Darkest Dungeon 1 is a titan of a game and probably the closest a game will get to being perfect. There is no way to make a sequel to that game without either:

A) Repeating what you already did and getting compared directly to the 1st one (an impossible standard)
B) Going in a completely new direction and picking and choosing what you take from the 1st game (and people being mad that it's different)

DD2 goes in a new direction and loses a lot of what the first game had because of it, and that's ok because DD1 still exists and you can go play it. It follows a more modern "roguelike" format and progression system which emphasizes experimentation and removes a lot of the longer dread and stress than DD1 had.

My only real issue with the game is that I don't know if the change, which removed a lot of what made the 1st one special, added enough of its own sauce to really stand out as a complete game - but that may change as I continue playing or from person to person.

Larian Studios has made a really awesome game and a really amazing system. The gameplay, the graphics, etc etc are all great and the game is really obviously a contender for best CRPG.

The biggest flaw this game has is the TTRPG system it is based on. DnD 5E's pass/fail Difficulty Checks, which make up about 50% of the game, are not fun and make save-scumming an essential part of the game.

Pass/Fail effectively means that on a lot of checks it's possible to get unlucky and get nothing out of a situation - not a mixed result or even real consequences for failing. You try to convince a guard and they say "no it didn't work" and you have to move on or reload a save. I do not know a single person who has played this game and hasn't reloaded a save state so they can access content that the game locks behind a dice roll.

This works out ok (if a little frustrating) when 5E is played at a table in real life because there is no save scumming and a DM running the game can keep things interesting. Any game based entirely on a system that's meant to be run by people for people at a table is going to have this problem.

Fire Emblem: Engage feels like the logical conclusion to the trajectory set forth by Awakening. There is a definitive change in the series following the Tellius games underselling (Nintendo forgot to market them) and IntSys making the successful FE: Awakening.

Engage has fun combat and adds new things. The maps are varied and the combinations in class + emblem ring really scratches the number crunching itch. However, some questionable decisions with the new mechanics or enemy stat scaling holds it back. Some mechanics outright don't work in some situations and some bosses are harder than their entire level. The core gameplay loop is still fire emblem and the maps have variety so it works and is easily the best part of this game.

The characters are not good, obviously there are standouts and favorites but this is arguably the weakest cast in the series. People call the character designs "camp" and "self-aware corny" but nothing in the game actually supports that - the designs just aren't good.

The story speaks for itself. (It's not good)

Obviously it sounds cynical or cranky to say "Fire Emblem isn't how it used to be!" but there is an exact point in the series where priorities changed and the games are being made for a different group of people.

The games just aren't for fans of FE1->F10 anymore.