Fire Emblem does not say that you can't let anyone die. The story goes through even if you have to sacrifice them... there are very interesting dialogues between members when someone that connects to them dies. Adds flexibility and extra dialogues you don't see when all are alive.

 I played Fire Emblem series and I play a lot just to see what happenes when a character dies and move to the next battles. I've never seen anythig that says that ALL must live in order to complete the game. Like in any other Strategy RPG you can sacrifice a warrior in battle and continue the game. The difference is that when a story character dies, there are consecuences along the course of the story. In this aspect I see Fire Emblem shine, because depending on the character that died, any character, the course of the story changes (a little or a lot). You have to assume the consequences of sacrificing an unit. It adds realism to the game

I admit it's frustrating to keep all players alive in Fire Emblem. But you know, in other SRPG you treat any unit as important to you, you'll get the same ammount of frustration (specially when you trained a hired warrior to be really helpful in battle and then he/she gets killed by a miscalculation). 

I don't want to be disrespectful.. but I call a noob someone who plays an SRPG like an RPG, no matter the franchise. I made the same mistakes years ago and deserved to be called one. Here are the mistakes that applies to all strategy games, not just Fire Emblem.

 1) All Story characters must not die in  a battle:

There is no rule like that in any strategy RPG. There might be a rule that one or two characters must mot die or you lose the batte, but it does never say ALL must live (like RPGs). That's a wrong assumption. We make ourselves this rule because of one fear: consequences. We know that if a key character dies and you win the battle, there will be consequences (some may hate you, some may leave, some may even be stronger allies). One that fears to face these consequences and see how the course of the game's story changed, it's a noob

2)  If all key characters are alive in the end, you have 100% cleared the game

Yes, and no. It's true that you may attain some hidden chatracters and items if they're all alive, but it's a mistake to say that you have seen everything in the game, like an RPG. What if you can obtain a secret item a different way? what will happen if this chatacter dies? will some other characters leave? How will a NPC related to the dead key character react?... These questions can only be answered by playing the game and making that happen, but because of the fear of the consequences you don't see this aspect of the game. Any strategy RPG has a story that goes on depending on the living and dhead key charactes. If one never wondered about the other paths the story can take based on the characters rhat die, it's a noob

3)  little or no replay value

This is related to the provious mistake. looking for the new branches in which the story can go through adds extra replay value. It does not mean that you have to beat the game everytime. You can see, when you progress through the game, certain moment where something will happen when a key character dies. Something that might change how the story develops. And it's the only way to know how creative are the writters when the events happen, not just when all are alive.

There are other mistakes we make when  we treat a SRPG as any other RPG.

Fire Emblem is not the best SRPG. The way it manages items, weapons and spells is in a lower lever compared to many other games of the genre  But the way it shows that there are consequences once a character dies adds more realism without realistic looking graphics.

BTW the BEST SRPG in my opinion is Luminous Arc 

I was sorta looking forward to this, but the game switching to cutscene mode for a few seconds whenever anyone attacks really kills it for me. Do you know if it can be turned off? I mean maybe if the mini-battle was well animated, but it's about as lively as Pokemon. -_-

 From IGN:

The battles, animation, and scenarios work like they always have, allowing the user to turn off any animations and speed up the game, or move their fighters into position and see a more live-action battle between the units, adding cinematic moments to the otherwise chess-like battlefield.

 

The way FE manages items, weapons and spells is very good, and adds another challenge in your strategy. In FE, you're forced to think, you can't just throw a powerhouse into the melee, that will kill everyone on the field, just because you're limited in the numbers of blows a weapon can give.
The characters fallen at combat, that stay fallen is perfeectly in line with a T-RPG.
I saw all of these as downgrades before playing these games, but after actually playing them, I realized these are the best design choices ever. That's what's makes the game challenging and feel more immersive.
I first realized that, when in a protection mission, I had to exchange weapons in the midst of the battle to be able to survive. It makes you feel like you were there, as it's really challenging your tactical and strategy skills.

Great! I've just recently finished Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and it's an awesome game. I want this game NOW!

By the way, can some SRPG people here tell me which games in the genre are super good? Please reffer only to PS2 SRPG games. I've only played Phantom Brave and Fire Emblem and I like them a lot. Thank you for your help in advance! n_n

Try Disgaea games. They are pretty good

Thanks for the suggestion. Any other ones? (I've heard about Disgaea, but surely there must be other SRPG games...)

If you have a PSP Jeanne D'Arc is pretty good.