User:Pikazilla

In Production
I just want to start this by saying that I have been a fan of Death Battle since Season 1. I enjoyed Deadliest Warrior as well, the show that directly inspired Death Battle. I have always wanted to look into the science of combat in both history and fiction, and the resulting impact of this 'art of war'. I don't automatically agree with every argument or result, but I am willing to listen and accept if I character I like loses.

With that said, DB has some noticeable recurring and ongoing issues on both the show and community: especially regarding the overall mentality of Death Battles. I personally have become increasingly apathetic to Death Battle as a result of these issues. So I will explain my constructive / castrating criticism.


 * I also want to mention that I'm not here to complain about a character I like losing or a character I dislike winning. I hate bias and I try to avoid it as much as possible: I know that bias can easily derail any Death Battle discussion.
 * I'm not a fan of the 'shonen-style badboys' like Raiden (Metal Gear), Sephiroth, or Leon: but I agree with their victories, I don't hate these characters, I understand why they have fans, and if I did I wouldn't be salty about them winning. I like Luigi more than Tails, but I still like both characters overall, and the result of the DB doesn't change that. If Superboy Prime defeats Dan Hibiki, it won't mean I'm going to have to like teen-edge-lord Superboy Prime for being the superior combatant: Dan Hibiki is a comedic joke-character, that's part of his appeal and why I find him entertaining.
 * None of my arguments are about the combatants themselves. So if you intend to grab your torches and pitchforks against me, then you should know: I will not listen to comments that are nothing but hostility and scorn.

Highball vs Consistency
So fictional characters are obviously fictional, which makes it sometimes hard to pinpoint any precise facts about their physique. Spongebob could be karate chopping rocks and dragging an anchor for miles in one episode: and be unable to lift a soda or press the buttons on a tv remote in another episode. Superman could either get slowed down by a flamethrower, or survive a supernova explosion with relative ease.

But most characters, even superhumans, do (or should) have a consistent understanding of who they are. Leonardo and Gamera are both mutants turtles, doesn't make them identical combatants. Let's just say that Casey Jones is going to need a bigger cricket bat for the latter. And Ryu and Goku might have alot in common; but if Base Goku can destroy planets and fly at least hypersonic speeds, then Ryu is better learn how to crush more cars (especially if Vegito fuses with Gogeta and becomes SSJGSSJ 5 Ultimate Ultra Instinct).

Mario vs Sonic Remake: Stadium Blast

 * Mario Stadium soot / ko / Sonic Movie scene
 * First is how powerful was the blast within the tennis stadium? The hosts said it was 2.4 megatons of TNT. In comparison: the total energy of all explosives used in World War II, including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs, is estimated to have been three megatons of TNT. Question: is this stadium made out of Adamantium? It's not a nuclear explosion, it was an arsenal of Bob-Ombs. And we do see the Bob-Ombs explode, they have a blast radius similar to an actual grenade of that size. Why did Wario and Bowser even try to use Bob-Ombs against Mario if, according to Wiz, Mario was immune to nukes? Why can Bob-Ombs hurt and kill Mario in other games, both within gameplay and cutscenes?
 * Second issue is was Mario even within the blast radius? The blast produced alot of light, but that's not the same as the blast itself. Certainly Wario and Bowser were in the blast; Bowser's blimp was destroyed and both were knocked out by the blast. They are even covered in soot. Mario is, by comparison, not only completely unharmed but is completely clean as well. The scene never implies that Mario was within the blast.
 * Third is the Sonic Movie. We do see Dr. Metal Robotnik fire a missile that has a massive blast force. The final missile (the one that Sonic redirected) explodes so close to Sonic that the ground cracks beneath him. Was Sonic actually within the blast? That's debatable. But if Mario is given this much of a benefit of the doubt, why was this scene completely ignored by comparison?
 * This analysis has a conclusion that doesn't fit with what is shown in the scene, is using false assumptions, does not give both combatants an equal examination, and most importantly: makes no sense to the consistent depiction of the character. A character with a history as massive as Mario would inevitably have at least one 'feat' that would seem extreme or out of place, which is exactly why such moments need to be looked at more carefully. This has nothing to do with my opinions for or against Mario, he and I are both spaghetti-loving Sicilians. But I want to see regular Mario: not SMBZ Mario, not Mario Mario. Because even if I would approve of a Mario victory, I would not accept the victory if Mario was so highballed that he was essentially Thor: it no longer feels like a Mario episode.
 * Side note: The 'Castle Avatar' is another complaint I had, but this topic was already a volatile debate even before this episode aired, so I won't say anything other than that it's another example of an inconsistency that DB over-analyzed.

God Tier Batman

 * If we are allowed to use inconsistent outliers to highball our characters, then I can easily make an argument for Batman being able to defeat Spiderman, Ironman, maybe even The Hulk with physique alone. So here's an example of such an absurd argument:
 * Strength: Batman has been able to hurt Solomon Grundy with punches. Grundy has been able to match Superman in combat. Grundy scales to Superman. Batman scales to Grundy. Batman can lift infinity.
 * Durability: Batman has survived being assaulted by an enraged Darkseid (most noticeably in Superman/Batman: Apocalypse). Darkseid is on par with Superman, Superman lifts infinity, Batman has infinite durability.
 * Speed: Batman dodged the Omega Beams. The Omega Beams have caught up with Flash and Superman, both of whom are fast enough to time travel. Batman is fast enough to time travel.
 * If Batman's strength was so extreme: why then did he need nuclear bomb radiation, a nuclear winter to block out the sun, and a Mech Batsuit just to kind-of be match a restrained Superman in combat (in The Dark Knight Returns)? Why has he needed to, as Death Battle pointed out, consistently exploit Bane's weakness (his venom tubes) or use other unorthodox methods (run him over with the batmobile) in order to win? Shouldn't Batman be able to do things like throw cars, break through steel, overpower the multiple times he has been restrained instead of using escape-artist techniques? The reason why this argument is an inconsistent outlier is not because Batman fought Solomon Grundy only once (he has fought him multiple times), but rather it's because this conclusion does not match the MAJORITY of Batman's depictions elsewhere. It also has to be stated that Grundy, like Bane, has had to be defeated unconventionally multiple times by Batman: including electrical shock or knock out gas. Not to mention that Grundy's physique is highly inconsistent and Superman frequently uses restraint, so scaling Batman to these two in this way doesn't make much sense.
 * There are plenty of bank robbers, nazis and terrorists that have been punched by superhumans as 'normal' as Captain America to as super as Superman: and yet these badguys are normally just ko'd and thrown in jail. This is just one of many tropes within fiction as a whole which shows just how hard it is to scale characters in this manner. Superman has fought Batman multiple times and can either throw him across a room or throw him into space (aaaaaaand into the sun): but being a nice guy who avoids murder, Supes prefers the former action. Even the aforementioned Darkseid example was actually Darkseid trying to threaten Batman with brute force to stop Batman from nuking Apokolips: it's directly stated that Darkseid was actually unable to Omega Beam Batman because doing so would doom Apokolips. It would be more accurate to look at Batman in the most strait forward way: his armor. Now some fictional armor is used for ascetics primarily: the Saiyan Saga in DBZ has "Saiyan Battle Armor" that does little to nothing against the very common Ki Blasts: Vegeta never wears this armor again since he knows how useless it is at that point. Ironman (and his buddy War Machine and his waifu Pepper/Rescue) meanwhile always use their armor as armor because it still is good armor despite not being indestructible (makes me wonder why the Adamantium Suit (Model 31) was not used more frequently). Back to Batman: the modern depiction of the Batsuit is clearly armor, to the point where Batman is called 'The Black Knight'. Officially the Batsuit is a combination of kevlar and plastic (most likely carbon fiber reinforced polymer or something similar). It does make sense to describe the suit like this since Batman himself is mostly grounded in reality in terms of his default equipment: only getting absurd tech, krytonite or literal magical tools in Justice League or other crossovers where he could just obtain/steal such equipment. We do also see the suit function accordingly: being mostly resistant to gunfire, knives and regular fire. We do still see some flaws with the armor: The Dark Knight Returns shows Joker injuring Batman by aiming at the sides of the armor: this is done to make the armor lighter and more flexible, and so that the hardest part of the armor protects vitals like the heart. Either way: the standard Batsuit is not designed to be tank armor, and has never been used like that. If it was, then Bane would have easily 'broken the Bat'.
 * Batman's feat of dodging the Omega Beams isn't a very straitforward feat, especially since Batman needed to use a Parademon as a meatshield. Even then: the depiction of these Omega Beams are unusually slow in that specific scene. Regardless: if Batman is that fast: why does he need vehicles for long distance travel, why is he so dependent on stealth? Yes, Batman can use his skill to avoid bullets, even from Deadshot: but that's not a guarantee. Batman can't charge directly into automatic fire like Daredevil or Spiderman: he has to use evasion based more on tactics, use of cover, use of stealth, and use of surprise than physique alone. The speed feat must make sense in the context of other battles that the combatant has been in: Godzilla films would look alot different if Godzilla could run at hypersonic speeds.
 * Batman is stated, on multiple occasions, to have no superpowers. Sometimes he becomes a Green Lantern, or swaps powers with Superman: however these are the exceptions. He has no supernatural origin or genetic makeup or other kind of magic that would make him superhuman. To depict Batman in such an extreme way would rewrite the character into something else.
 * Not to mention that all three examples I listed here do use scaling between characters in order to reach the conclusions. Now comparing Batman to say Nightwing makes sense since both characters use similar weapons and are normal humans of similar physique. Goku and Vegeta are also very similar and can be compared to each other to some extent. But Justice League is diverse in the humans, superhumans, aliens, zombies and gods that they have: I can't assume that Superman has Darkseid's Omega Effect traits. Like Death Battle said, you can't compare Goku with Non-Saiyan characters like Buu: Goku can't do 'candy magic' or perform absurd regeneration. So saying something like 'Batman scales to Superman because they are both leaders of the Justice League' makes no sense. It reminds me of the term 'Spherical Cow': this is when a scientific explanation is so oversimplified that it becomes stupid or laughably absurd, like trying to describe the size of a cow by depicting it as a sphere.

Planet Buster Glass Joe
This is another example focusing entirely on 'Scaling': which is concluding that two different characters are on par with each other simply because they managed to fight each other. It's simpler, and I wanted to mention it anyways.


 * Here's the argument:
 * Glass Joe fights Little Mac, meaning they are on par with each other.
 * Little Mac is in Smash Bros, meaning he scales with other Smash Bros characters like Kirby.
 * Kirby is a Planet Buster, Little Mac scales to Kirby, Glass Joe scales to Little Mac: Glass Joe is a Planet Buster.


 * Here's the counter-argument:
 * Glass Joe is obviously inferior to the world champion Little Mac: losing to him twice (in the Wii game) and having an absurdly pathetic boxing record of 1-99 before facing Little Mac. Glass Joe is just too weak to be compared to Mac like this.
 * Smash Bros is a crossover game that exists within its own lore and logic. Wii Fit Trainer and Isabelle are devil slaying combatants in Smash: but they are very normal civilians in their own games. Smash is built in a way where Isabelle's squeaky hammer can slay Beast Ganon.
 * Glass Joe's physique within the Punch Out canon doesn't reflect the absurd conclusion. The Wii Punch Out cutscenes typically depict how the fighters train: Glass Joe shows no attempt to train or even exercise. Joe clearly gets dominated by Mr. Sandman, and his only known strength feat is destroying a brick building: which is nowhere near planetary destruction.

Scout is Spy
My final example of an issue with consistency comes from the Scout vs Tracer DB. Again I'm not against either character: I like both characters, and I actually support Tracer's win.

However DB Scout doesn't make much sense: primarily because of how they depict Bonk!.

The Bonk! scene has Scout using his Bonk! to block Tracer's Pulse Bomb, and the Bomb has no effect on Scout. In-game: Scout is indeed invincible, but is still affected by knockback from explosives. In the lore: Scout is clearly stated to be dodging attacks, hence why 'MISS' appears when he is attacked while using Bonk! Neither of these things happen.

Furthermore: Tracer is able to build up her Ult Charge by attacking Scout while he is invincible. But Scout is neither dodging nor taking damage: and yet Tracer (and any OW character) needs to inflict actual damage onto an opponent to build up charge. We see this ingame: you cannot build up Ult Charge if you attack someone who is invincible due to Baptiste's Invincibility Field.

And although the hosts confirmed that Scout cannot use his gun while under the effects of Bonk!, he is depicted using his bat normally... which he also cannot use during Bonk!

But the strangest thing is that he was able to use his Home Run kill-taunt almost instantly (despite the taunt taking 5 seconds to perform) and Tracer... survives it (despite Tracer being the frailest Overwatch character in terms of stats, and the kill taunt able to instantly kill a Heavy).

Scout is also allowed to use both the Pistol and Bonk! in the same loadout. By that logic, a Demoman Death Battle should allow him to carry 2 claymore swords: as awesome as that sounds, it's clearly unfair.

This reminds me of the 'Assume a Can Opener' argument: this thought experiment asks how someone would get food from a tin can assuming that they were stranded on a deserted island and had nothing with them, the most airheaded answer you could make is "well assume there's a can opener"... This kind of arguing is aimed at getting a great and simple result, even if there is no evidence or if the evidence already presented directly contradicts the argument. This depiction of Scout is using so many assumptions that are directly contradicted by what is seen in TF2: both/either in the lore and/or gameplay.

I am assuming that the hosts are just combining Scouts traits both from his gameplay and his expanded lore, but the result is that this 'Composite Scout' does things not found in either depiction. Ironically some Scout fans accused DB of highballing Tracer: since this depiction of Tracer uses the traits from her Cinematic depictions, where she can do about a dozen Blinks before exhausting her Cooldown and her Blinks are more mobile.

But I will support the hosts for not highballing Scout's durability during Meet The Medic, and these alterations didn't affect the end result: I just expected Scout to act more like actual Scout.

I won't spoil it, but The Winglet did a Tracer vs Scout duel as well. It's shorter but feels more genuine in depicting the characters.

Multiuniversal

 * https://character-stats-and-profiles.fandom.com/wiki/Goomba_(Canon)/Metal875
 * Green Lantern vs Alien X
 * The official statement is: "Hal's ability to kill Mandrakk proves his ring can damage higher-dimensional beings even beyond Celestialsapiens. While a Ben 10 creator claimed Alien X could destroy a multiverse in "six thoughts," this is not supported in canon and is likely a joke." The issue is that these cosmic characters are so absurd that we are trying to measure how many universes of power they are, before we in real life have confirmed the actual size of our own universe. The reason why 'multiversal', 'higher dimensional' and 'infinite' are used to refer to the most godlike characters is because it's so absurd to conceptualize anything beyond this. Not to mention that fiction doesn't always agree on which of these terms are superior in scale. Not all fiction recognizes the concept of a multiverse. If universes are finite: then universal < multiversal < infinite. If universes are infinite, then does multiversal > infinity? Can you go beyond infinity that way? I also want to mention that the food in Sausage Party are officially stated to be from the 4th dimension, but are obviously inferior to humans of the 3rd dimension in almost every way. It reminds me of a Toy Story 4 quote mocking the 'To Infinity and Beyond' quote: "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! / You can't go beyond infinity dummy, it's impossible. / He's talking about going to infinity! / Gonna go 'beyond' infinity. / You don't know nothin' about science."
 * Hal's accomplished far more universe-level feats than Alien X, such as overpowering the U-Bomb. Based on the greater size of DC's observable universe, this would produce 10 times more energy than Alien X's universal feat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5WDdvkFaDg
 * I personally prefer the Death Battles that have the most strait forward and simple conclusions, ones that don't look at calculations because they don't need to. These conclusions feel more concrete, because any potential miscalculations are irrelevant.
 * Hulk has been stated multiple times to have potentially infinite strength if angry enough, meaning he should be able to SMASH anything that can be SMASHED. But Doomsday has already been SMASHED to death in the past, which thanks to his adaptation revival powers, means that he's IMMUNE TO SMASHING.
 * Thanos' IG guarantees him control over his own universe, but True Darkseid lives within his own universe. The IG cannot simultaneously stay in the Marvel Universe and kill someone outside of that universe.
 * Ghost Rider and Lobo are both nigh immortal, but Ghost Rider actually has abilities and weapons designed to kill immortals while Lobo does not. Ghost Rider fights immortal demons and ghosts all the time, his arsenal is designed to fight Lobo: even if Lobo suffers so much damage that he is reduced to a spirit. And obviously the Penance Stare would screw up a madman who commits planetary genocide (yes the Penance Stare isn't perfect, but does work the majority of the time, yes even against The Punisher).
 * Also whenever an immortal character (with demons being the most common in DB for some reason) is brought into a DB match, they basically will automatically win unless their opponent can bypass their immortality in an effective and reliable manner. This is essentially what Ganondorf vs Dracula was about: who could land the finishing blow first. Such DB ideas need to be carefully approached: otherwise we get duels that aren't really fair because one of the combatants has absolutley no chance of victory due to their opponent's invincibility (Bowser vs. Ganondorf / Ryu vs. Scorpion).

GAME MECHANICS

 * Obviously: no 1ups or respawning allowed.
 * Pokemon Battle Royale
 * Wishcash Master Ball. Yes the game mechanic of 'the Masterball guarantees capture IF it's captures' is still clearly stated within the anime canon, it's just that throwing any Pokeball at a Pokemon doesn't guarantee that it will land. This is a good example of how context is relevant, and how game mechanics can be both right and wrong when applied to the other canons, or a realistic scenario. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfWc3QWxVp0 https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/794/555/19a.jpg
 * Crossover Canons are more absurd: Mario/Sonic at the Olympic Games (toned down to human physique, Bowser can outrun Sonic).
 * Basically why most Justice League leaders are on par with Superman
 * Yugioh monsters?
 * Dracula: Also, even when he's turned his body into some misty vape clouds, he keeps his head vulnerable, because video games.
 * Dracula: Also, even when he's turned his body into some misty vape clouds, he keeps his head vulnerable, because video games.

mob mentality

A high amount of fan-made Death Battles and Vs Battles are Confirmation Bias or Self-Serving Bias: organizing or distorting information in a way to conclude an outcome that the fan already made up their mind about, without even considering any facts beforehand; or making up or choosing evidence that is so absurdly for the fan's personal interest that it guarantees that their fighter wins.

Superman sadly gets alot of this. Feel free to debate about the whole 'is Superman infinite' argument, but some Fan-Battles I see depict Superman with his maximum limitations as: 'faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive'. And the bias is so bad that some Fan-Battles have Superman even weaker than this. This is less about poor researching and more about cherrypicking your evidence. I also see Fan-Battles where characters like Hulk and Godzilla use kryptonite against Superman: despite these rampaging brutes having no idea what kryptonite is, and the fact that kryptonite is not part of their arsenal anyways. Now if it was Thanos vs Superman then you could argue that Thanos could just use the Mind Stone to learn about Kryptonite and use the Reality Stone to produce a galaxy of pure kryptonite. But if Godzilla is allowed to use kryptonite, why can't I give the Oxygen Destroyer?

violent obsessive tantrums

toxicity can drag people into it, myself included. I actually developed a 'rule' on the internet: I will not reply more than 5 times in a row if I detect any hostility or aggression within it, because I am most likely talking to someone who is too stubborn to change their mind and too immature to listen. I actually tried to join a Death Battle Podcast Group and I was rejected for 'changing my mind' during a debate, the host said that I shouldn't be doing that: it was either alien or taboo to him, it sounds illogical but he was very serious.

What DB consistently does good. Clearly defined rules (normally), no outside support, 1-hit-ko moves don't always guarantee victory (Jojo/Kenshiro).

My Death Battle Mentality
In conclusion: I just want to explain and simplify how I view a Death Battle.


 * 1) Accept the fact that the character you prefer or that you think would win the fight still has a good chance of losing, if that's what the evidence concludes. If you cannot accept such a loss, then don't bother debating: you have too much bias to begin with.
 * 2) Feel free to check what other fans think of the suggested Death Battle: but take their information and advice with a grain of salt. Do not assume that you must follow the rules or must accept everything that person says: everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
 * 3) *This includes the Death Battle show itself. If Mario vs Sonic can have two opposite different analyses and conclusions, then that can be the case for any official Death Battle. The hosts have stated multiple times (in the Q&As) that the Death Battle show is purely for entertainment and that they aren't trying to be the 'official' judges of Vs Battles.
 * 4) Simplify the physique, tools and abilities of the characters using consistency over outliers. If two traits appear similar, then any advantage would be minor and most likely not a deciding factor: unless the duel is indeed that close and precise. (The term 'Occam's Razor' is essentially this: a simple and strait forward conclusion is more relevant and easier to work with than one that is over-complicated. This isn't to discard evidence and facts: it's to make an analysis more manageable. Keep in mind that the majority of fiction writers don't know everything about math or physics and don't need to apply scientific accuracy to their characters: which is Superman's entire history in a nutshell.)
 * 5) *If a character's power is steady overtime (Crash Bandicoot, Solid Snake, Wolverine, Spiderman and many of the -actual- Avengers) then do not use evidence that is contradicted over 90% of the time. If "Spiderman punched Hulk into space", but never did this to say Rhino: then it's either an outlier or you are missing important information (like that Spiderman gained cosmic powers during this feat )
 * 6) *If a character clearly improves or gets stronger overtime (Goku, Naruto, Luffy, Aang, Doomsday) then only consider the limitations they demonstrated in the past if it's not contradicted by a newer feat.
 * 7) *Look at the concept of the character and determine how that would affect their fighting abilities and limitations: Batman not having superpowers, Hulk being fueled by rage.
 * 8) **Ask questions regarding a character's nature and limitations like: What is this character's definition of 'godlike power' or 'immortality', has this character shown vulnerabilities that contradict these statements? Why does this character not kill and how does this affect a Death Battle, could a 'non-lethal' arsenal (like what Batman uses) still be relevant in a Death Battle? Why are multiple depictions of Superman inconsistent, is this dependent on experience or restraint?
 * 9) Never make assumptions and over-calculations: use information and evidence that is strait forward.
 * 10) *Just sit back, relax, and open your eyes: look at the depiction in your conclusion, and compare it to the depiction of the character from their original canon. Detect any contradictions, confirm if an outlier or a scientific/mathematical error is affecting your result, fix the issue, and reexamine.
 * 11) Deduce what would be a 'neutral' battleground for both combatants to determine if that would affect the fight.
 * 12) Look at reasonable arguments and counter arguments that don't involve 'cheating' and fits the mentality of the characters.
 * 13) Don't over-complicate the analysis or the layout of the battle.
 * 14) Accept the possibility that both characters have a chance of winning, but determine the winner by who has the most likely outcome.
 * 15) Accept any constructive criticism or debates, but don't create or get dragged into a flamewar. Agree to disagree.

Death Battle is just a bit more interesting than a normal crossover because they are trying to get an answer. So while Jigglypuff vs Kirby is fun in Smash Bros, I don't see how Puff has the stuff to win in a Death Battle. Personally I would enjoy a duel so long as it is well directed and entertaining. The discussions can also be fun, if the discussions are civil.

Ultimately I-- Ganondorf/Dracula Q&A "There are obviously different ways to setup a Death Battle, you can apply different rules and different scenarios for any of these fictional battles: IT'S FICTION, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT" - Wiz/Ben