Being not only the first in a 30 year old series but also the title that defined the entire SRPG genre, FE1 has held up to the test of time and remains an interesting and engaging experience.
To start with the story, FE1 tells a very simple and straightforward story but for it's time it was a noticeable step above many other Famicom RPGs. The thing that really sticks out to me is FE1's attempt to have sympathetic villains, most notably in the form of Camus. Most games at this time didn't really bother giving their antagonists much depth so it's nice to see FE1 try something unique.
One trait that sets it apart from it's contemporaries is it's protagonist, who isn't silent. In fact, Marth has more dialogue than just about any other character in the game. He just won't shut the hell up. Granted, Marth himself isn't that interesting of a character in this game but you can only really do so much on the Famicom.
I think the biggest problem with FE1's story is how it's presented. The lack of a world map makes it extremely difficult to follow along and it will probably take most people multiple playthroughs to fully understand what's even going on. Granted, I'm sure a lot of this was included in manuals that came with the game (which was extremely common at the time) but given that this game never released in english I don't have access to this.
Having a chapter-to-chapter story allows it to have a more complex and detailed plot compared to a lot of other Famicom RPGs, with a wide cast of characters which was practically unheard of at the time. FE1 tells a fairly basic story but does an efficient job at setting the baseline for the series as well as doing the best it could with the limited hardware it was allowed.
I feel that one of FE1's greatest achievements is it's accessibility. Strategy games have always been firmly planted in the niche end of gaming but the way FE works makes it so much easier to get into. Seeing your units engage others in combat and seeing how they perform makes it easy to grasp how everyone functions and what their roles in battle can be. There's also the fact that your units are actual characters rather than faceless pieces. Most characters in this game are severely lacking in any sort of characterization but simply having a name and face makes it easier to get invested in the gameplay.
Because it's up to you who you want to train and bring into battles, it makes every playthrough unique. I replayed FE1 recently and at one point Navarre (a unit who I wanted to use) was put in danger due to a critical hit so I had to place Cain in front of him to protect him, which resulted in Cain's death. That's a scenario that's unique to me and my playthrough and that's just 1 example. No other RPG at the time had variability like this in their experiences. At best you got control over how you built your party but you were still going through the same events as every other player.
Given that permadeath is Fire Emblem's most well-known feature, I should probably talk about it. I think FE1 does a good job of balancing the cast around this mechanic. You frequently get new, strong units and the one unit you can't lose, Marth, is ridiculously strong. This mechanic adds a lot of weight to the gameplay and the fact that you can feel the loss of a unit even from a gameplay perspective helps add tension to every battle. A lot of people hold disdain for permadeath, but FE wouldn't be the same without it. (For the record,I feel this way about permadeath in nearly every future game. I'm not going to bring this up in every review because I don't want to repeat myself. Just assume I feel the same about permadeath's inclusion unless stated otherwise).
The complaint I see most often levied at FE1 is its speed, or lack thereof. Yes, this game is slow. Yes, it can become an immense drag to play. But it's a Famicom RPG. all of them are slow. Especially strategy games given that their AIs are more complex and have more decisions to make. Compare FE1 to Famicom Wars. In FW, every turn would take several minutes because you literally had to sit and watch the enemy commander think. In comparison, FE1 is much faster. You have the option to turn off animations, enemy turns are faster, and the general speed of things like movement and menu navigation is smoother. It's far from ideal by today's standards, but if you're going to compare every game you play to games that came out within the last few years then why are you playing a Famicom strategy RPG.
There is one thing I think is inexcusable though, that being inventory management. It sucks. It's slow and tedious and makes the game feel like even more of a slog to play. Again, most Famicom RPGs had tedious item management systems but even compared to its contemporaries FE1 feels slow.
I think the presentation is a huge mixed bag. The music is excellent and while the battle animations are slow, they still look good. The maps and map sprites all look nice but the portraits are where FE1 struggles the most. Some are nice, but a majority are ugly as sin. That's not to mention how many characters reuse portraits, with the 4 Gordon recolors being my personal favorite example. Overall I would say FE1's presentation is pretty good but those portraits are really a sore spot.
FE1 is a great game. For its time it was an entrepreneur and today it serves as an interesting piece of history that's aged surprisingly well. For the first game in a long running series it does a good job of setting the standard for what a Fire Emblem game should aspire to be.
To start with the story, FE1 tells a very simple and straightforward story but for it's time it was a noticeable step above many other Famicom RPGs. The thing that really sticks out to me is FE1's attempt to have sympathetic villains, most notably in the form of Camus. Most games at this time didn't really bother giving their antagonists much depth so it's nice to see FE1 try something unique.
One trait that sets it apart from it's contemporaries is it's protagonist, who isn't silent. In fact, Marth has more dialogue than just about any other character in the game. He just won't shut the hell up. Granted, Marth himself isn't that interesting of a character in this game but you can only really do so much on the Famicom.
I think the biggest problem with FE1's story is how it's presented. The lack of a world map makes it extremely difficult to follow along and it will probably take most people multiple playthroughs to fully understand what's even going on. Granted, I'm sure a lot of this was included in manuals that came with the game (which was extremely common at the time) but given that this game never released in english I don't have access to this.
Having a chapter-to-chapter story allows it to have a more complex and detailed plot compared to a lot of other Famicom RPGs, with a wide cast of characters which was practically unheard of at the time. FE1 tells a fairly basic story but does an efficient job at setting the baseline for the series as well as doing the best it could with the limited hardware it was allowed.
I feel that one of FE1's greatest achievements is it's accessibility. Strategy games have always been firmly planted in the niche end of gaming but the way FE works makes it so much easier to get into. Seeing your units engage others in combat and seeing how they perform makes it easy to grasp how everyone functions and what their roles in battle can be. There's also the fact that your units are actual characters rather than faceless pieces. Most characters in this game are severely lacking in any sort of characterization but simply having a name and face makes it easier to get invested in the gameplay.
Because it's up to you who you want to train and bring into battles, it makes every playthrough unique. I replayed FE1 recently and at one point Navarre (a unit who I wanted to use) was put in danger due to a critical hit so I had to place Cain in front of him to protect him, which resulted in Cain's death. That's a scenario that's unique to me and my playthrough and that's just 1 example. No other RPG at the time had variability like this in their experiences. At best you got control over how you built your party but you were still going through the same events as every other player.
Given that permadeath is Fire Emblem's most well-known feature, I should probably talk about it. I think FE1 does a good job of balancing the cast around this mechanic. You frequently get new, strong units and the one unit you can't lose, Marth, is ridiculously strong. This mechanic adds a lot of weight to the gameplay and the fact that you can feel the loss of a unit even from a gameplay perspective helps add tension to every battle. A lot of people hold disdain for permadeath, but FE wouldn't be the same without it. (For the record,I feel this way about permadeath in nearly every future game. I'm not going to bring this up in every review because I don't want to repeat myself. Just assume I feel the same about permadeath's inclusion unless stated otherwise).
The complaint I see most often levied at FE1 is its speed, or lack thereof. Yes, this game is slow. Yes, it can become an immense drag to play. But it's a Famicom RPG. all of them are slow. Especially strategy games given that their AIs are more complex and have more decisions to make. Compare FE1 to Famicom Wars. In FW, every turn would take several minutes because you literally had to sit and watch the enemy commander think. In comparison, FE1 is much faster. You have the option to turn off animations, enemy turns are faster, and the general speed of things like movement and menu navigation is smoother. It's far from ideal by today's standards, but if you're going to compare every game you play to games that came out within the last few years then why are you playing a Famicom strategy RPG.
There is one thing I think is inexcusable though, that being inventory management. It sucks. It's slow and tedious and makes the game feel like even more of a slog to play. Again, most Famicom RPGs had tedious item management systems but even compared to its contemporaries FE1 feels slow.
I think the presentation is a huge mixed bag. The music is excellent and while the battle animations are slow, they still look good. The maps and map sprites all look nice but the portraits are where FE1 struggles the most. Some are nice, but a majority are ugly as sin. That's not to mention how many characters reuse portraits, with the 4 Gordon recolors being my personal favorite example. Overall I would say FE1's presentation is pretty good but those portraits are really a sore spot.
FE1 is a great game. For its time it was an entrepreneur and today it serves as an interesting piece of history that's aged surprisingly well. For the first game in a long running series it does a good job of setting the standard for what a Fire Emblem game should aspire to be.
Reviewed on Nov 30, 2021