God of War Designer Jubilant Over Obama Win

David Jaffe, famed designer of the God of War series, is ecstatic over Barack Obama’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election.

As GP sister-site GameCulture reports, Jaffe’s morning-after blog is typically candid: 



…bleeping thank you America!


Now let’s just hope Obama can really do what he says and bring ALL OF US together…Democrats, Independents, AND Republicans!


What an amazing night!


Bleep, I’d hug Bill O’Reilly at this point!


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Uh.. Not to mention the Holier than thou Religious Platform she ran on? No Thanks, I don’t want  somebody that stated that the war in Iraq was a "Religious War" in office..

  2. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    Let’s all thank Clinton for that.

    like NAFTA, which made money intially, but caused the a lot of manufactures to go overseas because transporting goods to America became more profitable than making them here. That did wonders for the job market and helped the economy in the long run, didn’t it?

    The only surplus we had in goverment funds when Clinton was in office was the funds stuck back for national emergencies. How many did we have when Clinton was in office? none. Other than that he was just as much in the red as the rest of them.

  3. 0
    Erik says:

    I know that Obama wants to get us out of that failure of an invasion of Iraq.  While McCain on the other hand wanted us to keep sacrificing soldier’s lives for an occupation that neither the American or Iraqi people want.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  4. 0
    Krono says:

    Why does everyone hate Palin!?

    Probably because she came off as a ditz to a lot of people for various reasons. The ethical questions that the media dirt digging raised, along with blunders like the campaign buying her some clothes did not help to counter that image.


  5. 0
    Lazier Than Thou says:

    Why does everyone hate Palin!?  As a conservative, I was overjoyed when I heard she was picked to be the VP.  The only way I could have been any more happy with it was if it was Bobby Jindal.

    That said, I still didn’t vote for McCain

  6. 0
    Paul T. Farinelli says:

    I essentially voted for Obama due to the disdain I had for the McCain campaign after choosing Palin. That, and I agree more with him on foreign policy issues. However, I’m still a bit wary as to whether he will actually follow through on his "change". Either way though, it was inspiring to see a black man elected president. It gave me some much needed hope for this nation.

  7. 0
    Krono says:

    Yes, despite your side’s attempt to make the campaign about destroying Obama’s reputation rather than about the merits of his and McCain’s stances on various issues.

    When all is said and done, they’re of no greater than average concern than usual for a politician. Especially if the Republicans can manage to hang onto another Senate seat or two, which looks likely.


  8. 0
    Krono says:

    It kind of depends on when he took various contradicting positions, and what those positions are. There is such a thing as changing one’s mind based on new information or new circumstances.


  9. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I’ll wait and see what happens BEFORE sayingf it’s all going to go to hell.

    IF Mr Obama lives that long that is. Certain white supremacy groups have declared he’ll be dead before inaugeration.

    All they likely did though was get themselveso n FBI watch lists.

  10. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    Don’t assume that because I don’t support one party it must mean I support the other. Both parties are flawed and the people that represent them do not represent the people so much as they represent the party.

    Maybe Obama will be awesome and make me look like an asshole, but odds are he will suck just as hard as the Clinton, either Bush, or Carter.  Reagan was all right.

  11. 0
    mogbert says:

    I’m slightly more optomistic for Obama then I would have been for McCain. It’s a case of lesser of two evils.

    The problem with politics is that it is full of Politicians. At this point, just having the other countries stop pointing and laughing would be pretty nice.

  12. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Either he lied during the primary campaign, or he lied during the general election. He took far too many contradicting positions to do anything else.

  13. 0
    the1jeffy says:

    You need to do some legislation research.  Democrats have sponsored all types of "It takes a village" laws, including video game censorship laws.  Big Government, Big Education, these are liberal mantras, and have been used to propose Nanny-State Laws.

    "Family values" is an entirely different animal, and is blanket term for specific Christian agendas, that come from the "Moralist" Right.  The problem is that the Right fringe doesn’t want the government to raise children, they want to codify their religion into law.  Which isn’t nanny-state; it’s Blue Laws.

    ~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

  14. 0
    Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    "I’m going to be President for all Americans"

    Bush said the same thing. Look what happened…

    I think what people are saying that you can’t trust anything a politician says during a campaign (or elsewhere for that matter). Actions speak louder than words.

    My wife works in a position where she gets to interact with city council members and other low life scum fairly regularly. The stories she tells me about the self-serving wheeling and dealing have totally destroyed my faith on any politician actually doing what they’re supposed to do (look after their constituents). It’s all about preserving their political career and a win in the next election. There is no long-term thinking in any decision making at that level. All decisions are made based on whether or not it advances their political career, not based on whether it’s good for the city in the long term.

    Also I really don’t understand how the democrats get labeled nanny-statists when it’s the republicans, who’ve been running under the family values banner for about a decade or more now. That banner has become more and more intolerant against all kinds of things as time goes by. Just take a look at how the FCC has switched their regulatory position within the last decade. To be fair, it started during Clinton administration, but it’s really hit its stride during the Bush administration.

    From where I stand, both parties are just as nanny-state as the other one. The bias is slightly different in each party, but they both do exactly the same sort of crap.


  15. 0
    the1jeffy says:

    "I guess that people have never heard of a politician lying to get into office before."

    Wow, talk about naive.  GHW Bush, "Read my lips . . ."  The Dems in Congress in the 2006 election, "End the War in Iraq now!"

    Yeah because both were telling the truth. 

    I’d like to give Obama the benfit of the doubt, however.  His victory speech was telling, and reaching out to Republicans would be a good move.  Malkin is a wing-nut pundit and isn’t indicitive of people who voted for McCain.  Notice that President-elect Obama said, "I’m going to be President for all Americans," or similar, and not, "I’m going to reach out to the wing-nut fringe pundits and their allies in Congress."

    Look lets not pretend that kids turning off the TV (and video games) is a bad thing.  Child obesity is a real problem, and a sedentary lifestyle is a part of this.  Everything in moderation, even video games. 

    However, let’s hope that Obama doesn’t pull the classic leftist, legislate for the people’s own good, nanny-state nonsense that pervades his party.

    ~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

  16. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    " Now let’s just hope Obama can really do what he says"

    I guess that people have never heard of a politician lying to get into office before.  Like when Obama promised tax cuts for 95% of America during a time when our country has huge amounts of debt and a major bail-out plan was approved for the people who already have millions laying around.

    Folks, Obama is a liar (so is McCain, I didn’t like either of them). Keep this in your mind, if I am right then you won’t be disappointed. On the off chance that I am wrong, the world wins.

  17. 0

    Stop type-casting Americans. We don’t need a passport, period. Nothing to do with our second amendment.


    -Remember kids, personal responsibility is for losers! -The Buck Stops Here.

  18. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

    Enough already. I’m just glad the fight is over. The time for who-shoulda-coulda-woulda-won is over. The fact is: Obama is now our new President. And if we don’t accept his views, we at least have to accept that. All we can do now is give him our support, and write to him, rally, and let him know how we feel and what we want. The election’s over, but WE STILL HAVE A VOICE! Let Obama hear it!

  19. 0
    Verbinator says:

    "hillbilly Obama haters"

    Little bit o’ hate speech right there. Typical zero-sum Liberal ideology. Rather than address facts or even opinions, the way you make your side look better is to bad mouth, mock, and otherwise derogate that which opposes you. 

    It’s not Obama being President that bothers me so much as the behavior of those who would do anything, say anything, and compromise everything that even "That One" considers of value to get him there.


  20. 0
    Titantim says:

    My friend threatened not to return to America last election if Bush won, and he stuck to that promise. 

    I’m guessing that since only 27% of all Americans even HAVE passports, the hillbilly Obama haters won’t be going anywhere soon.

  21. 0
    Erik says:

    The republicans are just as bad with their goose stepping cult of family-values that they try to enforce on everyone and everything.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  22. 0
    Joran says:

    Liberals threaten to leave the country and move to Canada or Europe if a Republican is elected.  Where do Conservatives threaten to move?  It doesn’t matter anyway, no one ever follows through.

    Give the man some time.  Feel free to criticize him when he actually does something not related to the campaign and meaningful.

  23. 0
    DeepThorn says:

    If you look at the 10% he didn’t agree with bush, it was over stupid stuff.  Only once or twice was something of any importance.  I was cool with McCain until he chose Palin as VP.  That was the boulder that broke the camel’s back.  That lady how no right to be in politics at all.

    Obama made a lot of promises, and it will be interesting to see how he does.  I didn’t think any of the candidates were right for the job from the start.  We’ll see though…

    Nido Web Flash Tutorials

  24. 0
    Ashkihyena says:

    And thats a bunch of bull crap.  Honestly, now, I think about leaving the country now that Obama is elected, but unfortunly, I wouldn’t have anywhere to go.

  25. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    And Republicans hate anyone who isn’t some denomination of Christ-believes, socialist, liberals, etc.

    Both parties suck. The end. But FUCK I would gotten out of here of McCain won. If that happened. fuck America. I couldn’t take the idiocy of electing another Bush, and don’t give me no bullshit he isn’t, he even said it himself, that he voted with Bush over 90%; that’s TOO fucking close to Bush to be comfortable.

  26. 0
    Doomsong says:

    Yup, interesting that the party that toted "change" is the same one who tries to ban every form of free thought if they think people can’t decide on their own how to handle it.

    Don’t forget the PMRC….

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" – Benjamin Franklin

  27. 0
    sheppy says:

    Actually, of the three, Sony has the MOST first and second party studios.  All told, over 45 companies/internal teams working under the Sony umbrella.  This is better than the Nintendo 12 and Microsoft… hell, who haven’t they closed down yet?

    Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.

  28. 0
    Father Time says:

    What’s your source for them thiking about MGS4 for the 360. They’ve been preetty adamant about not porting it for a while now.


    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  29. 0
    Tyler Baumbarger says:

    Also, don’t forget that both of those franchises were on Nintendo before they were on PlayStation. And the Twin Snakes was on Gamecube. And FFXI is on PC and 360 as well.

    I think Nintendo and Microsoft are the only companies that have their own in house development teams for games. I’m pretty sure Sony has only second and third party publishers.

       Relationships often end with both a bang and a whimper. – http://himynameistyler.com

  30. 0
    J.Alpha.Gamma says:

    Oh. Crap, my bad.

    But it did increase the MGS4 hype.

    And I think Snake was the reason Nintendo added all that detail to the characters. I was a bit surprised to see the denim of Mario’s overalls.

  31. 0
    Keddren says:

    Do you know why no one spoke out for games?  Because it was a total non-issue.  Nobody cares.  Or, more to the point, games are so very far down the list of worthy discussion points during this time of financial crisis that to devote any kind of time/money to its discussion would have been laughed off the airwaves.

  32. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    We want certain increases, yes, but we want far more destroyed than is created.

    So religion should be banned then? Ideals are worthless words if you don’t apply them. To say that religion should have no place in public life is little better than the total ban that Communists enforce. There is nothing wrong with enacting a policy based on your religion. If the electorate of the representatives district honestly opposed his religious beliefs, they wouldn’t have appointed them. So saying that religion is not a legitimate basis for laws is, essentially, to say that the population should only be listened to when it’s convenient for those in power. I.e. it’s undemocratic.

    So you victimize yourself and try to give yourself the moral highground? 

  33. 0
    Tyler Baumbarger says:

    Republicanism as an ideal still exists. Both parties are becoming increasingly statist.

    I never stated that the democrats didn’t want to legislate morality. I was simply using that as a counterpoint to show you that republicans are just as bad in wanting larger governments.

    Most laws are in fact legislated morality. However, the problems lie when the morality comes from religious roots. As we are not supposed to be bound by the religious beliefs of others, those laws should not be enacted. There are many laws that I believe should be repealed on the grounds of them crossing certain lines.

    And I’m pretty sure I mentioned the democrats having more power than is comfortable in talking about them having the majority of the houses. But as I said, the party lines have skewed quite a bit. There are many congressional debates that occur between congressmen who belong to the same party. Congressional votes aren’t always split right down the party line, you’ll see republicans agreeing with a democrats bill while a half dozen democrats vote against it.

    I choose not to continue this debate here, as it is far off topic for this discussion. I also feel that debating elsewhere would get us nowhere, as I find that you seem to be attacking me while I am just offering counterpoints to your volatile speech that seems to be more focused on making me look like the bad guy for simply stating something, rather than you offering any true insight or recognition to my arguments. Besides, I doubt that my sociopolitical beliefs would make you suddenly experience the rapture and change your mind about yours.

    Feel free to comment back, trying to make me look like a coward or a fool. I will not respond. Good day.

       Relationships often end with both a bang and a whimper. – http://himynameistyler.com

  34. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Boy, you haven’t been paying attention. Where were you when Barney Frank was saying he wants to cut the defense budget? Where were you when Pelosi said she wanted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Did you realize that most of the Republican party does not like Bush? Have you been so indoctrinated into the Democrat narrative that you actually think that Bush=Republilcan? The Democrats think you’re stupid. They think your a bigot. In their minds, they need to descend from the heavens to show you the "proper" way to do things. To them, that means State control of the means of production, "multilateralism" even though it doesn’t work, control over all media forms, and attacking all of their opponents as Hitler incarnate. If some Republican idiot helps them get there, so be it.

    When you say that we wan’t to "legislate morality", you’re ignoring that the Democrats want to do the exact same things. They want to force kids to think that marriage is a term with no meaning. They want tax-payer funded abortion on demand, as a form of birth control. Embryos do not have to be destroyed to do any kind of research, either. Besides, what are laws, but legislated morality? 

    What’s going to start happening is that all Republican ideas will be discarded. All Republican objections will be overridden, and Republicans might be lucky if they can escape jail if "anti-racism" laws go into place. Democrats own all three branches of government now. There is nothing to stop them from ramming through as much social, economic, and speech regulation as they can.

  35. 0
    Tyler Baumbarger says:

    I didn’t say it would work. I just said that that is the idea behind it.

    Democrats don’t want a weak military. No one does. That would be a bad idea for any nation. They just see how it would be done differently. Republicans want to legislate morality (gay marriage, embryotic stem cell research, abortion), how is that not controlling?

    The main difference that exists between D & R is that republicans want to control social issues while democrats want to control business issues. The only thing is that they both play to eachothers and their own bases. So you’ll see conservative democrats and liberal republicans.

    The party lines have been skewed quite a bit lately. They both seem to be supporting bigger government, but in different ways. (See Homeland Security, U.S.A.PATRIOT act, and the previous issues mentioned.) Personally, I believe that the two party system is outdated, unfair, and incredibly useless. People often just vote their party even if they disagree with certain issues that their party holds.

    Example: Lets say that a man is a republican, however he opposes the death penalty. He agrees with a number of other issues, so he remains in the party. He votes for his party candidate, who supports capital punishment, and by association votes on the pro side of capital punishment. His only other choice is the democrat who he disagrees with on many issues, or he could vote for one of the smaller parties which pretty much never win because so many people have the same sense of party loyalty. The same could be done with a democrat who opposes abortion.

    The choices we are presented with have become the lesser of two evils. We are forced to decide which issues we can live with even if we disagree and which we have to stand by. The two major parties take up so much time and space that the lesser candidates have no chance of winning any serious power. Even Ross Perot proved that it’s not how much money you spend, it’s the party allegiance that ultimately prevents any third party candidate from winning. (Though, he was bat shit crazy. So it coulda been either way.)

    I’m not a Democrat or Republican. I voted Obama because I can live with the issues he supports that I do not.

    And the idea of working together is not that everyone will be like "That’s a great idea! I was wrong before! Yay for Obama!" The idea is to come to a decision that everyone can agree with. Hence the three branches of government. (Though with democrats controlling the majority of the houses now, we will see more filibusters than we used to.)

       Relationships often end with both a bang and a whimper. – http://himynameistyler.com

  36. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

    Tell you the truth, I wouldn’t have been any happier had McCain won. There was no one who spoke out for games.

    It’s a catch-22. Right gets it wrong and left just doesn’t get it. The hypocrisy of conservatism and the herecy of liberalism. Like I said months ago: either way, we’re screwed.

  37. 0
    Father Time says:

    No he’s just a liberal he said so himself when he defended calling Palin a MILF.


    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  38. 0
    Father Time says:

    Flowers for Bill tha\en? I hope goes better than the ones for Jack.


    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  39. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    You seriously believe that? I got bad news for you, but the Republicans and Democrats have different ideas of how to fix everything. The Republicans want a huge chunk of the domestic government dismantled, and a strong military. The Dems want a weak military and the government controlling everything.

  40. 0
    Tyler Baumbarger says:

    People can be for a common cause and still disagree with eachother. A sort of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." rationale can be used here. However, it is more of a binding as fellow countrymen that seems to be the goal here. Nationalism would play a strong role in this, however those of us who don’t take pride in happenstance would be left in the cold.

    Yes, I’m glad to be an American. But I didn’t do anything to earn it, so I have nothing to be proud of in terms of my nationality, I just happened to be born here. People who leave their country and get citizenship have something to be proud of. But, to each his own.

    The idea is that by working together and avoiding too much infighting, the greater issues can be dealt with. Such as the economic problems. If you have one group of people doing everything in their power to block another group, no matter what the intent is, you can’t have much progress.

    It’s not some hokey "hands across America" thing. It is simply puting aside differences in opinions to get some work done. A Republican may be against abortion while a Democrat might believe in the right to choose, but they both would rather not see the economy get any worse, right?

       Relationships often end with both a bang and a whimper. – http://himynameistyler.com

  41. 0
    Shadow D. Darkman says:

    "#$&@, I’d hug Bill O’Reilly at this point!"

    Who the hell would want to hug Billo?


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  42. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    I don’t like Bush all too much, but you have to at least give credit where credit is due.  He did try and bridge the gap between the two parties, but the Dems just wouldn’t have it.  He signed everything that came to his table (he used his veto power…what?  2 times?), and this included Dem sponsored legislation as well as GOP legislation.  He spent more on Dem ideals and programs than Clinton, but then again, Bush spent more than anyone…ever (main reason why I don’t like him).  The attempt was made.  Hell…it’s still being made.  The Dems just will hate Bush simply because he is who he is.

    Now, will Obama bridge the gap between the parties?  Well…his voting record shows that he’s one of the most liberal Senators (well…now President elect) in office right now.  Not to mention many in the GOP hate him simply because he’s him.  So in the end, will he change this partisan politics that are dominating Capitol Hill?  If he does, I’ll honestly be surprised.

  43. 0
    Baruch_S says:

    Obama’s going to have to fight down the ultra-liberal elements of the Democrat Congress, too. They’re not going to try to bridge the gap when they can try to ram legislation through the system that Bush has been blocking for the past eight years.

  44. 0
    Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    McCain needs to retire, not be in a cabinet.

    Anyway, I’m pretty sure Obama is talking to Colin Powell about some sort of cabinet position.

    Dubya claimed he was a uniter, then spent the entire 8 years he was sitting in that house to divide the country in two. Let’s see what Obama does. At least his campaign rhetoric wasn’t as incidiary as in past campaigns, so I’m cautiously optimistic.


  45. 0
    Shadow D. Darkman says:

    What do you think of Ashkihyena’s comment at the top of the thread?


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  46. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    I can’t understand why people think that Obama is going to go game censor crazy. He hasn’t made any comments leaning that way. He has said that kids shouldn’t waste their time when they have more important things like homework and such. But on the other hand, his tech policies that he wrote up back in the primaries makes it very clear that he supports self regulation of media. While not explicitly listing games, he lumped all media together. So why would he go against that and look like a massive hypocrite that way.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
    Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  47. 0
    Nocturne says:

    Yup, some are activing as if he said all games are going to be banned in his victory speech. Theres nothing quite like a bit of scare mongering/blind panic when the opposing candidate gets in is there

  48. 0
    thefremen says:

     It will be impossible to bring Republicans together with Democrats. Michelle Malkin and others are already calling for all good Republicans to oppose everything Obama wants on the basis that he wants it so it must be wrong.

  49. 0
    the1jeffy says:

    The ball is really in Obama’s court here.  He would go a long way towards bridging this gap by giving a prominet moderate Republican a position in cabinet.  Like giving McCain a Sec State position, or something. 

    It’ll never happen, but that’s the only way I see to bridge the D/R gap.

    ~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

  50. 0
    Zen says:

    That had nothing to do with Sony so much as Konami allowing the use of their character.  Sony doesn’t own the Metal Gear or Final Fantasy franchises as some people think they do for some reason.  Those companies put their games on the system they want, when they want.  That’s why the 360 is getting Final Fantasy 13 and Konami has made comments that they are thinking of bringing Metal Gear Solid 4 to the 360.

    Zen aka Jeremy Powers
    Panama City, Fl.

  51. 0
    J.Alpha.Gamma says:

    "Now let’s just hope Obama can really do what he says and bring ALL OF US together…Democrats, Independents, AND Republicans!"


    Yes! And while he’s at it he can convince Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to put aside their differences and make one console that’ll play everyone’s games!

     Like the WiiStation 360, that’s not bound to happen any time soon, simply because the three factions in question are in direct competition with each other. The closest I’ve seen of this is Sony allowing Nintendo to put Solid Snake into Smash Bros Brawl, and that was more of a "hype MGS4" move than pure fanservice a la Sonic.

    If that DOES happen, though, I’ll be the first to sprout butt-wings and fly away to Mars.

  52. 0
    Doomsong says:

    I wonder what Jaffe is going to be saying whe he has to alter Kratos to make him more "suitable" for the timid masses.

    How far can you swing a pillow on a chain?

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" – Benjamin Franklin

Leave a Reply