God of war | Kratos's immortality Negation section.

[Deagonx]

Hang on, so is the act of putting themselves back together after being broken apart what's considered the resurrection here? I looked at the justification and I don't think it says as much - just a statement of them fighting, dying, and resurrecting. If that's what we're going with, though - yeah, it gets tricky, as they revive but then are just unable to after being hit enough.

The reforming ability isn't listed in the justification, indeed, but it is part of the reasoning provided in the full original post.

They're more skeleton like, and they usually survive as displaced skeleton parts(and are they are alive in those states for those who are skeptical)

However, if we are solely relying on the books and the reforming is not what's being considered to be the resurrection, then I think that's incredibly specious, as nothing suggests they're supposed to revive on the spot and Kratos is preventing this.

It seems like some sort of damage threshold thing, but I'm not sure why that wouldn't be a case of Type 4 Immortality - but rather, one dependent on dealing enough damage to the point that their resurrection doesn't work anymore. Doesn't seem like that's necessarily an agreed upon stance, but that's kinda what I make of it from an initial impression

Mostly it's a matter of whether this is truly "resurrection" or if its just regeneration, and their regen threshold is being surpassed. Which doesn't require negation necessarily.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm not sure if I'd say the reforming thing would fall under the Type 4 Immortality, that just seems like Type 2 - especially if they're stated to be alive when they're displaced skeleton parts

 

[Deagonx]

I'm not sure if I'd say the reforming thing would fall under the Type 4 Immortality, that just seems like Type 2 - especially if they're stated to be alive when they're displaced skeleton parts

I agree.

It's also notable that in God of War 2, only the cursed remains can reanimate. The legionnaires cannot. So the book saying they can resurrect isn't referring to them reviving immediately after being killed.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

The notion that they can resurrect is derived from the fact that when they are scattered into bones they can pull themselves back together from the bones.

Yes, but it also comes from the re-animating statement from the Guidebook.

As for this,

Here Kratos is using the exact same move on the same enemy. If Kratos has the power to negate their ability to regenerate/resurrect, why/how do they get back up in the 2nd instance? What is the difference?

It could just be durability, but regardless, the main reason behind Kratos's proposed immortality Negation is his grappling having evolved to kill them easily, from God of war III. Not two or Sparta.

 

[Agnaa]

Not responding to everything, but Glassman asked me to bring some Type 7 Negation stuff here. If this sounds like it applies more broadly then it does. If it doesn't then it doesn't.

The skeleton stuff in Sparta seems widely agreed to not be legit; the tackle only kills them when their health is sufficiently low, otherwise they turn into a pile of bones and reform. This makes it abundantly clear that the technique itself doesn't nullify any kind of immortality, and so, it must simply overpower it through accumulated damage.

The stuff in GoW 2 isn't much better. They can be put down permanently either by a hammer or a finishing move. The hammer doesn't prevent them from reforming if it hits them while they're on high health, so it's clear that this doesn't nullify any kind of immortality. The finishing move doesn't have those sorts of anti-feats by virtue of it being a finishing move, but given the precedent in the very same game of accumulated damage being able to eventually prevent them from reforming, I think that's the only reasonable conclusion there.

As for this,

It could just be durability, but regardless, the main reason behind Kratos's proposed immortality Negation is his grappling having evolved to kill them easily, from God of war III. Not two or Sparta.

I don't see anything of relevance here. All it says is "they're extremely susceptible to grapples that kill them", which simply seems like a weakness. Given the context of how this sort of thing functioned in other games, it seems like an extension of that accumulated damage principle.

While, in all of these cases, they don't seem to visibly be broken into smaller bits than they survive in other occasions, I think that's the aspect of this which is clearly game mechanics. There's an internal "HP" value that isn't fully reflected in their models and animations, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A video game character who gets knocked down to half health with no visible change to their model/sprite didn't no-sell an attack, that's just the gameplay representation being insufficient.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

I don't see anything of relevance here. All it says is "they're extremely susceptible to grapples that kill them", which simply seems like a weakness. Given the context of how this sort of thing functioned in other games, it seems like an extension of that accumulated damage principle.

This is the grapples in God Of War III, he doesn't damage prior to the grapples.

And while I can see how that scan alone would suggest it as a weakness, given how his grapples couldn't do much to them in Ghost of sparta, it seems Kratos just evolved to where his Grapples can kill them.

 

[Agnaa]

This is the grapples in God Of War III, he doesn't damage prior to the grapples.

And while I can see how that scan alone would suggest it as a weakness, given how his grapples couldn't do much to them in Ghost of sparta, it seems Kratos just evolved to where his Grapples can kill them.

From that title, "All executions, grab animations", and the other clips, it makes it seem like grapples like that are just instakills on a lot of enemies. And so sure, it's "evolved", but more in the sense that it's consistently a stronger sequence that can take down a variety of enemies which would otherwise require multiple blows. Which is still consistent with it being accumulated damage. Plus, out of the three examples shown with the cursed remains there, two of them involved the skeleton being struck 9 times.

Also, with three examples, it becomes quite unparsimonious. Why would tearing a skeleton in half, punching a skeleton 9 times, and bashing a skeleton's skull into a rock 9 times, be the three specific ways Kratos has of nullifying that sort of immortality? Especially without any statements of him using a specific magical technique for those executions.

Oh wait, it might not only be three, the scan you posted earlier says that the Battering Ram technique is also incredibly effective against them, so him picking up another skeleton and bashing it into others is his supposed fourth way of nullifying that sort of immortality (I couldn't find a clip of that, my bad if it doesn't actually work that way; this is more supplementary than anything).

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

From that title, "All executions, grab animations", and the other clips, it makes it seem like grapples like that are just instakills on a lot of enemies

I can see how the video's title could lead to that conclusion, however the only enemies Kratos kills instantly by grapples are the following,

Olympus Archer,
Citizens of Olympia,
Olympus Sentry,
Olympus Legionnaires,
Cursed Remains,
Harpy,
Skorpius spawn,
Lost soul.

Every other enemy (of which there's 23 of) needs you to damage it until a circle appears over their head or they can survive multiple grapples.

Also, with three examples, it becomes quite unparsimonious. Why would tearing a skeleton in half, punching a skeleton 9 times, and bashing a skeleton's skull into a rock 9 times, be the three specific ways Kratos has of nullifying that sort of immortality? Especially without any statements of him using a specific magical technique for those executions.

Kratos is pretty famous for his brutal takedowns, those ways are probably just how he preferably deals with taking down his enemies rather then being his only ways of taking them down. He can also just take them down with his weapons normal attacks if need be.

Oh wait, it might not only be three, the scan you posted earlier says that the Battering Ram technique is also incredibly effective against them, so him picking up another skeleton and bashing it into others is his supposed fourth way of nullifying that sort of immortality (I couldn't find a clip of that, my bad if it doesn't actually work that way; this is more supplementary than anything).

If my memory of it is correct, he can kill them with it, just that it may need multiple hits.

 

[Agnaa]

I can see how the video's title could lead to that conclusion, however the only enemies Kratos kills instantly by grapples are the following,

Olympus Archer,
Citizens of Olympia,
Olympus Sentry,
Olympus Legionnaires,
Cursed Remains,
Harpy,
Skorpius spawn,
Lost soul.

Every other enemy (of which there's 23 of) needs you to damage it until a circle appears over their head or they can survive multiple grapples.

Not as many as I expected, but still a fair few.

Kratos is pretty famous for his brutal takedowns, those ways are probably just how he preferably deals with taking down his enemies rather then being his only ways of taking them down. He can also just take them down with his weapons normal attacks if need be.

If my memory of it is correct, he can kill them with it, just that it may need multiple hits.

Those both make this seem even less viable. Those attacks don't necessarily permakill, they only do so after enough hits, which implies that it's just overpowering their ability to reassemble rather than nullifying that ability.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Those both make this seem even less viable. Those attacks don't necessarily permakill, they only do so after enough hits, which implies that it's just overpowering their ability to reassemble rather than nullifying that ability.

It could also be their durability, killing people after enough hits. But still, the damage he does to kill them is far less then what's needed to overpower their reconstruction.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Other then that, do I list you as disagreeing with the Cursed Remains(the skeletons), and what do you think of the rest?

 

[Agnaa]

It could also be their durability, killing people after enough hits. But still, the damage he does to kill them is far less then what's needed to overpower their reconstruction.

It demonstrably isn't, because there's nothing indicating that it's actually an ability letting him nullify it, and there's things indicating that it isn't (since prior attacks without accumulated damage from the same source didn't cause their reconstruction to fail). It's just an anti-feat.

Sometimes low-ends are simply low-ends, rather than being intended to give a dozen random one-off abilities. If a character has a statement of moving at 150 m/s, and then while fighting another character has a statement of moving at 130 m/s, that doesn't mean the latter character has a never-mentioned speed reduction aura. It's just a low-end.

Other then that, do I list you as disagreeing with the Cursed Remains(the skeletons)

Yes, I think that's pretty clear.

what do you think of the rest?

I have no interest in evaluating the rest.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

It demonstrably isn't, because there's nothing indicating that it's actually an ability letting him nullify it, and there's things indicating that it isn't (since prior attacks without accumulated damage from the same source failed to cause their reconstruction to fail). It's just an anti-feat.

It kinda is tho, Kratos can dismember them multiple times in Ghost of sparta and II and that fails.

In III, he can tear them into two to permanently kill them( without accumulated damage) or throw them(without accumulated damage). The stuff he uses accumulated damage for is him decapitating and bashing their heads, which is still far less then before(dismantling them into parts of skeleton bones multiple times).

 

[Agnaa]

It kinda is tho, Kratos can dismember them multiple times in Ghost of sparta and II and that fails.

In III, he can tear them into two to permanently kill them( without accumulated damage) or throw them(without accumulated damage). The stuff he uses accumulated damage for is him decapitating and bashing their heads, which is still far less then before(dismantling them into parts of skeleton bones multiple times).

I'd like to spotlight what you're implying here.

You're arguing that Kratos has a form of immortality negation against skeletons, which:

• Only applies after a certain amount of blows.
• Can happen after multiple different techniques, involving arbitrary combinations of seemingly ordinary blows.
• Some other seemingly ordinary physical blows can make this occur far more quickly.
• Some other seemingly ordinary physical blows can have this occur, but only after being preceded by other ordinary attacks which can never put them down permanently in this way.
• Was never explained, justified, or hinted at textually anywhere.
• Was developed as a new ability, again, without that ever being explained or hinted at.

You require all of that.

All I require is one of:

1. These enemies changed and got weaker in that way.
2. The limitations inherent in creating video games didn't let the creators depict them being damaged to a lore-accurate extent.
3. Their re-assembly is based on some unstated mechanism, like some unholy energy, which certain blows that deal a lot of physical damage, or quickly repeated blows, can manage to drain the stamina of.
4. That simply exists as a contradiction in this work of fiction.

And so I have to reject the absurdly unlikely situation you're hypothesizing; it's too niche of a view to belong on our profiles.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Only applies after a certain amount of blows.

That's just how a fight goes, you kill someone after a certain amount of blows. It isn’t a contradiction nor a limit, it's just how durability works.

Can happen after multiple different techniques, involving arbitrary combinations of seemingly ordinary blows.

same as above.

Some other seemingly ordinary physical blows can make this occur far more quickly.

Same as above.

Some other seemingly ordinary physical blows can have this occur, but only after being preceded by other ordinary attacks which can never put them down permanently in this way.

Same as above.

Was never explained, justified, or hinted at textually anywhere.

I already showed a statement of them being weak to Kratos's grapples, something they didn't have a problem with before.

Was developed as a new ability, again, without that ever being explained or hinted at.

That's if you ignore the context of prior games, where Kratos is just unable to do the same.

These enemies changed and got weaker in that way.

No evidence of.

The limitations inherent in creating video games didn't let the creators depict them being damaged to a lore-accurate extent.

Pure speculation.

Their re-assembly is based on some unstated mechanism, like some unholy energy, which certain blows that deal a lot of physical damage, or quickly repeated blows, can manage to drain the stamina of.

No statement or explanation of, which by your own logic, dismiss it. It's also pure speculation.

That simply exists as a contradiction in this work of fiction.

This is Kratos's last ever time having an encounter with the Cursed Remains, chronologically, if a retcons happens, we would take III's version.

In all honesty, most of this reasoning just sounds like, since Kratos doesn't kill them with his first hit, it's not immortality negation.

 

[Agnaa]

That's just how a fight goes, you kill someone after a certain amount of blows. It isn’t a contradiction nor a limit, it's just how durability works.

That's not how hax that nullifies immortality works.

same as above.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Your above justification has absolutely nothing to do with those points.

I already showed a statement of them being weak to Kratos's grapples, something they didn't have a problem with before.

That's not hinting at immortality negation. "This works" =/= "This works because of X". Evidence of an outcome is not necessarily evidence of a cause. "Character A can run more quickly than Character B" is not evidence that Character A has Time Manipulation.

That's if you ignore the context of prior games, where Kratos is just unable to do the same.

No, that is using the context of the prior games. He wasn't able to do that, and he now is, meaning that it's a newly-developed ability, without something like that being hinted at.

No evidence of.

Pure speculation.

No statement or explanation of, which by your own logic, dismiss it. It's also pure speculation.

Yep. But when no straightforward answer exists, better one leap of logic than 6 stacked on top of each other.

In all honesty, most of this reasoning just sounds like, since Kratos doesn't kill them with his first hit, it's not immortality negation.

Things off the top of my head that would make me believe it's immortality negation:

1. A statement that it prevents them from re-assembling.
2. A statement hinting at him having developed a new way to deal with them in the gap between games. Like seeing one and saying "I've got some new tricks up my sleeve to deal with you bags of bones", bonus points if they immediately go on to teach the player how to use a grapple on one of them.
3. A statement that he in particular can permanently kill them when others can't, preferably involving a comparison to other characters who can get them to break apart.
4. Kratos having a technique, which does not destroy them on a more extreme scale, which always prevents them from reassembling upon being hit, even if more blows are required to break them apart sufficiently to render them ineffective.
5. A technique like this still being a finisher, but obviously being small-scale enough to not just be a matter of inconsistency (i.e. driving a nail into one of their bones; something that wouldn't ordinarily incapacitate a skeleton even if they couldn't reassemble). Something like sprinkling holy water on them would be close, but more likely to be indexed as a weakness rather than a power.
6. And the one you mentioned; there not being any instances in any of the games of a skeleton coming back after a technique which was argued to negate immortality.

Things off the top of my head that would make me willing to give likely/possible immortality negation:

1. A special visual for these blows, that isn't present on others, implying that he's activating a particular ability to get these effects. It could just be taken as a bit of CIS that he doesn't use it until the blow that depletes the last of their health.

There's a lot of ways to get immortality negation, this stuff is just too flimsy for any of it.

 

[Deagonx]

I appreciate Agnaa's input here and agree with his perspective on things.

More broadly, I think this comes down to an issue with how we are interpreting feats and gameplay. If an ability is not obvious, it's application is inconsistent, there's no clear or consistent mechanism for it, the character is never said to have it, then I think we should be inclined to view it negatively and I'm not sure what the insistence is for.

I get it, they can reform from piles of bones and Kratos killing them seems to do little more than turn them into a pile of bones. The problem is they can still reform after Kratos turns them into piles of bones unless he depletes their HP. So Kratos can't be nullifying their ability to reform, because there is no sensible way to reconcile that, and Kratos is never said to have such an ability and there's no reason he would have it.

This sort of thing isn't worth pages and pages of discussion. If a character has an ability, there should be clear and consistent evidence. This is anything but.

Pepsi, I've already said that I don't object to updating the justification, and in that sense this thread seems to serve no clear purpose because a quorum on whether or not to remove it won't happen here, but in a later thread. I think this should be closed.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

That's not how hax that nullifies immortality works.

Immortality negation is ability to permanently kill immortals without overpowering their immortality, not being able to oneshot them isn't really much of a contradiction to it.

Your above justification has absolutely nothing to do with those points.

Most of them simply argue that he attacks them before he kills, my past justification can be used to counter it.

That's not hinting at immortality negation. "This works" =/= "This works because of X". Evidence of an outcome is not necessarily evidence of a cause. "Character A can run more quickly than Character B" is not evidence that Character A has Time Manipulation.

Can you explain this more simply? I'm not really understanding it.

No, that is using the context of the prior games. He wasn't able to do that, and he now is, meaning that it's a newly-developed ability, without something like that being hinted at.

Why would it need a hint? It's still clearly shown.

Yep. But when no straightforward answer exists, better one leap of logic than 6 stacked on top of each other.

Each one still has a problem defining why Kratos can kill them without needing accumulated damage( the throwing and tearing stuff).

Things off the top of my head that would make me believe it's immortality negation:

1. A statement that it prevents them from re-assembling.
2. A statement hinting at him having developed a new way to deal with them in the gap between games. Like seeing one and saying "I've got some new tricks up my sleeve to deal with you bags of bones", bonus points if they immediately go on to teach the player how to use a grapple on one of them.
3. A statement that he in particular can permanently kill them when others can't, preferably involving a comparison to other characters who can get them to break apart.
4. Kratos having a technique, which does not destroy them on a more extreme scale, which always prevents them from reassembling upon being hit, even if more blows are required to break them apart sufficiently to render them ineffective.
5. A technique like this still being a finisher, but obviously being small-scale enough to not just be a matter of inconsistency (i.e. driving a nail into one of their bones; something that wouldn't ordinarily incapacitate a skeleton even if they couldn't reassemble).
6. And the one you mentioned; there not being any instances in any of the games of a skeleton coming back after a technique which was argued to negate immortality.

Things off the top of my head that would make me willing to give likely/possible immortality negation:

1. A special visual for these blows, that isn't present on others, implying that he's activating a particular ability to get these effects. It could just be taken as a bit of CIS that he doesn't use it until the blow that depletes the last of their health.

I guess I'll look for it.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Pepsi, I've already said that I don't object to updating the justification, and in that sense this thread seems to serve no clear purpose because a quorum on whether or not to remove it won't happen here, but in a later thread. I think this should be closed.

Alright, you can close it.

 

[Deagonx]

Can you explain this more simply? I'm not really understanding it.

He's saying that "this kills an immortal being" is not the same as "this kills an immortal being by negating their immortality."

Alright, you can close it.

Very well.

Agnaa if you want to reply, you are free to open it again if you see fit or you could respond on his wall. Up to you.