The evidence you provided is a secondary contradicted statement. It's unusable, bury it.
And? His type 4&8 come from the Legionnaires, not the Cursed Remains.
And stop with the statement, it's non-canon.
Calling something with three pieces of evidence as head canon is just weird.
And? That's the point, this is his first encounter with them, he didn't evolve to nullify their immortality. The fact that he later gains the ability to nullify it is not contradictory.
You didn't. You took what I said out of context and misconstrued everything I said, that's not addressing arguments, that's just a strawman.
Lol, do you know what the word gain means? It means to get something you didn't have before.
The fact that he didn't have it doesn't contradict that he can gain it.
Unless done by a character with Immortality negation.
True, but the only case of this happening here is in God of war Ghost of Sparta, other then that, he usually kills them without overpowering their immortality.
In his first encounter with them, in every other, he doesn't need to overpower it nor overcome it.
Mostly addressed by the above, and another a nothing burger.
Where's this standard? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist.
Evidence from secondary canon can be used as long as it isn't contradicted. Suck it up.
Already provided.
You very much did.
Saying that they didn't ressurect when killed by Kratos despite their ability to do so is just agreeing with me. But I'll humor you,
Already addressed.
It doesn't prove your point as your ignoring the game itself.
Finishing them refers to Kratos not leaving them alone while they are stunned, and guess how he kills them? By dismantling them.
It's not baseless when it has statement backing it. That's the opposite of baseless...
Thanks.
Already addressed.
Not.
It doesn't. If I gave 3 slaps to someone and someone gave a beating to another person, your only way of describing what they did is simply saying they inflicted different levels of physical trauma. It isn’t a way of convey something, it's a way to hide it.
He's removing a parasites mind from the body, that can qualify for Type 6 negation.
"The evidence you provided is a secondary contradicted statement. It's unusable, bury it."
"And stop with the statement, it's non-canon."
It is not unusable, secondary connon or not, it shows how kratos would deal with such enemies without taking gameplay mechanics into to question, simply saying it's secondary contradiction doesn't prove your argument. Going with that you do not get to cheery picks statements/feats in the novel when it suits you and disregard the novel when you do not like.
"And? His type 4&8 come from the Legionnaires, not the Cursed Remains"
Still not immortality negation, the novel makes it clear he cant even bypass any immortality, crushing bones to do dust/ inflicting physical trauma does the job.
"Calling something with three pieces of evidence as head canon is just weird."
The "evidence" you give doesn't prove your claim of immortality negation. The evidence you give proves physical trauma is more than enough to deal with those goons.
"And? That's the point, this is his first encounter with them, he didn't evolve to nullify their immortality. The fact that he later gains the ability to nullify it is not contradictory."
He doesn't evolve, he doesn't gain any ability to negate any immortality. There is zero evidence that states he evolve to do such.
"You didn't. You took what I said out of context and misconstrued everything I said, that's not addressing arguments, that's just a strawman."
No it clearly was addressed and debunked, this is ad nauseam.
"Lol, do you know what the word gain means? It means to get something you didn't have before."
It was never stated or shown for it to have, he doesn't gets ability he was never proven to have. In game when kratos gets new powers it's always shown and stated. He failed to negate some goons immortality with his bare equipment, using ice manipulation as the Ghost of Sparta, were he should be far stronger as a god than even later games except his "hope" state.
"Unless done by a character with Immortality negation."
Unless the enemy in question, does not show the regeneration in question. It's easy to inflict physical damage beyond a character's capacity to reformed from.
"True, but the only case of this happening here is in God of war Ghost of Sparta, other then that, he usually kills them without overpowering their immortality."
He kills them by inflicting physical damage, just like how you would kill any regular enemy, without the need to NEGATE any form of immortality powers.
"In his first encounter with them, in every other, he doesn't need to overpower it nor overcome it."
Because those skeletons immortality are shown and proven, in other games what we see is that kratos kills them with physical trauma they cannot reform from, nothing else, i am taking the evidence as it is presented, i am not assuming he his using a fake ability to do something else.
"Mostly addressed by the above."
You didn't address anything, every evidence you gave doesn't not prove your claim for immortality negation, even random fodders cyclops can beat Olympian sentry enemies, I guess he has immortality negation because he can cause enough physical damage to bypass their immortality.
"You very much did."
PROVE IT!
I never said such, do not utter words that I never even hinted at. When I said other example, I meant ether, in the game showing of some skeleton in ghost of Sparta needing to freeze to be killed, or my novel example were they are stated and shown to reform and kratos must resort to crush them to dust (god of war 2 kratos). The cursed remain guide book evidence you gave, states kratos must "finish them off" that even he cant negate their immortality by shattering them with his chained sword, that only proves my point, shatter them enough, they cannot reform, you do not need immortality negation for that, that is so illogical.
"Saying that they didn't ressurect when killed by Kratos despite their ability to do so is just agreeing with me. But I'll humor you,"
"Already addressed".
THEIR IMMORTALITY, NEEDS TO FIRST MOST BE PROVEN OR SHOWN TO RESURRECT IN GAME. In the evidence you game, he doesn't negate anything, I do not agree with you, you must be beyond a state of non comprehension to utter such nonsense.
"It doesn't prove your point as your ignoring the game itself."
"Finishing them refers to Kratos not leaving them alone while they are stunned, and guess how he kills them? By dismantling them."
Yes it proves he doesn't/have gain immortality negation, never stated, never credited from anything. Yes, basic dismantling is enough, they "shatter" beyond what they reform, finishing them off, is what is shown. If they can withstand a degree of physical trauma that doesn't mean they can resist advanced/higher physical trauma that is applied.
"It's not baseless when it has statement backing it. That's the opposite of baseless..."
Yes it is baseless, you assumed they possess every other aspect of other character's immortality is baseless, if you claim they have all the aspects you must prove they do.
"Already addressed."
"Not."
What you claim to have already addressed is untrue, every "evidence" you gave always shows physical trauma being applied and they die and cannot come back (if they were proven to do so), it was never stated or shown that he as anything immortality negation ability. Probably turning them to ashes or small bits will suffice to deal with those goons.
"It doesn't. If I gave 3 slaps to someone and someone gave a beating to another person, your only way of describing what they did is simply saying they inflicted different levels of physical trauma. It isn’t a way of convey something, it's a way to hide it."
In the context of the "evidence" you presented, kratos always applies physical trauma to kill these enemies. It conveys, enough/degree of "physical trauma" will kill them, using your example may it be beat them to dust or slap them into smaller bits enough time. There is no particular need to differentiate here, a false equivalence fallacy.
"He's removing a parasites mind from the body, that can qualify for Type 6 negation."
He negates nothing, "REMOVING the parasite" is done with enough physical damage, you are not negating anything, it's not "that can" it does not qualify for anything immortality type 6 negation. The host dies and the parasite goes away, very simple. Your claim is not supported by the evidence you presented.