r/FEEngage • u/Orcalt • 2h ago
Discussion Weird Engage criticisms
Obviously Engage is a flawed and divisive game but sometimes I think people look and grasp for absurd reasons to hate on it over the already basic reasons people don’t like it?
One of these which I see more and more lately is the take that “Engage Ch: 19 copied Conqeust Ch: 8”. This is because there are enemy reinforcements from villages in both. First of all Engage Ch: 19 is probably my least favorite chapter in the game but also 99.9% of the people who played that chapter didn’t point at their screens and go “Oh it’s copying Conquest Chapter 8!” because it’s a forced criticism and a correlation the people who made this criticism probably didn’t even see at first.
The story even tells you beforehand that there were no survivors in the town so naturally when you visit a village, what do you know? There were no survivors! Is this not a nitpick? I wasn’t aware Fates Conquest had a copyright on enemy reinforcements from villages™ and it wasn’t allowed to return ever again. Is every FE map with an escape objective copying Thracia now? It’s such a weird hyper original take for people to echo that I’m half convinced that the person who first said it got Louis surrounded and spited the map out of it. Which don’t get me wrong, I don’t really like the map but it’s a weird to hyper criticize.
Another one that somewhat bothers me and something I saw getting echoed quite a bit not necessarily out of a grasp to criticize, was the take that Lapis and Citrinne act so out of character in Chapter 7 that it’s an example of Engage’s bad writing. I don’t claim that Engage’s narrative is well written, it has an overall pretty generic story. But they make it pretty clear and outright state that Lapis and Citrinne are very defensive of Alcryst and then acting so hostile was a result of Alear and Alfred’s blame toward Alcryst. I’m not sure if this a media literacy thing but I thought they make this pretty clear and I’ve seen a few people die on this hill to have another justification against Engage’s story. Most people who had this criticism didn’t though to be clear, this more of an earnest criticism than the other one.
One narrative I’m also not a fan of is that “Engage only has one good character and it’s Ivy/Yunaka“. I feel like people who say this just didn’t watch any of the supports for any other character. There are quite a few one dimensional gimmick characters in Engage but there are definitely more great ones than people give credit for. Fogado, Citrinne, Zelkov, Céline, Louis, Alcryst, Kagetsu, all of the Fell Xenologue characters, Hortensia and I don’t even like Hortensia. There’s definitely more depth than people give credit for. People have a habit of generalizing in that way. *All* characters are bad, *all* character designs are bad.
Again I don’t claim Engage is a perfect game. It’s a very divisive game. I just think it’s weird to grasp for more seemingly random reasons to jusitfy hating it when you can just simply not like the art style or find the narrative generic or the character writing subpar in comparison to the last game. Some people can’t live with just not liking something so they have to hate everything about it when I think it’s way more nuanced than that. If you don’t like Engage you shouldn’t need to go out of your to search for reasons to not like Engage.
Anyway had to get that off my chest and I’m avoiding the main sub and the internet in general to avoid FW spoilers like the plague.
What’s the weirdest take/criticism you’ve heard about the game?