KING'S FIELD

Home / Worth playing

Is King's Field worth playing?

Who it is for

Play it if you like being lost in a stone room, reading a short sign, and realizing the loop closed three floors later. The cleanhit FAQ says the resemblance to Dark Souls is superficial. There is no roll, no posture break, and no bonfire ritual. Saves are sparse. Traps are ordinary. Movement is slow on purpose. Josh Strife's public video asks "was it good?" about the US first game and treats that slowness as the whole review.

Skip it if you need a map icon and a dodge. The 1994 tomb is 9.5 hours as a published estimate from 23 reports, which looks short and plays dense. The Ancient City at 23 hours from 30 reports is the one I suggest first, on the play order page, because the maps exist. Neither length is a promise that you will be glad.

Price is the other filter. US complete copies in one eBay summary sit around a hundred dollars, with wide ranges. If that is too much, the legal answer is still not a ROM site. See where to get a copy.

Video thumbnail: Josh Strife Plays reviews the 1996 US King's Field
Video thumbnail: Was it Good? - King's Field by Josh Strife Plays. Published 2024-08-23; source checked 2026-11-07.
Video thumbnail: Michael Snow's King's Field 4 retrospective
Video thumbnail: King's Field 4 Retrospective Review by Michael Snow. Published 2021-02-17; source checked 2026-11-07.
Was it Good? - King's Field. Josh Strife Plays looks at the 1996 US King's Field and whether it holds up. Published 2024-08-23; checked 2026-11-07.

FAQ

Is King's Field as hard as Dark Souls?

It is hard in a different way: slow turning, sparse saves, and traps. The FAQ calls the resemblance superficial.

Which one should I try?

The Ancient City, unless you specifically want the 1994 tomb or the US PlayStation original.

How long is a first play?

HowLongToBeat displays main-story estimates from 9.5 hours for 1994 to 24.5 for the 1996 game. These come from one user-report aggregator, and samples differ.

Sources