heck, lets talk King's Field
Apr 10, 2019 14:04:00 GMT -5
Post by edmonddantes on Apr 10, 2019 14:04:00 GMT -5
Hey, I did a topic about Eternal Ring and Shadow Tower, what are the odds I would start playing King's Field again? Whodathunkit! Next you'll be telling me Superman comes from the planet Krypton.
So instead let's talk about Armored Core. Like seriously, is it just me or has From Software's former breadwinner giant mecha series just kinda... disappeared? Like apparently the last installment was in 2013. Its kinda making me think of Mega Man, how for decades Capcom milked the blue bomber and then suddenly the well just kinda dried up (seriously look at how many Armored Core games there were on the PS2 alone).
.....
But seriously I do wanna talk some King's Field, especially since I finally played the original KF--the Japan-only one that had to be fan-translated, and then I couldn't play on an actual PS1 because every time I tried to save there was a random chance the game would crash and render the resulting save unusable. I finally got it working (using my Dell desktop) on an emulator called ePSXe... version 1.7.0. Version 1.6.0 was bugged up the ass (apparently it was designed for computers that used Voodoo 3s, which I had, but wasn't what I was using) and version 2.0.5 just plain wouldn't boot... this was on Windows XP.
But whatever, 1.7.0 played the game, no crashes, the only weirdness was any time I talked to someone or read a sign the music would slow down, but whatever I can live with that. Its better than crashing.
Here's a thing.... all these first-person games on PS1 actually started to hurt my thumb, so what I did was mapped the game to have controls similar to what I use for the MS-DOS version of Doom (I'm keyboard-only for that version). It's weirdly appropriate... King's Field always felt like a PC game that was for some reason released on consoles (and yes, I know about Sword of Moonlight, but I sometimes had text glitches with that version) so playing it like a PC game somehow felt "right."
And it didn't hurt my thumb.
......
So.... a question.
People keep saying that Dark Souls is the "spiritual descendant" of King's Field. Currently I've not played any of the Souls games, but I've watched videos, like the two by Hbomberguy, and that one guy who did a seven-hour response to hbomb (well, I watched part one of it... it was one of those lame vids that responds line-by-line and I don't freaking care about the healing flasks).
The thing that gets me is.... well, I can kinda see them being similar in terms of the dark fantasy aesthetic (tho its far less pronounced in King's Field games before The Ancient City) but other than that.... well... I don't see much similarity. Supposedly the games also have references like having the Moonlight Sword... but so does Armored Core. Like.... are the Souls games even RPGs?
King's Field doesn't really have an emphasis on combat or being challenging. In a lot of ways its like the perfect grandson of how NES RPGs used to be... the perfect balance between console gaming's more structured approach and PC RPG's allowing you some degree of choice. Which is what keeps me going. I like RPGs because I like adventuring. and discovering new worlds, but PC games often feel too wrapped up in numbers (I remember loading up Wizardry VII, looking at all the options in character creation, and saying "no, screw this.") while... well, console games speak for themselves. King's Field is the perfect median. Yes, I can adventure! I mean yes I have a clear starting point and often have to progress in order, but it feels more natural to see gates on the path and wonder what's beyond them, than to have to wait until someone explicitly tells you to go to the gates.
In that regard combat is more... something you tolerate. I agree King's Field's is not the best combat engine, but its like the manual for Wizardry said: "without monsters to fight, this would just be a game about mapping."
I mean, the monsters aren't pushovers--skeletons for example can potentially one-shot you when you first start the game, and most of the KFs have skeletons near the beginning of the game. There are occasionally tough encounters, like that one cave with the big dinosaur things that throw rocks at you. So you do have to watch your HP. But like... these are more like beginner's traps more than anything. Very often by the mid-to-late game, I'm so loaded up with restoratives that I could throw a pharm party.
By the way, since there's a "Final Fantasy II SNES is really Final Fantasy IV" situation going on with this series (due to the afformentioned "the first game had to be fan-translated" thing)... well, most fans use nomenclature like "KF1JP" or "KF2US." I kinda hate that--its just a jumble of letters and numbers.
What I prefer to do is identify the games by their contents, like so:
King's Field 1 - The Royal Cemetary Adventure (because it takes place in the Royal Cemetary).
King's Field 2 - The Island of Melanat (because it takes place on an island called Melanat).
King's Field 3 - The Excellector Quest (because you get a sword called the Excellector at the beginning of the game).
King's Field 4 - The Ancient City (because that's what it says on the box).
See, I find its easier to say "Final Fantasy IV is the one with the dark knight named Cecil" than it is to say "Final Fantasy IV is the one that was called II on the SNES." It only asks people to remember what the game was about, not collate all these numbers and random trivia.
'Twas actually working on a longer post about these games, but real life keeps interrupting me so... well, I'll be back with more thoughts.
Anyway, King's Field fans unite!
(And I really do want to know how much Dark Souls really has in common)
So instead let's talk about Armored Core. Like seriously, is it just me or has From Software's former breadwinner giant mecha series just kinda... disappeared? Like apparently the last installment was in 2013. Its kinda making me think of Mega Man, how for decades Capcom milked the blue bomber and then suddenly the well just kinda dried up (seriously look at how many Armored Core games there were on the PS2 alone).
.....
But seriously I do wanna talk some King's Field, especially since I finally played the original KF--the Japan-only one that had to be fan-translated, and then I couldn't play on an actual PS1 because every time I tried to save there was a random chance the game would crash and render the resulting save unusable. I finally got it working (using my Dell desktop) on an emulator called ePSXe... version 1.7.0. Version 1.6.0 was bugged up the ass (apparently it was designed for computers that used Voodoo 3s, which I had, but wasn't what I was using) and version 2.0.5 just plain wouldn't boot... this was on Windows XP.
But whatever, 1.7.0 played the game, no crashes, the only weirdness was any time I talked to someone or read a sign the music would slow down, but whatever I can live with that. Its better than crashing.
Here's a thing.... all these first-person games on PS1 actually started to hurt my thumb, so what I did was mapped the game to have controls similar to what I use for the MS-DOS version of Doom (I'm keyboard-only for that version). It's weirdly appropriate... King's Field always felt like a PC game that was for some reason released on consoles (and yes, I know about Sword of Moonlight, but I sometimes had text glitches with that version) so playing it like a PC game somehow felt "right."
And it didn't hurt my thumb.
......
So.... a question.
People keep saying that Dark Souls is the "spiritual descendant" of King's Field. Currently I've not played any of the Souls games, but I've watched videos, like the two by Hbomberguy, and that one guy who did a seven-hour response to hbomb (well, I watched part one of it... it was one of those lame vids that responds line-by-line and I don't freaking care about the healing flasks).
The thing that gets me is.... well, I can kinda see them being similar in terms of the dark fantasy aesthetic (tho its far less pronounced in King's Field games before The Ancient City) but other than that.... well... I don't see much similarity. Supposedly the games also have references like having the Moonlight Sword... but so does Armored Core. Like.... are the Souls games even RPGs?
King's Field doesn't really have an emphasis on combat or being challenging. In a lot of ways its like the perfect grandson of how NES RPGs used to be... the perfect balance between console gaming's more structured approach and PC RPG's allowing you some degree of choice. Which is what keeps me going. I like RPGs because I like adventuring. and discovering new worlds, but PC games often feel too wrapped up in numbers (I remember loading up Wizardry VII, looking at all the options in character creation, and saying "no, screw this.") while... well, console games speak for themselves. King's Field is the perfect median. Yes, I can adventure! I mean yes I have a clear starting point and often have to progress in order, but it feels more natural to see gates on the path and wonder what's beyond them, than to have to wait until someone explicitly tells you to go to the gates.
In that regard combat is more... something you tolerate. I agree King's Field's is not the best combat engine, but its like the manual for Wizardry said: "without monsters to fight, this would just be a game about mapping."
I mean, the monsters aren't pushovers--skeletons for example can potentially one-shot you when you first start the game, and most of the KFs have skeletons near the beginning of the game. There are occasionally tough encounters, like that one cave with the big dinosaur things that throw rocks at you. So you do have to watch your HP. But like... these are more like beginner's traps more than anything. Very often by the mid-to-late game, I'm so loaded up with restoratives that I could throw a pharm party.
By the way, since there's a "Final Fantasy II SNES is really Final Fantasy IV" situation going on with this series (due to the afformentioned "the first game had to be fan-translated" thing)... well, most fans use nomenclature like "KF1JP" or "KF2US." I kinda hate that--its just a jumble of letters and numbers.
What I prefer to do is identify the games by their contents, like so:
King's Field 1 - The Royal Cemetary Adventure (because it takes place in the Royal Cemetary).
King's Field 2 - The Island of Melanat (because it takes place on an island called Melanat).
King's Field 3 - The Excellector Quest (because you get a sword called the Excellector at the beginning of the game).
King's Field 4 - The Ancient City (because that's what it says on the box).
See, I find its easier to say "Final Fantasy IV is the one with the dark knight named Cecil" than it is to say "Final Fantasy IV is the one that was called II on the SNES." It only asks people to remember what the game was about, not collate all these numbers and random trivia.
'Twas actually working on a longer post about these games, but real life keeps interrupting me so... well, I'll be back with more thoughts.
Anyway, King's Field fans unite!
(And I really do want to know how much Dark Souls really has in common)