People talk about Hidetaka Miyazaki as they talk about all sorts of video game directors, describing him as visionary and prescribing all the Souls' series success to him. Playing King's Field reveals that it's not the case at all, and while Miyazaki is definitely talented, From was doing effectively the same thing before him.

King's Field games are slow 3D dungeon crawlers where everything looks kinda crappy, but they do have that secrety Souls atmosphere and the same feeling of danger that you've come to expect from From titles. Weird items, game lying to you, cryptic NPCs, missable secrets - it's all here! Granted, you have to put up with this game's battle system to enjoy what it offers. Your movement is slow, your magic is slow, your swings with most weapons are slow, and most of the time in battle you'll just be approaching the enemy, swinging your weapon and pressing back as soon as possible (sometimes strafing a bit with enemies that have ranged attacks). It's not a good system, but I've never had issues with it. Thankfully, the monsters in the world seem to suffer from the same issues player does.

This game is the biggest KF game on PS1 and also adds some necessary features in the form of actually telling you what items do and a conversation log so you can browse what people have said to you at any time, so it's probably the best starting point out of PS1 games unless you'd like to guess what Blood Stone does and use it in every situation before you figure out its effect.

The game is as funny as the Souls games with how mean it can be: the first area has three illusionary walls one of which is going to kill an unsuspecting player. There's also a chest that's required for progression that's effectively a Mimic who's also going to one-shot you on early levels. And of course there are a poisonoius swamp, ledges too narrow for walking on them, really weird platforming (for a game with no jump button of any kind) and other Souls staples. It's also fairly witty with its dialogue. While it is dark fantasy, quite a few NPCs can be fairly humorous which stands at odds with the atmosphere and only adds to the weird vibe of this game.

The game isn't as hard as the Souls titles and even playing normally you'll get pretty strong in the backhalf with tons of magic at your disposal and an array of weird weapons some of which might have secondary effects, so a few mean tricks feel more like friendly jabs rather than something out of I Wanna Be The Guy. I loved my time with it, and while Souls games have effectively made its formula obsolete, I wouldn't mind seeing a King's Field V eventually.

I came into King's Field 3 with quite some expectations and most of them have been flushed down the toilet, it looks good and it plays good but then it starts falling apart, the level design is simply not very good, the maps are full of corridors that offer no actually smart or interesting setpieces, the game is long but not interesting, relying on mostly map that have nothing going on or maps that are actually annoying, with a couple maps being quite offensive, the souls just isn't there and I kinda think this is because the game is trying do correct things that were never an issue in the first game, the towns looked silly, yeah, but they were at least full of stuff, now they are mostly empty lots with 2 houses and some mobs bring in a lot of corridors for making the game load, in the old games the statuses were mostly just there, so now almost every mob inflicts some annoying status if he has projectiles, which sadly is more common than ever with mobs that looks purely melee having one or more annoying status, so the experience gets dragged down by the fact that this bloat is really making the whole game, which is based on KF2, a great game, feel sluggish and empty, a shame.

King's Field III advances the series from King's Field II once again, but unfortunately goes in some directions that undermine many of the strengths of the series for me. I still had a good time playing through it, but it definitely isn't as good as King's Field II.

Visually, the environments and textures in King's Field III are only slightly more detailed, but the enemy and NPC models are a noticeable step up from King's Field II. Characters do still maintain the blank, mysterious faces that are a staple of the series at this point, but are more detailed in every other way.
The best improvement here is the framerate however. King's Field II had a variable framerate that took a bit of getting used to, but that is smoothed out here. The experience is more consistent and it definitely feels better to explore and fight in this world from a strictly technical perspective.

This feels like a much broader open world. You travel across the entirety of a kingdom, represented by zones that are much larger than anything we have seen in the series up to this point. I liked seeing these fields of ice, intricate cave systems, and canyons but they remind me mainly of Hyrule Field from Ocarina of Time and feel similarly lifeless, despite scatterings of buildings and random enemies. The unique, player-driven fast travel system from King's Field II is replaced with specific teleportation options that open up as the game progresses -- a change that doesn't do this more expansive (and more grueling to travel across) world any favors.
The main thing this game loses, however, is the intricate interconnectedness of its world. King's Field II is characterized by a comparatively naturalistic series of connected passageways, opening up to you as you play through it in a manner not too dissimilar from Dark Souls. The comparison holds true here as well, with King's Field III aligning fairly directly with Dark Souls 2's more discrete and arbitrarily connected zones. There are cool things to see here, but it feels more like a tour of a kingdom than an exploration of a world.
One other interesting parallel is that King's Field III has items that function exactly like Fragrant Branches of Yore (restore life to petrified NPCs and monsters to open areas) and Pharros' Lockstones (one time use keys to certain doors) from Dark Souls 2. This is a super cool nod on the part of the Dark Souls 2 dev team to the series' lineage.

King's Field III also eschews the mystery and dark ambiance of the first two games in favor of a more straightforward, linear quest. You are a prince who has returned to his land that has been ravaged by corruption and monsters. Throughout the game you have a couple of goals (recover your magic, recover an artifact that will let you forge the key to enter the corrupted castle of your father, then enter the castle and reclaim it), but each is presented to you obviously and immediately, rather than with the conspicuous lack of information characteristic to the series.
Events are more involved and NPCs directly send you on quests, but these clear goals and more obvious linearity rob King's Field III of the feeling of being unstuck (and free) from the timeline that is unfolding around you. The adventure feels more epic, your actions more impactful, but this trek across the lands of Verdite feels hollow and generic in comparison to its forebear's intricate webs of hauntingly disconnected and surreal people and events.

Fortunately, the narrative does bring together many of the threads that were set up in the previous games. Characters return and are recontextualized in ways that feel natural and rewarding for returning players. I really like that the final boss in King's Field III is the character you played as in King's Field and that his corruption and fall makes sense, is motivated by the background narrative you realize throughout the course of the third game, and the resolution pulls all three games into an interesting trilogy exploring the Kingdom of Verdite's struggles for power, betrayal, and redemption as well as the primeval figures influencing them from the shadows.

Mechanically, King's Field III is a bit overwrought, but comes together pretty well. Crystals are the thing again, and collecting them powers up your magic spells, unlocking more powers as you play through the game. This is a combination of the systems from the first two games, where you have to unlock each type of magic but your aptitude with a type (also improved through use) determines what spells are available. It isn't as clean as King's Field II's system, but I had a good time with it.
Sword Magic is much the same, though you unlock two levels of it through quests. I like that this makes it a specific part of the world, handed down by swordmasters to their pupils, though it does feel pretty random. I found the Sword Magic itself to be more usable than it was in II, with a better balance in power between regular magic and Sword Magic.
They abandoned the interesting map system in favor of an automap item you can look at any time. It is much easier to use (and less fiddly) but also less unique.

I ultimately liked King's Field III as a capstone to this trilogy. I wish it had more of King's Field II's carefully constructed, puzzle-box, world design and King's Field's haunting strangeness, but it delivers on the narrative and makes some interesting mechanical choices. I like all three of these games, and definitely rate them favorably alongside From Software's more modern titles.

Convoluted NPC questlines, a huge open world, an understated but verbose backstory told through environmental cues and text dumps, and secrets that reveal themselves to you like layers on a video game onion, or at least ones you make note of for the next time you decide to take a bite through the tears. Sorry, but you were late to the party the second you passed up the spark that kicked off perhaps the most earth-shatteringly loud three consecutive days in gaming history:


June 21, 1996: King’s Field III,
June 22, 1996: Quake,
June 23, 1996: Super Mario 64.

Simultaneously a key collection simulator more nightmarishly hellish than any Doom WAD could ever aspire to be, a Soulslike more hideously obtuse than any happy-go-lucky Onion-in-armor could ever prove to you, and an aural assassin as insidiously persistent as the drippiest faucet; King’s Field II (US), hereafter referred to simply as King’s Field III is definitively the worst “exploration/action game with a deep backstory” that I still somewhat enjoyed playing. In contrast, I did not enjoy my time with Demons’ Souls, nor did I enjoy the second time; but I would hazard a guess and say I would somewhat further enjoy a second playthrough of Kings Field III. As a child sizing up which variety of cough syrup to gulp down to appease a mother resolved to declare me “too sick to play videogames”, I found myself reaching out to garish Bubble Gum instead of the grizzled statesman that was Robitussin when given the choice. Bubble Gum as a medicinal flavor just had an air of mystery to it, and while I don’t think anything purporting itself to taste like Bubble Gum while simultaneously being good for you ever accomplished either with aplomb, it’s the attempt at not sucking that would stick with me and embolden me to return the next time I told mother the can of beef mushroom soup I emptied out into the toilet bowl came out of my body. All this to say that for all the trauma King’s Field III would inflict on my soul, it challenged and surprised me more than the solved quantity of Demons’ Souls ever possibly could; the most comprehensive resource for Kings Field III at the time of this review is a half-working neocities archive of a now kaput fansite, whereas Demons’ Souls has been documented and analyzed to death, most famously by Sony who commissioned one of their own studios to assemble a multi-million dollar diorama of it for it’s winning entry at the science fair titled: Most Exploitable Fanbase. King’s Field III is the first time developer FromSoft united nearly all of these now familiar trappings of success in one compact disc; a bouillabaisse of then unconventional game design that every YouTuber who wore their choice of game difficulty as a personality would yearn for on as close to a yearly basis as they could get it. (NOTE: I did not originally intend to insinuate that Demons’ Souls fans are “tripping” but it would explain A LOT.)

Unfortunately for all it’s ambition it never really executes it’s MO of being a groundbreaking console open-world RPG, and FromSoft probably didn’t originally aspire to such grandiose status either. If King’s Field II was the rebirth of mechanics established in the previous game as Dark Souls would be to Demons’, King's Field III like Dark Souls II sought to prioritize expansion of the game’s world and mythos over massive rehauls to an already proven formula. Say what you will about Dark Souls 2, (I will: IT’S GREAT), it’s varied landscapes complemented by a thoughtful approach to emulating the passage of time/distance with environmental setpieces once relegated to conceptual art cement it as a grand adventure across an entire country befitting of the status of sequel. Tragically however, King’s Field III is ugly. Like, hairy butt ugly. Grand its world may be on paper, 1996’s open world is largely made up of slabs of vomit lined with trees leading to caves lined with vomit wallpaper like some sort of nightmarish creepypasta Animal Crossing village. The framerate does not scale upwards with the amount of butt-ugliness on display either, choosing to run lower almost as if in an act of defiance. “Mind-boggling graphics” indeed. As the fucked up kid who’d peer out upon a foggy day and think Superman 64 before Silent Hill, this game would have rocked my world by wiping the slate clean of either from the foggy games discourse - ushering in an age of King Fieldlian faux pas amid stifled giggles from the gamers in the crowd. This all sits opposed to the labyrinthian approach to level design FromSoft embraces in King’s Field III, resulting in exploration that ends up feeling monotonous and soul crushing at times as the player is sparsely provided with landmarks to anchor their compass at. To their credit, FromSoft did provide an item that automatically maps out the layout of their maze-like playgrounds, as well as provide an in-game log of NPCs spoken to and their dialogues: both quality of life improvements the Souls series would do well not to shy away from. These elevate 1996’s “Hammerfell at Home” to tolerable status, and I’d dare say they would have enhanced the experience of FromSoft’s later games as well, with Elden Ring the first to begin to shed busywork and obfuscation for obfuscation’s sake as what it really is: a waste of time.

Not sure if this is my favorite out of the verdite trilogy or my least favorite, There is a ton of cool stuff in this game, I think the narrative is really neat, the atmosphere and music are great but damn, the forced grinding section kinda blew and the forced wait kinda blew as well.

I am curious if Dark Souls 2 took a lot of inspiration from this game between the Petrified obstacles, the way some NPCs work(I guess this is universal in all Souls games), the way some shit doesn't even flinch. It's really interesting. I will say out of all the King's Field games I've played and if you just wanted to play one of them I think 3 is the way to go. It's just linear enough but not too linear and the balancing doesn't seem too crazy.

Easily the most well-rounded of these first three King's Field titles, really broadening the scope both narratively and physically. The environs blend into each other naturally and each area has a more distinct feel than areas in previous games. The combat remains unchanged, but the model work on enemies, weapons, armor, and spells are improved which gives it more weight. I've really loved the scores and this is no different. Each area has its own theme, giving you a better sense of its history or pumping you up for battles to come. A very solid RPG all around with the best sense of exploration so far. It was neat revisiting a couple of floors from the first title, a slightly nostalgic stroll for anyone who played that one and a nice interlude for those who had only played the US releases. One of my favorite aspects of playing these is seeing that From's design principles have stayed true for decades.

Holy shit, really the perfect culmination of all of the best parts of KF1+2. Playing this one specifically feels like taking a FromSoft art history class, there's so much here to pick apart and trace into the future, down to what I think is the studio's first ever poison swamp,
This time the game follows my favorite kind of open world design, being one giant map that's segmented up into smaller open areas that connect in clear ways. I rarely found myself getting lost like I did in the previous games. It really helps that you receive an automapper as soon as the world gets more convoluted, which I expected would take the fun away from mapping the areas myself but instead made it a little easier to focus on the rewards of exploration. The exploration was one of my biggest complaints with KF2, as it always felt like the reward was just XP, and no area was clearly delineated from other ones, so any exploration felt like a neverending tangent. The way the levels are formatted here feels a lot more like future souls games, where you're very aware when you've crossed a boundary into a new area, and you have a clear line to go back and keep exploring if you feel like you missed anything.
I'm really enchanted by these games, it feels like no matter what my final "rating" is they still have a really special grip on me. I'm more excited than ever to play Shadow Tower and KF4, I can feel a tangible edge between KF3 and Shadow Tower and I'm anticipating that everything after this is going to have a huge impact on me as an artist and an enjoyer of art.

'King's Field 2' está para o primeiro assim como 'Dark Souls' está para 'Demon's Souls', já que basicamente pegou tudo que foi introduzido no primeiro, aprimorou trazendo diversas melhorias em vários aspectos além de apresentar um conceito mais estabelecido e polido. Irônico então, que este terceiro jogo esteja para seus antecessores exatamente como 'Dark Souls 2' está. Falha tentando apresentar um mundo maior e mais ambicioso, perdendo assim quase todo o bom tecimento e o fio condutor que ligava tão bem as partes da experiência, já que a preocupação aqui parece ser a quantidade e não a qualidade do conteúdo. E por falar nisso, o jogo é o dobro do tamanho que deveria ser, a segunda metade é realmente muito maçante e se não fosse meu desafio pessoal de terminar todos os jogos da From, com certeza teria dropado, apesar de que minha frustração não seria tão grande se o jogo não tivesse perdido todo aquele feeling atmosférico que o 2 tinha, apesar das músicas ainda serem boas, o visual carece de identidade e só deixa tudo mais monótono do que já era.

King's Field III is an ambitious follow up to King's Field II. While II took place on a single island, and thus the physical space of the game-world plausibly represented the fictional island it is gesturing at, III aims to represent the entire kingdom of Verdite. Thus, the game world in III is more of an abstraction of the space it represents, with huge sections of the kingdom's world map represented by fields and a few buildings. This results in a game which is more horizontally oriented when compared with II's vertically oriented world-design. The tightness and interconnectivity of II is thus traded out in favour of a grander sense of scale, with underground tunnels connecting the various segments of Verdite.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because King's Field III is to King's Field II what Dark Souls II is to Dark Souls. I seriously couldn't shake this comparison the whole time I was playing. How each area is self-contained, the increased abstraction to represent a larger space, the horizontal sprawl of the game-world etc. Not all comparisons work (the delineation between overworld/towns and dungeons is more akin to the structure of a Zelda game than anything resembling Souls), but so many do. There's even versions of Pharros Lockstones, Branches of Fragrant Yore, and a sort of spokes-on-the-wheel design akin to what Majula provided, albeit the road to that wheel is much longer and the wheel itself is very much not a hub area. I actually preferred the way Verdite was presented in this game compared to Drangleic from Dark Souls II, as the relatively high visual fidelity of the latter made the abstraction harder to buy. The PS1-era 3D visuals and poor performance of King's Field III are actually a strength in this regard.

Another, less fortunate way King's Field III is like Dark Souls II is that its ambition has resulted in a game that isn't as good as its predecessor. While the scope is commendable, the individual levels are nowhere near as intricate as the wonderfully interconnected King's Field II, regressing to level-design which makes limited use of vertical space akin to the floors of the first King's Field. The increased game-space, which doesn't sear itself into memory quite the constantly revisited areas of II, means that it's far easier to miss something very essential, a problem not helped by the increased reliance on vague NPC quests for progression. I never felt the need to use any maps in King's Field II, whereas in III I checked them constantly.

However, while I prefer King's Field II overall, I appreciate this game's place within the Verdite Trilogy as a whole. In previous entries, I never really got the sense of the word outside the immediate setting. King's Field III gives context to the locations and events of those prior games and their impact on the world. It also closes out the overarching narrative, which is wonderfully Souls-ey. The Souls games' recurring themes of powerful beings manipulating player characters, such as Gwyn and the serpents of Dark Souls, the Great Ones of Bloodborne, the Outer Gods of Elden Ring etc., have their roots in the Verdite Trilogy. Unlike those games though, the player character gets to challenge these greater powers in a meaningful way, resulting in a tone which is much more heroic than anything Souls ever allows for.

While the second entry is the only one I can say I truly loved, this third entry serves to strengthen the trilogy as a whole. So many of From's strengths and stylistic quirks are developed throughout this trilogy, the extent to which can't really be appreciated until you've played them for yourself. Sure, people know that King's Field is the spiritual predecessor to Souls, but only as a fact, not an experience. I crave a restoration project bringing From's back catalogue onto modern hardware, preferably in the form of quality PC ports/remasters. I've only begun to scratch the surface of this studio's pre-Souls output, and I've already found so much to love. I hope that, as time goes on, more people take a look back at these fascinating games.

King's Kino III
also they finally added in a good framerate cap that almost never dips below the (admittedly very low) target fps!! so it plays smoothly!!
anyways this game goes so hard. play it immediately. but only after playing 1 and 2. the callbacks are amazing. trust me.
man like, i made full reviews for the other king's field games before this but idk what to say. it's king's field but instead of being in a glorified or literal giant building for the entire game you're actually on an adventure through large open areas. it's pretty cool. no loading screens either, like king's field ii. the story is actually surprisingly engaging throughout the whole game. you get tons of cool weapons and armor. you feel a satisfying sense of progression throughout the game. the music in the final few areas goes stupid hard. it's great. just play it. like seriously. great game.

This game surprised me. I just wanted to check out the evolution of FromSoftware and Souls games and instead ended up playing through the entire game.

What's really impressive about this game is that there are little to no load screens! It's seamless in the way that Dark Souls is.

It was a surprsingly fun and interesting dive into the ancestry of Souls games.