I was reading this IGN article written by Scott Clarke, and it kinda pissed me off! So before you read this blog please go ahead and read it here:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/116/1166802p1.html

Alright for those who don't like reading, the article was mainly comparing God of War III and Batman Arkham Asylum and what each game can learn from each other in terms of Story-Driven experiences, and it just occurred to me how WRONG this guy is! (On both games)

First thing "It's just a pity that Kratos is a horrible, one-dimensional character with paradoxically convoluted yet simple motivations and no inside voice."

See I hate when people say stuff like this, it just shows how he DIDN'T understand God of War III! If there is ONE, ONE SINGLE message God of War III is trying to send was that Kratos is not a one dimensional character who just yells… It shows you how a guy who just wanted to destroy literally everything , grew in the course of the game to sacrifice his life for the people to give them hope. How a girl (Pandora) managed to affect him emotionally, and really change his point of view towards life. How he refused to kill Pandora because of his selfishness. That's GOD OF WAR III, It wasn't about a guy who just kept yelling throughout the game until he got what he wanted… It was the progression of Kratos.

"Kratos is cast into the shadows of his mind, forced to relive his past deeds and face up to the monster he has become. This scene is simplistically genius and surreal in its design. It reduces the game to shades of grey and the glowing red of Kratos' tattoo."

If there is one thing I agree with this article it was this… Many people talk crap about how BAD the ending of God of War III, and how it didn't give justice to Kratos's trilogy! I on the other hand was one of the FEW people who just thought the ending was INCREDIBLE! I kept arguing with Setho10 over this… It was something I didn't expect, It was risky, and It really changed the way I looked at Kratos as a character, something Mr Clarke didn't really understand! I'm just glad there is someone out there who thinks this ending was just plain Genius…

"All the developers of Arkham Asylum had to do to put the icing on the cake was the only thing that God of War III did right."

Ok this was the thing that mainly pissed me! First of all, he makes it sound as if Arkham Asylum was perfect in everything except the ending, Which is not the case! I platinumed both games, so this is coming from a person who really did everything possible in both games! Now I loved Arkham Asylum, I agree it was the best Comic book/Superhero Game of all time, but that's why it mainly shined. Playing the game I really felt as if I was "The Dark Knight". There were detective elements, the combat was great, and stealth was a big part of the game. It really was great. But he goes on and argues that the story of the game was Amazing… and the climax was just too generic. This is not the case. What was the story of Batman Arkham Asylum?!? Seriously? The story wasn't in any stretch the best part of that game… It was actually the worst, because there is no plot! It's just Batman trying to save the day, it's THAT generic!

And as for God of War III, I do agree with people when they say it could have been better, and I do agree that it wasn't the best God of War, but when someone just says that the ending was the only thing right about that game?!? That's just Naïve. There are so many things God of War III did that Batman: Arkham Asylum can learn from. .. Gameplay wise, and Story-wise.

Overall I gotta say the article IS interesting, it's just that Mr Clarke doesn't understand God of War III… He took what just surprised him as a gamer and wanted it to be interpreted in his beloved game… Games do not work that way, and it's such a shame to see a guy who works in the industry think like that.

PSFreak1