Opinion: Does Liking Kratos Matter?
"Kratos is a terrible and unlikable character"
Statements such as this have caught traction recently and seem to be more of a talking point than the next entry into the God of War series being released next week. It's a shame really, as since having played the Ascension demo, the game once again looks jaw-to-the-floor gorgeous and continues to deliver spectacle like no other franchise dares. God of War reminds me of the ultimate summer blockbuster film, always pushing the envelope visually and offering up action to match anything in the genre, release after release.
Created by David Jaffe, the title character Kratos is a spartan general transformed into the god of war, delivering wanton destruction on a global scale to the Greek gods that have forsaken him. He does this all in the name of vengeance, for the family taken from him and a mind in constant torment of guilt for what he's done. The quintessential Greek tragedy if you will, yet revenge is never a straight path and he constantly disregards the consequences of his actions in the name of his sole motive. This seems to be the crux of the argument against him being a character you can enjoy. Well that, and his penchant for yelling everything, of which I cannot come up with a reasoning for other than the man is just angry.
Why is loving Kratos a prerequisite to enjoying God of War? Why is he chosen to be made an example of in a landscape full of stagnant, run of the mill characters that have persisted longer than this franchise has existed? Isn't it enough to enjoy decimating buildings and gods alike as long as the gameplay is rock solid and it looks amazing in motion? It would seem so, but for an ever growing few that don't believe that to be enough and weigh the man before the game, the double standard when measuring characters takes shape.
Offering comparisons does not make the case for Kratos being likable, or well rounded stronger, but I feel they're necessary to give some perspective to the argument.
Dante from Devil May Cry, is a character of iconic design that was almost universally loved as a character. But what did Dante do to evolve in the original series? Answer, almost nothing. He's given a pass because he's a parody; a series of nonsensical catch phrases underlined by a nonchalant attitude. As long as he doesn't take himself seriously, why do we have to? Thus, enjoying Dante is an after thought to the game and almost never plays into enjoying the dynamics of DMC.
“Princess Peach could be kidnapped and saved by anyone as long as they played the same as Mario and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Is loving Mario necessary to enjoy Super Mario Brothers? No, it is not."
Let's cut deeper here then shall we, Mario. The man that Nintendo has built a foundation upon has existed for almost 30 years. Never once changing in demeanor or design, he's essentially the same now as he's ever been. Yet, because he runs around with a smile and makes charming quips, people love him and demand little else from the character. Mario gets a pass, but why? He has little impact to the stories told in the game and never evolves who he is as a character. Does he have to? Probably not, but why is it different than God of War? Princess Peach could be kidnapped and saved by anyone as long as they played the same as Mario and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Is loving Mario necessary to enjoy Super Mario Brothers? No, it is not.
Does this suggest that we should have more characters that require no growth to enjoy? Because a character uses anger and rage over jokes and indifference means they are automatically less relatable? Personally I'd rather some reaction to the world my main character is pushing through and be effected by the motivations that put them in the predicament they're in, instead of a constant "I'm cool because I don't care attitude" and "Hey, I'm the same as I've been for nearly three decades and that should be enough". This may seem harsh to the comparisons I'm using and there is more to them than that, but for every counter point you give, a similar one can be made for Kratos.
There are numerous equatable examples of characters not evolving, growing and staying the path they were originally given in games, but for some reason, they're given a pass on these elements. Unfortunately, these courtesies don't seem to stretch to Kratos. It seems no matter the reasoning given, being angry and wanting revenge is akin to poor design and being constantly happy, or sarcastically indifferent to your surroundings is calculated as an enjoyable character as long as they don't take themselves too seriously.
The point is this, just like the heroes I've named and many others, you don't have to like Kratos to enjoy God of War. A protagonist not feeling remorse for destroying worlds and lives is no more harmful to a games design than hoping on mushrooms and taking pleasure from saving a princess for the tenth time. As long as the game is enjoyable to play and the character is given a passable motivational background to exist within the games framework, that should be enough. Demanding more from Kratos as a character to simply to pick up the controller and play, means you need to demand more from your other favorites and the games they appear in as well. When held to that standard, they're bound to fail the same test.
Avoid God of War because you don't enjoy the violence, or you just don't like the game and how it plays. These are all fine reasons not to play it, or any other game for that matter. To avoid and dislike God of War under the premise of Kratos being a bad character, requires you to use the same criteria on many of your beloved pillars of gaming. At best it's unfair, at worst, it's objectively wrong.
Ask yourself, what do you play video games for? Is it for wonderful visuals, responsive varied gameplay and unparalleled worlds to interact with, or do you want to inject a case study on character design into a game before you even pick up a controller? Only you can answer that question.