Yeah, those were my two cents in the bolded text. I think Ragnarok managed to build and expand on the previous game, making everything bigger and better and that was not an easy thing to do, because the 2018 one was a masterpiece as well. Some flaws here and there, nothing is perfect, but overall just minor gripes in a magnificent and enjoyable experience.

I would love to see Santa Monica's take on something completely different for a change.

I didn't read everything you said op but most of your complains can apply to every story. The simple answer is the writers wanna tell a story.

I don't get that. What things I complained about are necessary to tell a story?

As far some complains you have I remember reading:
Kratos says this in his diary, he didn't take the peace deal from Odin because he said he would take care of Freya for him, and Kratos didn't want her to die, that's why he said no. Most likely Odin knew this and wanted Kratos/Atreus go looking for Tyr.

Kratos sure is a man of few words, but he is no dunce. He could have easily explained that Freya is a friend and that if she gets harmed the deal is off. And Odin desperately wanted to prevent Ragnarök, so it is not most likely that he wanted Kratos and Atreus to go looking for Tyr, with Tyr being this key figure in Ragnarök. Most likely he wanted them to stay completely out of his way. Only becaus that was not an option (Kratos said "no"), Odin tried to convince Atreus to "work" with him, inviting him to Asgard, masking himself as Tyr to prevent them from finding the real one and being able to keep a close eye on the enemy.

And making Freya the reason the deal between Odin and Kratos could not stand is another example of lazy storytelling. Feels like giving a tagged on reason for why a deal that does not at all have to include her cannot work.

As for why Atreus/Kratos make those decisions you complaining about it's simple, Atreus is a giant and he want to save them, find them and from the prophecy from the first game, Kratos dies and he want to change that. Odin is just a threat. Kratos pretty much follow along what Atreus does as he want to protect his son.

I don't complain that Atreus wants to save the giants. I complain that even though it says in the prophecy that he servs Odin and that his dad dies, he just goes and servs Odin anyways. His reasoning: to get control of the situation and be a cool spy. And Kratos does not just follow along what Atreus does either - Atreus makes idiotic decisions (like going to Asgard) and Kratos rightfully is in stark opposition to that.

And how is Odin a threat to them? He is a liar and manipuator, yes. But what did Odin really do against them? Killing Brok out of nowhere, dumb decision, yes. Stealing the moon in Vanaheim? Alright, but that is not really a threat to Kratos or Atreus. I would argue that Heimdall posed a bigger threat to Atreus than Odin to Atreus and Kratos. Heimdall actually wanted to murder Atreus and would have tried if Kratos did not stop him.

Why they attacked Asgard is simple, to reach Odin they have to attack Asgard, Kratos did walk away first, but from what I remember he said something that walking away is how to lose and he wanted vengeance. Kratos also says in the game that trying to avoid fate is how the prophecy comes true.

Making Ragnarök happen did this to Kratos side: Freyr and Freya were occupied much of the attack with trying to stop the Ragnarök monster. Their other forces were very much occupied with trying to bring civilians to safety. They should have perhaps at some point attacked Odin. But attacking all of Asgard is a bad idea. And Kratos realizes that (too late, but only five minutes in the attack). It is dumb to go to some lenghts and doing somehthing so extreme as summoning Raknarök only to realize 5 minutes later that he would rather not have it. Ragnarök (which is the title of the game mind you) is the most unnecessary thing happening in the whole game.

As how they busted Odins cover is just my speculation but there should be 1 or 2 interviews with the game devs where they explain the story. I Haven't seen them but very early in the development they had already made the decision that Brok is gonna die and this is what they came up with. It was the same with Ragnarök, they wanted it to happen.

It is not enough for a writer to say that he wants to arrive at point x without providing a compelling way how to get there. Broks death could have been good, but was weird at best seeing as though Odin would never make such an idiot decision blowing his cover as Tyr out of nowhere. Alright, they wanted Ragnarök to happen, but they are making it completely unnecessary. Bad writing. It seemed Ragnarök was of as much inconvinience to the people of Asgard as it was to Kratos. He comes to this epiphany that they will be better today. Wow, what a clap line, what a character moment, what a deep truth. But perhaps he should have thought one second about the consiquences of Ragnarök before summoning it. All he and his crew did was defend from Ragnarök, not use it.

And Tyr is not dead, you can find him doing a side mission. And note I'm not a expert on the story so I can be wrong about the stuff I wrote.

My own complains about the game is that the enemy has just to much Hit points. I played on "Give a balance experince" and it's just silly that you rushing towards a simple enemy and heavy R2 jump attack just does maybe 5-10% dmg. Second issue I had is there just to much puzzle to solve.
I had the same complains about the first god of war but replying it a second time those complains went away. But yeah the first 15-20 hours of the game was pretty boring, felt like you were just clearing trash mobs and solving a puzzle every minute.

But that is far from my only criticism: the story felt meandering and for a long time without any stakes. For example, when I was in Jotunheim with Atreus and Angreboda (or whatever her name is) I thought: yeah, that is cool and very pretty, but what am I actually doing here? What is the purpose of all that? Snake origin - it bought them nothing: Thor still attacked Kratos before he could accomplish anything with Odin. Angreboda introduction - yes, but what was the purpose of her whole character? What did she really do? She helped a bit in the final fight but I cannot shake the feeling it would have been the same without her. Setting up the sequel - there we go - that is all this insanely drawn out feeding animals Jotunheim scene did.

There are a lot of examples where the story felt meandering and the whole quest pointless: why would Kratos and Atreus chose to find Tyr? Because Odin said they should not? That is what they say in the game but it is definitely not a good reason. At the time they thought Ragnarök meant the end of much more than just Asgard. So not finding Tyr could have been a good start to not having Ragnarök (since Tyr is the one who leads the army according to prohecy). But let's pretend finding Tyr was important. There was no urgency to it. Everything felt boring in these Svartalfheim mines. Mimir and Kratos both suggested more than one time during the quest to just give up on it. That was the energy in the room: I don't want to be here. How can the developers expect high engagement from me, if there is no urgency and the main character just wants to go home?

Another example: the second time you visit Vanaheim, it is to.. to... ... to do what exactely? Help Frayer fight to good fight? We need to get to her and save her brother. But how did he get injured? We did not see. What are they fighting for? Vanaheim (FOR VANAHEIM!!!)? What does that even mean? What would Odin do there if he had free reign? Did they get ambushed and kidnapped? Perhaps they said but I cannot remember and that is in itself a problem. It was a conflict I don't get. This is also true in a bigger way but more on that later.

Another example of the main quest feeling pointless and the story meandering: prophecy is inevitable. That is the logic the game mostly operates on. And then in the end everyting is different than was foretoled. So the whole thing about the norns was for nothing too. Think about that for a second. Apart from the start the whole reason to be in Midgard was for the norns. But what they foretold was not what happend. What the giants foretold was also not what happend. So why spend 3 to 4 hours of the game to be in Midgard and another 2 in Jotunheim if the games conclusion is: no, actually nevermind, we write our own destiny? We don't know why, or we don't care to explain, but just know that everything ist fine. What? You are making a game much about prophecy and destiny. And all the giant and norn prophecys are always correct. But suddenly they are not and you don't explain why?

Something different: why in the world would you try to craft a cool action sequence with Kratos carrying Freyr on his back when the dialogue makes it laughable/ridiculous? It could have been epic but felt funny at best due to Freyrs comments: "Whoa, dude, maaan, I think imma hurl." (-paraphrase) There was actually no single action scene in the whole game I felt super engaged with. I did not care for Freyr whom we just met. While fighting a giant was cool, I did not care for Angreboda either and the fight itself was not that great anyways. Trying to capture/kill Garm comes close to greatness action-wise (from a storytelling perspective it felt like another sidequest). But nothing comes even close to the 2018 sequence of events with the fight at the top of the mountain, Atreus shooting Kratos and being kidnapped by Baldur, Kratos not skipping a beat and jumping down that mountian, the fight on the dragon, Kratos falling, rushing inside the temple, going to Helheim, fighting Baldur some more and finaly getting Atreus back before crashing into some tower. That was the bomb! The Thor fight in the beginning had different locations, yes. But everything was foggy and I did not really get a sence of place. Could have just been in Kratos' backyard for the same effect. Even when Ragnarök happens it felt underwhelming from an action stantpoint. Jörmongandur is only in the distance fighting Thor - we don't even really get to see that. Fenrir is next to unnecessary as is Angreboda. You cannot see much. Again, everything is very foggy. The only somewhat good action the Asgard attack had, was the Thor fight and the Odin fight. And they happend almost entirely in game. Can you remember in 2018 when Kratos killed that dragon in the mountain? Nothing that cool/actiony ever happend in the entirety of Ragnarök.

So Brok is dead and they made a huge deal out of it. Only problem is: I felt nothing. He was the comic relief. And his drawn out nonsensical spear sidequest felt like giving him screen time so that his death feels sadder. It is what shit tv shows do when they want to kill off a character: give them an episode focused on them beforehand. Now perhaps others felt more about this comic relief side character biting the dust, and I liked Brok fine, but to make that the end of the game? His funeral and than the credits? Nothing with a Kratos and Atreus focus perhaps? How? Why?

As already said, so much of the games story felt meandering and pointless to me. Weirdly the ending felt rushed. Suddenly things kick into high gear and than it is over. Surtr was such a small quest but felt super, mega significant. On the other hand making the spear felt like it took forever. (But I did not buy into the idea that Kratos needed the spear to kill Heimdall in the first place. And what is even that: He perceives Heimdall as such a big threat that he is ready to kill him, but not to face him immediately. He goes on what feels like a sidequest even though his son could at any moment be murdered by Heimdall. Does not feel like the Kratos that jumped from a mountaintop to get faster to his son.) How is this a narritive choice: making yet another weapon for "the god killer" should take many fights and locations and story sequences and introduce new characters like the lady in the water and concepts like this form and nature thing, even though all the while his son, the only thing said "god killer" really cares about, is in mortal danger. Let's have finding Tyr be many hours long - and let's have everybody except Atreus don't want to be there. But, BUT: Let's have finding Surtr, convincing him to join their cause, and Surtr becoming (-title of the game incoming) Ragnarök, let's have that be just 2 fights and not even half a page of text for the guy. How is that a narrative choice. We spend more time in Muspelheim searching for some wooden mask piece (that did not amount to anything at all) than doing what the game says in the title it is about.

To finish up: I don't get why Kratos said "no" to Odins offer for peace. Odin was a piece of shit. But he did not beheave terribly wrong in trying to prevent Ragnarök. Odin came to Kratos and wanted nothing but peace. Perhaps this was a lie but that was never shown. All we have is Kratos saying "no" to living in peace with his son. That is the inciting incident of the whole story. Kratos could have had no retribution come his way because of Magni, Modi and Baldur. And be on good terms with Asgard. And he said no, actually I don't want peace. Why? That is all he wants for the rest of the game.

Odins persepcive is a curious one.
Some guy he never met kills one of his two sons and his two grandsons.
Baldurs death means that Ragnarök is approaching.
He thinks in Ragnarök every single realm will be destroyed.
He wants to prevent Ragnarök from happening at all cost.
He goes to Kratos and offers peace as long as they don't search for Tyr, because Tyr is the key figure in destroying all the realms.
Kratos, who positioned himself to be Odins enemy, searches for Tyr.
So Odin masks himself as Tyr to keep an eye on his enemies.
His most loyal servant, Heimdall, is killed by Kratos.
He blows his cover like an idiot and flees without the mask.
His enemies arrive in Asgard. And they specifically brought the beast that will destroy it.
Then they kill him and destroy Asgard.

So yeah, Odin did kill Brok, which was a bad move and an idiotic one. And he killed Thor. Very evil. A hundred years ago he was also very evil to Freya (even though it stays unclear what he gained from antagonising Vanaheim). He tortured Mimir and held him in prison. But so did Mimir with this whale thingy.

But was that really enough to justify the destruction of a whole realm? How many civilians died because of that? And since the game makes a huge point in fostering empathy for animals and their suffering (the two jellyfish for example), I have to ask: How many animals died because of Ragnarök? The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that in a series of dumb decisions by Kratos and Atreus, trying to get to Ragnarök was the most idiotic one.

Becasue of Angrboda, Atreus was able to seal Odin away, and was able to stop Garm.

That is a good point. Angrboda was not absolutely useless. I guess my problem lies more with how she is incorporated into the story with the Jotunheim-section being that long. But hey, more directly to your point: They could have stopped Garm differently I am sure. But it is important that they stopped him this way because of the escape route from Asgard that would not have been there otherwise (Fenrir). So - yes to that. But as you read, I have severe problems in why they would need an escape from Asgard in the first place, since Ragnarök was so unnecessary. Odin: No. Atreus was able to seal away Fenrir at the start of the game. I am not buying that Angrboda was necessary for Atreus to do the same with Odin. Also - feels insignificant that Atreus had to seal him away given the fact that Sindri kills him 2 seconds later anyways. Feels more like character protection for Atreus - he is too noble to kill even somebody as deserving as Odin.

Atreus was trying to find Tyr before Odin said they shouldn't bother. Atreus felt that Tyr was important to figuring out his own future.

That is true, yes. I think I mischaracterized the situation. Finding Tyr was important for Atreus. He is obsessed with the future, as is Odin. They make for a good storytelling pair - how one can let go and the other is unable to. But it is a different story with Kratos. Kratos does not want Ragnarök. He wants peace. And since we know that prophecy is whatever, eh could have had it. Choosing to find Tyr and antagonising Asgard was the first step away from that possibilty. And it should not have been a difficult choice: Do you want your kid (relatively) safe and angry at you, or in grave danger if not dead? Kratos is the one calling the shots. And he absolutely should have decided not to search for Tyr and keep peace with Asgard. Atreus could have still searched without Kratos knowledge like before. And that might have been what should have happened in the story. But that is just half my complaint - they could have made that war god prison break a tad more exciting.

This was the part of the story that I felt like I got lost in. Not for the reasons that you were mentioning though. I was fine before that point and afterwards. Where I got lost was in the middle. I wasn't sure what the point of interacting with the wolves was. We were supposed to save Freyr and Freya and then in the middle we're helping the wolves for some reason.

Hildsvini said Freyr and Freya got ambushed and kidnapped. He also does say to help the celestial wolves, but I guess I forgot that bit. 

The Einherjar in Vanaheim and other areas are servants of Odin.

I feel that, yes. We had to help because Odin stole the moon and without it, they cannot chase (and I guess this is just what they do). But why is it that Odin knows about the moon thing being the next corner stone on the way to Ragnarök and he still steals it? Is it not a way better prevention tactic if he does not steal it?

And yeah, I know that the Einherjar in Vanaheim and other areas are servants of Odin. But why even have them there? And there presence is not very strongly felt until Odin steals the moon anyways. So what was the conflict between Vanaheim and Asgard about beforehand? Perhaps there is no need for the player to know that. But looking back I ask myself what I actually did there and it feels like a disjointed mess of a nothing burger. Perhaps I am too critial. And I actually know that the first visit was to help Freya and the second to help the kidnapped Freyr and the celestial wolves. It is just the bigger conflict that I don't get.

I don't agree with this at all. 

Mimir says that prophecy is slippery. The main people that are chasing after prophecy at the very start of the game are Odin and Atreus. Odin because he's scared of what will happen. And Atreus because I think he wants answers about his future. 

Through most of the game, they're trying to beat prophecy. And the Norns imply prophecy is inevitable because people act predictably. 

I would strongly say the point of the story isn't that prophecy is inevitable. But I could say that it's that it's inevitable if you don't grow and be better. That's been a pretty consistent moral throughout 2018 and Ragnarok. "Don't be sorry, be better."

That is a misunderstanding. I am not saying that what I got from the game is that prophecy is inevitable. I am saying that if it is not inevitable, there sure are a lot of prophecies that came exactly true. Not a single sole in the (surely long) history of giant prophecy started to make different choices and became a better or worse person? If so Angrboda would have known since she is the one entrusted with the giants legacy. She strongly beliefs prophecy to be inevitable. The norns knew better of course but their explenation is weak as paper. Choose something different and something different happens. And you are going to be the first in the records of history to do so. Alright. Sure. I agree by the way with what you said here.

I will agree here though that the game is not very clear about what changed. 

But we do see people make different choices towards the end of the game. Kratos says before the fight that he has been slipping back into his old ways. We see Atreus decide to cross Odin at the end and destroy the mask, despite the fact that his curiosity throughout the whole story was the thing that started a lot of this. We also see Angrboda decide to get more involved after giving up, because she thought she wasn't important. 

Which one of these things made the difference? The game doesn't say. 

On a side note, I find it kind of fascinating that a lot of times having unanswered questions bothers people, and yet other times being able to speculate about what the answer is, a lot of people view as the mark of good writing. From Software's games get so much praise for their lore, particularly that there's this mix of a lot of it, and yet there's so many things that it doesn't spell out.

Yeah, I more often than not hate when something is overexplained in a story.

"Comic relief" doesn't feel like the right descriptor. But on the whole I also didn't feel that sad about Brok.

I felt more sad about Sindri's response.

Agreed. He sure was more than just comic relief. Especially in Ragnarök he was more important. And seeing Sindri so broken was really well done. Felt more about him aswell. With Sindri it is just: I can't see him blaming Atreus so hard. Odin tricked everybody, including Sindri. And Sindri helped Atreus find Tyr, even before the game started. This was all on his own. Nobody forced him to. But I guess it is still realistic to a degree: after such a loss it is easier to blame somebody than to work through the reality of things.

A lot of this is going to depend on how long you are taking to beat the challenges.

This person took about an hour and a half to find Tyr. And about 45 minutes for the whole Brok adventure to get the spear. 
So they very much had the opposite experience you did. 

But I can agree that it felt more like a gameplay driven storyline. It probably wasn't necessary for the story, but it felt a little bit more like an excuse to get a new weapon. 

That is a very fair point to make. I played way slower than beating the game in 18h like in the video. But just length is perhaps besids the point. It is also about how you use your length. ... ... Playing slow is on me. But there were no stand out action moments in all that drab uneventful lameness anyways. This is a bit hyperbolic. But it felt boring. The spear thing too. Breaking out Tyr should have been and easily could have been an event. It was a layup they missed. That is my feeling about this game in a nutshell.

To be honest, at the start of the game, I got the impression that Kratos didn't even think that it was necessary to agree with Odin. I think when that happened, he was just outright planning not to get involved in anyway. He wanted a passive agreement with Odin, instead of an active agreement. Mimir made it clear not to make any kind of agreement with Odin. And a lot of the sidequests show why.

Interesting take. Definitely subjectiv. I thought if Kratos would not agree, him and Asgard would be on super bad terms. Now you might be right with your take of the conversation, since later in the game Tyr/Odin says that even though there was no deal, Odin still honored it. Perhaps it was a passive agreement. But how can Kratos or Mimir or Loki (who is famous for his eloquency) be so bad at communication. Could not one of them have said that they want peace and will not search for Tyr even though they will not have a formal agreement? (Loki not, since he wanted to find Tyr, but for Kratos and Mimir - I don't get it.)

Because Ragnarok was the only way of getting rid of Odin. 

Odin just wants control, and he's shown to destroy all the giants, enslave the dwarves, and in general antagonize Vanaheim.  

Destroying one realm is preferable to destroying all of them, and that's pretty much how the options are set up.

We do see survivors from Asgard after the end.

Killing Heimdall might have actually been inevitable, since he had Gjallarhorn which in the entire game is the only way to Asgard not provided by Odin. If Kratos, Mimir, Atreus, Freya and all the rest behaved more diplomatically and did not antagonise Odin/Asgard from the very start, there might have been another way actually. But whatever, let's say Heimdall had to die. He was an incredible asshole and could really have killed Atreus, so good riddance. But Ragnarök - the monster formed from Surtr - was definitely not necessary. So hard disagree on that. All that monster did was devide Kratos' forces (Freya and Freyr) further. If they wanted an attack on Asgard without destroying the realm itself, just targeted at Odin, they could have blown Gjallarhorn and got in. Sindri with his little thingy could have crashed the wall. Kratos fought Thor anyways and won and turned his head right. Odin would still kill Thor. And all of them would still kill Odin. And Asgard would still stand.

And to your sentence about Odin having done incredibly evil things in the past: very true. But how long ago was that. Kratos himself did inexcusable things in the past. We accept his change. The only real dick moves Odin brings in the entire game are killing Brok and killing Thor. He killed Brok (if memory serves right) right after hearing that his most loyal servant, that is Heimdall, was killed by Kratos (who now has a streak of killing Asgardians). And he killed Thor when the self-declared enemy shows up with the end of the world in tow and Thor, by the looks of it, is letting it happen. Is Odin actually a good guy? No, I don't think so. But I get where he is coming from and more than that: he is never activly evil in the game, he just overreacts two times killing Brok and his own son.

Odin was personally and actively terrorizing the dwarves during the game. 

He also had his people terrorizing the regions on his behalf, throughout the entire game.