Fire Emblem's History Analyzed

An anonymous reader writes "N-Philes just finished up a 10-part history of Nintendo's Fire Emblem SRPG series, which we Americans just got a taste of for the first time, this past Fall, courtesy of the GBA version. You can check out the history at N-Philes and learn about the game I can't stop playing." I've yet to play this, but Hemos has been playing it almost since it shipped and tempting me with it.

Brilliant Game!

[Visigothe]

I too have been sucked into the FE reality distortion field. It's a good game for people who like strategy, variably* deep plot and fantasy games.

I am surprised that the other FE games weren't ported over, considering the popularity of strategy and RPG games. Perhaps we'll see a "perfect collection" or something similar in the not-too-distant future.

The game has ups and downs. I find it frustrating that you can't buy items unless you are on a battle map. This means you must create a "pony express" method of sending out party members to the armories, then "trading" backward until the item you want reaches the party member who needs it. There are many other frustrating bits (like the inability to go back to a battle and do it again), but the game is so damned addictive!

* The plot can go into great detail if you choose to use the "support" capability of various characters. Doing so will unlock different endings and increase stats. Of course, you can "opt out" of the deeper plot points by eschewing the "support" capability altogether.

Console gamers find it frustrating or rewarding

[Sheetrock]

Depending on who you ask.

The most disconcerting thing will probably be having the game frequently save (after every turn), such that you can't simply reset it if a major character dies never to return.

I think it's somewhat refreshing. One can focus entirely on the strategy instead of constantly rebooting because they think they lost a character that'll be critical later on. But I can see others being upset about this.

Another thing that'd be nice would be to get rid of the concept of burying obscure items and characters and 'easter egg' style content in RPGs where you've got to play through them a couple of times with the aid of a FAQ/walkthough to collect stuff. Sometimes the concept is rewarding, but when you miss the 16th step of a 24 step process and have it change the ending of the (40 hour) game it does less to increase the replay value than it does the level of irritation.

GBA = The new home for turn-based strategy games?

[MMaestro]

I think its fair statement to say that the GBA will probably be home to the 'next-generation' of turn based strategy games. The successes are hard to deny; Advance Wars, Advance Wars 2, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, and now Fire Emblem (Zero for long time fans). All of the previous games having been originally developed on much older and weaker systems (read the link, the first game was the NES/Famicom and any reader here knows the GBA blows the NES/Famicom out of the water in terms of hardware power).

With this in mind, where do you think Nintendo would tell Intelligent Systems to re-release the older games? A 10-in-1 game for the Gamecube or 10 seperate games on the insanely installed Gameboy fanbase which is already going rabid over the fact that it missed so many good games over the past 10 years?