More Information
Rating: 
-
Remember Shining Force I and II? Remember? Those turn based top-down view rpgs on the Sega Mega Drive with cool characters, heaps of cool magic and detailed combat animations?
Well those were classic sega games that came out a full DECADE ago. Compared to those strategy rpgs of yore, Fire Emblem (this the 7th in the series) makes NO PROGRESS WHATSOEVER.
It has lacklustre character designs, an overly wordy plot, a simplistic and boring combat system, a lack of difficulty and an annoying "support" feature which is somehow the developers attempt at adding replay value to this game.
Overall, to the utter newbie whose only prior experience with these kind of games was with Advance Wars(which is arguably a better game than this one), Fire Emblem might seem like a solid choice. I agree, it IS a solid choice. It is also, however, a throwback of a game. A disappointing retread of gameplay that has been done bigger and better(on lower end systems I might add).
How to begin? I will make a short comparison between this game and Shining Force II, which many of you have already played. Let me remind you that:
*SFII had more exciting animations. In Fire Emblem, most of the art went to the character portraits. When it comes to the top-down graphics in battle, as well as the battle animations themselves, this game looks extremely poor for a GBA game.
*SFII had more varied character designs. FE's characters might look "pretty", but are pretty much all same-ish anime fare, color-coded hair and all.
*SFII had HEAPS more: weapons, armours, spells, items. It was much more varied. Compared to this, all FE has going for it is a nice little "weapon triangle" system and your token herbs and potions. Not very exciting. In SFII you could cast spells like gigantic lightning storms which affect entire areas. In FE the magic works just like a weapon. You attack one square at a time. BO-Ring.
*SFII had BETWEEN-COMBAT exploration. In FE, it's pretty much battle after battle. Consequently the plot is FORCED to be told in huge CHUNKS pre and post-battle. Not very immersive.
*SFII was fun and worth replaying. Just go try it. In FE however, any semblance of replayability is in the form of placing different units next to each other and wait turn after turn in hope of getting new support combos. Wheee.
It seems abit ridiculous for me to compare this hand-held game with a console game, but bear in mind that the console game in question came out more than 10 years before this. The game boy advance is both graphically and performance wise better than the Mega Drive in every respect. Why can't Intelligent Sys. make a game that fully utilises its potential?
Rating: 
-
I have yet to play Advance Wars 1 or 2, Intelligent Systems' modern war/strategy series for the GBA, but I can venture an educated guess that Fire Emblem shares a lot in common with it. Fire Emblem is a strategy RPG reminiscent of the Shining Force series for the Genesis, but it's been forever for me to make detailed comparisons of the two. Fans of Shining Force, Ogre Battle, and/or Advance Wars will probably find a lot to like.
Fire Emblem will be fairly easy for those experienced in these kinds of games. Most of the challenge presents itself in keeping your combatants alive, because if they are killed during battle, you won't be getting a chance to get them back. Not even a chance to revive them from defeat (unlike, for example, the popular Final Fantasy Tactics, where you had up to three turns to revive a fallen comrade). This can present a problem if you don't use tight and well-thought out tactics, because the enemy will always jump at the opportunity to kill the weakest party members within range. Fortunately, there's an ability to "rescue" other members, and even pass them off to others in your group. Anyway, I think it's pretty neat that you can't get them back. It adds an urgent dynamic to the game and forces you to really think your moves through. After the first part of the game, it even tells what the characters who didn't make it to the end went on to do with their lives. Some followed the party (although injured and unable to fight), while others went their separate ways.
In battle, it is prudent that you search out the most advantageous terrain (forests, forts) and engage from there. Also, weapon selection is an important factor, as certain weapons are good against some, bad against others. Rounding out the standard and borrowed strategy-RPG elements is the class system, albeit a limited one (nothing on the scale of an FFT or Tactics Ogre; more like Shining Force). Your units can advance in class with a specific item after reaching level 10.
One thing worth mentioning in Fire Emblem is that enemy forces, on some battlefields, are concealed within fog or darkness. The limited visibility adds another layer of danger to the combat, which can be partially alleviated with some items. However, this element only somewhat succeeds. I wonder if the developers could have made it where the limited visibility worked both ways, where the enemy had no way of knowing where you are, and would occasionally stumble into a big pack of your units (I wonder, but I think I know the answer to that one). More importantly, a stealth element is missing in the game, perhaps the ability to sneak up on an enemy without them knowing about your approach.
So, what drives all this fighting in Fire Emblem? The first part of the game has you controlling Lyn, a young woman from the Plains of Sacae, whose family was murdered by bandits, and who is of royal lineage in a far off Kingdom. Her journey takes her to the castle in search of her ailing Grandfather, in order to stop his vengeful brother from usurping the throne. But we find out that this is just a small part of a bigger scheme. Big surprise, huh? The story is ok, and the characters are ok, and the dialogue and writing might be the strongest aspect. However, there's nothing remotely profound or emotional in the melodramatic delivery of the game's story, but that's the norm for video games. Oh well. Instead, you end up developing an attachment to the characters for how well they fight in battle, cheering them on during encounters and hoping they don't get killed. The game succeeds in this.
A Final Fantasy Tactics this is not. It's not dynamic or deep enough in both its gameplay and story and sentiment. However, I'd argue that it's slightly better than Final Fantasy Tactics Advance for the GBA. Both games are derivative of what has come, but Fire Emblem's not stepping backwards--only nodding to the past.
Rating: -
This game is an excellent strategy title for your Gameboy and will give you dozens of hours of gameply. (My first go through the game was over 24 hours total)
The characters are all pretty much interesting in this game and there are tons of them to pick and choose on missions. The variety of the units and their personalities are what make this game so enjoyable.
And if a unit dies then its dead. No 1-ups or resurrection in this game. If your character dies then be prepared to never see them again.
This really keeps you on your toes as wounded units need rescuers and backup.
However, this can be a pain to play a mission for over an hour then have the boss kill them in one hit, thus causing you to start the level over again...
All in all this is simple to learn, yet highly entertaining game. Pick it up if youre missing some a challenging and engrossing strategy game.
Rating: -
A fun strategy game overall, but has a major flaw - I can't stand any game that does not let you save anytime you want. I know this game allows you to save at anytime, but the game auto saves for you at the last turn, so that when you die you cannot revert to where you originally saved. I know the designers of Fire Emblem did this so to make the game more challenging or "realistic", so that players can't "cheat" by playing from that save point over and over again, but it actually makes the game more annoying and frustrating. If you character dies, by lets say a way to powerful and out of balanced mini boss attacking you and killing you with one shot, you have to start the whole stupid level over again.
Otherwise, this game would have received 5 stars - trust me, you'll get frustrated and annoyed the 100th time you main character dies, and you are forced to play the level over again.
Rating: 
-
This game is sweet. That's really all I can say, Great story, great music, extremly tough, but you really like the charecters. Anyone who dissagrees, well they aren't mentally mature enoguh to enjoy it.
More Information
HOMECredit Cards - Mortgages - Wester Union - Loans - Loans 