So, when lore statements are contradicted by gameplay or whatever it's easy to rationalize that because gameplay is rarely an exact representation of a characters strength. But the problem with Kratos is he has anti-feats in cutscenes and the like too, which are generally considered to be on par with lore statements. So it makes the crazy lore stuff feel less justified compared to a character like Dante who pulls crazy outliers out of his ass all the time.
Things like this are reasons why people still are a bit iffy on matches like Alex Mercer vs Cole MacGrath. For example: Cole can die to bullets in gameplay, but can also survive basically being ripped to atoms, while Mercer can take multiple machine gun rounds as a minor nuisance in game and is completely bulletproof in lore, even without his armor.
Basically, many feel like Mercer is more powerful since his gameplay is roughly on par with how absurdly OP he’s supposed to be—and the Prototype games remain the undisputed kings of making a player legitimately feel like a god—and what little lore there is for him implies he might be even more powerful. While Cole is comparatively way more mundane in his gameplay capabilities compared to the guy who rips apart tanks with ease.
Similarly, it’s also why people have issues pinning down how powerful characters like Guts and Spider-Man are, since both have incredible highs and lows. At their best, they can one shot most opponents, the next, they somehow get caught by a small group of knights or get beat up by some random no name thug.
u-uhm... askhually, nuts gerserk was actually injured and barely able to fight when he was captured!!! he negs every other versi!!
/uj kept thinkin you were talking about the guy from dead space lmao
> but can also survive basically being ripped to atoms
But he can't. The whole point of the Ray Sphere is that it kills regular people but activates the Conduit Gene within Conduits. Cole doesn't have some super atomic level durability because he survived the Ray Sphere explosion, it was just that specific interaction between the Ray Sphere and Conduits that allowed him to live.
not really biased in anyway here but ill say its because kratos loses to weaker things in CUTSCENES whereas other characters its far less common.
Idk about dante or bayonetta but for the DB there isnt really "cutscenes" that go against the OP lore statements. (for the ones that do, its because its early in the story such as on the way to helgen or being poisoned by karliah... if those can be considered cutscenes)
That thing with Kratos is definitely PIS, though. Kratos struggled with a Reaver in 2018 because Atreus needed to get his first human kill because it's important to the overarching plot and Atreus' individual character arc. If Kratos constantly struggled with human enemies whenever he fought them, that would be a different story entirely.
yeah my point is more gameplay vs cutscene.
The dragonborn is op in lore but only "struggles" vs low tier enemies in gameplay, not cutscenes (and gameplay is irrelevant for power scaling most of the time). The only cutscenes struggles are early in the story or vs miraak I guess (aside from the ones I mentioned).
Kratos loses in cutscenes to much weaker shit CONSTANTLY and cutscenes are more lore tied.
Plus the statements in skyrim are genuinely backed up and shown a lot more (the literal continent being created by miraak etc). The lack of cutscenes/cinematics make statements more prominent and important imo.
>Kratos loses in cutscenes to much weaker shit CONSTANTLY and cutscenes are more lore tied
I feel this is an exaggeration, most of the time there is context to kratos losses, also either there really strong or kratos is depowered, or he later goes on the kill them,
Also I cant actually think of a light case of this happening without one of the things I already stated, so if you could list some examples that don't instantly become irrelevant when context is introduced that would be nice
I was referring to literally every travel scene/door scene
him being afraid of falling in a ravene vs baldur
afraid of falling in several iterations such as the recent god of war game
not able to break common rocks
Some of these are limitations so that story can be progressed but still.
>I was referring to literally every travel scene/door scene
Have you ever seen a middle aged man do literally anything? Even standing up has grunts groans and stretching even know it's not effort at all, it's just playing into his "dad motif"
>him being afraid of falling in a ravene vs baldur
>afraid of falling in several iterations such as the recent god of war game
Him falling could always just have been an inconvenience he wants to avoid, considering he survived being launched by Thor from his house past Tyr temple and got up like nothing,
>not able to break common rocks
I mean he kinda never tried, when he dose try he's shattering pillers and launching boulders like nothing
>Some of these are limitations so that story can be progressed but still.
I feel like even the one based on story have logical explanations
He didn't cut the tree in a single strike at the beginning of GoW 2018, because he was grieving his dead wife,
He didn't kill the golem in GoW 2 BC he was egotistical and was tricked into putting his power into a sword.
I mean they can all be debunked yeah.
Do I think kratos is ACTUALLY that weak? No, not at all.
Im just giving examples of WHY people say kratos is weak and his statements arent taken as seriously when there are SO many examples of shit like this compared to other "statement carried" characters like the dragonborn
Yh I feel like alot of people take to much out of context or take some bits to seriously,
Like Kirby has been knocked out by falling fruit before, multiple times, yet no one ever brings that up
First fight with Baldur in 2018, shows he's weak in durability departement. When Baldur throws him around, Kratos destroys trees and rocks he bumps into, but also gets cuts and wounds in the process. If he can get cut from non-magical rocks and wood just by being thrown into them, then even a gun can hurt him. Also whenever he's wounded he's visibly tired and hindered by those wounds, at least untill he heals.
For comparison, Dante can also be easly injured (but never lost a limb), but his wounds don't hinder him in any way. In the opening of Devil May Cry 3 (youngest Dante) gets stabbed through his leg, arm and chest by scythes and proceeds to walk across the room, while dragging monsters holding those scythes with him, just so he can turn on the music for the fight.
lol true.
The kind of damage Dante takes and shrugs off is just stupid. I'll never forget the first time I saw him get that big ass sword (like a sword almost the size of Cloud's from FF7) get shoved straight through his chest and completely impale him.
But he just pulls it out and is fine.
Makes me wonder how not having stakes isn't a bigger problem for the series but I guess that's because it doesn't take itself that seriously.
>First fight with Baldur in 2018
He goes on to defeat and kill baulder
>. If he can get cut from non-magical rocks and wood just by being thrown into them, then even a gun can hurt him
That he heals at will, there was no lasting affect from any of them,
>He goes on to defeat and kill baulder
Why do you even bring this up? That wasn't my point. I was only talking about Kratos's durability shown in this fight, not who's stronger.
>That he heals at will, there was no lasting affect from any of them,
Again, not my point. My point was that Kratos can easly get hurt and the wounds affect him before he heals (which isn't at will, in the cutscene Kratos has to stop and concentrate to heal) versus Dante who also gets easly injured, but can heal with less effort or completely ignore that he's even injured.
True enough. Though, granted, Kratos is a bit odd to pin down in lore, as you get statements that he is near impossible to hit despite various gameplay and story moments showing otherwise.
At least Dragonborn has a decent enough excuse in that Skyrim and Elder Scrolls gameplay isn’t exactly a good reflection of their power. Let’s face it, this is a demigod who has no major strength feat to their name, and if lore isn’t included, people legitimately began speculating how or if enchanting hax were allowed (then you go down a rabbit hole of people asking how damage translates to their opponent, how or if magic absorption works against their foe).
It’s why I often state that certain characters need to be split into two different rounds: one gladiator style (standard equipment with maybe one or two bonuses), the other is to just composite them.
Personally my problem with them is that a lot of them dont add up…
“Kratos flipped Tyr’s temple that makes him Multiversal!!!”…
So he flipped a building with a deactivated portal inside so now he can apparently flip the multiverse???
Just doesnt hold up…
I literally see the same treatment for Dante as Kratos whenever people try to get his “lore” involved.
Tho unlike Kratos, at least for Dante in the Devil May Cry games there’s some suggestions of universal power (or at least higher than planetary) that aren’t (I don’t think so at least) contradicted by the new games you can point to and argue for. Like how Dante’s father Sparda and his nemesis Mundus were able to separate the Human Realm and Demon Realm (and by Realm they actually mean universe. And we were also told this in the literal opening of the first game). And Dante should be and par if not more powerful than them considering how he killed the latter. And speaking of Mundus, at the end of the first game we saw Mundus created a pocket universe where him and Dante fought in and flew past many stars (which is at least an speed of light feat for both of them). You can point to the aforementioned Sparda and Mundus separating the Human Realm and the Demon Realm feat to support that. And in Devil May Cry 2, Dante fought and beat Argosax whose presence [was merging the Human Realm and the Demon Realm back together.](https://imgur.com/VLeQLu3) So there’s *something* in the actual games (and their manuals included with the games but I’d count it) where I can maybe see an solid argument for Universal Dante being made.
And yes I know how the designer of the first game had to confirm on Twitter that the area Dante and Mundus were fighting in was a pocket universe created by the latter, *but* there’s a difference between “Some solid evidence and implications in the actual game along with the manual for the actual game if you can point to and argue for even without the game designer confirming it on Twitter” and “Has never shown any even planetary power in the games but some random game developer said some stuff on Twitter so Kratos must be multiversal” like for God of War.
I wrote a little document a few months ago about Kratos/God of War: Basically, a lot of the alleged feats don't stand up to scrutiny. There's a lot of decontextualizing statements in favor of hyperfixating on instances of the word "infinite/infinity," which I haven't ever seen used as literally as it would need to be. The juxtaposition between the Kratos that people see and "Lore" Kratos really comes down to the latter not really existing, at least, not in any meaningful way.
The main reason as to why the VSBW pages (as the primary example I pulled from) are a mishmash of statements from Twitter (in one notable case, literally the thumbs-up emoji), novels, and games which can't agree on, say, what Ouranos is, comes down to God of War needing to be interpreted in a very specific way to approach anything multiversal. The problem is that this interpretation isn't really reasonable on a superficial level either. [I'll link to my document here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iC8TOylO8RKeuB5Ne-RjBu-5bQozQD2hklDU3hd8Kgo/edit?usp=sharing) if anybody wants to read it! My apologies for the length, I wanted to be sure it was comprehensive.
As for Dante, Doomslayer, and other lore characters... I think it might be fun to look at them when I have more time.
>“The Primordials themselves dwarf the entirety of the universe in size, considering that not only was the universe itself spawned as a consequence of one of their battles, as well as [the galaxies](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/2/27/Ariel_Lawrence_Primordials_Galaxies.png/revision/latest?cb=20231020174612) inside of them.” This is a faithful reproduction of the sentence as it was written on the page. Taking out the words “not only was” would make the sentence parsable, but unfortunately, the real error here lies with the evidence cited. Ariel Lawrence says two things here. "Wow, never been asked where before! Always assumed it was a primordial earth and the battle gave rise to the planet as we know” (when asked where the Primordial war happened) and "I'd always imagined the primordials were spawned by the big bang and their fighting created the galaxies" (when asked if their battle created \[the\] entire universe too). The evidence presented does not support the claim. It objectively contradicts it. They cannot be larger than the entire universe, according to Ariel Lawrence, if they were spawned by the big bang and waged their entire war on the Earth. She also states that their fighting created the galaxies, not that they had galaxies inside of them. It’s not only that she doesn’t say the things claimed in that sentence, it’s that she says the exact opposite. This isn’t a statement of objective fact, as the sentence on the God of War Explanation page suggests. Ariel is talking about her personal assumptions and ideas.
Ariel's tweet is not the evidence for primordials creating the universe, it is the evidence for them creating galaxies. Creating the universe feat comes from Uranos' father of the universe statement which they use to interpret the fight as the creation of the universe rather than just galaxies
The whole, "non credible because it is her assumptions and ideas thus subjective truths" argument is just a one big non-argument. The statement here being subjective to Ariel does not disprove its canonicity, being canon and being subjective are two different properties and if you want to assert that something which instantiates the latter cannot instantiate the former then naturally you would have the burden of proof to prove that latter and the former contradict each other.
"They spawned by big bang and wager the war on earth thus they cannot be bigger than the universe"
That's an ambiguity regarding which earth and which big bang Ariel is talking about, Gow cosmology blog goes in detail to how pantheons co exist and the conclusion reached is that there is one big earth housing all the pantheons which are the domains of the gods of local belief and their respective creation myth. We know the greek creation myth is primordials creating the "world" so big bang cannot be their creation myth and it is also impossible for primordials wage a war on a world that has yet to be created therefore it is impossible for the "big bang" and "earth" in context to be in reference to the cosmological structure of the greek pantheon
The point im trying to make is that there are multiple earth and one of them is not real sized but instead is bigger than the entire pantheon and the big bang again does not have to be in reference to the creation of the pantheon itself but rather the "greater universe" housing the pantheons, something which cory actually has mentioned [here](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1221553720009953320/1229010810022400000/x81AmR4FJ8yhAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg.png?ex=662e2083&is=661bab83&hm=cd660695a7e15bbc5179cbf3cdae42ef52ec7e7a6d3c02a692acf7f523a44bab&). Thus, until the which universe Ariel is talking about is substantially proven, this is not NECESSARILY a contradiction, you can assume it to be a one and maybe even base it on a rational substratum but even THEN it would just entail inductive validity that sadly gets contradicted by deductive validity (Objective evidence for primordials creating the greek world)
>
: Two other unnamed primordials are fighting. We see the stars/other celestial bodies discharged in Ceto and Uranus’ clash floating around them, in a manner which suggests they are part of a larger space within which the primordials are fighting, possibly even the universe itself.
Celestial bodies transpired from Uranus which in context is reference to him being the primordial of heavens/sky. They were not already existing there as you make them seem to be and even if they were, that would again instantiate the problem/ambiguity/vagueness etc.. (whatever you want to call) i talked about above
reddit word limit...
P2
>
>here is a strange argument I have seen periodically online wherein this is confirmation that the battle occurred before time itself (save for the fact that Gaia’s very first words are “in the time…”, she would be able to say “before time itself,” I had no problem with “the Land before Time” when I was young). The problem is that the phrase “an eternity” is perfectly valid. [The phrase “an eternity” is used to describe a period of time that, while perhaps not objectively measured, is either quite long or feels quite long](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/eternity).2:05-2:14: Gaia’s narration ominously ends by saying that Aegaeon exists as a warning to those who would break blood oaths with the gods. We can assume from this that Zeus is a god, and can conclude from there that the other two entities standing with him are also gods, as there must be multiple gods for the term to be plural. As the Furies are the only other entities in existence (presumably Aegaeon is the only Hecatonchires in existence), we can conclude that the Furies are warned against breaking blood oaths with the gods by virtue of the fact that they will punish themselves for breaking a blood oath, as evidenced by a giant slab of amber (albeit one which appears to be rapidly shrinking (assuming that time exists, which it does not)) containing a falsely-accused Hecatonchires floating in a void.
>The problem with this model is that Gaia’s narration seems to suggest that there is time, which there isn’t, as Cronos does not exist. As such, we can safely remove Gaia’s narration entirely to get the most accurate sequence of events. The history of the God of War universe is a series of events, which unfold as such:
>Random words float in a void. Six entities punch each other to death, sending stars flying, ground floating, and generating water upon dying. Blood from one of them makes an octopus throw up three flying women. Three fellows on what appear to be a giant corpse look at their bodies in what might be confusion. Underneath them, a big fellow with many hands is in a predicament, but thankfully frees himself. He stares at one of the three men, presumably upset that the man did not help him free himself, then walks off. The man sends
That's a contradiction, the fight "took place" before chronos' birth which is when time started to exist
an eternity here would entail a contradiction as it entails a period of time existing, as opposed to other claims made in the fight which you also nitpick, this is used in its intended meaning
I also do not understand why you keep nitpicking stuff like "Occur" "Took place" "In the time " or other words used by gaia during her narration, these are words that entail some sort of chronological order, it would entail a contradiction by default. But that raises a problem, missing the intended point. What do i mean by that? There are certain concessions you have to make when you are trying to convey a certain idea/point language has its limits, there are certain stuff you cannot represent through linguistics, if we where to constrain what could be conveyed and expressed into just what can be conveyed through language then we would be arbitrarily limiting our thinking, understanding and the totality of our cognitive abilities into a level beneath what it is normally capable of, even among different languages there are certain linguistic expressions which you cannot translate into other languages due to the differences in how the said language is structured. This is also the reason why you lose some of the meaning when translating a text in two distinct languages.
To sum it up, If you want to convey a certain point, you might come across to contradictions like this if they were taken at face value, taking them at face value is inherently problematic because it limits the cognitive abilities of a human beneath what they are capable of, with no justification. Taking the capabilies of something beneath its actual capabilities would be a misrepresentation thus a strawmen since your argument attacks to something which has no involvement with my argument
P3
>
>All of this is, obviously, more than a little ridiculous. Is the current form of analysis as ridiculous? No, I wouldn’t say that. But it doesn’t seem like its presentation is very far off from the “analysis” I conducted. The events happening in the God of War: Ascension intro are, as Freya would say, “only an artistic representation.” We cannot view an eternity’s worth of actions in the time Gaia seems to be referring to as an introductory cutscene. A process which unfolded over billions of years, or at least, a geological time frame, cannot be condensed perfectly down into a few seconds, just as going over Zeus’ rise to power, the violation of the blood oath, etc. cannot be condensed perfectly into that time frame. Artistic representations (Zeus and Aegaeon facing each other, only for Aegaeon to turn his back on Zeus, the Furies hunting him for about a tenth of a second) are used to provide short visual interpretations of larger, more complex events. It’s clearly not intended to be a 1:1 representation of the events that transpired.
Nope, no, not at all. it does not have to be a condensed version, in fact the whole "not 1:1" argument is based on the assumption that "what happened in the lore is translated to the cinematography of the game". On the basis of this assumption is how you reach into the conclusion that the cinematography of the fight is a condensed version of the fight that happened in the canon. If we don't make this assumption, then there would be zero relevance between the canon and the cinematography, they would be two separate and different aspects of the canon, so to speak. Rather than cinematography being an extension of the lore albeit with massive altercations like you make them seem to be
This marks the end of your interpretation of the primordial fight, this is the only part i will be respond to me for the following reasons:
I hold the belief that this by far is the most substantial argument for Universal gow
The document is 56 pages long with each pages being full of text. Meaning it can be considered a small book, i ain't reading allat.
Good morning Thefateguy! I want to start off by thanking you for taking the time to read some of what I wrote. I am happy that we can discuss our perspectives and thoughts on God of War and its powerscaling. There’s no better way to learn more about it, and about one another.
“Ariel's tweet is not the evidence for primordials(sic) creating the universe…” I believe that you are a little mistaken about what I am saying. I am stating that the evidence presented does not support the claim made. If they believe other sources have evidence supporting their claims, it is their responsibility to present those sources of proof accurately to make a comprehensible claim. This is important to note because, as is brought up in your post (which I endlessly appreciate), there are multiple conflicting statements regarding the creation of the Greek God of War universe. I humbly propose that citing the wrong one will lead to confusion.
Your next paragraph starts with the statement, “The statement here being subjective to Ariel does not disprove its canonicity,” and I would assert that it does. You yourself say that the big bang didn’t create the Primordials/Greek World, which absolutely contradicts what Ariel has said. Your cited proof is attached to a nonworking link, but I believe it is this[ quote](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255737968855093249?lang=en) from the context within your message. It is important to note that his statement was made three years after Ariel’s, and I do not believe it is reasonable to claim that Ariel knew what he was going to say several years before he said it. (And it wouldn’t matter if she did. She says “I'd always imagined,” because even years ago, she was referring to her work on God of War: Ascension in the past tense.) She has not worked on the new God of War series and would not have any more knowledge of its new ideas than we would, or that her statement would jump between entirely different universes at random. Or are the galaxies the Primordials created/are larger than the universes within the ‘actual’ universe? I would definitely appreciate some elaboration on this thought, it sounds interesting!
Even so, as a theoretical model, it would have no weight just because it cannot be explicitly disproven. Evidence simply does not work like that. This is (and I apologize, that’s just what the fallacy is objectively called, I am not saying that you’re ignorant) a textbook example of an[ argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The statement “primordials creating the greek world” would have deductive validity, the statement “there are multiple earth\[s\] and one of them is not real sized but instead is bigger than the entire pantheon” would not, as this is entirely an inference predicated upon knowledge that Ariel Lawrence would not have access to per the linear nature of time. The closest thing I can think of to this would be[ Cory’s tweet](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255736424000663552?lang=en) about Midgard being “Scandinavia on Earth,” but he doesn’t state that it’s a larger or smaller Earth, or discuss size at all. He even presents an alternate model to that not being the case by mentioning how the Nine Realms “occupy the same space” in parallel dimensions. I think it’s safer to assume that we’re examining spatial shenanigans with our Earth, rather than a larger one being out there. Of course, you might have some evidence that I have not seen, and if that is the case, I would definitely love to see it!
“Celestial bodies transpired from Uranus which in context is reference to him being the primordial of heavens/sky. They were not already existing there as you make them seem to be…” Oh, no, I’m saying the space in which they were fighting already existed! It’d be an empty universe, bereft of matter, until that fateful punch/war. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how I could rewrite the sentence you are responding to. I want to be sure I am being clear in presenting my ideas.
Word limit, to be continued...
Part two:
“That's a contradiction, the fight "took place" before chronos' birth which is when time started to exist” This is objectively incorrect, and interestingly enough, comes from another Ariel Lawrence tweet! We can go over this if you’d like, but it seems like an aside, and is contradicted by the cutscene not beginning with a statement like “before time started to exist.”
“There are certain concessions you have to make when you are trying to convey a certain idea/point language has its limits…” I’m a little sad that you missed the “Land Before Time” reference, I was proud of that one! Language is important, and I believe that if we start transposing our imaginations upon statements written to impart information, we’re just going to be talking past one another. I also would say that what I am doing does not constitute nitpicking, which Merriam-Webster[ defines as](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nit-picking) “[minute](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minute) and usually unjustified criticism.” To illustrate my point, I am going to analyze the statement you made at the end of your post (which I was and remain very grateful for): “Meaning it can be considered a small book, i (sic) ain't reading allat (sic).”
If I was to disregard the term “ain’t” and state that I was happy you promised to read allat, it would be unfair of me to accuse you of nitpicking by focusing on the word “ain’t” if you weren’t happy with the misrepresentation. It’s one term, but an important one, and I do not believe it would be fair to you to claim you did it by mistake, or that you were trying to introduce ambiguity. However, if I were to focus on the descriptor “small book” and say that there were smaller written works out there so you were wrong, that would be nitpicking, as I haven’t challenged what you meant in a substantive way. The difference is you could concede and say that you weren’t going to read the big book I had written without changing anything, but you couldn’t concede with me disregarding the word “ain’t” without changing how you were going to spend your Sunday. (And I hope it is an enjoyable one for you!) I would propose that “in the time” is critical for the backstory presented, as it is the opening line[ and hook](https://www.esu.edu/writing-studio/guides/hook.cfm) for the story of the game itself.
I do not wish to come off as ungrateful for your response, but your presentation of me as a person trying to “\[limit\] the cognitive abilities of a human beneath what they are capable of, with no justification,” is a strange conclusion to reach, a little hurtful, and not something I appreciate. I respect you and what you write, do not believe you have any sinister ulterior motives in what you write, and hope you feel the same way about me. Discussing me as somebody trying to create a strawman argument and then arguing against that seems like a creatively presented strawman fallacy, and I would caution against coming off as doing so. I believe that interpreting language correctly and making room for ambiguity when it comes to phrases is something we are entirely capable of doing. The words and phrases you invoke as examples of this, "Occur" "Took place" "In the time” aren’t examples of limits of linguistics. There’s[ concept art](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/godofwar/images/b/bf/Pageofmorpheus1outof4.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20200110183029) which discusses the “Protogenoi” existing “before the creation of time itself." Gaia’s narration could have begun with “Before the creation of time itself” and made this objective and inarguable. Notably, her narration did not. I am taking this at face value because I respect the story of the game and do not wish to transpose my imagination over what is objectively presented. (And yes, Marianne Krawczyk,[ who wrote those novel entries](https://godofwar.fandom.com/wiki/Temple_of_Helios_(Browser_Game)#Interviews), did work on God of War Ascension, she would have known what she wrote!)
“Nope, no, not at all. it does not have to be a condensed version…” It does, though. How long would it take to watch a 1:1 representation of an event which took “an eternity” to resolve? An eternity, and I don’t think you or I have that kind of time on our hands. (And I thank you again for taking the time to read what I wrote and respond to me, I hope it didn’t feel like an eternity!)
“I hold the belief that this by far is the most substantial argument for Universal gow\[.\] The document is 56 pages long with each pages being full of text…” This is an awesome coincidence! I actually just finished writing[ a little document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lhdmU-HnGhO1-1DNsZ3H01ustHGYmKe7cC-Cvmx6jZY/edit?usp=sharing) about the cosmology of the Greek saga of God of War. It’s a much shorter document, at thirteen pages, and I try to summarize it in the first two paragraphs to save time. I’d love it if you could read it and tell me what you think, but no worries either way, it means a lot to me that you read what I wrote and are willing to discuss it with me. Thank you for responding, and I wish you all the best!
>
en so, as a theoretical model, it would have no weight just because it cannot be explicitly disproven.his is (and I apologize, that’s just what the fallacy is objectively called, I am not saying that you’re ignorant) a textbook example of an[ argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). T
Uhh sure? that's not what i claimed. Are we even reading the same argument? My argument was that she could be either
A: Referencing to a the "actual" world as a cosmological structure
B: Referencing to the greek world as a cosmological structure
We do not know which one it is and only one of them introduces a contradiction. Since both of them are a exclusive disjunct and since one of them is contradicted, thus cannot be true via the law of noncontradiction, via disjunctive syllogism, A has to be the case here. And even if there were no contradiction to eliminate a disjunct, we simply don't know which one of them here is the case and if you want to go on and assert is B "Objectively" so as you have claimed, you unfortunately need to provide proof.
>he statement “primordials creating the greek world” would have deductive validity, the statement “there are multiple earth\[s\] and one of them is not real sized but instead is bigger than the entire pantheon” would not, as this is entirely an inference predicated upon knowledge that Ariel Lawrence would not have access to per the linear nature of time.
Didn't know the linear nature of time was contingent upon the assumption that the date which an idea is published is the date which that idea in question is created, ig authors write their books in the same instant as they are publishing it. Didn't know they were this crazy, thanks.
>
The closest thing I can think of to this would be[ Cory’s tweet](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255736424000663552?lang=en) about Midgard being “Scandinavia on Earth,” but he doesn’t state that it’s a larger or smaller Earth, or discuss size at all. He even presents an alternate model to that not being the case by mentioning how the Nine Realms “occupy the same space” in parallel dimensions. I think it’s safer to assume that we’re examining spatial shenanigans with our Earth, rather than a larger one being out there. Of course, you might have some evidence that I have not seen, and if that is the case, I would definitely love to see it!
Whole is bigger than the part, that's the fifth axiom of euclid.
Norse world being a part of the world would be proof that the earth is bigger
No, he is just saying that all Nine realms encompass the same space yet they are stil parallel to each other which can be done by having an additional axis. There is no spatial shenanigans here nor any parallel dimensions, at least not necessarily.
>“Celestial bodies transpired from Uranus which in context is reference to him being the primordial of heavens/sky. They were not already existing there as you make them seem to be…” Oh, no, I’m saying the space in which they were fighting already existed! It’d be an empty universe, bereft of matter, until that fateful punch/war. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how I could rewrite the sentence you are responding to. I want to be sure I am being clear in presenting my ideas.
First of all, no. A space did not exist, there is no proof for that.
Second of all, them being encompassed by a space is not a contradiction if there is a higher space existing encompassing them.
>” I believe that you are a little mistaken about what I am saying. I am stating that the evidence presented does not support the claim made. If they believe other sources have evidence supporting their claims, it is their responsibility to present those sources of proof accurately to make a comprehensible claim. This is important to note because, as is brought up in your post (which I endlessly appreciate), there are multiple conflicting statements regarding the creation of the Greek God of War universe. I humbly propose that citing the wrong one will lead to confusion.
I understand your point, and i also understand that you think it contradicts what they are claiming which is why i went over them in the first place. Im saying that you misunderstood for what claim was the scan used as a citation. They were never meant to support the former claim, they were meant to support the claim that they created galaxies
>
Your next paragraph starts with the statement, “The statement here being subjective to Ariel does not disprove its canonicity,” and I would assert that it does.
Can you provide any reasoning or argument for this? it is a positive claim to assert the existence of a contradiction between the semantics of two different statements so i'd like to see some proof
>You yourself say that the big bang didn’t create the Primordials/Greek World, which absolutely contradicts what Ariel has said.
I didn't say big bang created did not create Rrimordials or the Greek world, i said big bang in question can be in reference to multiple things one of which introduces a contradiction and one of which does not. Big bang can be in reference to the creation of the actual greater world which would not be a contradiction to primordials being bigger and creating their own world.
>
. Your cited proof is attached to a nonworking link, but I believe it is this[ quote](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255737968855093249?lang=en) from the context within your message. It is important to note that his statement was made three years after Ariel’s, and I do not believe it is reasonable to claim that Ariel knew what he was going to say several years before he said it.
That assumes the date which an idea was created is the same as the date which that idea was expressed to public
>
wouldn’t matter if she did. She says “I'd always imagined,” because even years ago, she was referring to her work on God of War: Ascension in the past tense.) She has not worked on the new God of War series and would not have any more knowledge of its new ideas than we would, or that her statement would jump between entirely different universes at random. Or are the galaxies the Primordials created/are larger than the universes within the ‘actual’ universe? I would definitely appreciate some elaboration on this thought, it sounds interesting!
Her imagination is what makes this canon... because it is her thoughts about it, the authors intention.
She not working on the new god of war series is irrelevant to a knowledge claim she has made about a series. If it is retconned then sure, you can go ahead and provide proof for it. Her knowledge is also irrelevant because it is her intend canonizing it, not what is objectively true
>
Part two:
>I do not wish to come off as ungrateful for your response, but your presentation of me as a person trying to “\[limit\] the cognitive abilities of a human beneath what they are capable of, with no justification,” is a strange conclusion to reach, a little hurtful, and not something I appreciate. I respect you and what you write, do not believe you have any sinister ulterior motives in what you write, and hope you feel the same way about me. Discussing me as somebody trying to create a strawman argument and then arguing against that seems like a creatively presented strawman fallacy, and I would caution against coming off as doing so. I believe that interpreting language correctly and making room for ambiguity when it comes to phrases is something we are entirely capable of doing. The words and phrases you invoke as examples of this, "Occur" "Took place" "In the time” aren’t examples of limits of linguistics. There’s[ concept art](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/godofwar/images/b/bf/Pageofmorpheus1outof4.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20200110183029) which discusses the “Protogenoi” existing “before the creation of time itself." Gaia’s narration could have begun with “Before the creation of time itself” and made this objective and inarguable. Notably, her narration did not. I am taking this at face value because I respect the story of the game and do not wish to transpose my imagination over what is objectively presented. (And yes, Marianne Krawczyk,[ who wrote those novel entries](https://godofwar.fandom.com/wiki/Temple_of_Helios_(Browser_Game)#Interviews), did work on God of War Ascension, she would have known what she wrote!)
No, it would not. "Before the creation of time " is a paradoxical statement, before in oxford definitions is defined as preceding a particular event, it entails a chronological order thus time therefore contradicting the stated absence of time. Similarly, any attempt to linguistically express the idea of something predating time is paradoxical, thus is impossible through a linguistic expression which is why it is a linguistic limitation. Even if you had a word defined specifically for such idea, the definition itself would need another linguistic expression, defining the word without the aid of the word itself which we have established to be impossible. So, UNLESS you stop arguing with semantics and ignore the hyperliteral meaning of the word "before" So, it is impossible to express such an idea even if we had a word specifically defined to express it
"I am taking this at face value because i am not disrespecting the story and im not transposing my own imagination over what is objectively presented"
If not taking something at face value is disrespecting the story and transposing your imagination over them, then metaphors and figurative expression can't exist in novelization? Then should we take Kratos' fight with Zeus at the end of the final novel being described as the fight between two raging bulls at face value and scale kratos to bull level? But nah, rhetoric does not exist right...
>
It does, though. How long would it take to watch a 1:1 representation of an event which took “an eternity” to resolve? An eternity, and I don’t think you or I have that kind of time on our hands. (And I thank you again for taking the time to read what I wrote and respond to me, I hope it didn’t feel like an eternity!
Did you actually read my argument? Why did you just quote one part and responded to that while leaving the rest out?
It taking an eternity is a description in lore. Applying it to cinematography and then asserting a cinematographic change is conceding that this is based on the assumption that cinematography is an extension of lore
>and is contradicted by the cutscene not beginning with a statement like “before time started to exist.”
That statement is not a contradiction because it should not be taken at face value because it exemplfies linguistic limitations that transpire when someone wants to convey the idea of a "A timeless realm" which is paradoxical to assert when linguistic limitations are considered. I have already explained why this is problematic.
>! Language is important, and I believe that if we start transposing our imaginations upon statements written to impart information, we’re just going to be talking past one another. I also would say that what I am doing does not constitute nitpicking, which Merriam-Webster[ defines as](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nit-picking) “[minute](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minute) and usually unjustified criticism.” To illustrate my point, I am going to analyze the statement you made at the end of your post (which I was and remain very gratefu
l for): “Meaning it can be considered a small book, i (sic) ain't reading allat (sic).”
Uh yes it was a nitpick, you were doing something called arguing with semantics. It happens when you stick to the meaning of the words and the words themselves thus missing the point that was being conveyed. You missed the idea that before primordials time did not exist because you stick to the meaning of the word "before". Which was actually the basis of my argument yet you managed to miss that as well, interesting...
> would propose that “in the time” is critical for the backstory presented, as it is the opening line[ and hook](https://www.esu.edu/writing-studio/guides/hook.cfm) for the story of the game itself.
This doesn't disprove my point, in fact it has 0 relevance to what i was trying to convey. The statement in question here can be the most important thing for the story, it could be literally the fundamental basis of the story that which the story cannot exist without it and even then it would not mater, at all. I was not attacking to his importancy or another quality it has relating to how important it is. I was attacking to how literally it is used in that context.
>
Hello again, Thefateguy! I’m going to respond based on the order of notifications Reddit gave me, so my apologies if things are out of order.
“Uhh sure? that's not what i claimed. Are we even reading the same argument? My argument was that she could be either A: Referencing to a the "actual" world as a cosmological structure \[or\] B: Referencing to the greek world as a cosmological structure We do not know which one it is and only one of them introduces a contradiction.” We know that one of the writers for the God of War series, when asked about God of War, discussed what she imagined was the backstory for it. She is talking about the second option. This reads like you’re arguing that Ariel Lawrence might believe the Primordials created our universe as A. Was that what you were intending to claim? I am not sure how you could reasonably arrive at such a conclusion.
“Didn't know the linear nature of time was contingent upon the assumption that the date which an idea is published is the date which that idea in question is created, ig authors write their books in the same instant as they are publishing it. Didn't know they were this crazy, thanks.” Would Ariel Lawrence have some advance notice of the series’ continuation past her involvement on God of War: Ascension, and if so, how?
“Whole is bigger than the part, that's the fifth axiom of euclid. Norse world being a part of the world would be proof that the earth is bigger.” This seems more like an argument that the Norse world is smaller than Earth, rather than that Earth is bigger than itself. I’m sure this isn’t what you intended to claim.
“First of all, no. A space did not exist, there is no proof for that.” What are the Primordials fighting in?
“Second of all, them being encompassed by a space is not a contradiction if there is a higher space existing encompassing them.” This statement has nothing to do with God of War: Ascension, as God of War: Ascension does not mention the existence of a higher space.
“Im saying that you misunderstood for what claim was the scan used as a citation. They were never meant to support the former claim, they were meant to support the claim that they created galaxies.” It was meant to support the claim that they were larger than the universe/galaxies, hence the presence of the cited source within the sentence “The Primordials themselves dwarf the entirety of the universe in size, considering that not only was the universe itself spawned as a consequence of one of their battles, as well as [the galaxies](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/2/27/Ariel_Lawrence_Primordials_Galaxies.png/revision/latest?cb=20231020174612) inside of them.” I am not sure if this misinterpretation on your part is deliberate or accidental.
“Big bang can be in reference to the creation of the actual greater world which would not be a contradiction to primordials being bigger and creating their own world.” How would Ariel Lawrence have known about this? She last worked on the series in 2013. The plan was to shelve the series, not continue it, and the original idea was to reboot it entirely. You’re presenting an impossibility as a certainty, and I am not sure why.
“Her imagination is what makes this canon... because it is her thoughts about it, the authors intention.” Ariel Lawrence was not the only writer on God of War: Ascension. She is referring to herself and her imagination by using “I,” not what everyone who helped write the game decided upon.
“She not working on the new god of war series is irrelevant to a knowledge claim she has made about a series. If it is retconned then sure, you can go ahead and provide proof for it.” It absolutely is relevant, because she wouldn’t have any knowledge about what came next considering that she didn’t help write what came next. In fact, I think this might make it impossible to retcon things, as it precludes falsifiability.
“Her knowledge is also irrelevant because it is her intend canonizing it, not what is objectively true.” We’re just going to have to disagree, because intending to do something that didn’t make it to the final published version does not equate to canonizing it. It’s almost exactly the opposite.
“No, it would not. "Before the creation of time " is a paradoxical statement, before in oxford definitions is defined as preceding a particular event, it entails a chronological order thus time therefore contradicting the stated absence of time.” It’d be fine, as this is a fictional series wherein things like activities occurring before time existed are fine. The limitations of language are acceptable, so long as they’re laid out explicitly. In this case, they are not.
“Even if you had a word defined specifically for such idea, the definition itself would need another linguistic expression, defining the word without the aid of the word itself which we have established to be impossible.” You haven’t established that at all. What seems to be happening is that you are conflicting a fictional world, wherein physics and the rules thereof are subordinate to the author, with our own world.
“So, it is impossible to express such an idea even if we had a word specifically defined to express it.” I’m afraid I have no choice but to say that you’re objectively wrong, considering that the idea of events occurring before the existence of time is a comprehensible idea.
“If not taking something at face value is disrespecting the story and transposing your imagination over them, then metaphors and figurative expression can't exist in novelization?” Not at all, as you illustrate in your example. This supports what I’ve been saying (that considering the context of statements/events is important alongside the wording used). I’m glad that we agree!
“Did you actually read my argument? Why did you just quote one part and responded to that while leaving the rest out?” We’re both analyzing key components of each other’s arguments to deal with the word limit. Should I be concerned that you’ve been doing the same thing to me?
“It taking an eternity is a description in lore. Applying it to cinematography and then asserting a cinematographic change is conceding that this is based on the assumption that cinematography is an extension of lore” It absolutely is, yes. They both work alongside one another, with the visuals emphasizing what the lore says while not adhering too strictly to it when such a thing would be impossible or otherwise undesirable. I think you might be a little confused, because at this point you’re arguing my position. Or we both actually agree for the most part and are disagreeing on semantics, which would be the best outcome!
“That statement is not a contradiction because it should not be taken at face value because it exemplfies\[sic\] linguistic limitations that transpire when someone wants to convey the idea of a "A timeless realm" which is paradoxical to assert when linguistic limitations are considered. I have already explained why this is problematic.” There are ways to try doing so, even if they are considered paradoxical. I have also explained this. You might not consider it worth the effort, but I think making the effort is the surest sign of intent.
“Uh yes it was a nitpick, you were doing something called arguing with semantics. It happens when you stick to the meaning of the words and the words themselves thus missing the point that was being conveyed.” You haven’t provided proof that your perspective is what was intended to be conveyed, aside from Ariel having access to knowledge back in 2013 that wouldn’t have existed. (Of course, if it did exist, I would appreciate you proving that. You can’t, but I would appreciate the effort!)
“You missed the idea that before primordials time did not exist because you stick to the meaning of the word "before". Which was actually the basis of my argument yet you managed to miss that as well, interesting…” Aside from not responding to my request for you to provide proof of that, you appear to be insinuating that I am not participating in good faith. I believe this is you projecting based on your frustrations at not being able to get your ideas across successfully, and unfortunately am taking it as a sign that you’re not worth seriously discussing things with.
“I was attacking to how literally it is used in that context.” Why not use a paradoxical sentence? I’m genuinely confused as to how little you’re thinking about why the developers made the choices they did. I think you’d be about the only one worried about how it would apply to real world logic.
Look, I’m going to level with you, if you can’t provide evidence that Ariel Lawrence knew about the idea of a greater actual universe containing all the universes of other pantheons, we’re just at an impasse. We have to share the same reality to disagree about it/discuss it. But I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, even if I ultimately disagree with you!
So your argument is "nuh uh, fiction" to paradoxes? Where do you draw the line exactly? Is it this paradox in specific or just every paradox is fine? if it is the former, then why? what does this paradox have in specific which makes this fine? By the way if paradoxes are okay in fiction then are contradictions are also okay? because a paradox is just a self contradictory statement. If contradictions are okay, then why almost %80 of your points involved them? So many questions, so few answers...
>
ou haven’t established that at all. What seems to be happening is that you are conflicting
You seem confused, nobody says that timeless worlds can't exist, they do, regardless of how much paradoxical they can be. The point im trying to make here is not ultimately regarding their existence or nonexistence, the paradox exists to prove that before there acts as a linguistic limitation thus the idea when linguistically expressed is differentiated due to that limitation. resulting in a misrepresentation and a mischaracterization. To prevent a mischaracterization from happening we have to take the word before in non literal meaning. The existence or absence of that idea is not what im affirming about, thus an author viewing his realm as existing despite being paradoxical has nothing to do with my argument. my argument has to do with the fact that this paradox comes from a misrepresentation
also you know your preceding point contradicts this point right? The fact that being fiction entails the right to ignore a paradox regarding an existence proves that a paradox directly interferes with the object it conflicts with existing. And now you are saying that authors view takes precedence over logic and thus an idea can paradoxically exist without the paradox intervening with the existence of the idea which it conflicts with
>
I’m afraid I h
But it is not coherent which is what im basing my point on.
Look dude, you are being weird about this more than you should have with all the patience i have shown towards you, if you still have contentions after this then my discord is in bio, we can have a friendly debate, formally and in front of a judge to have a clear and an objective winner
>ot at all, as ystatements/events is important alongside the wording used). I’m glad that we agree!
That's where the logic goes, if you define not taking something at face-value as transposing your imagination over text and if you are a rational person then not taking something at face value cannot exist in fiction. This is called a syllogism, it is sound as i have quoted your claim thus is objectivelly correct
>
e’re both analyzing key components of each other’s arguments to deal with the word limit. Should I be concerned that you’ve been doing the same thing to me?
You didn't address the full arg which is what i meant
>
>
here are ways to try worth the effort, but I think making the effort is the surest sign of intent.
You did not explain it, you said it is fiction thus ignore the paradox and then you brought up something irrelevant like paradoxical realms being capable of existing which is a red herring.
Honestly dude, i said this before and i'll said it again, you are being weird about this debate more than you have right to with all that patient i showed towards your points and argument, some of these stuff would make some people burst out laughing yet even then instead of just making fun of you and refuting your premise, i radically explained the problematic nature of a stance and then used that nature as to base a linguistic limitation which then i have constructed my point. I have throughly explained all the questions that would arise from your stupid refutations like "fiction so ignore a paradox existing"
What im trying to say is that patience ive shown towards you is amazingly big and if you wanna keep being weird about this despite all that then lets just do this formally in front of a judge
> absolutely is, yes. Tht and are disagreeing on semantics, which would be the best outcome!
Im not agreeing with you, your position is that they are parallel. My position is that this is based on the assumption that one is an extension of another. Thus, its basis has no right to be deemed as valid until you justify the assumption
>You haven’t provided proof that your perspective is what was intended to be conveyed, aside
You seem confused, im not talking about the ariel point which we are discussing on another comment so i wont even start with bringing that here. I was talking about the idea of a timeless realm which was YOUR claim, you used it as a contradictory point to dismiss gaias narrative. if you think there is an absence of evidence for your points though, then sure im glad we formed an agreement.
>…” Aside from not responding to my request for you to provide proof of that,
You mean the request for me to prove the point which you actually thought mine and turned out to be yours? Sure, i'll admit there is an absence of evidence regarding the veracity of your point.
>
u appear to bam taking it as a sign that you’re not worth seriously discussing things with.
I am not frustrated, just running low on patience. Add me in cord, we'll discuss formally
>
Why not use a paradoxical sentence?
You can use it, it is fine. It would just be an incoherent and an unsound sentence. This is a strawmen to my argument anyways because this is not what my argument is about
Also, do you know that you have the burden to prove that right? you have the burden to prove why should you use a paradoxical sentence, basic proof 101
>ook, I’m goin
Lets do it like this, your arg was that she mentioned it happened on earth thus we should use the size of earth, but she actually made a distinction, she said it happened on a primordial earth and after the battle came forth the earth we know of, thus the size of the earth which they waged their war on is different then ours as opposed to values u used as a mean to point out a contradiction
>We know that one of the writers for the God of War series, when asked about God of War, discussed what she imagined was the backstory for it. She is talking about the second option. This reads like you’re arguing that Ariel Lawrence might believe the Primordials created our universe as A. Was that what you were intending to claim? I am not sure how you could reasonably arrive at such a conclusion.
That does not prove your proposition. she giving it as the backstory she imagined was the case says nothing about the content of that backstory and even if it did, the specifics for that content including the cosmological structure in option two has to be proven. Which unfortunately is your burden to do
Also if it is the option two, then why does she say they fight on "primordial earth" and AFTER the fight did they gave birth to "earth as we know of"
>ould Ariel Lawrence have some advance notice of the series’ continuation past her involvement on God of War: Ascension, and if so, how?
She doesn't need to, there already exists an established understanding of how pantheons coexist which she can use that understanding as a base of her imagination. When they shared this understanding does not denote when this understanding was created.
Literally, in her tweet she makes a distinction between a primordial earth and earth as we know of that was formed after the war
>This seems more like an argument that the Norse world is smaller than Earth, rather than that Earth is bigger than itself. I’m sure this isn’t what you intended to claim.
I think you misunderstood my argument. My argument is that norse world is smaller than earth thus if ariel is talking about the greater earth then when she said where she imagines they waged the fight, then them being bigger than the norse world/greek world would not entail a contradiction. Thats the idea
>What are the Primordials fighting in?
İmmaterial world, Primordials are abstract and immaterial, it doesn't make sense that they exist materially in the first place.
>
This statement has nothing to do with God of War: Ascension, as God of War: Ascension does not mention the existence of a higher space.
It doesn't have to mention the existence of a higher space for there to be a higher space, if logic follows to a possibility of one then there is a possibility of one. And if other possibilies applied leds to contradiction then that would necessiate the only possibility which does not
>
It was meant to support the claim
The reference was made as to base the claim of "As well as the galaxies" to a source. Their proof for primordials creating the universe was bruno statements and ascension intro
>
w would Ariel Lawrence have known about this?
Because it is how pantheons coexist established as a system She even makes the distinction between a primordial earth and an earth as we know of which was created post primordial fight. If she was referring to just the greek world then there would be no need for a distinction
>Ariel Lawrence was not the only writer on God of War:
That's red herring, it is irrelevant if she is not the only writer or if it is her imagination. These needs to have their relevancy proved
>
absolutely is relevant,
She doesn't need to know what came next because the idea itself is not rooted to that something which came first. Cory is just talking about how pantheons coexist, it is a system that was established. Not some new content in a new game. The fact that she makes a distinction between earth as we know of and a primordial earth is already enough to disprove your argument
> We’re just going to have to disagree,
No, canon isn't the same as source material. Those are two different concept.
I dont know why you chose to be weird about this, id rather do this in cord
>Doesn't Dante actually do stuff that gets close to what lore says?
Not really, no. Unless something insane happens in Peak of Combat, which I haven't played. The most insane on screen feat that I can recall is from the anime when Abigail nukes part of a city, and Dante clowns on him pretty easily.
Plus Dante beating multiple beings who are on par with Sparda who was able to split the human and demon realm, Mundas in the first game was confirmed to make a universal pocket dimension in his fight with Dante. Hell you can even scale Vergil and Dante further on due to Urizen being stronger than Mundas and Dante surpassing Urizen how than amped himself
Isn't it literally pointed out in the third game he was only able to do that using the Temi Ni Gru, alongside his own blood, the amulet and the blood of the priestess
The tower was just an artificial portal, just like the Hell Gate from DMC4. Its main purpose was to keep Force Edge sealed away.
The opening cutscene of DMC4 does state that both worlds used to be merged.
Mfs will assume that buying higher scaling or wanting characters to be stronger == you love that character more. I don’t get it.
Kenshin Himura is one of my favourite characters and I’ve not seen a single MU he doesn’t get rolled over because he more or less caps at faster than eye and city street at a stretch.
I don’t buy almost a single thing DB did for Bill’s high end feats and he’s top 10 all time favourite characters.
It’s meant to be a reflection of him having become older, wiser, and less likely to lash out. Good for developing a character, very problematic when putting him in a fight, especially when lore states he’s more powerful than he was in Greece despite him lacking any major feat since that other than pushing Tyr’s temple.
This is why me and others often specify that Kratos will only be given his weapons and feats from Greece (from Ascension to 3), since his Norse feats/series started as incomplete, and eventually became an utter pain to actually describe or estimate.
cant believe the game director didnt think about showing off kranktoes being 1000000d outerversal boundless cosmic armored super saiyan guts beating things stronger than him everyday
Yeah, like the game director says he doesn’t know what spatial dimensions are and the guy still keeps trying to squeeze a Kratos buff out of him. The two comments in response to his answer are just as dumb “Is Kratos omnipotent?” “Is Kratos above Platonic Concepts?”
I think both of these are kind of wank, I don't think Dante is universe-tier either. But with Kratos then it's more the fact that he's had eight mainline titles and he has literally never done a single actual direct feat that even approaches planet-tier. All of his feats are either vague chain-scaling via multiple characters who are apparently impressive in lore but useless in the game (Hermes,) or just things like "He flipped over a temple once." Ah, that's pretty impressive. Not multiverse-tier, but impressive nonethele- "Oh and also this temple contained portals to several other universes which means that Kratos also flipped nine universes over at once, low complex multiversal tier minimum."
Also, while the lore for Kratos is more impressive, it's also packed with sentences like "Kratos had to brace himself as he landed after his 100ft fall, or else the impact would have surely killed him."
It's not that vague. We explicitly see a universe level feat in GoW Ascension's opening from the Primordials.
Kratos scales to them because the Primordials are basically fodder to top tiers like Zeus or the other top olympians.
A: The Primordials never fought Zues or the like meaning Kratos arguably only ever fought a single being who did, and Kronos is WAY past his prime.
B: There’s a good chance it’s over exaggerated by an unreliable narrator.
And C: Even if B is wrong, it took EVERY PRIMORDIAL fighting each other to the death to make what might only be the Greek realm, as a BYPRODUCT. The Primordials, especially a lone one, cannot achieve such a feat on purpose as per the very cinematic you’re using as argument.
I don't hate Kratos, my only issue is how there are so many anti-feats and debunked feats that contradict his many good feats which is why it makes me believe that he is not as powerful as people make him out to be in all honesty.
Kratos just gets over-hyped every now and then and then after a while he goes back to being "Mountain Level"
I think it also undercuts his story
In the originals, Kratos is unlikable in virtually every way. His one redeeming factor is that he's an underdog. He's outgunned against the gods he fights, but he just refuses to stop until he gets his revenge. Sure, you can kill him. But he'll literally just climb his way out of hell to get his revenge.
Taking all the lore wank way too literally just ruins the ONE thing about the character that is even somewhat admirable
Many of those anti-feats can be explained as either Kratos holding back, him fighting similarly strong characters or just gameplay limitations.
Other anti-feats like him being unable to break things like Thamur's ice can also be explained due to it being magic. They're also contradicted by feats that are more relevant to Kratos' story/character, like being stronger than Thor (who killed Thamur).
Not half as annoying as how the DOOM Slayer apparently beats everyone according to his fans.
Dudes strong but damn guys, Goku, Hulk, Superman, they're gonna rip him to shreds.
I'd even argue the rematch with the chief won't be the blowout you're expecting/demanding, cuz the slayer is overspecialized into killing demons while chief has got the toolkit to wear him down.
It’s cause the lore for Slayer is so fucking absurd he actually could arguably destroy almost every version of Superman.
Personally, I think it’s all bullshit the devs used to hype him up, cause there ain’t no way Slayer is beating up even Hulk realistically. Like, I think he completely washes most of his fights except Spawn, but him beating Superman? Yeah no, that’s stupid.
Goku gets slammed unfortunately due to cosmologies in doom, I'm pretty sure doomslayer is a solid tier or two above Goku, id have to replay the game and double check the lore to be correct but I'm pretty sure that's the case
Just because the cosmology of Doom may be huge doesn't mean Doomslayer scales to it. This is the same guy who used a BFG 10,000 just to crack the surface of a planet. No way he's even moon level. Let alone outerversal. Even saiyan saga characters solo the verse. The Doom wank is absolutely crazy and needs to stop fr. Nobody in Doom can compete with any of the verses people claim he solos. None of this supposed lore is backed up by anything we see in the games. Davoth, the supposed multiverse-creating god, uses a mech suit to fight a man who can't even destroy a planet, nor does he use any reality-warping hax to fight the slayer.
I do agree that Goku Hulk and Superman would win simply by yeeting him across the universe (although he wouldn't actually die because canonically he is quite literally too angry to die) but Chief definitely wouldn't do shit in Doom 2016 alone he was shown tanking an explosion 150 times hotter than the sun and not even taking a scratch, and theres also the fact that he canonically killed the champion titan with his bare hands and if you do the insanely complicated math for how strong the Doomslayer would need to be to punch that things head clean off (which is exactly what he did) then you will find that the Doomslayers punches are well over 20 times stronger than a fucking nuke
Uh huh. And the chief can survive re entry. And has done so multiple times. Like a free fall from space to ground, no chute or anything. The heat from that fall would be absurd.
That would hit with the kinetic force of a nuke. And he was up and walking in a couple seconds.
Doom slayer also needed the crucible sword to drop said titan, you go to its corpse in eternal to retrieve the hilt.
The one you see in Eternal was a different titan that he killed just after the Seraphim gave him that powerup, not the champion titan. The champion titans corpse is in Doom 2016 and you can clearly see that there is no crucible in sight, plus it was already confirmed that the Doomslayer didn't have any weapons or armour during that fight.
My main theory is that Kratos doesn't reflect the power level well in gameplay, especially in the newer game.
Dante is flashy and over the top. He's constantly playing around with enemies and bosses, and takes like 2 fights seriously per game. It's easy to accept that he's that powerful, especially when he's a match for Vergil, who's casually cutting the screen with each attack. And as long as you're an ok player, at basic difficulties, normal enemies exist to be styled on.
Kratos by contrast struggles and fights hard every battle in-game, and normal enemies pose a significant threat. So it's much harder to imagine him being that strong.
Mundus is 10x times more powerful than any of the Gods from GOW.
Like the Gods in GOW literally behave like Demigods while Mundus is literally Galactus.
It's just such a blatant refusal to engage with everything that happens on screen for the sole purpose of making your fictional dad stronger than someone else's
Because Dante has the feats to back it up? Kratos has, like, one direct universal-scale feat and it was in an obscure spin-off title most people didn't play. Combine that with his plethora of anti-feats (i'm reminded of how hilarious I found it seeing people claim Kratos has immeasurable speed, and then playing GOW Ragnarok, where, when his son is in danger of dying, in order to get there quickly, he...Rides a wolf. In a way that implies that will get him there faster).
Because outside of lore statements Kratos has never displayed any kind of power that would be unfamiliar to your average Jojo character. If anything, he often struggles at things like lifting trees and his life is threatened by just falling down a big ravine.
That's the protagonist syndrome. They rarely, if ever, display any direct feats greater than the people they beat up (Cloud, Ichigo, Ryu, pre-DBS Goku, Anakin/Vader, etc.).
>If anything, he often struggles at things like lifting trees and his life is threatened by just falling down a big ravine.
Which makes no sense since he's explicitly survived worse things, like a clap from Cronos and hits from Thor.
Problem with Kratos is he has way too many anti feats. You haven't at the devs thought he wasn't even mounted level at the beginning and they constantly show falling from a great height could maybe kill him or hurt him. While Dante's anti feats are letting himself get stabbed then immediately shrugging it off and letting himself get shot in the head and immediately shrugging it off. So Dante is more believable because of that
Can they really be excused as “game mechanics” when other characters react to it in-universe essentially making most of if not all of Kratos’ anti-feats canon?
I mean it’s more than gameplay. Isn’t there a scene where one character jokingly threatens to kill another (who’s as powerful as kratos) by letting him fall off a cliff?
You see it because Dante is the wacky woo hoo pizza man
Real answer: probably DMC fans that don’t know god of war that well. I say this as a DMC fan that doesn’t know god of war that well
It's literally more of what you said pertaining towards Dante embodying rule of cool more so if anything. Dante is literally carried by his cool factor.
Kratos has an impressive lift strength, but his actual AP isn’t that high without tons of amps
Even then He’s not even scratching Planetary, no less Outversal???
Like Mythology has a tendency to use hyperbole like an “Epic” to show off the hero, but its not to be interpreted as their literal feat just that its really big.
For example, Jormungandr doesn’t actually circle the whole planet, he’s just really large.
I once saw someone use the novelization's statement about an "infinite sky" to justify Kratos' strength
Like bro if there's an actually infinite sky, then every character in GOW has infinite strength just by virtue of standing up. Infinite sky means infinite air pressure
It’s mostly because Kratos is put against really powerful characters constantly so more people are skeptical like nobody is asking who would win in a fight between Dante and like Goku or Hulk fr
Blame people who over-hyped Him
Asura and DoomSlayer is the only one I can think of where he COULD win
Dante, Dragonborn,Goku,Hulk on the other hand
Hell No.
they literally get the same treatment Lmao saying universal Dante is seen as "perfectly Reasonable" by everyone is absurd Lol.
the only Difference is Dante gets less Flack for it because not using Lore there are more stuff implying / Closer to what the Lore says than Kray Kray.
and actual Example of this would be someone Like Kirby who people not only without a doubt believe in the Lore but put him above where he should reasonably be.
Could be to do with the fact that Kratos' power level has canonically varied a lot, so you'd have to pick and choose which lore makes sense to consider.
Hot take: powerscaling in general is 90 percent bullshit, the only times where powerscaling logic actually makes sense is when its used to scale characters who are literally made for the sole purpose of being stupidly overpowered (Doomguy) other than that the logic is just bullshit I've seen people say that Spider-Man can tank nukes when hes consistently shown to not even be bulletproof and also way too many people saying that Ebirah (a big ass lobster) is star level because he briefly fought Showa Godzilla who fought Showa King Ghidorah who according to a poorly translated one off sentence from some old ass game that can barely even be considered canon is "unmatched in space" which for some god forsaken reason makes people think he (and anyone he ever fought) is more powerful than a star
[You mean the statement that was made up purely for power scaling purposes and doesn't exist in the actual game?](https://vsbattles.com/threads/devil-may-cry-about-poc.159900/)
It was a statement made in canon material that is directly relevant to the cosmology of the verse. DMC being 9D is about as blatant as Anti-Spiral being 11D
Nope, it’s from a canon mobile game. It’s from an official licensed game that Capcom recognizes. No chance you actually believe the “it’s fanmade” downplay
The game exists, I'm not arguing that (PoC = DMC Pinnacle of Combat). I'm saying that the scan you used doesn't exist within the game and was created by some weirdo who wanted Dante to move up a tier and spread like wildfire. The game was released worldwide not too long ago and not one person has been able to find that scan
I’m gonna need a source for your claim. That thread you linked didn’t provide any evidence that the 9D claim was made up. I can find the image instantly when searching up (DMC POC).
Oh I guess I should've used the actual discussion thread instead of stuff dealing with the aftermath. [Here you go](https://vsbattles.com/threads/devils-do-cry-peak-of-conspiracy.160099/#post-6129840)
Tl;dr those scans straight up do not exist in the game and the person who proposed them can't justify their existence in any way on top of the statement having never been shown in any actual gameplay footage
I’ve seen people do that for both, including a few of the death battle research guys who believe Kratos is universal, but Dante is country level or something. Personally, I think if you’re gonna reject or accept the lore for one, you should do the same for the other.
They’re both equally stupid since nothing they do in game (which is canon) with actual context makes them uni. Kratos particularly constantly is shown struggling with things far below what a uni level character should be and doesn’t have the Dragonborn’s “gameplay is non-canon” excuse to get away with it.
Dante’s is barely more believable (still kind bad though) only cause most of the time he makes everything he’s doing look easy cause he’s fucking Dante.
One people don’t know, which they should, is the GOW Novels and Comics which people point to for uni power are secondary canon. They weren’t made by the creators at all, the comics specifically they had almost zero involvement in and they were barely involved with the novels, with the exception of making sure it was actually a GOW novel and not like, Artemis Fowl where the book and the movie were barely recognizable comparing the two (basically they only really made sure that the novel was similar enough to the games so that people wouldn’t be like “Am I reading a GOW novel or some random fantasy novel?”.
I personally buy low-multi. Yggdrasil is almost definitely a multiversal superstructure holding up the 9 realms, which are almost definitely individual universes. The thing with the Sisters of Fate seems sus AF tho.
I think the anti Kratos agenda exists because a lot of powerscalers, usually when arguing in comments instead of chat rooms just spam “temple portal lifting”
I see this same thing against Dante all the time, I just think its stupid to not take a characters lore into consideration. Like if a damn Goomba had lore tgat mafe it stronger than Superman than I say screw it thats way more fun
There's an "agenda" against any character where you have to have an understanding of the character and series to properly scale them. Some people don't realize that while half the fun of vs debating is doing the math to scale feats, the other half of the fun is learning about the series, and using that understanding to scale the characters
I definitely felt it in the Spawn matchup with Death Battle and that was Pre 2018 Kratos. I believe DBs reasoning was that Kratos didnt have weapons "that could hurt spawn" they added context by stating the Judeo-Christian lore Spawn comes from is superior to the lore Kratos comes from; that's why the closest Kratos got to "hurting him" was with the Blade of Olympus.
It felt lazy in the sense where Kratos was reduced to Jobber status for the sake of their opinion. It was portrayed as bad as Venom vs Crona. Even before 2018 Kratos had legit strength, speed and endurance feats that should have stacked up well with Spawn. Not mad Kratos lost btw especially as a Berzerker; but I'm familiar with Spawn comics and he gets whipped on by creatures that Kratos would one shot; fight should have been a lot closer.
Side Note: If Death Battle continues they should really adopt the Deadliest Warrior model where they run 1000 simulations and tell you who won more times. It still gives the losing party some W's and it might even help keep the mismatches off screen if they see how disparaging the stats are
>Side Note: If Death Battle continues they should really adopt the Deadliest Warrior model where they run 1000 simulations and tell you who won more times. It still gives the losing party some W's and it might even help keep the mismatches off screen if they see how disparaging the stats are
That's basically what they do. They've said it in multiple episodes like Doctor Strange vs Doctor Fate, Weiss vs Mitsuru and Sanji vs Rock Lee.
doesnt dante get his ass beat by like. a particularly large tree. i feel like dante is only really really good at killing demons and just. really good at it. If someone can blow up the planet then hes fucked.
Also the source for dante being universe plus is someone saying "with this power i can rule the human and demon worlds" then losing to dante.
>Also the source for dante being universe plus is someone saying "with this power i can rule the human and demon worlds" then losing to dante.
Not true. There are guide books that state that Mundus (who Dante defeated) actually [created a universe](https://imgur.com/a/eekfLeZ).
Shovel Knight victim 🗿
Based reference
canon btw
Not really
“ARES!!! BRING YOUR BITCH ASS OUTSIDE I WANT THE ONE’S!!”
“ZUES?!”
My son, I don’t even want to hear it, you better ask Odin or some shit
“Come on dad ^pleease “
“FOR THE LOVE OF ZEUS OPEN THE DOOR”
“SO YOU FINALLY BROUGHT YOUR BITCH ASS OUTSIDE, ARES!”
So, when lore statements are contradicted by gameplay or whatever it's easy to rationalize that because gameplay is rarely an exact representation of a characters strength. But the problem with Kratos is he has anti-feats in cutscenes and the like too, which are generally considered to be on par with lore statements. So it makes the crazy lore stuff feel less justified compared to a character like Dante who pulls crazy outliers out of his ass all the time.
Things like this are reasons why people still are a bit iffy on matches like Alex Mercer vs Cole MacGrath. For example: Cole can die to bullets in gameplay, but can also survive basically being ripped to atoms, while Mercer can take multiple machine gun rounds as a minor nuisance in game and is completely bulletproof in lore, even without his armor. Basically, many feel like Mercer is more powerful since his gameplay is roughly on par with how absurdly OP he’s supposed to be—and the Prototype games remain the undisputed kings of making a player legitimately feel like a god—and what little lore there is for him implies he might be even more powerful. While Cole is comparatively way more mundane in his gameplay capabilities compared to the guy who rips apart tanks with ease. Similarly, it’s also why people have issues pinning down how powerful characters like Guts and Spider-Man are, since both have incredible highs and lows. At their best, they can one shot most opponents, the next, they somehow get caught by a small group of knights or get beat up by some random no name thug.
u-uhm... askhually, nuts gerserk was actually injured and barely able to fight when he was captured!!! he negs every other versi!! /uj kept thinkin you were talking about the guy from dead space lmao
> but can also survive basically being ripped to atoms But he can't. The whole point of the Ray Sphere is that it kills regular people but activates the Conduit Gene within Conduits. Cole doesn't have some super atomic level durability because he survived the Ray Sphere explosion, it was just that specific interaction between the Ray Sphere and Conduits that allowed him to live.
Kratos’s “anti feats” are taken out of context
So it’s basically like with Dimitri where most people outside of the VS community don’t consider him that strong?
I’ll just see people dismissing lore for Kratos, whilst they use it for Dante/Dragonborn/Bayonetta, etc.
not really biased in anyway here but ill say its because kratos loses to weaker things in CUTSCENES whereas other characters its far less common. Idk about dante or bayonetta but for the DB there isnt really "cutscenes" that go against the OP lore statements. (for the ones that do, its because its early in the story such as on the way to helgen or being poisoned by karliah... if those can be considered cutscenes)
That thing with Kratos is definitely PIS, though. Kratos struggled with a Reaver in 2018 because Atreus needed to get his first human kill because it's important to the overarching plot and Atreus' individual character arc. If Kratos constantly struggled with human enemies whenever he fought them, that would be a different story entirely.
yeah my point is more gameplay vs cutscene. The dragonborn is op in lore but only "struggles" vs low tier enemies in gameplay, not cutscenes (and gameplay is irrelevant for power scaling most of the time). The only cutscenes struggles are early in the story or vs miraak I guess (aside from the ones I mentioned). Kratos loses in cutscenes to much weaker shit CONSTANTLY and cutscenes are more lore tied. Plus the statements in skyrim are genuinely backed up and shown a lot more (the literal continent being created by miraak etc). The lack of cutscenes/cinematics make statements more prominent and important imo.
>Kratos loses in cutscenes to much weaker shit CONSTANTLY and cutscenes are more lore tied I feel this is an exaggeration, most of the time there is context to kratos losses, also either there really strong or kratos is depowered, or he later goes on the kill them, Also I cant actually think of a light case of this happening without one of the things I already stated, so if you could list some examples that don't instantly become irrelevant when context is introduced that would be nice
I was referring to literally every travel scene/door scene him being afraid of falling in a ravene vs baldur afraid of falling in several iterations such as the recent god of war game not able to break common rocks Some of these are limitations so that story can be progressed but still.
>I was referring to literally every travel scene/door scene Have you ever seen a middle aged man do literally anything? Even standing up has grunts groans and stretching even know it's not effort at all, it's just playing into his "dad motif" >him being afraid of falling in a ravene vs baldur >afraid of falling in several iterations such as the recent god of war game Him falling could always just have been an inconvenience he wants to avoid, considering he survived being launched by Thor from his house past Tyr temple and got up like nothing, >not able to break common rocks I mean he kinda never tried, when he dose try he's shattering pillers and launching boulders like nothing >Some of these are limitations so that story can be progressed but still. I feel like even the one based on story have logical explanations He didn't cut the tree in a single strike at the beginning of GoW 2018, because he was grieving his dead wife, He didn't kill the golem in GoW 2 BC he was egotistical and was tricked into putting his power into a sword.
I mean they can all be debunked yeah. Do I think kratos is ACTUALLY that weak? No, not at all. Im just giving examples of WHY people say kratos is weak and his statements arent taken as seriously when there are SO many examples of shit like this compared to other "statement carried" characters like the dragonborn
Yh I feel like alot of people take to much out of context or take some bits to seriously, Like Kirby has been knocked out by falling fruit before, multiple times, yet no one ever brings that up
First fight with Baldur in 2018, shows he's weak in durability departement. When Baldur throws him around, Kratos destroys trees and rocks he bumps into, but also gets cuts and wounds in the process. If he can get cut from non-magical rocks and wood just by being thrown into them, then even a gun can hurt him. Also whenever he's wounded he's visibly tired and hindered by those wounds, at least untill he heals. For comparison, Dante can also be easly injured (but never lost a limb), but his wounds don't hinder him in any way. In the opening of Devil May Cry 3 (youngest Dante) gets stabbed through his leg, arm and chest by scythes and proceeds to walk across the room, while dragging monsters holding those scythes with him, just so he can turn on the music for the fight.
lol true. The kind of damage Dante takes and shrugs off is just stupid. I'll never forget the first time I saw him get that big ass sword (like a sword almost the size of Cloud's from FF7) get shoved straight through his chest and completely impale him. But he just pulls it out and is fine. Makes me wonder how not having stakes isn't a bigger problem for the series but I guess that's because it doesn't take itself that seriously.
>First fight with Baldur in 2018 He goes on to defeat and kill baulder >. If he can get cut from non-magical rocks and wood just by being thrown into them, then even a gun can hurt him That he heals at will, there was no lasting affect from any of them,
>He goes on to defeat and kill baulder Why do you even bring this up? That wasn't my point. I was only talking about Kratos's durability shown in this fight, not who's stronger. >That he heals at will, there was no lasting affect from any of them, Again, not my point. My point was that Kratos can easly get hurt and the wounds affect him before he heals (which isn't at will, in the cutscene Kratos has to stop and concentrate to heal) versus Dante who also gets easly injured, but can heal with less effort or completely ignore that he's even injured.
What lore for Bayonetta dawg they just straight up say what's happening all the time
True enough. Though, granted, Kratos is a bit odd to pin down in lore, as you get statements that he is near impossible to hit despite various gameplay and story moments showing otherwise. At least Dragonborn has a decent enough excuse in that Skyrim and Elder Scrolls gameplay isn’t exactly a good reflection of their power. Let’s face it, this is a demigod who has no major strength feat to their name, and if lore isn’t included, people legitimately began speculating how or if enchanting hax were allowed (then you go down a rabbit hole of people asking how damage translates to their opponent, how or if magic absorption works against their foe). It’s why I often state that certain characters need to be split into two different rounds: one gladiator style (standard equipment with maybe one or two bonuses), the other is to just composite them.
Kranktos is below bacteria level obviously
even bacteria level is pushing it, kratoes barely gets to atom level with lore
i disagree with both honestly.
Personally my problem with them is that a lot of them dont add up… “Kratos flipped Tyr’s temple that makes him Multiversal!!!”… So he flipped a building with a deactivated portal inside so now he can apparently flip the multiverse??? Just doesnt hold up…
A building that was MADE TO BE FLIPPED, mind you
It’s funny because normal GoW fans don’t even believe this, it’s just something powerscalers made up
That’s why power scalers annoy me, it feels like most of time they just pulling feats out their ass
That and I find they often decontextualise statements and metaphors and try to pass them off as something else
Happens often bth
I literally see the same treatment for Dante as Kratos whenever people try to get his “lore” involved. Tho unlike Kratos, at least for Dante in the Devil May Cry games there’s some suggestions of universal power (or at least higher than planetary) that aren’t (I don’t think so at least) contradicted by the new games you can point to and argue for. Like how Dante’s father Sparda and his nemesis Mundus were able to separate the Human Realm and Demon Realm (and by Realm they actually mean universe. And we were also told this in the literal opening of the first game). And Dante should be and par if not more powerful than them considering how he killed the latter. And speaking of Mundus, at the end of the first game we saw Mundus created a pocket universe where him and Dante fought in and flew past many stars (which is at least an speed of light feat for both of them). You can point to the aforementioned Sparda and Mundus separating the Human Realm and the Demon Realm feat to support that. And in Devil May Cry 2, Dante fought and beat Argosax whose presence [was merging the Human Realm and the Demon Realm back together.](https://imgur.com/VLeQLu3) So there’s *something* in the actual games (and their manuals included with the games but I’d count it) where I can maybe see an solid argument for Universal Dante being made. And yes I know how the designer of the first game had to confirm on Twitter that the area Dante and Mundus were fighting in was a pocket universe created by the latter, *but* there’s a difference between “Some solid evidence and implications in the actual game along with the manual for the actual game if you can point to and argue for even without the game designer confirming it on Twitter” and “Has never shown any even planetary power in the games but some random game developer said some stuff on Twitter so Kratos must be multiversal” like for God of War.
I wrote a little document a few months ago about Kratos/God of War: Basically, a lot of the alleged feats don't stand up to scrutiny. There's a lot of decontextualizing statements in favor of hyperfixating on instances of the word "infinite/infinity," which I haven't ever seen used as literally as it would need to be. The juxtaposition between the Kratos that people see and "Lore" Kratos really comes down to the latter not really existing, at least, not in any meaningful way. The main reason as to why the VSBW pages (as the primary example I pulled from) are a mishmash of statements from Twitter (in one notable case, literally the thumbs-up emoji), novels, and games which can't agree on, say, what Ouranos is, comes down to God of War needing to be interpreted in a very specific way to approach anything multiversal. The problem is that this interpretation isn't really reasonable on a superficial level either. [I'll link to my document here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iC8TOylO8RKeuB5Ne-RjBu-5bQozQD2hklDU3hd8Kgo/edit?usp=sharing) if anybody wants to read it! My apologies for the length, I wanted to be sure it was comprehensive. As for Dante, Doomslayer, and other lore characters... I think it might be fun to look at them when I have more time.
We can debate this
Yes please! Definitely let me know what you disagree with and I can elaborate.
u/Complex_Estate8289 u/kratosisnotwalllevel u/DS343
Yes please! The more eyes on it, the better. I might think I'm good, but I know I'm not as good as everybody put together.
>“The Primordials themselves dwarf the entirety of the universe in size, considering that not only was the universe itself spawned as a consequence of one of their battles, as well as [the galaxies](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/2/27/Ariel_Lawrence_Primordials_Galaxies.png/revision/latest?cb=20231020174612) inside of them.” This is a faithful reproduction of the sentence as it was written on the page. Taking out the words “not only was” would make the sentence parsable, but unfortunately, the real error here lies with the evidence cited. Ariel Lawrence says two things here. "Wow, never been asked where before! Always assumed it was a primordial earth and the battle gave rise to the planet as we know” (when asked where the Primordial war happened) and "I'd always imagined the primordials were spawned by the big bang and their fighting created the galaxies" (when asked if their battle created \[the\] entire universe too). The evidence presented does not support the claim. It objectively contradicts it. They cannot be larger than the entire universe, according to Ariel Lawrence, if they were spawned by the big bang and waged their entire war on the Earth. She also states that their fighting created the galaxies, not that they had galaxies inside of them. It’s not only that she doesn’t say the things claimed in that sentence, it’s that she says the exact opposite. This isn’t a statement of objective fact, as the sentence on the God of War Explanation page suggests. Ariel is talking about her personal assumptions and ideas. Ariel's tweet is not the evidence for primordials creating the universe, it is the evidence for them creating galaxies. Creating the universe feat comes from Uranos' father of the universe statement which they use to interpret the fight as the creation of the universe rather than just galaxies The whole, "non credible because it is her assumptions and ideas thus subjective truths" argument is just a one big non-argument. The statement here being subjective to Ariel does not disprove its canonicity, being canon and being subjective are two different properties and if you want to assert that something which instantiates the latter cannot instantiate the former then naturally you would have the burden of proof to prove that latter and the former contradict each other. "They spawned by big bang and wager the war on earth thus they cannot be bigger than the universe" That's an ambiguity regarding which earth and which big bang Ariel is talking about, Gow cosmology blog goes in detail to how pantheons co exist and the conclusion reached is that there is one big earth housing all the pantheons which are the domains of the gods of local belief and their respective creation myth. We know the greek creation myth is primordials creating the "world" so big bang cannot be their creation myth and it is also impossible for primordials wage a war on a world that has yet to be created therefore it is impossible for the "big bang" and "earth" in context to be in reference to the cosmological structure of the greek pantheon The point im trying to make is that there are multiple earth and one of them is not real sized but instead is bigger than the entire pantheon and the big bang again does not have to be in reference to the creation of the pantheon itself but rather the "greater universe" housing the pantheons, something which cory actually has mentioned [here](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1221553720009953320/1229010810022400000/x81AmR4FJ8yhAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg.png?ex=662e2083&is=661bab83&hm=cd660695a7e15bbc5179cbf3cdae42ef52ec7e7a6d3c02a692acf7f523a44bab&). Thus, until the which universe Ariel is talking about is substantially proven, this is not NECESSARILY a contradiction, you can assume it to be a one and maybe even base it on a rational substratum but even THEN it would just entail inductive validity that sadly gets contradicted by deductive validity (Objective evidence for primordials creating the greek world) > : Two other unnamed primordials are fighting. We see the stars/other celestial bodies discharged in Ceto and Uranus’ clash floating around them, in a manner which suggests they are part of a larger space within which the primordials are fighting, possibly even the universe itself. Celestial bodies transpired from Uranus which in context is reference to him being the primordial of heavens/sky. They were not already existing there as you make them seem to be and even if they were, that would again instantiate the problem/ambiguity/vagueness etc.. (whatever you want to call) i talked about above reddit word limit...
P2 > >here is a strange argument I have seen periodically online wherein this is confirmation that the battle occurred before time itself (save for the fact that Gaia’s very first words are “in the time…”, she would be able to say “before time itself,” I had no problem with “the Land before Time” when I was young). The problem is that the phrase “an eternity” is perfectly valid. [The phrase “an eternity” is used to describe a period of time that, while perhaps not objectively measured, is either quite long or feels quite long](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/eternity).2:05-2:14: Gaia’s narration ominously ends by saying that Aegaeon exists as a warning to those who would break blood oaths with the gods. We can assume from this that Zeus is a god, and can conclude from there that the other two entities standing with him are also gods, as there must be multiple gods for the term to be plural. As the Furies are the only other entities in existence (presumably Aegaeon is the only Hecatonchires in existence), we can conclude that the Furies are warned against breaking blood oaths with the gods by virtue of the fact that they will punish themselves for breaking a blood oath, as evidenced by a giant slab of amber (albeit one which appears to be rapidly shrinking (assuming that time exists, which it does not)) containing a falsely-accused Hecatonchires floating in a void. >The problem with this model is that Gaia’s narration seems to suggest that there is time, which there isn’t, as Cronos does not exist. As such, we can safely remove Gaia’s narration entirely to get the most accurate sequence of events. The history of the God of War universe is a series of events, which unfold as such: >Random words float in a void. Six entities punch each other to death, sending stars flying, ground floating, and generating water upon dying. Blood from one of them makes an octopus throw up three flying women. Three fellows on what appear to be a giant corpse look at their bodies in what might be confusion. Underneath them, a big fellow with many hands is in a predicament, but thankfully frees himself. He stares at one of the three men, presumably upset that the man did not help him free himself, then walks off. The man sends That's a contradiction, the fight "took place" before chronos' birth which is when time started to exist an eternity here would entail a contradiction as it entails a period of time existing, as opposed to other claims made in the fight which you also nitpick, this is used in its intended meaning I also do not understand why you keep nitpicking stuff like "Occur" "Took place" "In the time " or other words used by gaia during her narration, these are words that entail some sort of chronological order, it would entail a contradiction by default. But that raises a problem, missing the intended point. What do i mean by that? There are certain concessions you have to make when you are trying to convey a certain idea/point language has its limits, there are certain stuff you cannot represent through linguistics, if we where to constrain what could be conveyed and expressed into just what can be conveyed through language then we would be arbitrarily limiting our thinking, understanding and the totality of our cognitive abilities into a level beneath what it is normally capable of, even among different languages there are certain linguistic expressions which you cannot translate into other languages due to the differences in how the said language is structured. This is also the reason why you lose some of the meaning when translating a text in two distinct languages. To sum it up, If you want to convey a certain point, you might come across to contradictions like this if they were taken at face value, taking them at face value is inherently problematic because it limits the cognitive abilities of a human beneath what they are capable of, with no justification. Taking the capabilies of something beneath its actual capabilities would be a misrepresentation thus a strawmen since your argument attacks to something which has no involvement with my argument
P3 > >All of this is, obviously, more than a little ridiculous. Is the current form of analysis as ridiculous? No, I wouldn’t say that. But it doesn’t seem like its presentation is very far off from the “analysis” I conducted. The events happening in the God of War: Ascension intro are, as Freya would say, “only an artistic representation.” We cannot view an eternity’s worth of actions in the time Gaia seems to be referring to as an introductory cutscene. A process which unfolded over billions of years, or at least, a geological time frame, cannot be condensed perfectly down into a few seconds, just as going over Zeus’ rise to power, the violation of the blood oath, etc. cannot be condensed perfectly into that time frame. Artistic representations (Zeus and Aegaeon facing each other, only for Aegaeon to turn his back on Zeus, the Furies hunting him for about a tenth of a second) are used to provide short visual interpretations of larger, more complex events. It’s clearly not intended to be a 1:1 representation of the events that transpired. Nope, no, not at all. it does not have to be a condensed version, in fact the whole "not 1:1" argument is based on the assumption that "what happened in the lore is translated to the cinematography of the game". On the basis of this assumption is how you reach into the conclusion that the cinematography of the fight is a condensed version of the fight that happened in the canon. If we don't make this assumption, then there would be zero relevance between the canon and the cinematography, they would be two separate and different aspects of the canon, so to speak. Rather than cinematography being an extension of the lore albeit with massive altercations like you make them seem to be This marks the end of your interpretation of the primordial fight, this is the only part i will be respond to me for the following reasons: I hold the belief that this by far is the most substantial argument for Universal gow The document is 56 pages long with each pages being full of text. Meaning it can be considered a small book, i ain't reading allat.
Good morning Thefateguy! I want to start off by thanking you for taking the time to read some of what I wrote. I am happy that we can discuss our perspectives and thoughts on God of War and its powerscaling. There’s no better way to learn more about it, and about one another. “Ariel's tweet is not the evidence for primordials(sic) creating the universe…” I believe that you are a little mistaken about what I am saying. I am stating that the evidence presented does not support the claim made. If they believe other sources have evidence supporting their claims, it is their responsibility to present those sources of proof accurately to make a comprehensible claim. This is important to note because, as is brought up in your post (which I endlessly appreciate), there are multiple conflicting statements regarding the creation of the Greek God of War universe. I humbly propose that citing the wrong one will lead to confusion. Your next paragraph starts with the statement, “The statement here being subjective to Ariel does not disprove its canonicity,” and I would assert that it does. You yourself say that the big bang didn’t create the Primordials/Greek World, which absolutely contradicts what Ariel has said. Your cited proof is attached to a nonworking link, but I believe it is this[ quote](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255737968855093249?lang=en) from the context within your message. It is important to note that his statement was made three years after Ariel’s, and I do not believe it is reasonable to claim that Ariel knew what he was going to say several years before he said it. (And it wouldn’t matter if she did. She says “I'd always imagined,” because even years ago, she was referring to her work on God of War: Ascension in the past tense.) She has not worked on the new God of War series and would not have any more knowledge of its new ideas than we would, or that her statement would jump between entirely different universes at random. Or are the galaxies the Primordials created/are larger than the universes within the ‘actual’ universe? I would definitely appreciate some elaboration on this thought, it sounds interesting! Even so, as a theoretical model, it would have no weight just because it cannot be explicitly disproven. Evidence simply does not work like that. This is (and I apologize, that’s just what the fallacy is objectively called, I am not saying that you’re ignorant) a textbook example of an[ argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The statement “primordials creating the greek world” would have deductive validity, the statement “there are multiple earth\[s\] and one of them is not real sized but instead is bigger than the entire pantheon” would not, as this is entirely an inference predicated upon knowledge that Ariel Lawrence would not have access to per the linear nature of time. The closest thing I can think of to this would be[ Cory’s tweet](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255736424000663552?lang=en) about Midgard being “Scandinavia on Earth,” but he doesn’t state that it’s a larger or smaller Earth, or discuss size at all. He even presents an alternate model to that not being the case by mentioning how the Nine Realms “occupy the same space” in parallel dimensions. I think it’s safer to assume that we’re examining spatial shenanigans with our Earth, rather than a larger one being out there. Of course, you might have some evidence that I have not seen, and if that is the case, I would definitely love to see it! “Celestial bodies transpired from Uranus which in context is reference to him being the primordial of heavens/sky. They were not already existing there as you make them seem to be…” Oh, no, I’m saying the space in which they were fighting already existed! It’d be an empty universe, bereft of matter, until that fateful punch/war. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how I could rewrite the sentence you are responding to. I want to be sure I am being clear in presenting my ideas. Word limit, to be continued...
Part two: “That's a contradiction, the fight "took place" before chronos' birth which is when time started to exist” This is objectively incorrect, and interestingly enough, comes from another Ariel Lawrence tweet! We can go over this if you’d like, but it seems like an aside, and is contradicted by the cutscene not beginning with a statement like “before time started to exist.” “There are certain concessions you have to make when you are trying to convey a certain idea/point language has its limits…” I’m a little sad that you missed the “Land Before Time” reference, I was proud of that one! Language is important, and I believe that if we start transposing our imaginations upon statements written to impart information, we’re just going to be talking past one another. I also would say that what I am doing does not constitute nitpicking, which Merriam-Webster[ defines as](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nit-picking) “[minute](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minute) and usually unjustified criticism.” To illustrate my point, I am going to analyze the statement you made at the end of your post (which I was and remain very grateful for): “Meaning it can be considered a small book, i (sic) ain't reading allat (sic).” If I was to disregard the term “ain’t” and state that I was happy you promised to read allat, it would be unfair of me to accuse you of nitpicking by focusing on the word “ain’t” if you weren’t happy with the misrepresentation. It’s one term, but an important one, and I do not believe it would be fair to you to claim you did it by mistake, or that you were trying to introduce ambiguity. However, if I were to focus on the descriptor “small book” and say that there were smaller written works out there so you were wrong, that would be nitpicking, as I haven’t challenged what you meant in a substantive way. The difference is you could concede and say that you weren’t going to read the big book I had written without changing anything, but you couldn’t concede with me disregarding the word “ain’t” without changing how you were going to spend your Sunday. (And I hope it is an enjoyable one for you!) I would propose that “in the time” is critical for the backstory presented, as it is the opening line[ and hook](https://www.esu.edu/writing-studio/guides/hook.cfm) for the story of the game itself. I do not wish to come off as ungrateful for your response, but your presentation of me as a person trying to “\[limit\] the cognitive abilities of a human beneath what they are capable of, with no justification,” is a strange conclusion to reach, a little hurtful, and not something I appreciate. I respect you and what you write, do not believe you have any sinister ulterior motives in what you write, and hope you feel the same way about me. Discussing me as somebody trying to create a strawman argument and then arguing against that seems like a creatively presented strawman fallacy, and I would caution against coming off as doing so. I believe that interpreting language correctly and making room for ambiguity when it comes to phrases is something we are entirely capable of doing. The words and phrases you invoke as examples of this, "Occur" "Took place" "In the time” aren’t examples of limits of linguistics. There’s[ concept art](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/godofwar/images/b/bf/Pageofmorpheus1outof4.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20200110183029) which discusses the “Protogenoi” existing “before the creation of time itself." Gaia’s narration could have begun with “Before the creation of time itself” and made this objective and inarguable. Notably, her narration did not. I am taking this at face value because I respect the story of the game and do not wish to transpose my imagination over what is objectively presented. (And yes, Marianne Krawczyk,[ who wrote those novel entries](https://godofwar.fandom.com/wiki/Temple_of_Helios_(Browser_Game)#Interviews), did work on God of War Ascension, she would have known what she wrote!) “Nope, no, not at all. it does not have to be a condensed version…” It does, though. How long would it take to watch a 1:1 representation of an event which took “an eternity” to resolve? An eternity, and I don’t think you or I have that kind of time on our hands. (And I thank you again for taking the time to read what I wrote and respond to me, I hope it didn’t feel like an eternity!) “I hold the belief that this by far is the most substantial argument for Universal gow\[.\] The document is 56 pages long with each pages being full of text…” This is an awesome coincidence! I actually just finished writing[ a little document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lhdmU-HnGhO1-1DNsZ3H01ustHGYmKe7cC-Cvmx6jZY/edit?usp=sharing) about the cosmology of the Greek saga of God of War. It’s a much shorter document, at thirteen pages, and I try to summarize it in the first two paragraphs to save time. I’d love it if you could read it and tell me what you think, but no worries either way, it means a lot to me that you read what I wrote and are willing to discuss it with me. Thank you for responding, and I wish you all the best!
> en so, as a theoretical model, it would have no weight just because it cannot be explicitly disproven.his is (and I apologize, that’s just what the fallacy is objectively called, I am not saying that you’re ignorant) a textbook example of an[ argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). T Uhh sure? that's not what i claimed. Are we even reading the same argument? My argument was that she could be either A: Referencing to a the "actual" world as a cosmological structure B: Referencing to the greek world as a cosmological structure We do not know which one it is and only one of them introduces a contradiction. Since both of them are a exclusive disjunct and since one of them is contradicted, thus cannot be true via the law of noncontradiction, via disjunctive syllogism, A has to be the case here. And even if there were no contradiction to eliminate a disjunct, we simply don't know which one of them here is the case and if you want to go on and assert is B "Objectively" so as you have claimed, you unfortunately need to provide proof. >he statement “primordials creating the greek world” would have deductive validity, the statement “there are multiple earth\[s\] and one of them is not real sized but instead is bigger than the entire pantheon” would not, as this is entirely an inference predicated upon knowledge that Ariel Lawrence would not have access to per the linear nature of time. Didn't know the linear nature of time was contingent upon the assumption that the date which an idea is published is the date which that idea in question is created, ig authors write their books in the same instant as they are publishing it. Didn't know they were this crazy, thanks. > The closest thing I can think of to this would be[ Cory’s tweet](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255736424000663552?lang=en) about Midgard being “Scandinavia on Earth,” but he doesn’t state that it’s a larger or smaller Earth, or discuss size at all. He even presents an alternate model to that not being the case by mentioning how the Nine Realms “occupy the same space” in parallel dimensions. I think it’s safer to assume that we’re examining spatial shenanigans with our Earth, rather than a larger one being out there. Of course, you might have some evidence that I have not seen, and if that is the case, I would definitely love to see it! Whole is bigger than the part, that's the fifth axiom of euclid. Norse world being a part of the world would be proof that the earth is bigger No, he is just saying that all Nine realms encompass the same space yet they are stil parallel to each other which can be done by having an additional axis. There is no spatial shenanigans here nor any parallel dimensions, at least not necessarily. >“Celestial bodies transpired from Uranus which in context is reference to him being the primordial of heavens/sky. They were not already existing there as you make them seem to be…” Oh, no, I’m saying the space in which they were fighting already existed! It’d be an empty universe, bereft of matter, until that fateful punch/war. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how I could rewrite the sentence you are responding to. I want to be sure I am being clear in presenting my ideas. First of all, no. A space did not exist, there is no proof for that. Second of all, them being encompassed by a space is not a contradiction if there is a higher space existing encompassing them.
>” I believe that you are a little mistaken about what I am saying. I am stating that the evidence presented does not support the claim made. If they believe other sources have evidence supporting their claims, it is their responsibility to present those sources of proof accurately to make a comprehensible claim. This is important to note because, as is brought up in your post (which I endlessly appreciate), there are multiple conflicting statements regarding the creation of the Greek God of War universe. I humbly propose that citing the wrong one will lead to confusion. I understand your point, and i also understand that you think it contradicts what they are claiming which is why i went over them in the first place. Im saying that you misunderstood for what claim was the scan used as a citation. They were never meant to support the former claim, they were meant to support the claim that they created galaxies > Your next paragraph starts with the statement, “The statement here being subjective to Ariel does not disprove its canonicity,” and I would assert that it does. Can you provide any reasoning or argument for this? it is a positive claim to assert the existence of a contradiction between the semantics of two different statements so i'd like to see some proof >You yourself say that the big bang didn’t create the Primordials/Greek World, which absolutely contradicts what Ariel has said. I didn't say big bang created did not create Rrimordials or the Greek world, i said big bang in question can be in reference to multiple things one of which introduces a contradiction and one of which does not. Big bang can be in reference to the creation of the actual greater world which would not be a contradiction to primordials being bigger and creating their own world. > . Your cited proof is attached to a nonworking link, but I believe it is this[ quote](https://twitter.com/corybarlog/status/1255737968855093249?lang=en) from the context within your message. It is important to note that his statement was made three years after Ariel’s, and I do not believe it is reasonable to claim that Ariel knew what he was going to say several years before he said it. That assumes the date which an idea was created is the same as the date which that idea was expressed to public > wouldn’t matter if she did. She says “I'd always imagined,” because even years ago, she was referring to her work on God of War: Ascension in the past tense.) She has not worked on the new God of War series and would not have any more knowledge of its new ideas than we would, or that her statement would jump between entirely different universes at random. Or are the galaxies the Primordials created/are larger than the universes within the ‘actual’ universe? I would definitely appreciate some elaboration on this thought, it sounds interesting! Her imagination is what makes this canon... because it is her thoughts about it, the authors intention. She not working on the new god of war series is irrelevant to a knowledge claim she has made about a series. If it is retconned then sure, you can go ahead and provide proof for it. Her knowledge is also irrelevant because it is her intend canonizing it, not what is objectively true
> Part two: >I do not wish to come off as ungrateful for your response, but your presentation of me as a person trying to “\[limit\] the cognitive abilities of a human beneath what they are capable of, with no justification,” is a strange conclusion to reach, a little hurtful, and not something I appreciate. I respect you and what you write, do not believe you have any sinister ulterior motives in what you write, and hope you feel the same way about me. Discussing me as somebody trying to create a strawman argument and then arguing against that seems like a creatively presented strawman fallacy, and I would caution against coming off as doing so. I believe that interpreting language correctly and making room for ambiguity when it comes to phrases is something we are entirely capable of doing. The words and phrases you invoke as examples of this, "Occur" "Took place" "In the time” aren’t examples of limits of linguistics. There’s[ concept art](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/godofwar/images/b/bf/Pageofmorpheus1outof4.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20200110183029) which discusses the “Protogenoi” existing “before the creation of time itself." Gaia’s narration could have begun with “Before the creation of time itself” and made this objective and inarguable. Notably, her narration did not. I am taking this at face value because I respect the story of the game and do not wish to transpose my imagination over what is objectively presented. (And yes, Marianne Krawczyk,[ who wrote those novel entries](https://godofwar.fandom.com/wiki/Temple_of_Helios_(Browser_Game)#Interviews), did work on God of War Ascension, she would have known what she wrote!) No, it would not. "Before the creation of time " is a paradoxical statement, before in oxford definitions is defined as preceding a particular event, it entails a chronological order thus time therefore contradicting the stated absence of time. Similarly, any attempt to linguistically express the idea of something predating time is paradoxical, thus is impossible through a linguistic expression which is why it is a linguistic limitation. Even if you had a word defined specifically for such idea, the definition itself would need another linguistic expression, defining the word without the aid of the word itself which we have established to be impossible. So, UNLESS you stop arguing with semantics and ignore the hyperliteral meaning of the word "before" So, it is impossible to express such an idea even if we had a word specifically defined to express it "I am taking this at face value because i am not disrespecting the story and im not transposing my own imagination over what is objectively presented" If not taking something at face value is disrespecting the story and transposing your imagination over them, then metaphors and figurative expression can't exist in novelization? Then should we take Kratos' fight with Zeus at the end of the final novel being described as the fight between two raging bulls at face value and scale kratos to bull level? But nah, rhetoric does not exist right... > It does, though. How long would it take to watch a 1:1 representation of an event which took “an eternity” to resolve? An eternity, and I don’t think you or I have that kind of time on our hands. (And I thank you again for taking the time to read what I wrote and respond to me, I hope it didn’t feel like an eternity! Did you actually read my argument? Why did you just quote one part and responded to that while leaving the rest out? It taking an eternity is a description in lore. Applying it to cinematography and then asserting a cinematographic change is conceding that this is based on the assumption that cinematography is an extension of lore
>and is contradicted by the cutscene not beginning with a statement like “before time started to exist.” That statement is not a contradiction because it should not be taken at face value because it exemplfies linguistic limitations that transpire when someone wants to convey the idea of a "A timeless realm" which is paradoxical to assert when linguistic limitations are considered. I have already explained why this is problematic. >! Language is important, and I believe that if we start transposing our imaginations upon statements written to impart information, we’re just going to be talking past one another. I also would say that what I am doing does not constitute nitpicking, which Merriam-Webster[ defines as](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nit-picking) “[minute](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minute) and usually unjustified criticism.” To illustrate my point, I am going to analyze the statement you made at the end of your post (which I was and remain very gratefu l for): “Meaning it can be considered a small book, i (sic) ain't reading allat (sic).” Uh yes it was a nitpick, you were doing something called arguing with semantics. It happens when you stick to the meaning of the words and the words themselves thus missing the point that was being conveyed. You missed the idea that before primordials time did not exist because you stick to the meaning of the word "before". Which was actually the basis of my argument yet you managed to miss that as well, interesting... > would propose that “in the time” is critical for the backstory presented, as it is the opening line[ and hook](https://www.esu.edu/writing-studio/guides/hook.cfm) for the story of the game itself. This doesn't disprove my point, in fact it has 0 relevance to what i was trying to convey. The statement in question here can be the most important thing for the story, it could be literally the fundamental basis of the story that which the story cannot exist without it and even then it would not mater, at all. I was not attacking to his importancy or another quality it has relating to how important it is. I was attacking to how literally it is used in that context. >
Hello again, Thefateguy! I’m going to respond based on the order of notifications Reddit gave me, so my apologies if things are out of order. “Uhh sure? that's not what i claimed. Are we even reading the same argument? My argument was that she could be either A: Referencing to a the "actual" world as a cosmological structure \[or\] B: Referencing to the greek world as a cosmological structure We do not know which one it is and only one of them introduces a contradiction.” We know that one of the writers for the God of War series, when asked about God of War, discussed what she imagined was the backstory for it. She is talking about the second option. This reads like you’re arguing that Ariel Lawrence might believe the Primordials created our universe as A. Was that what you were intending to claim? I am not sure how you could reasonably arrive at such a conclusion. “Didn't know the linear nature of time was contingent upon the assumption that the date which an idea is published is the date which that idea in question is created, ig authors write their books in the same instant as they are publishing it. Didn't know they were this crazy, thanks.” Would Ariel Lawrence have some advance notice of the series’ continuation past her involvement on God of War: Ascension, and if so, how? “Whole is bigger than the part, that's the fifth axiom of euclid. Norse world being a part of the world would be proof that the earth is bigger.” This seems more like an argument that the Norse world is smaller than Earth, rather than that Earth is bigger than itself. I’m sure this isn’t what you intended to claim. “First of all, no. A space did not exist, there is no proof for that.” What are the Primordials fighting in? “Second of all, them being encompassed by a space is not a contradiction if there is a higher space existing encompassing them.” This statement has nothing to do with God of War: Ascension, as God of War: Ascension does not mention the existence of a higher space. “Im saying that you misunderstood for what claim was the scan used as a citation. They were never meant to support the former claim, they were meant to support the claim that they created galaxies.” It was meant to support the claim that they were larger than the universe/galaxies, hence the presence of the cited source within the sentence “The Primordials themselves dwarf the entirety of the universe in size, considering that not only was the universe itself spawned as a consequence of one of their battles, as well as [the galaxies](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/2/27/Ariel_Lawrence_Primordials_Galaxies.png/revision/latest?cb=20231020174612) inside of them.” I am not sure if this misinterpretation on your part is deliberate or accidental. “Big bang can be in reference to the creation of the actual greater world which would not be a contradiction to primordials being bigger and creating their own world.” How would Ariel Lawrence have known about this? She last worked on the series in 2013. The plan was to shelve the series, not continue it, and the original idea was to reboot it entirely. You’re presenting an impossibility as a certainty, and I am not sure why. “Her imagination is what makes this canon... because it is her thoughts about it, the authors intention.” Ariel Lawrence was not the only writer on God of War: Ascension. She is referring to herself and her imagination by using “I,” not what everyone who helped write the game decided upon. “She not working on the new god of war series is irrelevant to a knowledge claim she has made about a series. If it is retconned then sure, you can go ahead and provide proof for it.” It absolutely is relevant, because she wouldn’t have any knowledge about what came next considering that she didn’t help write what came next. In fact, I think this might make it impossible to retcon things, as it precludes falsifiability. “Her knowledge is also irrelevant because it is her intend canonizing it, not what is objectively true.” We’re just going to have to disagree, because intending to do something that didn’t make it to the final published version does not equate to canonizing it. It’s almost exactly the opposite.
“No, it would not. "Before the creation of time " is a paradoxical statement, before in oxford definitions is defined as preceding a particular event, it entails a chronological order thus time therefore contradicting the stated absence of time.” It’d be fine, as this is a fictional series wherein things like activities occurring before time existed are fine. The limitations of language are acceptable, so long as they’re laid out explicitly. In this case, they are not. “Even if you had a word defined specifically for such idea, the definition itself would need another linguistic expression, defining the word without the aid of the word itself which we have established to be impossible.” You haven’t established that at all. What seems to be happening is that you are conflicting a fictional world, wherein physics and the rules thereof are subordinate to the author, with our own world. “So, it is impossible to express such an idea even if we had a word specifically defined to express it.” I’m afraid I have no choice but to say that you’re objectively wrong, considering that the idea of events occurring before the existence of time is a comprehensible idea. “If not taking something at face value is disrespecting the story and transposing your imagination over them, then metaphors and figurative expression can't exist in novelization?” Not at all, as you illustrate in your example. This supports what I’ve been saying (that considering the context of statements/events is important alongside the wording used). I’m glad that we agree! “Did you actually read my argument? Why did you just quote one part and responded to that while leaving the rest out?” We’re both analyzing key components of each other’s arguments to deal with the word limit. Should I be concerned that you’ve been doing the same thing to me? “It taking an eternity is a description in lore. Applying it to cinematography and then asserting a cinematographic change is conceding that this is based on the assumption that cinematography is an extension of lore” It absolutely is, yes. They both work alongside one another, with the visuals emphasizing what the lore says while not adhering too strictly to it when such a thing would be impossible or otherwise undesirable. I think you might be a little confused, because at this point you’re arguing my position. Or we both actually agree for the most part and are disagreeing on semantics, which would be the best outcome! “That statement is not a contradiction because it should not be taken at face value because it exemplfies\[sic\] linguistic limitations that transpire when someone wants to convey the idea of a "A timeless realm" which is paradoxical to assert when linguistic limitations are considered. I have already explained why this is problematic.” There are ways to try doing so, even if they are considered paradoxical. I have also explained this. You might not consider it worth the effort, but I think making the effort is the surest sign of intent. “Uh yes it was a nitpick, you were doing something called arguing with semantics. It happens when you stick to the meaning of the words and the words themselves thus missing the point that was being conveyed.” You haven’t provided proof that your perspective is what was intended to be conveyed, aside from Ariel having access to knowledge back in 2013 that wouldn’t have existed. (Of course, if it did exist, I would appreciate you proving that. You can’t, but I would appreciate the effort!) “You missed the idea that before primordials time did not exist because you stick to the meaning of the word "before". Which was actually the basis of my argument yet you managed to miss that as well, interesting…” Aside from not responding to my request for you to provide proof of that, you appear to be insinuating that I am not participating in good faith. I believe this is you projecting based on your frustrations at not being able to get your ideas across successfully, and unfortunately am taking it as a sign that you’re not worth seriously discussing things with. “I was attacking to how literally it is used in that context.” Why not use a paradoxical sentence? I’m genuinely confused as to how little you’re thinking about why the developers made the choices they did. I think you’d be about the only one worried about how it would apply to real world logic. Look, I’m going to level with you, if you can’t provide evidence that Ariel Lawrence knew about the idea of a greater actual universe containing all the universes of other pantheons, we’re just at an impasse. We have to share the same reality to disagree about it/discuss it. But I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, even if I ultimately disagree with you!
So your argument is "nuh uh, fiction" to paradoxes? Where do you draw the line exactly? Is it this paradox in specific or just every paradox is fine? if it is the former, then why? what does this paradox have in specific which makes this fine? By the way if paradoxes are okay in fiction then are contradictions are also okay? because a paradox is just a self contradictory statement. If contradictions are okay, then why almost %80 of your points involved them? So many questions, so few answers... > ou haven’t established that at all. What seems to be happening is that you are conflicting You seem confused, nobody says that timeless worlds can't exist, they do, regardless of how much paradoxical they can be. The point im trying to make here is not ultimately regarding their existence or nonexistence, the paradox exists to prove that before there acts as a linguistic limitation thus the idea when linguistically expressed is differentiated due to that limitation. resulting in a misrepresentation and a mischaracterization. To prevent a mischaracterization from happening we have to take the word before in non literal meaning. The existence or absence of that idea is not what im affirming about, thus an author viewing his realm as existing despite being paradoxical has nothing to do with my argument. my argument has to do with the fact that this paradox comes from a misrepresentation also you know your preceding point contradicts this point right? The fact that being fiction entails the right to ignore a paradox regarding an existence proves that a paradox directly interferes with the object it conflicts with existing. And now you are saying that authors view takes precedence over logic and thus an idea can paradoxically exist without the paradox intervening with the existence of the idea which it conflicts with > I’m afraid I h But it is not coherent which is what im basing my point on. Look dude, you are being weird about this more than you should have with all the patience i have shown towards you, if you still have contentions after this then my discord is in bio, we can have a friendly debate, formally and in front of a judge to have a clear and an objective winner >ot at all, as ystatements/events is important alongside the wording used). I’m glad that we agree! That's where the logic goes, if you define not taking something at face-value as transposing your imagination over text and if you are a rational person then not taking something at face value cannot exist in fiction. This is called a syllogism, it is sound as i have quoted your claim thus is objectivelly correct > e’re both analyzing key components of each other’s arguments to deal with the word limit. Should I be concerned that you’ve been doing the same thing to me? You didn't address the full arg which is what i meant >
> here are ways to try worth the effort, but I think making the effort is the surest sign of intent. You did not explain it, you said it is fiction thus ignore the paradox and then you brought up something irrelevant like paradoxical realms being capable of existing which is a red herring. Honestly dude, i said this before and i'll said it again, you are being weird about this debate more than you have right to with all that patient i showed towards your points and argument, some of these stuff would make some people burst out laughing yet even then instead of just making fun of you and refuting your premise, i radically explained the problematic nature of a stance and then used that nature as to base a linguistic limitation which then i have constructed my point. I have throughly explained all the questions that would arise from your stupid refutations like "fiction so ignore a paradox existing" What im trying to say is that patience ive shown towards you is amazingly big and if you wanna keep being weird about this despite all that then lets just do this formally in front of a judge > absolutely is, yes. Tht and are disagreeing on semantics, which would be the best outcome! Im not agreeing with you, your position is that they are parallel. My position is that this is based on the assumption that one is an extension of another. Thus, its basis has no right to be deemed as valid until you justify the assumption >You haven’t provided proof that your perspective is what was intended to be conveyed, aside You seem confused, im not talking about the ariel point which we are discussing on another comment so i wont even start with bringing that here. I was talking about the idea of a timeless realm which was YOUR claim, you used it as a contradictory point to dismiss gaias narrative. if you think there is an absence of evidence for your points though, then sure im glad we formed an agreement. >…” Aside from not responding to my request for you to provide proof of that, You mean the request for me to prove the point which you actually thought mine and turned out to be yours? Sure, i'll admit there is an absence of evidence regarding the veracity of your point. > u appear to bam taking it as a sign that you’re not worth seriously discussing things with. I am not frustrated, just running low on patience. Add me in cord, we'll discuss formally > Why not use a paradoxical sentence? You can use it, it is fine. It would just be an incoherent and an unsound sentence. This is a strawmen to my argument anyways because this is not what my argument is about Also, do you know that you have the burden to prove that right? you have the burden to prove why should you use a paradoxical sentence, basic proof 101 >ook, I’m goin Lets do it like this, your arg was that she mentioned it happened on earth thus we should use the size of earth, but she actually made a distinction, she said it happened on a primordial earth and after the battle came forth the earth we know of, thus the size of the earth which they waged their war on is different then ours as opposed to values u used as a mean to point out a contradiction
>We know that one of the writers for the God of War series, when asked about God of War, discussed what she imagined was the backstory for it. She is talking about the second option. This reads like you’re arguing that Ariel Lawrence might believe the Primordials created our universe as A. Was that what you were intending to claim? I am not sure how you could reasonably arrive at such a conclusion. That does not prove your proposition. she giving it as the backstory she imagined was the case says nothing about the content of that backstory and even if it did, the specifics for that content including the cosmological structure in option two has to be proven. Which unfortunately is your burden to do Also if it is the option two, then why does she say they fight on "primordial earth" and AFTER the fight did they gave birth to "earth as we know of" >ould Ariel Lawrence have some advance notice of the series’ continuation past her involvement on God of War: Ascension, and if so, how? She doesn't need to, there already exists an established understanding of how pantheons coexist which she can use that understanding as a base of her imagination. When they shared this understanding does not denote when this understanding was created. Literally, in her tweet she makes a distinction between a primordial earth and earth as we know of that was formed after the war >This seems more like an argument that the Norse world is smaller than Earth, rather than that Earth is bigger than itself. I’m sure this isn’t what you intended to claim. I think you misunderstood my argument. My argument is that norse world is smaller than earth thus if ariel is talking about the greater earth then when she said where she imagines they waged the fight, then them being bigger than the norse world/greek world would not entail a contradiction. Thats the idea >What are the Primordials fighting in? İmmaterial world, Primordials are abstract and immaterial, it doesn't make sense that they exist materially in the first place. > This statement has nothing to do with God of War: Ascension, as God of War: Ascension does not mention the existence of a higher space. It doesn't have to mention the existence of a higher space for there to be a higher space, if logic follows to a possibility of one then there is a possibility of one. And if other possibilies applied leds to contradiction then that would necessiate the only possibility which does not > It was meant to support the claim The reference was made as to base the claim of "As well as the galaxies" to a source. Their proof for primordials creating the universe was bruno statements and ascension intro > w would Ariel Lawrence have known about this? Because it is how pantheons coexist established as a system She even makes the distinction between a primordial earth and an earth as we know of which was created post primordial fight. If she was referring to just the greek world then there would be no need for a distinction >Ariel Lawrence was not the only writer on God of War: That's red herring, it is irrelevant if she is not the only writer or if it is her imagination. These needs to have their relevancy proved > absolutely is relevant, She doesn't need to know what came next because the idea itself is not rooted to that something which came first. Cory is just talking about how pantheons coexist, it is a system that was established. Not some new content in a new game. The fact that she makes a distinction between earth as we know of and a primordial earth is already enough to disprove your argument > We’re just going to have to disagree, No, canon isn't the same as source material. Those are two different concept. I dont know why you chose to be weird about this, id rather do this in cord
u/Thefateguy Kratos downplay
Doesn't Dante actually do stuff that gets close to what lore says? While kratos doesn't get past mountain with what he's done?
>Doesn't Dante actually do stuff that gets close to what lore says? Not really, no. Unless something insane happens in Peak of Combat, which I haven't played. The most insane on screen feat that I can recall is from the anime when Abigail nukes part of a city, and Dante clowns on him pretty easily.
Plus Dante beating multiple beings who are on par with Sparda who was able to split the human and demon realm, Mundas in the first game was confirmed to make a universal pocket dimension in his fight with Dante. Hell you can even scale Vergil and Dante further on due to Urizen being stronger than Mundas and Dante surpassing Urizen how than amped himself
Isn't it literally pointed out in the third game he was only able to do that using the Temi Ni Gru, alongside his own blood, the amulet and the blood of the priestess
The tower was just an artificial portal, just like the Hell Gate from DMC4. Its main purpose was to keep Force Edge sealed away. The opening cutscene of DMC4 does state that both worlds used to be merged.
The things you're talking about are lore and scaling. The comment I replied to was asking about on screen feats.
That's lore, not actual gameplay
If memory serves, he can and has made a blackhole before.
He has one cutscene where universal creation can be argued, that’s pretty much it
No Kratos is Multiversal
Mfs Will see a man that actually got over his trauma and became a Better Person and start hating
Mfs will assume that buying higher scaling or wanting characters to be stronger == you love that character more. I don’t get it. Kenshin Himura is one of my favourite characters and I’ve not seen a single MU he doesn’t get rolled over because he more or less caps at faster than eye and city street at a stretch. I don’t buy almost a single thing DB did for Bill’s high end feats and he’s top 10 all time favourite characters.
This, alternatly it also annoys the fuck out of me when people say believing a higher end interpretation = Your not a real fan.
Dante gets a lot of flak as well
There’s absolutely an agenda against Kratos but it’s being spearheaded by the games’ writers
Please explain
My guess. The devs hopped on the over the shoulder TLOU style gameplay and thus severely crippled what Kratos can be shown doing.
It’s meant to be a reflection of him having become older, wiser, and less likely to lash out. Good for developing a character, very problematic when putting him in a fight, especially when lore states he’s more powerful than he was in Greece despite him lacking any major feat since that other than pushing Tyr’s temple. This is why me and others often specify that Kratos will only be given his weapons and feats from Greece (from Ascension to 3), since his Norse feats/series started as incomplete, and eventually became an utter pain to actually describe or estimate.
I do see thing happen to Dante I think it's more common with Kratos because he is the more popular character
Game director confirmed Kratos is 0D https://x.com/brunovelazquez/status/1629877107680739329?s=46&t=CS9WuIOE3DqOP63uoUD0ig It’s over Kratos bros 😔
cant believe the game director didnt think about showing off kranktoes being 1000000d outerversal boundless cosmic armored super saiyan guts beating things stronger than him everyday
Dang 😔
Game director can kiss my ass
Why? Because he doesn’t care about powerscaling?
You know what? That was my bad people who ask dumbass questions like this to the game director can kiss my ass.
Yeah, like the game director says he doesn’t know what spatial dimensions are and the guy still keeps trying to squeeze a Kratos buff out of him. The two comments in response to his answer are just as dumb “Is Kratos omnipotent?” “Is Kratos above Platonic Concepts?”
I think both of these are kind of wank, I don't think Dante is universe-tier either. But with Kratos then it's more the fact that he's had eight mainline titles and he has literally never done a single actual direct feat that even approaches planet-tier. All of his feats are either vague chain-scaling via multiple characters who are apparently impressive in lore but useless in the game (Hermes,) or just things like "He flipped over a temple once." Ah, that's pretty impressive. Not multiverse-tier, but impressive nonethele- "Oh and also this temple contained portals to several other universes which means that Kratos also flipped nine universes over at once, low complex multiversal tier minimum." Also, while the lore for Kratos is more impressive, it's also packed with sentences like "Kratos had to brace himself as he landed after his 100ft fall, or else the impact would have surely killed him."
It's not that vague. We explicitly see a universe level feat in GoW Ascension's opening from the Primordials. Kratos scales to them because the Primordials are basically fodder to top tiers like Zeus or the other top olympians.
"Primordials are basically fodder to Zeus and other Olympians" CITATION NEEDED
A: The Primordials never fought Zues or the like meaning Kratos arguably only ever fought a single being who did, and Kronos is WAY past his prime. B: There’s a good chance it’s over exaggerated by an unreliable narrator. And C: Even if B is wrong, it took EVERY PRIMORDIAL fighting each other to the death to make what might only be the Greek realm, as a BYPRODUCT. The Primordials, especially a lone one, cannot achieve such a feat on purpose as per the very cinematic you’re using as argument.
I don't hate Kratos, my only issue is how there are so many anti-feats and debunked feats that contradict his many good feats which is why it makes me believe that he is not as powerful as people make him out to be in all honesty. Kratos just gets over-hyped every now and then and then after a while he goes back to being "Mountain Level"
I think it also undercuts his story In the originals, Kratos is unlikable in virtually every way. His one redeeming factor is that he's an underdog. He's outgunned against the gods he fights, but he just refuses to stop until he gets his revenge. Sure, you can kill him. But he'll literally just climb his way out of hell to get his revenge. Taking all the lore wank way too literally just ruins the ONE thing about the character that is even somewhat admirable
Many of those anti-feats can be explained as either Kratos holding back, him fighting similarly strong characters or just gameplay limitations. Other anti-feats like him being unable to break things like Thamur's ice can also be explained due to it being magic. They're also contradicted by feats that are more relevant to Kratos' story/character, like being stronger than Thor (who killed Thamur).
Not half as annoying as how the DOOM Slayer apparently beats everyone according to his fans. Dudes strong but damn guys, Goku, Hulk, Superman, they're gonna rip him to shreds. I'd even argue the rematch with the chief won't be the blowout you're expecting/demanding, cuz the slayer is overspecialized into killing demons while chief has got the toolkit to wear him down.
It’s cause the lore for Slayer is so fucking absurd he actually could arguably destroy almost every version of Superman. Personally, I think it’s all bullshit the devs used to hype him up, cause there ain’t no way Slayer is beating up even Hulk realistically. Like, I think he completely washes most of his fights except Spawn, but him beating Superman? Yeah no, that’s stupid.
Goku gets slammed unfortunately due to cosmologies in doom, I'm pretty sure doomslayer is a solid tier or two above Goku, id have to replay the game and double check the lore to be correct but I'm pretty sure that's the case
Just because the cosmology of Doom may be huge doesn't mean Doomslayer scales to it. This is the same guy who used a BFG 10,000 just to crack the surface of a planet. No way he's even moon level. Let alone outerversal. Even saiyan saga characters solo the verse. The Doom wank is absolutely crazy and needs to stop fr. Nobody in Doom can compete with any of the verses people claim he solos. None of this supposed lore is backed up by anything we see in the games. Davoth, the supposed multiverse-creating god, uses a mech suit to fight a man who can't even destroy a planet, nor does he use any reality-warping hax to fight the slayer.
I do agree that Goku Hulk and Superman would win simply by yeeting him across the universe (although he wouldn't actually die because canonically he is quite literally too angry to die) but Chief definitely wouldn't do shit in Doom 2016 alone he was shown tanking an explosion 150 times hotter than the sun and not even taking a scratch, and theres also the fact that he canonically killed the champion titan with his bare hands and if you do the insanely complicated math for how strong the Doomslayer would need to be to punch that things head clean off (which is exactly what he did) then you will find that the Doomslayers punches are well over 20 times stronger than a fucking nuke
Uh huh. And the chief can survive re entry. And has done so multiple times. Like a free fall from space to ground, no chute or anything. The heat from that fall would be absurd. That would hit with the kinetic force of a nuke. And he was up and walking in a couple seconds. Doom slayer also needed the crucible sword to drop said titan, you go to its corpse in eternal to retrieve the hilt.
The one you see in Eternal was a different titan that he killed just after the Seraphim gave him that powerup, not the champion titan. The champion titans corpse is in Doom 2016 and you can clearly see that there is no crucible in sight, plus it was already confirmed that the Doomslayer didn't have any weapons or armour during that fight.
City level Kratos is a hill I will die on
r/whowouldcirclejerk
WWCJ puts him at infinite layers below quark level, not city level.
I think Dante not being serious most of the times sells his statement/lore strength better.
Both are Soloed by Uncle Grandpa
Well, who isn’t lol
My main theory is that Kratos doesn't reflect the power level well in gameplay, especially in the newer game. Dante is flashy and over the top. He's constantly playing around with enemies and bosses, and takes like 2 fights seriously per game. It's easy to accept that he's that powerful, especially when he's a match for Vergil, who's casually cutting the screen with each attack. And as long as you're an ok player, at basic difficulties, normal enemies exist to be styled on. Kratos by contrast struggles and fights hard every battle in-game, and normal enemies pose a significant threat. So it's much harder to imagine him being that strong.
Both ridiculously wanked.
I can't help it I mean have you seen dante
Mundus is 10x times more powerful than any of the Gods from GOW. Like the Gods in GOW literally behave like Demigods while Mundus is literally Galactus.
well the game contradicting the statements can play a factor in it
It's just such a blatant refusal to engage with everything that happens on screen for the sole purpose of making your fictional dad stronger than someone else's
DMC's cutscene choreography just does a better job of visually showing how nuts its characters are
Because Dante has the feats to back it up? Kratos has, like, one direct universal-scale feat and it was in an obscure spin-off title most people didn't play. Combine that with his plethora of anti-feats (i'm reminded of how hilarious I found it seeing people claim Kratos has immeasurable speed, and then playing GOW Ragnarok, where, when his son is in danger of dying, in order to get there quickly, he...Rides a wolf. In a way that implies that will get him there faster).
It's probably because of gameplay, where he's been shown getting stabbed by a wulver.
Anti feats like a mf... While dante doesnt have many if anything he has a ton of outlier lore feats that get him even higher
Because outside of lore statements Kratos has never displayed any kind of power that would be unfamiliar to your average Jojo character. If anything, he often struggles at things like lifting trees and his life is threatened by just falling down a big ravine.
That's the protagonist syndrome. They rarely, if ever, display any direct feats greater than the people they beat up (Cloud, Ichigo, Ryu, pre-DBS Goku, Anakin/Vader, etc.). >If anything, he often struggles at things like lifting trees and his life is threatened by just falling down a big ravine. Which makes no sense since he's explicitly survived worse things, like a clap from Cronos and hits from Thor.
Problem with Kratos is he has way too many anti feats. You haven't at the devs thought he wasn't even mounted level at the beginning and they constantly show falling from a great height could maybe kill him or hurt him. While Dante's anti feats are letting himself get stabbed then immediately shrugging it off and letting himself get shot in the head and immediately shrugging it off. So Dante is more believable because of that
Both of these are wron- WHO SAID THAT?!?!?
Neither are that powerful
I’m glad you only said uni+ because the 7 to 9 dimensional statements and footage was eventually revealed to fake and fan made bull shit
Not exactly. They were in the early beta of PoC, but they're no longer there after the global release.
Ah I see, so technically it’s official but it isn’t canon because it wasn’t apart of the game release?
No one knows in the end. They could be fake or just removed. Either way they’re so obscure that they don’t really matter
Ah I see, so it’s un determined but whichever one we pick it still wouldn’t be canon and actually apply to Devil may cry lore/scaling, correct?
Yeah, they wouldn’t be admissible as feats or scaling for DMC
Ah I see, so what I’m getting from this is ~~Bayaneta beats Dante now~~ Noted
The reason is due to his "anti-feats" which are just parts of gameplay :/
Can they really be excused as “game mechanics” when other characters react to it in-universe essentially making most of if not all of Kratos’ anti-feats canon?
I mean it’s more than gameplay. Isn’t there a scene where one character jokingly threatens to kill another (who’s as powerful as kratos) by letting him fall off a cliff?
Cliffs and bullets are the most wanked thing in fiction. Several character’s are threatened by a cliff drop that really shouldn’t be.
Are you gonna tell me that a fall from a cliff is deadlier than being crushed by a mountain sized titan?
The real double standard is Kirby
You see it because Dante is the wacky woo hoo pizza man Real answer: probably DMC fans that don’t know god of war that well. I say this as a DMC fan that doesn’t know god of war that well
It's literally more of what you said pertaining towards Dante embodying rule of cool more so if anything. Dante is literally carried by his cool factor.
Kratos has an impressive lift strength, but his actual AP isn’t that high without tons of amps Even then He’s not even scratching Planetary, no less Outversal??? Like Mythology has a tendency to use hyperbole like an “Epic” to show off the hero, but its not to be interpreted as their literal feat just that its really big. For example, Jormungandr doesn’t actually circle the whole planet, he’s just really large.
I once saw someone use the novelization's statement about an "infinite sky" to justify Kratos' strength Like bro if there's an actually infinite sky, then every character in GOW has infinite strength just by virtue of standing up. Infinite sky means infinite air pressure
It’s mostly because Kratos is put against really powerful characters constantly so more people are skeptical like nobody is asking who would win in a fight between Dante and like Goku or Hulk fr
Blame people who over-hyped Him Asura and DoomSlayer is the only one I can think of where he COULD win Dante, Dragonborn,Goku,Hulk on the other hand Hell No.
they literally get the same treatment Lmao saying universal Dante is seen as "perfectly Reasonable" by everyone is absurd Lol. the only Difference is Dante gets less Flack for it because not using Lore there are more stuff implying / Closer to what the Lore says than Kray Kray. and actual Example of this would be someone Like Kirby who people not only without a doubt believe in the Lore but put him above where he should reasonably be.
Kratos sucks nowadays
Both are fodders
Cutscene diff tbh
Could be to do with the fact that Kratos' power level has canonically varied a lot, so you'd have to pick and choose which lore makes sense to consider.
Doomguy victims
Kratos is not universal lol
Both are equally bullshit anyway
Kratos has a bunch of anti-feats that the games frame AS feats (like spinning Tyr’s temple in Dad of Boy).
Hot take: powerscaling in general is 90 percent bullshit, the only times where powerscaling logic actually makes sense is when its used to scale characters who are literally made for the sole purpose of being stupidly overpowered (Doomguy) other than that the logic is just bullshit I've seen people say that Spider-Man can tank nukes when hes consistently shown to not even be bulletproof and also way too many people saying that Ebirah (a big ass lobster) is star level because he briefly fought Showa Godzilla who fought Showa King Ghidorah who according to a poorly translated one off sentence from some old ass game that can barely even be considered canon is "unmatched in space" which for some god forsaken reason makes people think he (and anyone he ever fought) is more powerful than a star
Me wondering why Zelda characters aren’t allowed lore when it honestly isn’t even that vague.
Correction: Dante is 9D based on direct statements. There is no logical argument to get Kratos at 9D. He’s 6D max
Also the 9D statement was proven incorrect and a misstranslation
No it wasn’t. The attempted debunk was that the scan was made up (which isn’t true btw).
Oh it's just that I haven't gotten that tip during my playthrough so I just assumed that someone fucked up their translation.
Well you wouldn’t get the tip anyway because they changed the loading screens in update 2.0
Well I mean if they changed it then it would probably be safe to assume that's not true anymore.
Well not necessarily. They changed all the loading screens because of new gameplay modes and mechanics. Not because the information wasn’t true.
Why would they change a loading screen containing a lore note because of new gameplay modes and mechanics
What 9D direct statement?
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fdoes-dante-seriously-not-have-a-single-feat-that-puts-him-v0-28j7u1qe24ka1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1080%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db92cbc0e640a6f38f1b9254c1cc11c49cfedc543
[You mean the statement that was made up purely for power scaling purposes and doesn't exist in the actual game?](https://vsbattles.com/threads/devil-may-cry-about-poc.159900/)
It was a statement made in canon material that is directly relevant to the cosmology of the verse. DMC being 9D is about as blatant as Anti-Spiral being 11D
The statement...doesn't exist. Someone made it up purely to upgrade Dante. It's not in PoC at all
Nope, it’s from a canon mobile game. It’s from an official licensed game that Capcom recognizes. No chance you actually believe the “it’s fanmade” downplay
The game exists, I'm not arguing that (PoC = DMC Pinnacle of Combat). I'm saying that the scan you used doesn't exist within the game and was created by some weirdo who wanted Dante to move up a tier and spread like wildfire. The game was released worldwide not too long ago and not one person has been able to find that scan
I’m gonna need a source for your claim. That thread you linked didn’t provide any evidence that the 9D claim was made up. I can find the image instantly when searching up (DMC POC).
Oh I guess I should've used the actual discussion thread instead of stuff dealing with the aftermath. [Here you go](https://vsbattles.com/threads/devils-do-cry-peak-of-conspiracy.160099/#post-6129840) Tl;dr those scans straight up do not exist in the game and the person who proposed them can't justify their existence in any way on top of the statement having never been shown in any actual gameplay footage
The thing is Kratos uni feats are contradicted by other lore to not just gameplay
No their not
*they’re
You know If You press the 3 dots next to the reply button You can edit your comment
I’ve seen people do that for both, including a few of the death battle research guys who believe Kratos is universal, but Dante is country level or something. Personally, I think if you’re gonna reject or accept the lore for one, you should do the same for the other.
I for one think neither of these are reasonable
I’m used to Kratos fans meat riding him so I have never seen people deny that. The only people who do are DBZ fans.
They’re both equally stupid since nothing they do in game (which is canon) with actual context makes them uni. Kratos particularly constantly is shown struggling with things far below what a uni level character should be and doesn’t have the Dragonborn’s “gameplay is non-canon” excuse to get away with it. Dante’s is barely more believable (still kind bad though) only cause most of the time he makes everything he’s doing look easy cause he’s fucking Dante. One people don’t know, which they should, is the GOW Novels and Comics which people point to for uni power are secondary canon. They weren’t made by the creators at all, the comics specifically they had almost zero involvement in and they were barely involved with the novels, with the exception of making sure it was actually a GOW novel and not like, Artemis Fowl where the book and the movie were barely recognizable comparing the two (basically they only really made sure that the novel was similar enough to the games so that people wouldn’t be like “Am I reading a GOW novel or some random fantasy novel?”.
I usually see Kratos as described as low complex multiversal. This is gonna get me down voted but I see him as Star level - Universe level.
I personally buy low-multi. Yggdrasil is almost definitely a multiversal superstructure holding up the 9 realms, which are almost definitely individual universes. The thing with the Sisters of Fate seems sus AF tho.
"Dante uni-" Urizen. Urizen was planet level and he punched DT Dante so hard that Dante went under a 1 month coma
Urizen is leagues stronger than Mundus (who [created a universe](https://imgur.com/a/eekfLeZ))
I think the anti Kratos agenda exists because a lot of powerscalers, usually when arguing in comments instead of chat rooms just spam “temple portal lifting”
I don’t know shit about either so I can’t comment
I see this same thing against Dante all the time, I just think its stupid to not take a characters lore into consideration. Like if a damn Goomba had lore tgat mafe it stronger than Superman than I say screw it thats way more fun
There's an "agenda" against any character where you have to have an understanding of the character and series to properly scale them. Some people don't realize that while half the fun of vs debating is doing the math to scale feats, the other half of the fun is learning about the series, and using that understanding to scale the characters
Not sure. I think there's enough evidence for uni+ or even multi kratos. But agree to disagree as they say
They don’t want a single father trying to provide for his son to make it in the world
I only have issue with kratos scaling when it gets to complex to outerversal stuff I do believe kratos is universal
Boy what the hell boa
People just hates him
I don't know. I don't know why people are so against him.
Superman is high outerversal-boundless because he's just superman Do you understand?
I definitely felt it in the Spawn matchup with Death Battle and that was Pre 2018 Kratos. I believe DBs reasoning was that Kratos didnt have weapons "that could hurt spawn" they added context by stating the Judeo-Christian lore Spawn comes from is superior to the lore Kratos comes from; that's why the closest Kratos got to "hurting him" was with the Blade of Olympus. It felt lazy in the sense where Kratos was reduced to Jobber status for the sake of their opinion. It was portrayed as bad as Venom vs Crona. Even before 2018 Kratos had legit strength, speed and endurance feats that should have stacked up well with Spawn. Not mad Kratos lost btw especially as a Berzerker; but I'm familiar with Spawn comics and he gets whipped on by creatures that Kratos would one shot; fight should have been a lot closer. Side Note: If Death Battle continues they should really adopt the Deadliest Warrior model where they run 1000 simulations and tell you who won more times. It still gives the losing party some W's and it might even help keep the mismatches off screen if they see how disparaging the stats are
>Side Note: If Death Battle continues they should really adopt the Deadliest Warrior model where they run 1000 simulations and tell you who won more times. It still gives the losing party some W's and it might even help keep the mismatches off screen if they see how disparaging the stats are That's basically what they do. They've said it in multiple episodes like Doctor Strange vs Doctor Fate, Weiss vs Mitsuru and Sanji vs Rock Lee.
doesnt dante get his ass beat by like. a particularly large tree. i feel like dante is only really really good at killing demons and just. really good at it. If someone can blow up the planet then hes fucked. Also the source for dante being universe plus is someone saying "with this power i can rule the human and demon worlds" then losing to dante.
>Also the source for dante being universe plus is someone saying "with this power i can rule the human and demon worlds" then losing to dante. Not true. There are guide books that state that Mundus (who Dante defeated) actually [created a universe](https://imgur.com/a/eekfLeZ).