Review: God of War, Men of Fear

A pasty leather-daddy butcher---I mean, Kratos!

A pasty leather-daddy butcher—I mean, Kratos!

The first God of War​ is a pretty fun game on a technical level—button-smash fighting plus physical puzzles that you run around to solve—and it looks fantastic for a Playstation 2 title. However, GoW’s aesthetic appears to be engineered for emotionally disturbed teenage boys. You gain life from slaughtering innocent bystanders, every woman is whiny and mostly naked, and you regularly have to murder innocents to advance the game. GoW is what you would get if you turned a mass school shooting into a video game and then added a mythical twist.

I’m not opposed to violence in video games—probably my favorite franchise ever is BioShock​, which involves drilling through magic zombies with a power tool and/or harpooning them to the wall. But BioShock gives you moral agency—the only time you have to use violence is when you’re being attacked by zombies, white supremacists, and other genocidal maniacs. At other points in the games, you must explicitly decide whether to kill innocents or let them live, and the choices you make affect what happens later in the game. The characters in BioShock are complex, with competing, plausible ideologies and conflicting motivations. Love, greed, duty, guilt, anger, madness—these are what move the tragic characters in BioShock.

In BioShock 1 and 2, the player chooses between killing little girls for a large bonus vs. rescuing them for a small bonus.

In BioShock 1 and 2, there are real decisions and real stakes: the player chooses between killing little girls for a large bonus vs. rescuing them for a small bonus.

GoW, by contrast, gives the player no agency. You’re simply playing through a pre-written, hyperviolent, machismo, misogynistic script. There are five kinds of ‘characters’: gods, tough guys (i.e. protagonist), evil minions, human vehicles for boobs, and wimps who get slaughtered. GoW’s world is one where ruthless violence is power, and power is all that exists.

"Dudebros: your entire concept of gender is a marketing gimmick."

Dudebros: your concept of gender is a marketing ploy.

This too-tough-for-basic-decency aesthetic serves no gameplay function—adventure games full of fighting and puzzles are as old as consoles themselves—and the game sure isn’t making any artistic statements. (Apparently critics lauded the game for its ‘compelling’ story when it came out; I am entirely bemused by this fact.) So my guess is that GoW’s growling aesthetic is a marketing choice which allows boys who are insecure about their status as men to pretend that they’re the manliest man of all mankind. As Jackson Katz argues in the documentary Tough Guise, American men over the past century or so have become more and more isolated from typically manly activities (like fighting, striking out into the wilderness, and building stuff); at the same time, depictions of masculinity in film and now video games have become more and more violent and extreme. In other words, as traditional methods of proving one’s masculinity have become scarce, media have compensated with more and more extreme symbolic modes of masculinity. (These modern gentlemen do protest to much, methinks.)

So that’s GoW: impressively competent gameplay within a script marketed to gender insecurity. Like smoking Marlboro Reds or making jokes about homos, GoW is a way for chickenhawks to strut. And that’s too bad, because it really is a fun game otherwise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: