As noted by at least a couple other users here: the idea that Engage was less successful because of it's strategy elements seems flawed. In fact, I'd say it was successful due to its solid strategy elements in spite of its horrible writing and story. It was uninspired, cringy at times, and did not pull me along. I think many who appreciate the social side of the game, or just the plot itself, would have been fine with the strategy as a means to an end. But there was no reason to want to reach the end of this game. Fire Emblem needs to focus on hiring better story tellers and valuing this more, and the series will thrive. Three Houses was fairly good in this regard and it was rewarded. Path of Radiance was good in this regard and is, at least retrospectively, well loved and valued.
Comments 1
Re: Soapbox: Fire Emblem’s Future May Not Be In Turn-Based Combat
As noted by at least a couple other users here: the idea that Engage was less successful because of it's strategy elements seems flawed. In fact, I'd say it was successful due to its solid strategy elements in spite of its horrible writing and story. It was uninspired, cringy at times, and did not pull me along. I think many who appreciate the social side of the game, or just the plot itself, would have been fine with the strategy as a means to an end. But there was no reason to want to reach the end of this game. Fire Emblem needs to focus on hiring better story tellers and valuing this more, and the series will thrive. Three Houses was fairly good in this regard and it was rewarded. Path of Radiance was good in this regard and is, at least retrospectively, well loved and valued.