Was God of War III's story trying to do more than we think?

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I've been thinking about this. I played God of War III recently all the way through again, and this feeling became ever stronger. When GoW III originally came out, I remember it being criticized for Kratos' unlikability and undefendable actions, especially the doorstop scene and what happens to Hephaestus. Playing through the game I constantly had this feeling:

Spoiler: Spoilered for amount of text

Maybe that was the point. Maybe Kratos was supposed to be completely despicable, and we weren't meant to relate to him or cheer him on, but rather shake our heads in appallment at all he does. Many of the characters, like Hephaestus, Hermes and Hera, reinforced this notion, as they all pointed out to Kratos (usually before being horribly killed) that there was nothing to be gained from his path, and all he was going to do was destroy everything. Maybe his futile attempt to save Pandora wasn't meant to be in any way engaging, but like watching a fish flopping on the floor: the last futile, meaningless attempt to gain some sort of redemption before his remains of humanity are gone. Thinking back on other installments in the series, they would seem to support this theory as well.

I've always thought the God of War games' storylines had an underlying theme of loss, and what happens when someone loses everything. I've played through all the games save for Ascension, and they all feature some form of loss or defeat for Kratos: in the first one he loses the chance to forget his past. In Chains of Olympus he loses the chance to be reunited with his daughter. In God of War II he loses his godly powers and his homeland of Sparta. In Ghost of Sparta he loses what is left of his family. And finally in God of War III he loses the only thing that even keeps him moving anymore: his revenge. Kratos' journeys seem to be nothing but an endless spiral of loss and devastation, and every time he's broken a little more.

In God of War III this character path reaches its logical conclusion: Kratos is practically a maniac, slaughtering and butchering with reckless abandon without remorse or restraint. He's lost everything, and does not care for anything. Hell, those words were practically in that one trailer, where he said ?I hope for nothing?. And in the end it is all for nothing. By the end credits of God of War III Kratos has had his revenge, but gained nothing from it. He doesn't feel victorious or relieved as he stares at the world he's destroyed. Even the ending credits theme is not like the others, booming and epic, but slow, melancholic and downbeat.

But on the other hand...

I can't really convince myself that this theory holds up, because half of God of War III seems to go in the exact opposite direction. The story tries its hardest to paint Zeus as some sort of mob boss who eats babies for breakfast and tortures people for fun. None of the antagonists are even attempted to be made in any way relatable or likable, but are just as, if not more, ruthless, bitchy and detestable as Kratos is. All the stuff with Athena speaking about the world suffering at Zeus' hands seems to try to paint Kratos as some sort of savior figure who will liberate the oppressed from the tyrants. Practically every line of dialogue Pandora speaks in the game is trying to justify Kratos' actions and say ?no, really, the gods aer eyvill and ur da best Kratos!!!!? It's incredibly confusing when you don't really get who the game is trying to depict as the real bad guy.

To my surprise, God of War III was actually written by a woman, Marianne Krawczyk, and the other writing credits include a woman as well. That's quite surprising considering the series' status as the ultimate macho video game fantasy. I can't help but theorise that perhaps the female writers were trying to subvert this notion somehow, like Fight Club: this is what your revenge fantasies really look like, and this is what they will lead to. But then the other writers (Stig Asmussen and William Weissbaum) tried to go in the opposite direction and have Kratos stay the ultimate badass. The result is a mixed script that's very confusing to figure out what it's ultimately trying to say and what its stance on its main character is.

TL;DR: Do you think Kratos was supposed to be unlikable in God of War III, but that point got lost somewhere in the writing process and didn't really come across in the final product? The script seems to be trying to make him both a detestable psychopath as well as some tragic antihero, and those two opposite directions make the characterization and story's ultimate point confused.

What do you think? Do you think God of War III was trying to do more than we think? Got any other theories like this?

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I really like Kratos as a character to be honest, because one of the few game protagonists who is a psychopath in almost every concievable sense. He's a tragic character that you feel little sympathy for, and his rare moments of humanity are quickly crushed by his cruel nature. He's a guy who is unable to move on and forgive himself for his past actions, so he lashes out and blames others for his problems, rather than face himself.

I never really saw him as a saviour in 3 to be honest, more of a crazed lunatic who's goals happened to also work out best for humanity in the long run.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Edit: well, double post, that was embarrassing

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I really like Kratos as a character to be honest, because one of the few game protagonists who is a psychopath in almost every concievable sense. He's a tragic character that you feel little sympathy for, and his rare moments of humanity are quickly crushed by his cruel nature. He's a guy who is unable to move on and forgive himself for his past actions, so he lashes out and blames others for his problems, rather than face himself.

I never really saw him as a saviour in 3 to be honest, more of a crazed lunatic who's goals happened to also work out best for humanity in the long run.

Again that's because of bad, inconsistent writing. The same writing that had him turn from a sympathetic character in GoW 1 to a lunatic in GoW 2.

As for the "subverting your fantasy" idea, it's still pretty shit writing since it's tries to build up the idea of Kratos as heroic AFTER he's dedicated his existence to slaughtering the gods, rather than building up the idea of him being a good guy beforehand and tearing down the fantasy.

In other words, your theory doesn't hold when compared to the "structure" so to speak.

Kratos was hardly a sympathetic character in the first game, he murdered so many people when he very clearly didnt need to, and his reasoning about how it was Aries' fault that his family was dead was flimsy at best. It may be inconsistent writing sure, but it doesnt stop him from being compelling in some ways, crazy people arent consistent normally, comes with the crazy territory.

Characters and writing in general are all about interpretation anyway

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I really like Kratos as a character to be honest, because one of the few game protagonists who is a psychopath in almost every concievable sense. He's a tragic character that you feel little sympathy for, and his rare moments of humanity are quickly crushed by his cruel nature. He's a guy who is unable to move on and forgive himself for his past actions, so he lashes out and blames others for his problems, rather than face himself.

I never really saw him as a saviour in 3 to be honest, more of a crazed lunatic who's goals happened to also work out best for humanity in the long run.

Again that's because of bad, inconsistent writing. The same writing that had him turn from a sympathetic character in GoW 1 to a lunatic in GoW 2.

As for the "subverting your fantasy" idea, it's still pretty shit writing since it's tries to build up the idea of Kratos as heroic AFTER he's dedicated his existence to slaughtering the gods, rather than building up the idea of him being a good guy beforehand and tearing down the fantasy.

In other words, your theory doesn't hold when compared to the "structure" so to speak.

Kratos was hardly a sympathetic character in the first game, he murdered so many people when he very clearly didnt need to, and his reasoning about how it was Aries' fault that his family was dead was flimsy at best. It may be inconsistent writing sure, but it doesnt stop him from being compelling in some ways, crazy people aren't consistent normally, comes with the crazy territory.

Characters and writing in general are all about interpretation anyway

The thing is that he was an ancient Greek, in fact he was a Spartan no less. In general the Greeks did not have the same idea of morality we do, these are the same people to whom eating in public was quite controversial. As for the ship captain, he was very much a coward who abandoned the women on the ship. Kratos wasn't hated for killing people, he was hated for accidentally killing his family, which is very much in line with the Greek tragedies God of War took it's cues from.

That guard holding the bridge up, was well, he was holding the bridge up, there was no other way. And then there's the guard in the tomb you have to sacrifice (zombie if you're Australian), that was a requirement, you sacrificed the soldier or didn't get Pandora's Box, period.

As for the crazy argument, crazy doesn't work that way, AT ALL. Again, look at the structure of the narrative, pay attention to the subtleties and nuances. There's an argument to be made that he's evil, hypocritical or both, but not crazy. He was likely not brutal at all by the standards of the time (except to his enemies, but the real life ancient Greeks did actually tend to exaggerate history, playing up their importance for example).

Think about how in Rome: Total War the men in your family line are the most important characters in the game, providing bonuses when they lead armies and run your cities, with stats and intricate trait and retinue systems. The women? They don't even have stats, they're used for making babies and bringing new men into their family.

I think going by the definition of crazy as seen in most media these days, its fitting for his character. I am well aware that insanity and mental issues in fiction =/= real life. Anyway, maybe crazy wasnt the right term for Kratos, but he's very definitely not all there.

Im not going to sing Kratos' praises as the greatest video game character ever made, he should be kept far, far away from any lists like that. I just think that when you look at his character arc over the three games (I have no idea what happens in the spinoff titles and I really dont care about finding out more about them), it is quite interesting.

Or maybe im just trying to overcomplicate the fact that I just find it refreshing to play as a complete and utter monster in a game, who's redeeming qualities are dubious at best. I dont really want to keep arguing this, so lets leave it at that

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Maybe I'm just trying to overcomplicate the fact that I just find it refreshing to play as a complete and utter monster in a game, who's redeeming qualities are dubious at best.

No you aren't, you were trying to make God of War 3's writing sound more intelligent than it actually is and have failed, and now you can't be bothered to make an actually well thought out argument and are trying to justify it with "crazy people aren't consistent". Inconsistent writing is not necessarily the same as the inconsistent characters (though the latter tends to be a part of the former).

Also, you need to work on your grammar.

And you're starting to come off as kind of a douche. I get it, you arent fond of God of War's writing, I personally dont think its that bad. Yes, I dont feel like defending myself, because I don't want to get into an argument over every little thing I say. Im all for discussion, but not when the person I'm talking to is acting hostile

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, you just answered your own question then. GoW3 could've worked if it painted Kratos as an unstoppable, murderous lunatic (which he already is) that the gods must unite against. But unfortunately this was a big AAA game, in a time when that type of storytelling was yet to be popularized (Spec Ops: The Line, The Last of Us). So instead the game tries to have its cake and eat, by pushing the shock factor of what Kratos is capable of, cuz this is God of War, and also make him a tragic hero who "releases hope into the world".

The writing is a bit less juvenile than GoW2, but atleast there it was more consistent. You don't have scenes where one moment Kratos is brutally torturing an innocent slave girl, and the very next he's all concerned over the safety of someone else.

 

[Hades]

I think the game tried its hardest to paint Zeus as the true villain and that the villain actually being Kratos escaped the writing staff.

Kratos deserved to be killed in the second game for abusing his powers so revenge can not be a legitimate excuse for destroying the world in what's essentially a temper tantrum.

But I don't think the game registers that. I always got the feeling we were meant root for Kratos who was ''screwed over'' by the gods...despite getting warnings that if he did not stop abusing his powers there would be consequences to pay. Kratos got his warning and still went on with his killing spree. Kratos quest for revenge is hollow because Zeus was completely justified in killing him. It the first game is was a big deal how Ares came down to Athens to demolish it and in the second game Kratos and his Spartan favorites do exactly that to all of Greece.

What I find interesting in the third game is that when Zeus looks down at the world Kratos destroyed he mumbles something akin to ''There will be a lot to do''
This implies that even when corrupted and even being a terrible person before being corrupted that at the end of the day it was Zeus who fought to protect and restore the world. It would have been Zeus his victory that would have set things right.

The third game wasn't about Kratos finally getting the revenge he ''deserved'' or about liberating the world from Zeus. The game was about Zeus and his fellow gods desperate struggle to protect their home, their family and even the entire world from a man that would rather burn the whole world to the ground then make time for even a second of self reflection.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

So instead the game tries to have its cake and eat, by pushing the shock factor of what Kratos is capable of, cuz this is God of War, and also make him a tragic hero who "releases hope into the world".

The writing is a bit less juvenile than GoW2, but atleast there it was more consistent. You don't have scenes where one moment Kratos is brutally torturing an innocent slave girl, and the very next he's all concerned over the safety of someone else.

But I don't think the ending is trying to make him a tragic hero, just a tragic character (though "tragic" would imply some level of sympathy towards the character, which is definitely not found in Kratos). He doesn't feel heroic or victorious ("All I remember is what I have lost"), he commits suicide by giant sword to the chest, and the very last line of dialogue in the game goes "You disappoint me, spartan". Everything in the way the final cutscene is played out is clearly signaling an unhappy ending.

There's no argument that either way, the final product was inconsistent, that we both agree on. But the game was most certainly not trying to subvert the power fantasy element as you thought, it was simply shit.

I didn't say the game was trying to do it, I just thought that might have been the original intent at some point, but was lost on the way to the release.

 

[katsabas]

The thing is that he was an ancient Greek, in fact he was a Spartan no less. In general the Greeks did not have the same idea of morality we do, these are the same people to whom eating in public was quite controversial.

Ancient Greeks had a different morality even from the Greeks of today, me being one of them. What we saw in 300, i.e., Spartans dumping weak babies over cliffs was something quite real but that doesn't mean we do it today. Even the whole eating in public thing is a poor example since our most famous food is one you eat while standing up and mostly outside.

Ancient cultures had quite different moralities from their current 'incarnations', an ancient Englishman for example could be more than willing to die for his country and queen, same can't be said about today though. It's not just a Greek thing, if that is what you meant. No present day (civilized) culture has the same morality as the Greeks, English, French, German etc of the past.

On topic now, I like to think that they intended to go the way they went. Simply because I have no idea what to expect from the story at this point. I am dying to see GOW IV and what Kratos can do in order to restore the world because he has to. It's his responsibility. The game was all about the feeling of emptiness after revenge, what happens when you refuse to self-reflect or own up to your mistakes or forgive yourself. For me, the main trilogy comes as close as it gets to describing a downward spiral in video games.

I did not like the path he walked but that is the nature of tragedy, this has always been the nature of tragedy. Kratos was NEVER a hero after the first GOW. I grew up envisioning the olympic pantheon as full of virtue and while that wasn't the case, I never changed my mind on Kratos actions (GOW II forward) being 100% wrong. And I was 14 at the time. I cannot expect someone like Kratos to be a good guy with such inconsistency,

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

From my perspective, I don't think it's even meant to be read into that deeply. I see the trilogy (storywise) as an unfortunate combination of having way too many cooks in the soup along with a complete abandonment of the traditional Greek tragedy set up in the first one (and the groundwork laid by Jaffe) for a cynical desire to have more sequels and MOAR SPECTACLE AND BLOODGORE.

That's not to say I don't enjoy the games, I've played each one more than once each, and they're relaxing spectacle fighters when Ninja Gaiden/DMC/Bayonetta sounds like a lot of effort. I just gave up hope (heh) on being in it for the story and "Kratos' journey" and went along for the Rip Torn/Sorbo decapitated lantern insanity ride.

 

[Casual Shinji]

But I don't think the ending is trying to make him a tragic hero, just a tragic character (though "tragic" would imply some level of sympathy towards the character, which is definitely not found in Kratos). He doesn't feel heroic or victorious ("All I remember is what I have lost"), he commits suicide by giant sword to the chest, and the very last line of dialogue in the game goes "You disappoint me, spartan". Everything in the way the final cutscene is played out is clearly signaling an unhappy ending.

Except for Pandora muttering how "hope makes us strong blah dee blah dee blah". The game is obviously trying to go out on a high note what with Kratos impaling (sacrificing) himself, thereby "releasing hope into the world". And when Athena says "You disappoint me, spartan" it's meant to signify that she didn't get what she wanted, because for some reason she's now evil/selfish as well. And then Kratos dies giving a little smirk, indicating he got the last laugh. And finally we get a stinger suggesting Kratos is still very much alive, ready for more sequels.

 

[GloatingSwine]

To my surprise, God of War III was actually written by a woman, Marianne Krawczyk, and the other writing credits include a woman as well. That's quite surprising considering the series' status as the ultimate macho video game fantasy. I can't help but theorise that perhaps the female writers were trying to subvert this notion somehow, like Fight Club: this is what your revenge fantasies really look like, and this is what they will lead to.

That's what the original God of War was. Kratos' misdirected rage and bloodlust leads him to destroy everything he cares about, and so the game ends with him seeking to cast himself into the sea to his own death because he can't live with the realisation of what he's done.


I think you can convincingly say that God of War 3 did something similar because people expected it by that point, but they didn't really have as coherent a plan

 

[Something Amyss]

I have trouble buying that it was intentional, especially from the crew that did the first two games. I think a shitty script and stretching a premise at least one game further than it should have gone are to blame.

Though I honestly didn't care, for as much as I played it. Brutally killing people in games is fun. They don't need a premise. "Kratos kills everybody" would have worked.

 

[Vivi22]

It was inconsistent and badly written, plain and simple. Same reason he's basically a villain in God of War 2. God of War 1 either wasn't meant to have the sequel we got or wasn't meant to have a sequel at all, but due to exec meddling we got GoW 2 anyway.

The problem with everything after God of War is that the director of God of War had left immediately after and different people directed every single game.

I'll actually say right now that God of War was the only title in the series with a story worth a damn (though full disclosure, I haven't played through both of the handheld titles or anything post-3). God of War did not need a sequel which featured Kratos as the protagonist. In fact, I think the series may have been better served without that happening. And interestingly about the special features in the first game, they mention two possible sequel ideas that were both better than anything we got as far as concept.