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.
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.