, if some of my cast died, there really would be no one left after...
@@jxfufu yeah, reading through them is an exercise in mental gymnastics half the time
Birthright is alright but easy
Conquest is pretty difficult
And Revelations is simultaneously too easy, too difficult, and too tedious
Three Houses at least had consistent balance for most fights except the dragons with miracle
The main reason why I will always think that fe3h > engage is recruitment and its tie to gameplay and world building. Like when you get Catherine you know you she is going to be good with her good base stats , join time , and she comes with thunderbrand. She standouts as a recruit since she has good stats,good join time as early as ch5, contributes more to the plot and the world of foldan, and as a unit can be used in the long run . In engage , it is sorta hey I am the prince of strength kingdom and my retainers are going to be replaced literally in the next chapters. Like wow Timerra cool gimmick or whatever anyways Panette is literally better. As well , in Fe3h , once you get another character and earn their trust, you get their paralogue which feels rewarding in terms of gameplay and story. Like getting Lorenz's paralogue will give the player a bit more about Lorenz and you will be rewarded with good items for the most part. I think engage having bad recruits and the feel of getting tons of characters that are going to be either bench or replace other units makes it for me a pretty whatever fire emblem game. Like I don't care if chloe dies she is such an annoying character and only used her for her stats. That fire emblem has always been strategy with people's lives on stakes. Overall engage is a good fe but if it got rid of the gimmicks in the last chapters in engage, improve the character design, and not copy old mechanics like the monastery it would probably be my favorite fe.
Yeah I think Engage improved on making the "monastery" activities better, but I hated how more vegetables would be found at the farm rather than your garden. Also agree on the integration of characters into the narrative and gameplay for FE3H. I don't know why Engage got rid of recruitment and adopted a more linear story. I remember benching Vander after chp 4, and never getting to see any of his bond conversations or knowing more about him cause I literally forgot he existed.
@@jxfufungage follows more with the original FE formula where you get a constant flow of recruits that you can use if the rest of your party dies to alleviate the problems of perma death. The problem is that time reversal exists, so the massive cast is not as impactful, and it reversed the original formula by making newer units generally better than your first ones. In the first game, extra units were generally on par or worse than your starting squad at base, so it incentivizes keeping your main guys alive instead
@@azurill_sun The time reversal definitely made it too easy. The starting characters in Engage were pretty bad compared to the latter half IMO, so since I never used the retainers, I never got to see their bond conversations or the like.
Man it's almost like Engage is better designed because it gives you units to fill up holes in your army when someone falls in battle and not just dump all your units on you at the beginning of the game. You better hope you don't lose anyone in the second half of Golden Deer because you're at best is only going to get Ashe.
Nice review! Very detailed!! I agree with you Three Houses is definitely more engaging than Fire Emblem Engage ever will be! 🤣
P.S Thanks for the comparison :')
Okay so Engage wins because it's the better game