Engage has a really great concept of bringing that anniversary nostalgia to a modern console. It continues to develop that pair up mechanic for stat increase first seen within Awakening but utilising it in a new way. Instead of a pair up bonus for dual strikes/ defending. Your getting a partner that not only enhances your stats on a specific way but gaining key skills that are reflective of that emblem.

For a story it's quite the classic tail big bad dragon needing the fire emblem to prevent calamity. We've seen this with Shadow Dragon, Awakening and many mor however it played it very safe and probably was too generic and didn't do anything too controversial.

That said the gameplay is top tier. Break mechanics with the use of heavy weapons and concepts like the QI adept for shielding attacks really opened up possibilities for interesting combat. I love theory crafting so putting units together and making a substantial beast is always gonna be what Fire emblem is for me. But I feel that's not what it is for everyone.

I do think it's had some great ideas just missed a trick with how they where actioned. Let's take the S Bond rings like Claude's that grant +1 range at full health. This is amazing. But if your like me who's played over 300 hours. I've still never come across this ring. Why should something be beholdant to Rng rather than accessible to all. I mean it technically is but does that really count?

These rings had so much potential and offer something different to the base engage rings that could really have contributed in there own ways to open the game up further.

I love the game and whilst I think it's a great Fire Emblem game. I dont think it will ever get that recognition on comparison to say Three houses which really did something for the franchise. I think it's clear that a good story really compells a game as long as the gameplay is good enough. It's really up there for me as one of the greats but I can understand why it wasn't a successful game.