Which did it better, GT or Super?

Discussion specifically regarding the "Dragon Ball Super" TV series premiering July 2015 in Japan, including individual threads for each episode.

Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:03 pm

SmugStick wrote:GT, as far as I’m concerned, only had one good arc; Baby. But it was REALLY good. The ending was also great and the music is fantastic. Super’s music got better at the end, but like GT I’d argue that it only has one good arc; Gokū Black. The ending was okay. But the tournament of power had some great highlights even if brief. Honestly, it’s realky tough to say.
Dude the last post in this thread was in May. Necro posting isn't a good thing. But if we must...

As far as I'm concerned Super completely blows GT out of the water in every way. The Zamasu Arc may possibly be the best arc, but it completely crushes anything GT produced even if the Baby arc was pretty decent. IMO the ToP is better than the Zamasu arc and both are all-time top tier arcs that makes GT look like a joke in comparison.

User avatar
SmugStick
Patreon Supporter
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SmugStick » Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:27 pm

PFM18 wrote:
SmugStick wrote:GT, as far as I’m concerned, only had one good arc; Baby. But it was REALLY good. The ending was also great and the music is fantastic. Super’s music got better at the end, but like GT I’d argue that it only has one good arc; Gokū Black. The ending was okay. But the tournament of power had some great highlights even if brief. Honestly, it’s realky tough to say.
Dude the last post in this thread was in May. Necro posting isn't a good thing. But if we must...

As far as I'm concerned Super completely blows GT out of the water in every way. The Zamasu Arc may possibly be the best arc, but it completely crushes anything GT produced even if the Baby arc was pretty decent. IMO the ToP is better than the Zamasu arc and both are all-time top tier arcs that makes GT look like a joke in comparison.

Yikes. Gotta disagree with ya big time chief. The Tournament of power was nothing but cool moments here and there. The Baby arc had build up with a villain that had an interesting motivation and affectively achieved his goal. Also evil Bulma>>>
My immortal Phoenix died of food poisoning

Missions complete:
All Of Kai
All DB on DVD
Current Missions:
Dragon Boxes (Funi)
GT season 1

YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8udQV ... 4GFPrFEPzg
Twitter https://twitter.com/SmugStick

User avatar
sintzu
Banned
Posts: 13583
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:41 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by sintzu » Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:34 pm

SmugStick wrote:
PFM18 wrote:
SmugStick wrote:GT, as far as I’m concerned, only had one good arc; Baby. But it was REALLY good. The ending was also great and the music is fantastic. Super’s music got better at the end, but like GT I’d argue that it only has one good arc; Gokū Black. The ending was okay. But the tournament of power had some great highlights even if brief. Honestly, it’s realky tough to say.
Dude the last post in this thread was in May. Necro posting isn't a good thing. But if we must...

As far as I'm concerned Super completely blows GT out of the water in every way. The Zamasu Arc may possibly be the best arc, but it completely crushes anything GT produced even if the Baby arc was pretty decent. IMO the ToP is better than the Zamasu arc and both are all-time top tier arcs that makes GT look like a joke in comparison.

Yikes. Gotta disagree with ya big time chief. The Tournament of power was nothing but cool moments here and there. The Baby arc had build up with a villain that had an interesting motivation and affectively achieved his goal. Also evil Bulma>>>
The tournament of power may not have been the best written story but at least I was able to watch it till the end. Both times I tried re-Watching GT I ended up dropping it because of how boring it was.
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.

User avatar
SmugStick
Patreon Supporter
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SmugStick » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:21 am

GT’s DB Hunt is god awful, and 17/Shadow Dragons is bad too. But even so the latter two were more interesting than the tournament of power which was a drag in the middle. Nothing interesting happens until Jiren VS Gokū. But honestly, I do think super is better.
My immortal Phoenix died of food poisoning

Missions complete:
All Of Kai
All DB on DVD
Current Missions:
Dragon Boxes (Funi)
GT season 1

YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8udQV ... 4GFPrFEPzg
Twitter https://twitter.com/SmugStick

User avatar
Saturnine
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1515
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:44 am

Even the Baby arc had some very deep flaws to it. How did Uub survive being chewed up by Baby? It was established in Z that death is instantaneous when you get turned into candy and eaten.

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:30 pm

SmugStick wrote:GT’s DB Hunt is god awful, and 17/Shadow Dragons is bad too. But even so the latter two were more interesting than the tournament of power which was a drag in the middle. Nothing interesting happens until Jiren VS Gokū. But honestly, I do think super is better.
Yeah I think the story of fighters across the Multiverse fighting for their lives and fighting for thier Universe's life, just for the sake of the amusement of the supreme God of everything is more interesting than anything GT did

User avatar
SupremeKai25
I Live Here
Posts: 4079
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SupremeKai25 » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:15 pm

The funny thing is, Most GT fans that I have spoken with strongly believe that Zamasu is a garbage villain with trash motivations (because achieving multiversal peace and order is a stupid goal /s), but then they praise Baby Vegeta as one of the most complex and fascinating antagonists in Dragon Ball history (even though Baby is very similar to Frieza in terms of villainy and goals). Double standards, much?

User avatar
Green_Goblin
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:21 pm
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Green_Goblin » Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:51 am

If I can be honest and rank GT and Dragon Ball Super on a 1 to 10 scale it'd be like this:
  • Black Star Dragon Balls Saga - 6/10 (Despite everyone hating it, I felt it was a nice touch-up to have a "OG DB" journey in the 7th Universe)
    Baby Saga - 7.8/10 (FINALLY A VILLAIN WITH A TRUE MOTIVE! THE BEST POINT OF THIS SERIES!)
    Super Android 17 Saga - 3/10 (Too harsh on the fanservice with Android 17 being positioned as "Gero's top Android" instead of Cell- but still less than what Super did - and rehashing old villains from the 2 previous shows, too rushed, too dull)
    Shadow Dragons Saga - 5.5/10 (Why was it just "The Goku and Pan Show"?)
    GT on the average: 5.575

    Image

    Battle of Gods Arc - 3/10 (dragged retelling with no value to the story)
    Resurrection 'F' Arc - 2.25/10 (too quick, too dull)
    Champa Arc - 7/10 (Nice, builts the hype by mentioning story elements we never got to see...)
    Copy-Vegeta Mini-Arc - 5.5/10 (mediocre, should've been less "The Goku and Vegeta Show")
    Zamasu Arc - 8/10 (Finally! A MYSTERY! The unexplained things that popped on the way and dark ending ruin it...)
    Zen-Exhibition Match Mini-Arc - 8/10 (GREAT FUN! Finally Majin Buu is not asleep!)
    Tournament of Power Arc - 4.5/10 (D-r-a-g-g-e-d nothing! I really wished in every episode they'll show us Yamcha leading the Z-Fighters who were left on Earth in some sub-plot against invaders)
    DBS on the average: 5.464
    Image
Last edited by Green_Goblin on Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:56 am

Green_Goblin wrote:If I can be honest and rank GT and Dragon Ball Super on a 1 to 10 scale it'd be like this:
  • Black Star Dragon Balls Saga - 6/10 (Despite everyone hating it, I felt it was a nice touch-up to have a "OG DB" journey in the 7th Universe)
    Baby Saga - 7.8/10 (FINALLY A VILLAIN WITH A TRUE MOTIVE! THE BEST POINT OF THIS SERIES!)
    Super Android 17 Saga - 3/10 (Too harsh on the fanservice with Android 17 being positioned as "Gero's top Android" instead - but still less than what Super did - and rehashing old villains from the 2 previous shows, too rushed, too dull)
    Shadow Dragons Saga - 5.5/10 (Why was it just "The Goku and Pan Show"?)
    GT on the average: 5.575

    Image

    Battle of Gods Arc - 3/10 (dragged retelling with no value to the story)
    Resurrection 'F' Arc - 2.25/10 (too quick, too dull)
    Champa Arc - 7/10 (Nice, builts the hype by mentioning story elements we never got to see...)
    Copy-Vegeta Arc - 5.5/10 (mediocre, should've been less "The Goku and Vegeta Show")
    Zamasu Arc - 8/10 (Finally! A MYSTERY! The unexplained things that popped on the way and dark ending ruin it...)
    Zen-Exhibition Match Arc - 8/10 (GREAT FUN! Finally Majin Buu is not asleep!)
    Tournament of Power Arc - 4.5/10 (D-r-a-g-g-e-d nothing! I really wished in every episode they'll show us Yamcha leading the Z-Fighters who were left on Earth in some sub-plot against invaders)
    DBS on the average: 5.464
    Image
You aren't really being fair to Super because you aren't considering it in a vacuum you are docking it for the fact that the first two arcs are retellings. That shouldn't be held against it, it should be considered on it's own and by it's own merit not by the fact that the story is also told in movies. Also, the Copy Vegeta arc is filler and not an arc, and the Zen Exhibition Match is not it's own arc it is a part of the ToP arc.

User avatar
Green_Goblin
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:21 pm
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Green_Goblin » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:08 pm

PFM18 wrote:
Green_Goblin wrote:If I can be honest and rank GT and Dragon Ball Super on a 1 to 10 scale it'd be like this:
  • Black Star Dragon Balls Saga - 6/10 (Despite everyone hating it, I felt it was a nice touch-up to have a "OG DB" journey in the 7th Universe)
    Baby Saga - 7.8/10 (FINALLY A VILLAIN WITH A TRUE MOTIVE! THE BEST POINT OF THIS SERIES!)
    Super Android 17 Saga - 3/10 (Too harsh on the fanservice with Android 17 being positioned as "Gero's top Android" instead of Cell- but still less than what Super did - and rehashing old villains from the 2 previous shows, too rushed, too dull)
    Shadow Dragons Saga - 5.5/10 (Why was it just "The Goku and Pan Show"?)
    GT on the average: 5.575

    Image

    Battle of Gods Arc - 3/10 (dragged retelling with no value to the story)
    Resurrection 'F' Arc - 2.25/10 (too quick, too dull)
    Champa Arc - 7/10 (Nice, builts the hype by mentioning story elements we never got to see...)
    Copy-Vegeta Mini-Arc - 5.5/10 (mediocre, should've been less "The Goku and Vegeta Show")
    Zamasu Arc - 8/10 (Finally! A MYSTERY! The unexplained things that popped on the way and dark ending ruin it...)
    Zen-Exhibition Match Mini-Arc - 8/10 (GREAT FUN! Finally Majin Buu is not asleep!)
    Tournament of Power Arc - 4.5/10 (D-r-a-g-g-e-d nothing! I really wished in every episode they'll show us Yamcha leading the Z-Fighters who were left on Earth in some sub-plot against invaders)
    DBS on the average: 5.464
    Image
You aren't really being fair to Super because you aren't considering it in a vacuum you are docking it for the fact that the first two arcs are retellings. That shouldn't be held against it, it should be considered on it's own and by it's own merit not by the fact that the story is also told in movies. Also, the Copy Vegeta arc is filler and not an arc, and the Zen Exhibition Match is not it's own arc it is a part of the ToP arc.
Here, I've rephrased it. I still stand by my opinion about the retellings, you can disagree with it, but that's my view. I'm being as fair as possible, I don't frame/grasp the series as you claimed I do. The retellings were bad, and that's it about them, each arc and mini-arc was viewed independantly.

buutenks
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1888
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:42 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by buutenks » Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:03 pm

I would say DBS is 6/10 overall.

And DBGT is 4/10 overall.

User avatar
GT_Goten10
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:46 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by GT_Goten10 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:17 pm

SupremeKai25 wrote:The funny thing is, Most GT fans that I have spoken with strongly believe that Zamasu is a garbage villain with trash motivations (because achieving multiversal peace and order is a stupid goal /s), but then they praise Baby Vegeta as one of the most complex and fascinating antagonists in Dragon Ball history (even though Baby is very similar to Frieza in terms of villainy and goals). Double standards, much?
nah I think Zamasu/Goku Black is Top 5 alongside Baby,Friezer,Cell&Omega Shenron
GT Fighter

User avatar
SupremeKai25
I Live Here
Posts: 4079
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SupremeKai25 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:27 pm

GT_Goten10 wrote:
SupremeKai25 wrote:The funny thing is, Most GT fans that I have spoken with strongly believe that Zamasu is a garbage villain with trash motivations (because achieving multiversal peace and order is a stupid goal /s), but then they praise Baby Vegeta as one of the most complex and fascinating antagonists in Dragon Ball history (even though Baby is very similar to Frieza in terms of villainy and goals). Double standards, much?
nah I think Zamasu/Goku Black is Top 5 alongside Baby,Friezer,Cell&Omega Shenron
That's fine, I am glad to see that you are the exception. Most GT fans I have spoken with on all social medias believe that Zamasu is just a cheap carbon copy of Baby Vegeta. That is a superficial vision to say the least. Very superficial.

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:35 pm

SupremeKai25 wrote:
GT_Goten10 wrote:
SupremeKai25 wrote:The funny thing is, Most GT fans that I have spoken with strongly believe that Zamasu is a garbage villain with trash motivations (because achieving multiversal peace and order is a stupid goal /s), but then they praise Baby Vegeta as one of the most complex and fascinating antagonists in Dragon Ball history (even though Baby is very similar to Frieza in terms of villainy and goals). Double standards, much?
nah I think Zamasu/Goku Black is Top 5 alongside Baby,Friezer,Cell&Omega Shenron
That's fine, I am glad to see that you are the exception. Most GT fans I have spoken with on all social medias believe that Zamasu is just a cheap carbon copy of Baby Vegeta. That is a superficial vision to say the least. Very superficial.
The Ending sucked but the Zamasu arc is easily one of the best in the franchise and blows away anything in GT.

User avatar
sunsetshimmer
I Live Here
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Poland/Equestria

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by sunsetshimmer » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:51 pm

My opinion didn't change.
But i can now rate manga as well and it isn't that bad compared to anime.
Zamasu arc is especially better, with Fused Zamasu not being such pathetic crybaby and Trunks not getting that awful SSJ Rage out of nowhere.
Entire concept of "Infinite Zamasu" was also better despite being Metal Cooler ripoff, but hey, it's still better than Zamasu becoming a wallpaper of universe.
Quality gap in ToP is even bigger. This arc was just disaster in anime but manga version can be enjoyable (at least for now) to the point where i never cared about Kefla in anime but i actually liked her because of manga. I think it's safe to say she is my favourite DBS manga character. She's just cool.

If i were to rate all 3 then it would probably look something like this:

DBGT: 7/10
DBS manga: 4/10 (for now)
DBS anime: 2/10

So while i still consider GT to be much better series, gap between GT and DBS manga is nowhere as big as between GT and DBS anime.
I don't enjoy DBS story at all, but manga at least is fun to read and proceed quickly instead of anime taking forever to watch and being full of lame fillers like Copy-Vegeta or Watagash.

Still, my previous opinion didn't change at all:
Worst GT arc (Super 17) is still at least comparable to best DBS arc (Battle of Gods)
That makes best DBS arc to be around 5/10 for me.
"I will concede that your feelings are worthy of the mightiest of Saiyans. However, there is more to my power than just this. Before you die, I will show it to you. This is the difference in power, between the primitive Saiyans and the evolved Tsufruians." ~Baby Vegeta

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:58 pm

sunsetsimmer wrote:Entire concept of "Infinite Zamasu" was also better despite being Metal Cooler ripoff, but hey, it's still better than Zamasu becoming a wallpaper of universe.
It isn't better. It makes absolutely no sense that he can clone himself a million times for no reason. The Infinite Zamasu in the anime was a function of his immortality; his physical body may have been destroyed but he was still alive because he's immortal. It actually used the concept of being immortal rather than in the manga it was random nonsense as per usual

User avatar
SupremeKai25
I Live Here
Posts: 4079
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SupremeKai25 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:13 pm

PFM18 wrote:
sunsetsimmer wrote:Entire concept of "Infinite Zamasu" was also better despite being Metal Cooler ripoff, but hey, it's still better than Zamasu becoming a wallpaper of universe.
It isn't better. It makes absolutely no sense that he can clone himself a million times for no reason. The Infinite Zamasu in the anime was a function of his immortality; his physical body may have been destroyed but he was still alive because he's immortal. It actually used the concept of being immortal rather than in the manga it was random nonsense as per usual
They both make sense.

Anime Infinite Zamasu is a direct result of the immortality of Fused Zamasu's soul. All living creatures need a body. It's only natural. So when Fused Zamasu's body was destroyed, his immortal soul endured, and merely latched onto the closest host: The fabric of the cosmos itself. Sure, perhaps the "Zamasu wallpaper" on the sky was far-fetched, but it was meant to indicate the immortal will of Zamasu taking over the cosmos, and becoming his own twisted idea of justice and order made manifest, at long last. And when Infinite Zamasu opened a path to the Present timeline, he merely used the same distortion in time and space that Trunks himself had used to return to the past in the first place. An ability that was foreshadowed by Goku Black, who was able to tear a rift into the very fabric of reality, opening a portal to what might have been the distant past, or the future, or another dimension altogether, or perhaps the very embodiment of his inner hatred and divine rage. He was a God, after all, so his fury was the mightiest, pure and above everyone else's.

As for manga Infinite Zamasu, I strongly believe that Toyotaro did a good job explaining that. You have to remember that Fused Zamasu is actually just Zamasu^2, it's a fusion of the same individual. So the two Zamases from different timelines merged at a cellular level, and this didn't merely allow them to remain fused even after the time limit was over, but also to expand their power altogether, gaining the ability to clone themselves. It was an evolution, made possible by the astonishing achievement that Zamasu had reached.

Ultimately, It's just down to what you prefer. Do you find the idea of Zamasu taking over the multiverse cool? Or do you think that a legion of endless Fused Zamases retaining the unbelievable power of the original is more entertaining?

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:15 pm

SupremeKai25 wrote:As for manga Infinite Zamasu, I strongly believe that Toyotaro did a good job explaining that. You have to remember that Fused Zamasu is actually just Zamasu^2, it's a fusion of the same individual. So the two Zamases from different timelines merged at a cellular level, and this didn't merely allow them to remain fused even after the time limit was over, but also to expand their power altogether, gaining the ability to clone themselves. It was an evolution, made possible by the astonishing achievement that Zamasu had reached.
I really don't see how this is sensible. They can just "expand their power altogether" just because they fused? That's not a real rationalization as to why he was able to do this.

User avatar
sunsetshimmer
I Live Here
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Poland/Equestria

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by sunsetshimmer » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:25 pm

PFM18 wrote:
sunsetsimmer wrote:Entire concept of "Infinite Zamasu" was also better despite being Metal Cooler ripoff, but hey, it's still better than Zamasu becoming a wallpaper of universe.
It isn't better. It makes absolutely no sense that he can clone himself a million times for no reason. The Infinite Zamasu in the anime was a function of his immortality; his physical body may have been destroyed but he was still alive because he's immortal. It actually used the concept of being immortal rather than in the manga it was random nonsense as per usual
Except that immortality wouldn't work like this. Zamasu was immortal so any wound was healed. So what was exactly immortal? Zamasu himself (soul) or his body?
If body, then after destroying it he should be just regular soul as any mortal, and not wallpaper covering entire sky.
If his soul, then his body shouldn't be able to regenerate at all in first place.

But after his body was destroyed (because as Goku said he lost immortality after fusing with Goku Black and destruction of that ring thing) his soul covered up entire sky for no reason.
And if he really kept his immortality and didn't die, then after Goku Black's death (and so - unfusing) he should just regenerate again.
How does it make sense to have both immortal body and soul, yet after fusing (which fuses both body and soul) only losing body immortality?
"I will concede that your feelings are worthy of the mightiest of Saiyans. However, there is more to my power than just this. Before you die, I will show it to you. This is the difference in power, between the primitive Saiyans and the evolved Tsufruians." ~Baby Vegeta

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:32 pm

sunsetshimmer wrote:
PFM18 wrote:
sunsetsimmer wrote:Entire concept of "Infinite Zamasu" was also better despite being Metal Cooler ripoff, but hey, it's still better than Zamasu becoming a wallpaper of universe.
It isn't better. It makes absolutely no sense that he can clone himself a million times for no reason. The Infinite Zamasu in the anime was a function of his immortality; his physical body may have been destroyed but he was still alive because he's immortal. It actually used the concept of being immortal rather than in the manga it was random nonsense as per usual
Except that immortality wouldn't work like this. Zamasu was immortal so any wound was healed. So what was exactly immortal? Zamasu himself (soul) or his body?
If body, then after destroying it he should be just regular soul as any mortal, and not wallpaper covering entire sky.
If his soul, then his body shouldn't be able to regenerate at all in first place.

But after his body was destroyed (because as Goku said he lost immortality after fusing with Goku Black and destruction of that ring thing) his soul covered up entire sky for no reason.
And if he really kept his immortality and didn't die, then after Goku Black's death (and so - unfusing) he should just regenerate again.
How does it make sense to have both immortal body and soul, yet after fusing (which fuses both body and soul) only losing body immortality?
He wasn't completely immortal because he fused with Black. Hence the half Purple Goo type form. This is why he couldn't instantly regenerate either. He is still ultimately immortal in the sense that he cannot be killed. Trunks was unable to kill him because he is immortal. It is perfectly reasonable
Last edited by PFM18 on Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply