#oneaday Day 212: Engage!

I've been playing Fire Emblem Engage since I finished Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom, and I've been having a lovely time. Fire Emblem is a series that has always passed me by despite it being, in theory kind of in my wheelhouse.

I say "kind of" rather than "completely", because while I absolutely love the high drama fantasy RPG side of the narrative, I've always had a bit of a rocky relationship with strategy games. I'm not good at them, see, and I've always had a hard time trying to determine how to get better at them. Because while there are plenty of guides out there for games like Fire Emblem, none of them simply sit you down and talk you through how to play them effectively. And that, for me, has always been a problem. It's why I bounced off Fire Emblem Awakening on 3DS, the last entry in the series that I tried, and why I have held off on playing the copy of Fire Emblem: Three Houses that's been on my shelf for several years at this point.

Why am I playing Fire Emblem Engage when Three Houses, a game almost universally considered to be superior in every way, is right there on my shelf? Well, because I had somehow got it in my head that Engage was a little more "straightforward" — and, perhaps more importantly, shorter. Three Houses is an absolute beast of a game, particularly if you do all the narrative routes (which I'm assured you should), whereas Engage is a once-and-done sort of affair, with replay value coming from the harder difficulty levels.

Mechanically, I don't think Engage is any more straightforward than what I know of Three Houses. There are elements where it's arguably more complicated, in fact — most notably with regard to the Emblem Bond and Skill Inheritance systems — but I wasn't to know that going in, and I'm about 25 hours in now, so, well, I guess I've dealt with it successfully.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm playing on Normal difficulty and Casual mode — i.e. the one without permadeath. I was having enough difficulty with the initial missions in the game that adding the opportunity to completely gimp my playthrough via poor performance seemed like an unwise choice. I am new to the series, I am still finding my feet in how it all works and how to play effectively, and thus I want minimal barriers to just enjoying myself. The options are there, so I'm using them.

With that "guardrail" in place, Fire Emblem Engage is still quite challenging. If you lose a unit during a mission, you still have to do the rest of the mission without that unit, and that can really fuck you over. It took me a few early-game missions to figure out what I was doing wrong, but then something interesting happened: I figured out what I was doing wrong.

This is not something that normally happens with strategy games. I normally end up being trounced by whoever I'm playing against, then never wanting to play it again as a result — or, in the case of tabletop affairs, not getting much opportunity to "practice". But with Fire Emblem Engage, I've ploughed on, and I've started to get a real feel for how the strategy works, and what is effective. I still make mistakes now and then — and the game's generous "Draconic Time Crystal" mechanic that allows you to undo stupid moves has been very helpful here — but I am definitely getting better at How To Play Fire Emblem. And that's a good feeling.

Because Being Able To Play Fire Emblem means that you can Enjoy Fire Emblem. And there is a lot to enjoy. The story of Engage, while relatively clichéd RPG fare — dark dragon long thought safely sealed away has come back, heroic band must gather a bunch of rings to summon enough power to drive the bastard back to the abyss — has been really compelling so far, and the character-centric nature of modern Fire Emblem is exactly what I like in this sort of game. I'm getting a real feeling that I'm getting to know the individual characters, both through the protagonist character's interactions with them and their interactions with one another.

For the unfamiliar, modern Fire Emblem features a relationship mechanic whereby units can "support" one another by fighting alongside each other in combat and doing activities together between battles, and your reward for reaching a new milestone in two characters' relationship with one another is a "support conversation", which depicts the two of them getting to know one another. There's not a Support mechanic in play for every pairing of characters in the game, but plenty that make logical sense, and it's lovely to see everyone getting to know one another, having comedic misunderstandings and deepening their feelings of friendship.

Anyway. I'm not sure how far through the game I am — I reckon probably about halfway maybe? — but I've been playing it all weekend and having a great time. I should almost certainly have it finished ahead of Xenoblade Chronicles X coming out on Switch in March — because you better believe I'm revisiting that game thoroughly having adored it on Wii U — but in the meantime I think I'm a convert to the series. I'm sure longstanding fans will scoff at me playing on non-permadeath mode, but I bet all of them reload a save the second anyone dies anyway. Also it doesn't matter how someone else enjoys a video game.

So yeah. Fire Emblem, pretty good. Who knew?

Want to read my thoughts on various video games, visual novels and other popular culture things? Stop by MoeGamer.net, my site for all things fun where I am generally a lot more cheerful. And if you fancy watching some vids on classic games, drop by my YouTube channel.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

2137: Nintendoes

0137_001

I've been playing almost exclusively Nintendo games for the past week or two. This wasn't entirely deliberate, but it's just sort of happened. And it's allowing me to rediscover my appreciation of what Nintendo does well.

Nintendo, more than pretty much any other company out there, puts out games that feel satisfyingly complete. They don't come out of the door half-baked, lacking in content or riddled with bugs; they're ready to play, bursting with things to do and full of enjoyment waiting to be discovered. And this is how they've always been, even since the days of the NES.

The other thing I rather like about Nintendo is that their work has a very distinctive "voice". This is partly the job of the localisation teams who work on the various properties, but the overall "tone" of most Nintendo works is so very consistent — and has been for many years — that I find it difficult to believe that this is purely a regional thing. Rather, I feel that Nintendo almost certainly makes very careful decisions about how it's going to localise things and make them accessible and tonally appropriate in territories around the world. This even goes as far as making the British/European English and American English versions of games different to quite a considerable degree in some cases, which always feels like a pleasantly "personal" touch.

Now, Nintendo have attracted the ire of a number of people over the last few years thanks to what these folks see as unnecessarily "butchered" translations of games such as Fire Emblem Awakening and Xenoblade Chronicles X. And, for sure, some notable changes have been made from the original scripts — and, in a number of cases, content has been edited or even cut to be in keeping with the perceived values of a particular territory. Memorable examples in recent memory include the shot of Tharja's panties-clad bum in Fire Emblem Awakening (which featured a curtain being pulled across it in the English version, inadvertently making it look more lewd by hiding her panties altogether) and the inexplicable removal of the breast size slider from Xenoblade Chronicles X's character creation tool.

These sorts of edits are nothing new, however. The Legend of Zelda series, for example, has a somewhat different tone in Japan to in the West, particularly in installments such as A Link to the Past on Super NES. In the Japanese original A Link to the Past, for example, the story touched on religious themes, with one of the main villains being a priest. In the English versions, however, religious references were removed, and the "priest" became a "wizard".

Why does Nintendo do this? For an attempt at inclusivity, I guess; the company has a carefully curated "family-friendly" image to uphold, after all, and "family-friendly" means different things in different territories. From its localisation decisions, we can interpret that Nintendo believes here in the West that "family-friendly" means something that the whole family can sit down and enjoy together without any material provoking arguments or awkwardness between one another. We've seen on all too many occasions that discussions and material relating to both religion and sexuality are very much capable of inducing arguments and awkwardness, so out the window they go. It's kind of a shame for those who prefer their translations to be more literal and true to the original Japanese texts, but it is, after all, what Nintendo has always done — and, I have to admit, that warm, friendly tone most of their localisations tend to have is rather comforting, and quite unlike anything from other localised Japanese works.

This is even apparent in games such as New Style Boutique 2 and Animal Crossing, where there was unlikely to be any real "offensive" content in the first place; both have been localised in such a way as to be as inclusive and welcoming as possible to a broad audience; they're games that invite you in to enjoy the experience rather than insist you must be this skilled to ride, or whatever. And that's rather nice, really. Not something that every game needs, of course — some games are all the better for their laser-sharp focus on a very specific, niche-interest audience — but, to be honest, I find it hard to get too riled up about censorship talk when it comes to Nintendo games, simply because I've grown up with that warm, friendly, familiar tone of their localisations, and it would feel kind of strange for that to change now.

Anyway. I'm enjoying my Nintendo period right now: currently playing Zelda 3, Hyrule Warriors and New Style Boutique 2. All are very different games from one another. All are simply marvellous. All are proof that Nintendo doesn't give a shit what its competitors are doing, because they're quite happy doing their own thing, even if it ends up causing their sales figures to look dismal in comparison to those of Sony and Microsoft.

I hope this Nintendo never goes away. They're an important part of gaming, and it would be sad to see them go the way of Sega, becoming just another third-party publisher.

1120: Warm Symbol

So I finally popped my Fire Emblem cherry today. This is a series that I've been aware of on the periphery of my vision for some time, but have never actually got around to exploring. Which is sort of weird, really, because it's exactly my sort of thing.

Naturally, because I'm an arbitrary sort of person, I am not playing the newly-released Fire Emblem Awakening on 3DS (largely because it's not out yet, and also because Andie is away all week and has taken the 3DS with her) — no, instead, I am playing the Gamecube game Path of Radiance, which I acquired at great expense recently after being informed that I should probably play it before the Wii version Radiant Dawn that I got for a pocketful of change when Game was undergoing its, uh, "troubles" a while back.

Although Fire Emblem Awakening's immensely positive reception from press and public alike has caused the series to enjoy unprecedented visibility recently, it's entirely possible that some of you reading this may, like me, have missed out on it so far. So allow me to explain.

Fire Emblem is a strategy RPG series developed by Intelligent Systems, who over the years have also been responsible for the Paper Mario and Advance Wars series as well as the excellent 3DS puzzle games Pushbloxpullmo or whatever they're called in each territory. It is closer in execution to a strategy game with a linear campaign like Advance Wars than something more explicitly RPG-ish like Final Fantasy Tactics, but the important thing about it is that you're taking it in turns with the enemy to move little dudes around on a grid-based map and beat the snot out of each other, much like a board game.

Even the mechanics are very similar to Advance Wars — certain units may only perform "direct" attacks by standing next to enemies; others may only perform "indirect" ones by standing a square away from their target. Attacking an enemy isn't a guarantee you'll get away unscathed, either — a typical combat exchange between two units allows both attacker and defender to strike, assuming the defender survived the initial blow, of course.

I often find strategy games somewhat daunting as I'm not very good at them, but the relatively little I've played of Path of Radiance so far does a good job of introducing concepts to you very gradually and letting you explore them for yourself. At the core of the combat system is a sort of "rock, paper, scissors" system whereby characters with swords are better against ones with axes, characters with axes are better against those with lances, and characters with lances are better against those with swords. This is gradually built upon with ranged combat, mounted units, magic-using units who can cast spells using a staff, static ballistae on the battlefield and numerous other considerations. It eventually — presumably, anyway, I'm only four missions in — builds up to something of satisfying complexity, but which remains straightforward enough to be easily understandable for even rookie wargamers.

Then there are the interesting other mechanics laid atop these foundations. In maps based on towns, for example, you can spend a turn "visiting" any building with an open door, which leads to a short conversation with the inhabitant and usually an item. It also secures that building and prevents the enemy from destroying it; conversely, an enemy who gets to an open-door building before you will raze it to the ground, preventing you from getting at the goodies within and making you feel bad for the residents in the process.

And, of course, there's the series' trademark: permadeath or, in other words, if you lose a unit it's gone forever. This is a thorny issue for some — some believe that it adds an extra layer of excitement to the game (I'm inclined to fall into this camp) while others simply find it frustrating. Others still find themselves appreciating the permadeath system, but restarting any mission they lose one of their units on — a point which Matt's blog post linked above argues may be missing the point a little!

I'm a fan of the permadeath system. The last game I played that was vaguely like Fire Emblem was Aselia the Eternal, which featured a similar system whereby if you lost a particular character, they were gone forever. I managed to get all the way through the entire game (with a few tactical reloads, admittedly) only using one single unit in the final battle. (Her sacrifice was worth it.) I tend to find that a permadeath system is best paired with a strong sense of characterisation, however; for some people, the feeling of having nurtured an awesome character up to level amazing is enough, but for me I like to know who this person is before I feel bad about losing them. It's something that Aselia the Eternal did particularly well with its incidental scenes between its protagonist and his troops, and it also looks like Fire Emblem will be this way, too.

I'm very early in the game so far but I can tell it's going to be a pretty cool experience, plus its extremely linear mission-based nature means that it's friendly to being played alongside other stuff and has natural "break points" to stop, which is good. I will probably play it alongside Ar Tonelico and the other bits and pieces I'm enjoying at the moment, and then move on to Radiant Dawn when I'm done. By the time I'm finished with that, you never know, the 3DS Awakening might be out over here in Europe!