I think I used to buy into the idea of the auteur a bit too much. A few years ago I would have exclusively sung Miyazaki's praises for the high quality of the Souls games, but over the years as the collaborative nature of art became more apparent to me I started thinking, just because I hadn't heard of FromSoftware prior to Demon's Souls doesn't mean that one guy is responsible for the quality of the work they put out these days. Like, there's a lot of people working on those games, y'know?
It got to a point where I was talking to someone about how we should refer to the Souls games, with me arguing for the term 'Souls' over 'Soulsborne', which I maintain was always a silly and short-sighted name. They said, "I just call them FromSoftware games". I pointed out that From had many more games to which they replied "yeah, but no one cares about those". And it's like, fuck man. That sucks. Yet there I was, with nothing to stand on, having played all 7 Souls games extensively yet never touching anything else FromSoftware had ever produced.
So here we are, King's Field, the actual original Japanese-only game made playable through fan-translation. Both the beginning of the series with the most widley-touted influence on Souls and the first FromSoftware game ever. How did I find it?
By most normative standards, its bad. It's a slow, clunky, obtuse piece of shit. However, each of those elements represents a unity of vision that I did not expect in an early-3D game from a first-time developer in 1994. I see why this series is regarded as the predecessor to Souls; the game is defined by cryptic storytelling, exploration into deep depths, and the slow, high-commitment combat that defines the Souls games, particularly the first three. The notion that every characteristic we associate with Souls is Miyazaki's style is not true. It's the house style. Shit, the Moonlight Greatsword is even here.
What differentiates the first King's Field from Souls is both a lack of refinement regarding gameplay and level design, and the Souls games' commitment to giving thematic weight to its gameplay elements. While the "tough but fair" mantra might be a bit oversold regarding Souls, there's certainly an argument. King's Field, on the other hand, is a clunky motherfucker that will kill you and laugh about it. You're not avoiding damage or deaths here, let's be clear. More significant is the second difference; there is no narrative or commentary strongly underlining the gameplay here. Contrast this to Dark Souls, where the concept of Hollowing and the cycle of fire gives thematic and philosophical weight to the gameplay.
Cool game, fascinating history. However, I think it's probably a touch too obtuse for its own good. I needed an annotated map for this game, as I have too much important stuff going on right now to spend hours at a time not understanding where I am, or where I'm going, or what that NPC is trying to convey, etc. However, if I'd played this in 1994 with more time on my hands, I like to think I'd have been a little bit enchanted. Such a cool, flawed, atmospheric little game. I can't wait to see what other FromSoftware titles I've missed out on.
It got to a point where I was talking to someone about how we should refer to the Souls games, with me arguing for the term 'Souls' over 'Soulsborne', which I maintain was always a silly and short-sighted name. They said, "I just call them FromSoftware games". I pointed out that From had many more games to which they replied "yeah, but no one cares about those". And it's like, fuck man. That sucks. Yet there I was, with nothing to stand on, having played all 7 Souls games extensively yet never touching anything else FromSoftware had ever produced.
So here we are, King's Field, the actual original Japanese-only game made playable through fan-translation. Both the beginning of the series with the most widley-touted influence on Souls and the first FromSoftware game ever. How did I find it?
By most normative standards, its bad. It's a slow, clunky, obtuse piece of shit. However, each of those elements represents a unity of vision that I did not expect in an early-3D game from a first-time developer in 1994. I see why this series is regarded as the predecessor to Souls; the game is defined by cryptic storytelling, exploration into deep depths, and the slow, high-commitment combat that defines the Souls games, particularly the first three. The notion that every characteristic we associate with Souls is Miyazaki's style is not true. It's the house style. Shit, the Moonlight Greatsword is even here.
What differentiates the first King's Field from Souls is both a lack of refinement regarding gameplay and level design, and the Souls games' commitment to giving thematic weight to its gameplay elements. While the "tough but fair" mantra might be a bit oversold regarding Souls, there's certainly an argument. King's Field, on the other hand, is a clunky motherfucker that will kill you and laugh about it. You're not avoiding damage or deaths here, let's be clear. More significant is the second difference; there is no narrative or commentary strongly underlining the gameplay here. Contrast this to Dark Souls, where the concept of Hollowing and the cycle of fire gives thematic and philosophical weight to the gameplay.
Cool game, fascinating history. However, I think it's probably a touch too obtuse for its own good. I needed an annotated map for this game, as I have too much important stuff going on right now to spend hours at a time not understanding where I am, or where I'm going, or what that NPC is trying to convey, etc. However, if I'd played this in 1994 with more time on my hands, I like to think I'd have been a little bit enchanted. Such a cool, flawed, atmospheric little game. I can't wait to see what other FromSoftware titles I've missed out on.
5 Comments
Thanks MalditoMur! I'm particularly looking forward to 4. You recommend I play them in order then? Should I do the Shadow Tower games and Eternal Ring along the way, or maybe come back to them later?
Seriously it depends. KF1 JP is very loose on lore (not surprising) but its conceptual meanderings really start to pave up from KFII to KFIII, so if you mildly enjoyed the little story and theme there is, I really recommend following the next titles - they are evolutions in all sense of the word.
The other games you can easily gravitate as you please; KFIV is not a direct sequel to anything, you can play it right away if you want to! All the games are janky by common parameters anyway so it's very hard to be alienated by returning to the oldest games. If you enjoy one KF game, you'll probably enjoy all of them in one way or another.
The other games you can easily gravitate as you please; KFIV is not a direct sequel to anything, you can play it right away if you want to! All the games are janky by common parameters anyway so it's very hard to be alienated by returning to the oldest games. If you enjoy one KF game, you'll probably enjoy all of them in one way or another.
Ok great, thanks for the advice!
Just started playing KSII, and I'm loving it! One hour in and it's so much better than this one. From did such a great job of signposting various paths and points of interests (lighthouse, big snail, big octo, behind waterfall, over bridge etc.), I'm finding it totally playable without a guide, which I absolutely needed for the first game. We'll see how things go but so far I'm finding it excellent.
MalditoMur
1 year ago