User blog:Pikazilla/Top 5 Most Accurate DB Episodes

Goku vs Superman 1
Addressing DBS is a bit premature to do, considering that the series is still around and still growing. But basically, BOTH Blue-Goku and Superman are so godlike in their power that it's nearly impossible to confirm anything about them: other than their clearly defined concepts.

But as far as the first episode goes, as in analyzing Goku in DBZ (and even DB GT), I fully support it. While several other people, including other Death Battle blogs, have made their own calculations about Goku and Superman; many of them have a pro-Goku bias; mainly by over-exaggerating things (like saying dodging a laser means you're faster than light, which BTW isn't automatically the case for say Spiderman) or by obvious miscalculations (like considering Superman's lifting Earth as his LIMIT, which clearly isn't since he can maintain this feat for a full week literally without a sweat) or by exploiting outliers or biased lowballing or, which is either my most or least favorite argument, declaring EVERY epic feat by Superman as invalid or 'NONCANON'.

What I like about the post-battle analysis is that the hosts did their absolute best in confirming Goku's traits; even discussing the issue with 3 different DBZ fan websites for assistance. Honestly, if someone is against this conclusion, I'm assuming it's out of denial. If these massive fansites can admit defeat, and you can't, then you're not a true fan. You just have a compulsive disorder.

But to oversimply the conclusion, here it is;

In DBZ, Goku has NEVER showed the strength to move a planet, has NEVER been indestructible, has NEVER been flawless otherwise. Has Superman moved planets? Yeah. Has Superman survived some crazy shit? Yeah.

I honestly don't know if DBS was created soley to respond to this Death Battle, most likely not but it's quite a coincidence. Honestly I thought Goku would win at first, but I admit that I had no idea of Superman's history in the comics. If anything I overestimated the ascetics of ki auras, kamehamehas and anime in general. But a more 'boring' or 'kidfriendly' combatant is not the more inferior combatant; Batman might be edgier than Astroboy, but I know the latter is going to win (as in just fucking rip him in half).

Batman vs. Spider-Man.
What was clearly mentioned in the analysis is that Batman's greatest feats are longterm tactics or plot armor: things that are irrelevant in a gladiator match against an unknown oppoent. I also noticed that Batman was declared to have 'been kidnapped more frequently than any other Justice League member', which as far as the 2000s tv series is concerned, that's probably true. Heck, I saw Batman get defeated by a single alien dog thing; he's not invincible. Even his most iconic rivalries, against Superman and Joker, are actually unconventional. Batman always needs kryptonite to defeat Superman, and that's something very normal humans (like Lex Luthor) can exploit and 'defeat' Superman with, and even then Superman can still win. I don't even know why Zack Snyder Superman acted like a full-blown-retard by CHARGING into a kryptonite bullet that he could have easily dodged otherwise (How Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Should Have Ended; watch it). And as for Joker; while Joker is a combatant his actual threat level comes from his evil master plans. In combat, Joker is easily overwhelmed without his trick weapons. If anything, if a relatively normal human can stand his ground against Batman, then Batman probably isn't that special.

Another thing to address is how Batman shares traits similar to other Spiderman villains. Spiderman defeated martial artists before (Kingpin, Kraven, Captain America) and has defeated gadget users before (Mysterio). But when it comes to gadgets, as DB mentioned, Green Goblin's arsenal is almost identical to Batman's (just more lethal).

And as they mentioned, Spiderman is known for his very fast combat while Batman focuses on ambush and stealth (which Spiderman can counter with his senses) and Spidey can survive non-lethal weapons easily. Spidey is also a genius, so you can't argue that Batman would win simply by dominating him in intelligence; because he doesn't dominate in this trait to a degree where he will automatically win. It's like saying Knuckles is smarter than Donkey Kong; true, but they are both still idiots so why would it matter.

I just do not see how Batman, fairly, reasonably, would win a duel against Spidey. The evidence is there, so how could you counter this much proof?

Hercule Satan vs. Dan Hibiki
As pathetic as these combatants are, the evidence is just so freaking obvious.

Dan can fire ki blasts... sort of. This 'superhuman' trait alone cannot be a deciding factor in a duel. If Dan gets beaten up on a daily basis by a highschool girl (who is also his student) then how the fuck would he defeat a WORLD MARTIAL ART CHAMPION? That's like saying 'Sure you have a Steelix, but my Magikarp has a slingshot so I will win.' Having a trait, even if it is superhuman, doesn't automatically mean a win.

And Hercule does indeed have the physique to be a record holding strong-man. Infact the only reason he's a joke character is that he happens to be in the world of hypersonic flying planet-destroyers. OF COURSE a normal human would look like a joke to them. It would be hilarious to see Andre the Giant lose to Kirby, but put him against Glass Joe (from Punch Out) and Andre is no longer the joke.

If anything, Hercule's combat skills appear on par with other 'badasses' like Zangief or Batman; technically human but still very capable. And speaking of Batman, Hercule also carries a nearly bottomless supply of random crap he can use in battle; like that freakin' SAM missle launcher. I don't see how Zangief could survive a missile, so Dan clearly can't. That's probably was what the jukebox ending was all about.

Terminator vs. RoboCop
Movie characters, especially those who exist within the films primarily, are quicker to analyze compared to tv characters or characters from old and long lasting franchises. With that said, it's also difficult to confirm things if there isn't enough screentime.

Boba Fett doesn't have this problem thanks to his expanded universes, but if he wasn't expanded upon he would have been very difficult to analyze. A similar issue occured with Toph and Yang, despite being legitament combatants they had such little screentime that DB had to focus much more on assumptions to fill in the gaps; which doesn't automatically make the episode wrong but it does make the debate harder to confirm and thus accept.

Yet surprisingly, the limitations of these characters have been depicted multiple times thanks primarily because they can simply be repaired if dismantled. Or in the case of Terminator, Skynet can simply build a new one. And since both of these guys are robots from the future, they have similar scifi enemies to face; bullets, bombs, super strong machines, even compactors. Either by theme or coincidence, DB's conclusion was very strait forward since both robots fought other robots not to differenlty from themselves and so their traits of intelligence, skill and tanking hits are clearly represented.

Pokemon Battle Royale
Despite being one of the most controversial episodes (mainly because Charitards got pissy) it is clearly the only Death Battle that can be 100% confirmed. Like any other episode, there are an infinite amount of ways this battle could occur, but the game mechanics are reflected perfectly otherwise. Not only does Blastoise have the only moves to increase its stats in-battle (raindance, iron defense), but also has the advantage in terms of how his stats are in the 'rock paper scissors' weaknesses. Basically since Charizard is firetype and Venesaur lacks powerful moves, Blastoise could just outlast either of the two; making Blastoise the only one of the three to survive a longterm battle. This can even be tested out with actual gameplay experimentation and simulated duels: which probably was the case considering the stock footage. Venasaur's Solar Beam can also be blocked with Protect.