How is your PSOne/PS1 gaming going?

[chuckster]

I recently 100%'d the Spyro trilogy (Just finished YotD last week). I saw a few pages back that there was some discussion about it not holding up. I think the three games are a little uneven but all hold up reasonably. Spyro 1 is a good game but obviously a first attempt. The gameplay is simple and somewhat more repetitive than the next two games, but with that limited moveset comes very tightly designed levels. It also seems like it has some of the most difficult sections if you are trying for all Dragons (Treetops comes to mind). Ripto's Rage holds up the best in my opinion. If anyone has trouble gelling with Spyro 1, I'd recommend trying 2 out. They smoothed a lot of rough edges and added some great gameplay and story elements (swimming, power-ups, HOVERING, side quests, a colorful cast). Year of the Dragon is just Ripto+ in many ways, but I think it ends up feeling too big and empty, and less creative with it's level themes. It's like they really went all out with RR and then lost some inspiration by the third one. The control in all three is very smooth even today, and movement seems fun and easy to me. There's a good bit of personality to the games overall, and most of the cast is charming.

Of course, these were probably my most-played PS1 games back in the day, so take that for what you will.

Aside from that, my local game store owner gave me a scratched-up loose-disc copy of Threads of Fate that ended up working perfectly. I don't usually go for JRPG games (loved Legend of Dragoon though), what will I be getting into if I start this bad boy up?

[Tanooki]

That Kings Field run down of discovery there makes the game look obtuse, overly rigid, and extremely aggravating.

[Xeogred]

Yeah, this is like my 4th attempt at it.

[Exhuminator]

Yeah, this is like my 4th attempt at it.

The Soulsborne series is for boys, the King's Field/Shadow Tower series is for men.

BE A MAN

[Sarge]

Aside from that, my local game store owner gave me a scratched-up loose-disc copy of Threads of Fate that ended up working perfectly. I don't usually go for JRPG games (loved Legend of Dragoon though), what will I be getting into if I start this bad boy up?

It's a relatively simple but charming action-RPG. It knows what it is, and doesn't try too hard to lay on tons of systems and complexity. In fact, in some ways it reminds me of something that you'd see Falcom develop. Also of note is that you can play as two different protagonists, and their stories are completely different. My playthrough (probably 2/3 through) is with Mint.

[Xeogred]

I honestly think I give up on King's Field. This was literally like my 4th attempt over the last year or few. Tried King's Field 2 (3) and it doesn't really change up much mechanically. Feels like you run even slower and stamina regens slower. Tried the Ancient City on PS2 and the walk speed and combat...

I love the atmosphere. I love the graphics in all of them and the weird monsters. I platinumed Demon's Souls and it's my favorite Souls, also the most obtuse one by far. brunoafh was a big fan and talked up the King's Field games a lot to me as well and I've always kind of known what to expect and what they are. I can appreciate that they set some blueprints for the Souls series. But the combat is incredibly vital and it is anything but fun in King's Field. I imagine there's boss battles or tough enemies at some point and you better be leveling up so you probably can't just skip enemies. If half these games are going to be me slowly spinning around enemies to get a few wacks in, I need to be having fun, and this is not fun. Silent Hill 1 is like Devil May Cry 3 compared to this. The driving in Dead Premonition was better than this. My tolerance for quirky games can be pretty high usually. But this is unreal.

We're talking about genres and some games that haven't aged well from the early 3D era. If these games were natively on PC and I could improve and modify the controls, resolution, and framerate, I could probably have fun with them. I loved Ultima Underworld and I finally beat System Shock 1 this year. I'm totally into this genre. But the console controls and this combat, no thanks.

Gave it all a fair shake. King's Field and Shadow Tower is all yours guys. I'm not walking away hating them. But my interest levels are completely gone now and I have other stuff to play.

I'll check out Shadow Tower Abyss sometime since it seems fine, I just hate emulating PS2 stuff.

[Exhuminator]

I honestly think I give up on King's Field.

I've always kind of known what to expect and what they are.

I don't think you really know "what they are" until you've beaten at least one of them.

I can appreciate that they set some blueprints for the Souls series.

That isn't really true. After finishing Demon's Souls, I would not say in any way that it is a successor to King's Field. FromSoftware has gone on record to say the Souls games are not spiritual sequels to King's Field also. The closest one of FromSoftware's first person dungeon crawlers came to a blueprint, would be the original Shadow Tower. Shadow Tower has more in common with Demon's Souls than any King's Field does.

But the combat is incredibly vital and it is anything but fun in King's Field.

I don't agree, but I see where you are coming from. The Souls games are designed around combat first and foremost. The King's Field games are designed around exploration first and foremost. Those two distinct differences have an exponential effect on the final outcome.

I imagine there's boss battles or tough enemies at some point

Yes. Every King's Field eventually has very strong enemies and always a killer final boss.

If half these games are going to be me slowly spinning around enemies to get a few wacks in, I need to be having fun, and this is not fun.

Eventually you find way more powerful weapons, and devasting magic. Like shooting a wall of fire to kill multiple enemies kind of magic. But you do have to work for the good stuff. King's Field is totally anti-instant gratification.

My tolerance for quirky games can be pretty high usually. But this is unreal.

You say unreal, I say acquired taste. I do agree the fighting mechanics aren't something anyone would quickly gravitate towards. Once you get deeper into the game, and you are fighting more powerful monsters, with more weapons, spells, and items to use, the slower combat speed makes more sense.

If these games were natively on PC and I could improve and modify the controls, resolution, and framerate, I could probably have fun with them.

You can play these on PC exactly as you describe. Use ePSXe. You can remap the controls however you see fit, including mapping the L1/L2/R1/R2 buttons to analog sticks. You can use Pete's OpenGL2 PSX GPU Version 2.9 to run at any resolution you want, including widescreen, with enhanced polygon vertices and a much smoother framerate. ( http://www.racketboy.com/retro/sony/ps1 ... n-settings )

I loved Ultima Underworld and I finally beat System Shock 1 this year. I'm totally into this genre. But the console controls and this combat, no thanks.

If you really can't stand King's Field, at least play through Arx Fatalis.

King's Field and Shadow Tower is all yours guys.

Who are you talking to? Are there other King's Field and Shadow Tower fans on this board?

I'll check out Shadow Tower Abyss sometime since it seems fine, I just hate emulating PS2 stuff.

Shadow Tower Abyss is fun. It's also super easy. Like incredibly disingenuously easy compared to any King's Field, and especially compared to the original Shadow Tower. So if you do ever play and beat Abyss, I hope you have fun, but don't think the difficulty is indicative of its predecessors. Even Eternal Ring was harder.

Well man... I shit all over the OG Silent Hill, which you love. So fair's fair.

[isiolia]

I don't agree, but I see where you are coming from. The Souls games are designed around combat first and foremost. The King's Field games are designed around exploration first and foremost. Those two distinct differences have an exponential effect on the final outcome.

I don't disagree with the general notion you're supporting with this - Souls games not really being an evolution of King's Field - but I do think that you may find subsequent Souls games to be a bit more exploration oriented. Even so, the one King's Field game I have beaten (Ancient City) wasn't that complicated in that regard either.

Though the end result is that the games are unforgiving, King's Field (and Shadow Tower for that matter) also give off a vibe of not all of it really being by design. Some of it just could well be bad UI or inability to make technical details work (AFAIK that's why there are so many "secret doors" in it). Combat just seems to have so few indicators to it for range or timing, which makes it a lot more frustrating that it'd be otherwise.
I don't doubt It can still end up being a great experience if you get into it, though I think the same can be said for most any game if you get absorbed. I've only briefly tried the PS1 entries in emulation. Shadow Tower Abyss as well, and that was annoying more for booting back to the menu and resetting options until you could get to a save point, instead of maintaining some semblance of game state.

Still, might revisit them at some point. It took me several stabs at Dark Souls for that to click as well.

[Xeogred]

I don't follow you at all on the combat thing man, lol. You confirmed yourself there are boss battles and tough enemies, you need to be fighting things and leveling up. Pretty much every room and area I was running into had hordes of enemies outside of the village parts. Avoiding enemies would probably be disastrous and make the game impossible to finish if you're not gaining experience and gold. It might not be as combat focused as Souls, but my point still stands. If I'm wrong and there's level 1 runs of these games with people running past everything I'd love to see it (knowing From Software maybe it's possible). In the little time I dabbled into these I saw monsters everywhere, assume I need to fight and kill them to get stuff, and doing so wasn't fun.

I'm not sure who else I'm talking to, but Forlorn himself just mentioned wanting to buy one in another thread. There's been on and off talk about them from you and some others, but it's almost become this weird running joke in ways. To which just makes me want to seriously ask, is there anyone on this forum or even elsewhere that has actually played and beaten the PSX games for the first time within the last decade or so? I'm not denying it could probably resonate with new fans in this day. I'd like to hear their experience. I know someone beat the PS2 one recently, but not the PSX ones.

Also just to be clear I think Silent Hill 1's combat is pretty bad too hehe, it's fresh in my mind because of your experience with it, yeah that's something that's chunky around the edges, but you don't play Silent Hill 1 for the combat. And you're basically saying that about King's Field as well. I'm sure there's plenty of others out there that hate Silent Hill 1 and love King's Field or have other crazy thoughts. But the gameplay bringing down the experience in King's Field seems unavoidable to me.

Maybe I'll look for some video playthroughs and have more fun just watching them.

Could be fun to have King's Field BGM in my next Dark Souls replay.

I would love to see From Software do some remakes/revivals and tackle first person again in this day and age.

[Exhuminator]

Even so, the one King's Field game I have beaten (Ancient City) wasn't that complicated in that regard either.

Compared to KF4, KF2 is more complex in recursive level design, and KF3 is very large in sheer sprawling ground to cover.

Combat just seems to have so few indicators to it for range or timing, which makes it a lot more frustrating that it'd be otherwise.

If it wasn't on purpose, it wouldn't be like that. Don't forget that FromSofware made the PS1 Armored Core games, which have visual range cues, targeting reticles, and lock-on real time combat. I am absolutely sure that the King's Field combat system was designed as it was intentionally, not as a byproduct of system limitations or ineptitude. Hence KF4 and STA still use the PS1 combat style, despite being on PS2.

Still, might revisit them at some point. It took me several stabs at Dark Souls for that to click as well.

By all means, please do give the other KFs a chance.

But I want to say, I think a lot of modern gamers who go from loving Souls games, and seeking more of the same, often come away disappointed after playing KF. They expect more primitive Souls games, but that's not what they get. KF/Souls are just different fundamentally.

To which just makes me want to seriously ask, is there anyone on this forum or even elsewhere that has actually played and beaten the PSX games for the first time within the last decade or so?

Me. I have. I started with Eternal Ring in 2013 and finished with Shadow Tower Abyss in 2016. I beat the games in this order:

Eternal Ring
King's Field IV
King's Field
King's Field 2
King's Field 3: Pilot Style
King's Field 3
Shadow Tower
Shadow Tower Abyss

My love for these games is not born of rose tinted nostalgia.

But the gameplay bringing down the experience in King's Field seems unavoidable to me.

That's exactly how I felt about Silent Hill.

I would love to see From Software do some remakes/revivals and tackle first person again in this day and age.

I would too, I really would. FromSoftware made a lot of first person games on PS1/PS2. Remember the Echo Night games? Unfortunately due to the insane success of the Souls series, I don't see FromSoftware returning to first person viewpoints.