Was emblem rings being the major plot for engage a good decision on IS’s part? as we know engage is largely praised for its gameplay but story wise it’s rather shallow. Do yall think they should’ve made engage just it’s own enteries instead of involving the previous lords in the form of these emblem rings? (for anniversary reasons?) or perhaps maybe include the mythos of the previous fire emblems in some manner without the lords themselves taking active part in the main story? Purely from a writing stand point, do yall think engage would be more memorable without emblem rings being a big part of it’s plot?
2 Likes
The rings themselves are just power-ups, they’re like extra weapons to be wielded by the characters. Nothing inherently good or bad there
The lords, unfortunately, are saddled with being power-ups, just like the rings; they barely exist as independent characters and are mostly a means of empowering the actual characters
You could write the past FE characters out of the story entirely and make the rings have all these engage powers on their own and not much would change
I suppose my criticism would be that “bringing back past entries and past lords is fine, but they don’t really do anything in this story, so the potential of them returning wasn’t capitalized upon whatsoever”
You could argue that their inclusion serves as a celebration of the series, since Engage was an anniversary game to some extent, which is fine; but when you argue in regard to the story itself, the lords barely exist, unfortunately
2 Likes
yea I feel like the story is trying more to accomodate the past lords appearing instead of trying to tell it’s own concrete story well yknow
1 Like
I don’t know why people expect the game that’s explicitly mentioned to be an anniversary title and starts with “RISE FROM THOUSAND YEARS AGO” 90s anime OP to have a deep story and not just the devs having fun with it.
Alas.
do yall think engage would be more memorable without emblem rings being a big part of it’s plot?
You would’ve to change the whole game for that. I even have an idea on how that could work. For example instead of the Emblems the rings hold the souls of that game’s heroes. The heroes didn’t put just their power in the rings…they were forcefully sealed in it. Could create an interesting story & moral dilemma in a more serious setting.
But it wouldn’t be an anniversary title anymore
6 Likes
I suppose that’s the main crux into which we need to like talk about, did engage have to be an anniversary title for fe? A game is definitely better as a celebration of a game series than just a re-release and the like. But maybe the game could be a title in its own with the spirit of earlier games. Ie a spiritual sequel or having certain element that echoe previous titles baked into a coherent story. Would that have been a better way to celebrate an anniversary? stuff like that’s what I’m thinking about currently
2 Likes
I don’t see anything wrong with it, but you will find the answers to that question to be wildly different - and at the end of the day, the devs wanted to make an anniversary title.
A Spiritual sequel to one title or a Saga is not the same thing as a whole series celebration.
2 Likes
I mean, the thing is that Engage is an anniversary title…three years too late, and that’s my biggest criticism of it. Not the “shit” story/writing in general, not the awful VTuber character designs (as much as that hurts to say as a VTubing fan), not the mechanics inherited from 3H blended with a worse Awakening, none of that. It all comes down to the fact that IntSys genuinely forgot that the anniversary was even closing in when they were developing 3H. That probably says it all honestly.
Answering the question at hand, maybe if the main cast was, like, actually good and well-written and not the same generic one-note gimmicks we’ve had for the past decade at this point, then mayyybe the Lord-shafting could be justified, but alas 
Otherwise, I’d say the rings were good for Engage because…how else could they be integrated? Again, this is an anniversary title, a celebration of the fact that this franchise managed to stay active and lively for thirty goddamn years which is a massive feat; the whole point is to celebrate the lords that came before Alear and the gang, so them being included isn’t a failure, it’s a necessary evil. Yes, they could’ve been written better (and also not spoil major plot beats…looking at you, Sigurd), but hey, they get the job done, and that’s what matters to me 
Besides, this game already gets plenty of backlash about how it’s just a mainline Heroes, and making the lords playable as units on the battlefield would not exactly help 
1 Like
About that…
-
Corona happened
-
IS didn’t develop 3H, it was KT
2 Likes
Well, both IntSys and Koei could’ve just…switched gears to make a game similar to Engage before jumping into 3H and releasing that first instead. I mean, the franchise was still uber successful during this period because of Awakening and Fates selling a combined 3M+ units, and while Echoes sold poorly, it wasn’t the be-all-end-all. Besides, remakes don’t usually sell as well compared to brand-new games unless it’s for games people have been clamoring to have remade for decades like Silent Hill 2 or the game needs it to appeal to a modern audience like Resident Evil 2. On top of that…it’s Intelligent Systems’ IP first and foremost, not Nintendo’s and certainly not Koei Tecmo’s, they above all others should’ve been aware of this fact, but they just weren’t.
I don’t like the argument that FE Engage can be forgiven for its shortcomings because it’s an anniversary celebration because it feels like a cop out. “Why are you expecting a good story and believable characters in an anniversary celebration?” I mean, it’s a Fire Emblem game, right? So we’ll judge it by its merits, anniversary or not.
The rings are fine. Units having an inventory slot for certain power ups separate from weapons is cool. Tellius did this (kind of) with skills with costs and each character having a skill cap. They’re just rings now and some give stats and some give skills.
The characterization of the emblem heroes is hit-and-miss.
Engage fails for me because of its nonsense world, nonsense conflict, flat characters, and anti-immersive character design.
But skill and power rings to customize your squad is a great idea. “I’m going to equip a ring that lowers def and increases res on my armor knight to make him more balanced for this next fight” - that’s a fun tactical decision to sort through each chapter.
5 Likes
No, honestly I believe the opposite. Engage Rings are a really cool idea for a story, having fan favorite characters come to mentor new, inexperienced heroes has plenty of room for emotional stakes and drama. It’s not uncommon in other mediums to have a previous protag take on a mentor position in the sequel, and Engage is just that taken to the nth degree.
The issue, unsurprisingly, is in execution. Alear, in some part due to corporate interference, doesn’t really have a strong arc. There are some elements of it when the Rings are taken away, with Alear taking an action that Marth advises against, but it’s not really mentioned again.
Many characters in Engage have incredibly interesting foundations for arcs, but they never become apparent and parallels between Engage lords and Emblem lords are rarely pointed out. Imagine Diamant talking to Roy about his insecurities in quickly having to take over his father’s position, or Ivy talking to Lyn about how her culture and country have been nearly eradicated by violence. There are plenty of opportunities for the Emblems and the lords to have meaningful discussions, but it just doesn’t happen.
I would recommend being cautious and conservative when it comes to making claims about intent and motivation. The idea that IS genuinely forgot about the 30th anniversary is provably false, not to mention there being much easier explanations for the delay. Houses was delayed several times even before Covid, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to prioritize following the planned release order over matching the anniversary date.(Especially given Byleth is in Engage lol.)
I see no reason to assume that this happened because IS just didn’t care about Fire Emblem enough. Immediately ascribing a personal failing to a decision you disagree with will make it difficult for people to engage with your ideas without getting defensive.
I do agree in spirit that IS should have kept the anniversary element a part of the marketing. I don’t think anyone would question why it’s late and it would help prevent the narrative that Engage has “sold out to heroes fans”.
Echoes didn’t sell poorly, fortunately IS isn’t stupid and understands the reality of what a remake of FE2 at the end of a console’s lifespan would look like.
From the July 2017 Interview with Nintendo Dream
“We made a few remakes before this one too, but they did not sell particularly well. So that’s why when I saw the turnout for this game, I was relieved and said, “Phew! That’s great.”
“Based on the results I achieved, I’m able to reprise my role for the next work too”.
-Hitoshi Yamagami, Producer
4 Likes
You win 
Fuck this game anyways
1 Like
It was suppose to be a 30 year anniversary game remembering all the lords but COVID happen so it got delay.