How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Discussion regarding the entirety of the franchise in a general (meta) sense, including such aspects as: production, trends, merchandise, fan culture, and more.

Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 20276
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: Skippack, PA
Contact:

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by ABED » Sat May 22, 2021 6:52 am

There's a tendency in nerd fandoms to basically turn their favorite stories into math problems, so to speak. Instead of concentrating on the substantive stuff of storytelling like theme, character, plot, etc. they judge it like an RPG. Games need logical consistency in order to function otherwise it's Calvinball. Stories don't need to work in the same way.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

User avatar
Hugo Boss
I Live Here
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:04 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Hugo Boss » Sat May 22, 2021 1:57 pm

Hulk10 wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 10:44 pm
Hugo Boss wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 10:37 pm
Hulk10 wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 9:13 pm I wouldn't go so far as to say that Universe 6 Saiyans are naturally stronger than U7 ones. You are welcome to think that but there is no real evidence for it aside from the ease they achieved Super Saiyan levels. And that is not enough to make such a claim. I don't even agree with the dragon ball wikia's listing of U6 Saiyans being called Evolved Saiyans, as they simply followed a slightly different evolutionary path.
I’m only talking about their normal forms, Super Saiyan is not the point here. U6 Saiyans don’t rely on Great Ape transformation to excel in combat, unlike their U7 counterparts. This is a comparison between the tribes, not specific individuals like Goku or Vegeta.
I'm aware. But your claim doesn't hold much water.
Why do you think so?

For context, Saiyans don’t grow their tails back once they grow strong enough. This information comes directly from Toriyama. So, in U6 Saiyans’ case, the tails became useless appendages in their evolutionary history.

User avatar
Hulk10
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:55 pm
Location: New Sadala

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Hulk10 » Sat May 22, 2021 3:31 pm

Hugo Boss wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 1:57 pm
Hulk10 wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 10:44 pm
Hugo Boss wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 10:37 pm
I’m only talking about their normal forms, Super Saiyan is not the point here. U6 Saiyans don’t rely on Great Ape transformation to excel in combat, unlike their U7 counterparts. This is a comparison between the tribes, not specific individuals like Goku or Vegeta.
I'm aware. But your claim doesn't hold much water.
Why do you think so?

For context, Saiyans don’t grow their tails back once they grow strong enough. This information comes directly from Toriyama. So, in U6 Saiyans’ case, the tails became useless appendages in their evolutionary history.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are stronger. That just means that they lost the tails. Toriyama said that Saiyans might not grow tails back past a certain level of power as a way of explaining why Kakarot and Vegeta stopped regrowing their tails. That doesn't mean that being born without a tail automatically makes a Saiyan stronger than tailed Saiyans. Goten and Trunks were born without tails because the tail is a recessive trait meaning it has to be present in both parents to show up in the child. So they were born without tails since only their fathers had the tail gene. Goten and Trunks were also much stronger due to the higher s-cell count they had due to having easy lives as children on a lush healthy planet.
"We became like friends, we became like good friends." Broly to Cheelai and Lemo about his fur pelt.

User avatar
Hugo Boss
I Live Here
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:04 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Hugo Boss » Sat May 22, 2021 10:35 pm

Hulk10 wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 3:31 pm That doesn't necessarily mean they are stronger. That just means that they lost the tails. Toriyama said that Saiyans might not grow tails back past a certain level of power as a way of explaining why Kakarot and Vegeta stopped regrowing their tails. That doesn't mean that being born without a tail automatically makes a Saiyan stronger than tailed Saiyans. Goten and Trunks were born without tails because the tail is a recessive trait meaning it has to be present in both parents to show up in the child. So they were born without tails since only their fathers had the tail gene. Goten and Trunks were also much stronger due to the higher s-cell count they had due to having easy lives as children on a lush healthy planet.
Read the last part of Toriyama’s answer. The tails are a high-risk high-reward trait of Saiyans. Losing this trait for a fighting species is basically telling you they grew past this risky ability to survive. Unless you can provide any other benefit for their bodies losing the tails, I prefer to believe in the author’s perspective.

User avatar
Hulk10
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:55 pm
Location: New Sadala

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Hulk10 » Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 pm

Hugo Boss wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 10:35 pm
Hulk10 wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 3:31 pm That doesn't necessarily mean they are stronger. That just means that they lost the tails. Toriyama said that Saiyans might not grow tails back past a certain level of power as a way of explaining why Kakarot and Vegeta stopped regrowing their tails. That doesn't mean that being born without a tail automatically makes a Saiyan stronger than tailed Saiyans. Goten and Trunks were born without tails because the tail is a recessive trait meaning it has to be present in both parents to show up in the child. So they were born without tails since only their fathers had the tail gene. Goten and Trunks were also much stronger due to the higher s-cell count they had due to having easy lives as children on a lush healthy planet.
Read the last part of Toriyama’s answer. The tails are a high-risk high-reward trait of Saiyans. Losing this trait for a fighting species is basically telling you they grew past this risky ability to survive. Unless you can provide any other benefit for their bodies losing the tails, I prefer to believe in the author’s perspective.
I did. I'm not disbelieving what Toriyama said. I'm just disagreeing with your view that U6 Saiyans are inherently stronger than U7 ones. That's all.
"We became like friends, we became like good friends." Broly to Cheelai and Lemo about his fur pelt.

User avatar
Hugo Boss
I Live Here
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:04 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Hugo Boss » Sun May 23, 2021 6:25 am

Hulk10 wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 pm
Hugo Boss wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 10:35 pm
Hulk10 wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 3:31 pm That doesn't necessarily mean they are stronger. That just means that they lost the tails. Toriyama said that Saiyans might not grow tails back past a certain level of power as a way of explaining why Kakarot and Vegeta stopped regrowing their tails. That doesn't mean that being born without a tail automatically makes a Saiyan stronger than tailed Saiyans. Goten and Trunks were born without tails because the tail is a recessive trait meaning it has to be present in both parents to show up in the child. So they were born without tails since only their fathers had the tail gene. Goten and Trunks were also much stronger due to the higher s-cell count they had due to having easy lives as children on a lush healthy planet.
Read the last part of Toriyama’s answer. The tails are a high-risk high-reward trait of Saiyans. Losing this trait for a fighting species is basically telling you they grew past this risky ability to survive. Unless you can provide any other benefit for their bodies losing the tails, I prefer to believe in the author’s perspective.
I did. I'm not disbelieving what Toriyama said. I'm just disagreeing with your view that U6 Saiyans are inherently stronger than U7 ones. That's all.
Yet you provide no reason to why they lost the tails, despite we having official background on this matter. This isn’t only my view. Cabba, despite not having Super Saiyan, is a very capable fighter, able to contend with Present Day Vegeta. Saiyan Arc Vegeta would look like a pushover in comparison.

User avatar
Skar
I Live Here
Posts: 2206
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:04 pm
Location: US

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Skar » Sun May 23, 2021 11:09 am

Shaddy wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 1:47 amI wasn't trying to make any specific accusations, just to say that it does happen to some people, and basically always will happen to some people. I mean, I'm not innocent. I brought up Sonic Lost World because that was a polarizing game that upset a lot of people, and I liked it, and personally can't wait for the nostalgia cycle to make that the game everyone wants to go back to.
To be honest, that's why I avoid online fandoms. It's fun to discuss a series you enjoy but I've noticed there's sometimes when fandoms get too heated and there's an unnecessary value judgement for giving your opinion on a certain part of the series. If you criticize anything, some people take it as an insult to their tastes and they argue you don't "get it" or some ulterior motive for criticizing it. If you like anything then there's like a need to justify why it's good or putting down something else to feel better.

Sometimes being a casual fan is easier since you can just like a story because you simply found it entertaining or don't like it because there was something that caused you not to get as much entertainment out of it. There's plenty of stories or ideas I've liked that I acknowledge many others don't think they're any good. The MCU for example. I've heard from some comic fans that it's dumbed down for the masses compared to the comics and not real movies by some critics. I can't really argue against those opinions. I enjoyed most of them and if I reach a point where I don't enjoy them anymore then I'd stop watching. The DB fandom is relatively friendlier than others I've seen so it's why I stuck around.
Well, that's my point, it's not really about the mere questioning of a power difference, but treating it like it's new. I won't lie, you see a lot of that response because I think people like myself made peace with things not always making sense in the older shows, so seeing Super brought up with these problems like they're unique or somehow particularly egregious, especially when a lot of the changes are deliberate to give more characters a fighting chance, it provokes that knee-jerk reaction.
After a certain point people express their opinions and move on which is why most threads criticizing the original series before DBS are buried by now. It's not new criticism just that most members who joined in the last few years weren't around to see the older threads. It's been three years since the DBS anime ended so there's not as many fans active on the forum as before. Many of these reoccurring threads are from new fans who recently joined and discussing them for the first time.

Eventually everyone moves on but they just want an opportunity to express their opinion without feeling someone is trying to dismiss it. Most fans with the harshest criticism and hated DBS have left the forum by now so anyone still around likes most or some of it at least and just think some of it could've been handled better. I think when someone is accused of only criticizing DBS it usually has the opposite effect since some threads would've died down quicker before this gets brought up and people argue about it instead. I already moved on from most of what I didn't like in DBS but I used some examples to explain why someone could disagree with certain powerups for reasons other being obsessed with power levels.
Well, I for one have seen complaints like that. I have definitely seen complaints that Trunks is kind of undermined and not given as much to do in the manga because of how much weaker he is. I think this might just be a spot where we'll have to agree to disagree though, since there's not a great way to track that.
I can agree with that but it's sort of what I meant by a fan disagreeing with power-up because they feel it went against what was established when there's an opinion in the story to make it more acceptable. Gohan was the only half-Saiyan known to get these kinds of rage boosts so it felt a little off that Trunks had one for the first time and went far beyond anything Gohan ever had. It didn't really explain why he didn't get a massive boost when Bulma died or during all that time running from Black. The Cell saga explained how Trunks became strong enough to kill the cyborgs because he underwent harsh training in a new environment since he last fought them.

I don't think anyone would be against Trunks playing a bigger role or getting stronger since the original series established that hybrids have huge potential with the right training. Goku and Vegeta were trained by the strongest and oldest master in the universe to learn God ki and reach SSJB. I thought it could've been a nice character moment if Vegeta entered the RoSaT with Trunks to train together while they waited for the time machine and it shows how Vegeta had changed since he was training alone in the Cell saga. Toyotaro might've kept Trunks as strong as he was in Toriyama's outline so Toriyama could've felt there wasn't enough time for Trunks get strong enough I guess.

User avatar
Hulk10
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:55 pm
Location: New Sadala

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Hulk10 » Sun May 23, 2021 3:25 pm

Hugo Boss wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 6:25 am
Hulk10 wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 pm
Hugo Boss wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 10:35 pm
Read the last part of Toriyama’s answer. The tails are a high-risk high-reward trait of Saiyans. Losing this trait for a fighting species is basically telling you they grew past this risky ability to survive. Unless you can provide any other benefit for their bodies losing the tails, I prefer to believe in the author’s perspective.
I did. I'm not disbelieving what Toriyama said. I'm just disagreeing with your view that U6 Saiyans are inherently stronger than U7 ones. That's all.
Yet you provide no reason to why they lost the tails, despite we having official background on this matter. This isn’t only my view. Cabba, despite not having Super Saiyan, is a very capable fighter, able to contend with Present Day Vegeta. Saiyan Arc Vegeta would look like a pushover in comparison.
Cabba is one of the strongest U6 Saiyans same with Kale and Caulifa but those are not necessarily representative of their entire species. Plus Cabba was surprised by the Super Saiyan transformation Kakarot and Vegeta showed. But one doesn't need to be a Super Saiyan to be a capable fighter but 3 Saiyans showing large levels of growth is not representative of a whole species. One potential reason is that they lost them due to the fact that when a Saiyan's tail is grabbed they lose power. The real reason they were lost is because the tails were tedious and easy to draw.

But I can see we are not going to agree on this. So I'm not going to continue this debate.
"We became like friends, we became like good friends." Broly to Cheelai and Lemo about his fur pelt.

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Shaddy » Sun May 23, 2021 5:56 pm

Skar wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:09 am After a certain point people express their opinions and move on which is why most threads criticizing the original series before DBS are buried by now. It's not new criticism just that most members who joined in the last few years weren't around to see the older threads. It's been three years since the DBS anime ended so there's not as many fans active on the forum as before. Many of these reoccurring threads are from new fans who recently joined and discussing them for the first time.

Eventually everyone moves on but they just want an opportunity to express their opinion without feeling someone is trying to dismiss it. Most fans with the harshest criticism and hated DBS have left the forum by now so anyone still around likes most or some of it at least and just think some of it could've been handled better. I think when someone is accused of only criticizing DBS it usually has the opposite effect since some threads would've died down quicker before this gets brought up and people argue about it instead. I already moved on from most of what I didn't like in DBS but I used some examples to explain why someone could disagree with certain powerups for reasons other being obsessed with power levels.
I would disagree. I'm not sure about threads explicitly made for it like this one, but I have repeatedly seen a number of users in threads, especially ones about things like "Where was X character used the best" or "which DB series has the best writing" using powerscaling as an explicit criteria for what does or doesn't make a good show, and I don't think they've all just up and disappeared. Many of them had been here longer than me, in any case.
Skar wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:09 am I can agree with that but it's sort of what I meant by a fan disagreeing with power-up because they feel it went against what was established when there's an opinion in the story to make it more acceptable. Gohan was the only half-Saiyan known to get these kinds of rage boosts so it felt a little off that Trunks had one for the first time and went far beyond anything Gohan ever had. It didn't really explain why he didn't get a massive boost when Bulma died or during all that time running from Black. The Cell saga explained how Trunks became strong enough to kill the cyborgs because he underwent harsh training in a new environment since he last fought them.
But this is where the endless digression sets in, doesn't it? How many places can you name where Gohan should have gotten a rage boost and didn't? The end of the Namek arc? The entire Buu saga? It's not only subjective, but provides so infinitely many instances of subjectivity that it feels kind of weird to selectively focus on what opportunities are and aren't taken without a firm base on what standard you're using. That's why it makes me question things like whether a problem that is excused in Z is being inflated in Super.
Skar wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:09 am I don't think anyone would be against Trunks playing a bigger role or getting stronger since the original series established that hybrids have huge potential with the right training. Goku and Vegeta were trained by the strongest and oldest master in the universe to learn God ki and reach SSJB. I thought it could've been a nice character moment if Vegeta entered the RoSaT with Trunks to train together while they waited for the time machine and it shows how Vegeta had changed since he was training alone in the Cell saga. Toyotaro might've kept Trunks as strong as he was in Toriyama's outline so Toriyama could've felt there wasn't enough time for Trunks get strong enough I guess.
But again, I'm not saying the path toward that strength is flawless or anything, just that we've been asked to accept flimsier before. I absolutely think Vegeta and Trunks, powerup or not, are underutilized and kind of shallow in Super, but that is not what I see when I watch powerscaling debates.

User avatar
Skar
I Live Here
Posts: 2206
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:04 pm
Location: US

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Skar » Sun May 23, 2021 11:12 pm

Shaddy wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 5:56 pmI would disagree. I'm not sure about threads explicitly made for it like this one, but I have repeatedly seen a number of users in threads, especially ones about things like "Where was X character used the best" or "which DB series has the best writing" using powerscaling as an explicit criteria for what does or doesn't make a good show, and I don't think they've all just up and disappeared. Many of them had been here longer than me, in any case.
I may not have seen enough threads to notice because I always assumed more rigid power level discussions were kept to the Power Level and Versus Battle threads. If it's on-topic to a particular thread, I guess there's not much that can be done unless it strays off topic and a mod intervenes. I've lost count how many Gohan being the main character and next generation threads I've seen. A lot of people reply saying "that's not DB" or that it's unlikely to happen but those threads still pop up from time to time. It's probably not the best suggestion but the only option is to ignore those comments if you feel they don't contribute anything. If I post in a thread and don't get a reply, I assume no one was interested and less likely to leave another comment in that thread.
But this is where the endless digression sets in, doesn't it? How many places can you name where Gohan should have gotten a rage boost and didn't? The end of the Namek arc? The entire Buu saga? It's not only subjective, but provides so infinitely many instances of subjectivity that it feels kind of weird to selectively focus on what opportunities are and aren't taken without a firm base on what standard you're using. That's why it makes me question things like whether a problem that is excused in Z is being inflated in Super.
Well it was just an example of having an issue with a power-up not because of the power-up itself but how it was achieved. I don't think that's really the same thing since we don't know why Gohan didn't get rage boosts in those instances but the story only established he could get them. Trunks didn't get one when Bulma was killed or when he thought Mai was killed so it's not asking too much to know what the difference was especially since it only happened in one continuity. When I first saw it, I assumed whoever wrote that particular episode remembered wrong and thought all half-Saiyans get rage boosts like Gohan.

That's kinda what I meant. Pointing out any minor inconsistency in DBS and you get a response accusing you only being biased against it with some examples of inconsistencies in the original. What's unique about DBS is the level of whataboutisms go far beyond anything else DB-related. It inadvertently makes DBS look worse because some people are assuming it will work in this case when it hasn't for GT or fanwork.

In the few times I've seen a fan writer attempt it, usually the response is that it's a bad excuse to avoid putting a little more time into the writing. Inconsistencies are almost always unintentional. That's why usually a fan writer admits that they overlooked or forgot something and that they'll try to avoid it next time. That it makes it easier for people to move on because the author is admitting it was a mistake and would've avoided it if they had noticed. I genuinely believe Toyotaro, Toei, and most writers would do the same if a fan asked about an inconsistency. I'm willing to overlook most of them because they were rushed and didn't have time to double check but I still hope it doesn't happen again if it can be avoided. I just really hate the concept of whataboutisms because it makes unnecessary assumptions about the other person and makes it difficult to draw the line of what can or can't be criticized.
But again, I'm not saying the path toward that strength is flawless or anything, just that we've been asked to accept flimsier before. I absolutely think Vegeta and Trunks, powerup or not, are underutilized and kind of shallow in Super, but that is not what I see when I watch powerscaling debates.
What makes you say that about Vegeta? Trunks I can understand but he only appeared for one saga which was relatively short. I'm not sure what else could be done with Vegeta since his arc ended. He hasn't fully retired yet like in GT and still contributes in fights and has some nice post-Buu saga moments. In EoZ, he's implied to still be one step behind Goku so DBS might be confined by that.

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Shaddy » Mon May 24, 2021 3:05 am

Skar wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:12 pm I may not have seen enough threads to notice because I always assumed more rigid power level discussions were kept to the Power Level and Versus Battle threads. If it's on-topic to a particular thread, I guess there's not much that can be done unless it strays off topic and a mod intervenes. I've lost count how many Gohan being the main character and next generation threads I've seen. A lot of people reply saying "that's not DB" or that it's unlikely to happen but those threads still pop up from time to time. It's probably not the best suggestion but the only option is to ignore those comments if you feel they don't contribute anything. If I post in a thread and don't get a reply, I assume no one was interested and less likely to leave another comment in that thread.
I mean, sure, but you can basically just use that for any discussion you don't like. I actually think this specific kind of critique creates problematic trends in rhetoric among people sometimes, so I don't see any issue in vocally disagreeing with the frame itself being used.
Skar wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:12 pm Well it was just an example of having an issue with a power-up not because of the power-up itself but how it was achieved. I don't think that's really the same thing since we don't know why Gohan didn't get rage boosts in those instances but the story only established he could get them. Trunks didn't get one when Bulma was killed or when he thought Mai was killed so it's not asking too much to know what the difference was especially since it only happened in one continuity. When I first saw it, I assumed whoever wrote that particular episode remembered wrong and thought all half-Saiyans get rage boosts like Gohan.
But I don't think how it's achieved is what's important to the power scaling debates. A rage boost can get the character to whatever power level the writers feel like, if you're talking about whether Trunks has earned it or whether it's a thing he's established to be able to do, you're not having the same conversation, really.
Skar wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:12 pm That's kinda what I meant. Pointing out any minor inconsistency in DBS and you get a response accusing you only being biased against it with some examples of inconsistencies in the original. What's unique about DBS is the level of whataboutisms go far beyond anything else DB-related. It inadvertently makes DBS look worse because some people are assuming it will work in this case when it hasn't for GT or fanwork.

In the few times I've seen a fan writer attempt it, usually the response is that it's a bad excuse to avoid putting a little more time into the writing. Inconsistencies are almost always unintentional. That's why usually a fan writer admits that they overlooked or forgot something and that they'll try to avoid it next time. That it makes it easier for people to move on because the author is admitting it was a mistake and would've avoided it if they had noticed. I genuinely believe Toyotaro, Toei, and most writers would do the same if a fan asked about an inconsistency. I'm willing to overlook most of them because they were rushed and didn't have time to double check but I still hope it doesn't happen again if it can be avoided. I just really hate the concept of whataboutisms because it makes unnecessary assumptions about the other person and makes it difficult to draw the line of what can or can't be criticized.
Well, I don't think that's really a fair assessment. DBS's problems run deep and the whole show suffers for it, but it's largely in ways that are unique to it, which power scaling isn't, so to focus on powerscaling while summarily refusing to hold the other DB stories accountable for it is, some percent of the time, to ignore larger issues with the show.

Like, I don't think that everyone saying DBS is bad because of power scaling would suddenly like the show if the power scaling were "fixed", but that's not because power scaling is a legitimate complaint so much as I don't think people complaining about it actually understand why they don't like the show, not when they're willing to excuse so much in things other than super.

And frankly if you think this rhetoric "makes the show look worse", I'd ask...how? It's the same show either way. I'm here saying that power scaling problems don't matter in any Dragon Ball series, not just Super. The problems that Super has that do matter are totally worth talking about and criticizing.
Skar wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:12 pm What makes you say that about Vegeta? Trunks I can understand but he only appeared for one saga which was relatively short. I'm not sure what else could be done with Vegeta since his arc ended. He hasn't fully retired yet like in GT and still contributes in fights and has some nice post-Buu saga moments. In EoZ, he's implied to still be one step behind Goku so DBS might be confined by that.
Yeah, that's kinda what I'm getting at. His arc ended, but he's still around, and does not as of now have a new arc. It's hard to tell exactly what he wants out of life, since his training before now was always in pursuit of beating someone else. But he's resigned to not being as good as Goku now, which makes scenes of him training as intensely as in the Androids arc...weird. Broly kind of gives him a motivation in wanting to protect Earth from Freeza, but that hasn't been explored much. It kind of seems like he's just Goku's grumpy training buddy at this point. He feels more accessory than person, since he spends a lot less time without Goku around than he did before. All of the moments the show keeps trying to give him tend to be repeats of older Vegeta moments. I guess you could make the case for him training Cabba, but he hardly seems committed to that.

Goku's struggling with this too, but he was obviously much more designed for a series that could last forever. He wants to be the strongest guy. So long as stronger guys (or strong in different ways, which I would prefer they lean into more) keep showing up, Goku will always have new or different problems to work through, and maybe save the world a couple times on the side. If Vegeta had something more like this, I'd probably not mind as much. At the very least, we're used to Goku being static, whereas Vegeta was more consistently changing across Z.

User avatar
super michael
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:05 am

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by super michael » Mon May 24, 2021 8:44 am

Shaddy wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 1:47 am Oh, I think I screwed up. You're probably right about that, I think it was the water. Guess I need to rewatch DB recut again.
It is no problem, after many years it is easy to forget some details. Sometimes I have to read the manga to make sure there is no mistake, although to be honest when I reread the manga I end up enjoying it.
Althought sometimes it might be incorrect depending if the scan I read has the right translation or wrong translation.

Shaddy wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 1:47 am Well, I want to be clear, I'm not saying you can't examine these things here. Don't only look at the positive side! My only real intent was to highlight that all of Dragon Ball has some issues with the power scale, and when we talk about the problems with Super, it's probably about more than just power scaling.
I guess your right, I should look at everything as a whole. Lets say if the characters I like were allowed to battle, maybe I wouldn't care about power scaling.

Shaddy wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 1:47 am Hey, you're good, bro. You saw how the other guy was acting. We disagreed, but I don't want there to be any animosity between us. I'm sorry if I got my wires crossed and accidentally took too harsh a tone because at the same time I was arguing with the other guy who definitely did not want to hear anyone else's take.
Thanks for letting me know, same here I want us to get along.

User avatar
Nosferatu93
Not-So-Newbie
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:31 am

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Nosferatu93 » Mon May 24, 2021 10:57 am

You guys read to much into a cartoon for kids. Super is just a toy production fabric no story needed it doesnt make sense anyway.

Also even this has much more detail than the cashcow super. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ShzmzcJM7QI
Hellsing

Anonymous Friend
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:10 am
Location: Earth-1218
Contact:

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Anonymous Friend » Mon May 24, 2021 4:42 pm

It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 7:55 pm
Size and weight don't mean anything in Dragon Ball. Ki does. So why is it that species with a strong understanding of ki lag so far behind species who can only interact with it through technology? There's an arbritrary cap on what humans can do and an equally arbritrary bottom on what aliens can do.
If this toddler was Pan, maybe I'd worry.

Also, remember that G. Gohan, Roshi, Tao Pai, and probably Crane Hermit could beat Goku when he was younger. Tenshinhan could have straight up killed him in the first tourney had they not been playing by rules.

You can kung fu/karate someone all you want, if your blows aren't strong enough to hurt them, and you aren't strong enough to brush theirs off, you losing. All those movies where Michelle Yoe and Zang Ziyi fighting dudes trice their size is fake.
Playstation Network ID/Xbox Gamer Tag: AnonymousFriend
Wii FriendCode: 1003 3740 6652 4063

User avatar
Skar
I Live Here
Posts: 2206
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:04 pm
Location: US

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Skar » Mon May 24, 2021 6:28 pm

Shaddy wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 3:05 amBut I don't think how it's achieved is what's important to the power scaling debates. A rage boost can get the character to whatever power level the writers feel like, if you're talking about whether Trunks has earned it or whether it's a thing he's established to be able to do, you're not having the same conversation, really.
Fans could disagree with one or all three of those but they all under the category of power-up or power scaling. I think it's good for someone to clarify what it is they're disagreeing with though. It was only in one continuity so in this case it might not have been something Toriyama came up with. I think it makes sense storywise because he showed the God forms went far beyond even fusions from the Buu saga so he might've felt another Saiyan couldn't rival that power without acquiring God ki themselves (aside from mutated Saiyans like Broly and Kale). Gohan's power-up differs between both continuities so I'm not sure how strong Toriyama intended for him to be but he's still implied to be below Goku and Vegeta.
And frankly if you think this rhetoric "makes the :thumbdown: show look worse", I'd ask...how? It's the same show either way. I'm here saying that power scaling problems don't matter in any Dragon Ball series, not just Super. The problems that Super has that do matter are totally worth talking about and criticizing.
I didn't mean specifically power scaling and any criticism towards DBS in general. If you comment on any type of inconsistency or questionable writing, you'll always get someone bringing up anything slightly similar in the original and arguing you shouldn't complain now. That makes DBS look worse or that we should expect less from it because it implies that a whataboutism is an acceptable rebuttal now when it wasn't for filler, GT, or fanwork. I don't think a whataboutism has ever worked in any situation. If they didn't like something in the original, it makes sense not to like it in a sequel especially it's taken to more of an extreme.

That's another thing that some examples from the original are a false equivalency and only partially similar but misses what's actually being criticized. Most people move on if they intend to keep watching the series since most active threads are about the most recent arc. I guess if they feel the issues are reoccurring then they might keep bringing them up but an issue that was specific to one arc is usually forgotten once the arc ends.
Yeah, that's kinda what I'm getting at. His arc ended, but he's still around, and does not as of now have a new arc. It's hard to tell exactly what he wants out of life, since his training before now was always in pursuit of beating someone else. But he's resigned to not being as good as Goku now, which makes scenes of him training as intensely as in the Androids arc...weird. Broly kind of gives him a motivation in wanting to protect Earth from Freeza, but that hasn't been explored much. It kind of seems like he's just Goku's grumpy training buddy at this point. He feels more accessory than person, since he spends a lot less time without Goku around than he did before. All of the moments the show keeps trying to give him tend to be repeats of older Vegeta moments. I guess you could make the case for him training Cabba, but he hardly seems committed to that.
I can understand that. I like what happened in the Moro arc with how he wanted to redeem himself for killing the Namekians since that wasn't really addressed after the Freeza saga. A common concern I hear about revivals or sequels long after a series had ended is that it might undo character development to keep the story going or add a pointless arc that might ruin something about the character. I guess with that in mind I'm glad DBS is a little more honest about Vegeta's arc being over. We still get to see the results of Buu saga development since we only saw some of it in GT. This might be Vegeta's last hurray in Toriyama's eyes since he said Vegeta was old by EoZ and that he also gave Vegeta a mustache. I think he forgot that he only gave Vegeta in his GT character drafts or maybe that's how he envisions Vegeta a few years after Goku leaves with Uub.

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Shaddy » Mon May 24, 2021 8:22 pm

Skar wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 6:28 pm Fans could disagree with one or all three of those but they all under the category of power-up or power scaling.
I really can't agree with that, honestly. I never see that kind of discussion in power level debates, and when I do see it, it's never in the same context.
Skar wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 6:28 pm I didn't mean specifically power scaling and any criticism towards DBS in general. If you comment on any type of inconsistency or questionable writing, you'll always get someone bringing up anything slightly similar in the original and arguing you shouldn't complain now. That makes DBS look worse or that we should expect less from it because it implies that a whataboutism is an acceptable rebuttal now when it wasn't for filler, GT, or fanwork. I don't think a whataboutism has ever worked in any situation. If they didn't like something in the original, it makes sense not to like it in a sequel especially it's taken to more of an extreme.
But I'm not doing that and never have been, not for all of Super. I can't say I've actually seen it happen much outside of these discussions, which is the point. That's anecdotal evidence, sure, but I don't know how you'd track it more objectively. I have not at any point made a case for excusing Super of problems specific to itself, that's completely reductive.

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 20276
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: Skippack, PA
Contact:

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by ABED » Mon May 24, 2021 8:41 pm

Whataboutism is a term that gets thrown about too liberally. In cases like this about things this trivial, I find it perfectly legit and it's not so much "you shouldn't expect anything more" it's "Do you have a problem with it in other cases or is it just this instance?"
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

User avatar
Skar
I Live Here
Posts: 2206
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:04 pm
Location: US

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Skar » Mon May 24, 2021 9:48 pm

Shaddy wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:22 pmBut I'm not doing that and never have been, not for all of Super. I can't say I've actually seen it happen much outside of these discussions, which is the point. That's anecdotal evidence, sure, but I don't know how you'd track it more objectively. I have not at any point made a case for excusing Super of problems specific to itself, that's completely reductive.
Well I wasn't accusing you since I don't know if that was your goal. I just meant I've mainly seen it used for DBS and explaining why it doesn't work. I think a more convincing argument would be explain why what's being criticized is beneficial to the story since in some most cases you could remove the line or scene being criticized entirely and nothing changes or the way it was handled is better than a suggestion someone makes.
ABED wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:41 pmWhataboutism is a term that gets thrown about too liberally. In cases like this about things this trivial, I find it perfectly legit and it's not so much "you shouldn't expect anything more" it's "Do you have a problem with it in other cases or is it just this instance?"
I can agree with that but the forum shows that fans have criticized them in everything DB before DBS so it's unnecessary assumption to make about someone since it doesn't really cknowledge any of their criticism. I don't think it's exclusively for something you consider trivial because I remember it being used in almost any topic including the animation quality early on. Some people were saying you shouldn't complain because DBZ also had some bad animation but that was a continuously anime from the 90s while this is a completely new series. When AnimeAjay asked an employee at Toei, they didn't resort to putting down DBZ and admit DBS had poor pre-production for the first few arcs and that they want to improve it. They're acknowledging there's room for improvement which was the point of the criticism. If the studio used the same logic then they wouldn't see a reason to change anything and it's acceptable enough the way it was.

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Shaddy » Tue May 25, 2021 7:17 am

Skar wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 9:48 pm Well I wasn't accusing you since I don't know if that was your goal. I just meant I've mainly seen it used for DBS and explaining why it doesn't work. I think a more convincing argument would be explain why what's being criticized is beneficial to the story since in some most cases you could remove the line or scene being criticized entirely and nothing changes or the way it was handled is better than a suggestion someone makes.
Okay, well, I honestly don't know what to do with that, then. If I'm not being critiqued for things I'm not doing, I guess I don't have much to debate.
Skar wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 9:48 pm I can agree with that but the forum shows that fans have criticized them in everything DB before DBS so it's unnecessary assumption to make about someone since it doesn't really cknowledge any of their criticism. I don't think it's exclusively for something you consider trivial because I remember it being used in almost any topic including the animation quality early on. Some people were saying you shouldn't complain because DBZ also had some bad animation but that was a continuously anime from the 90s while this is a completely new series. When AnimeAjay asked an employee at Toei, they didn't resort to putting down DBZ and admit DBS had poor pre-production for the first few arcs and that they want to improve it. They're acknowledging there's room for improvement which was the point of the criticism. If the studio used the same logic then they wouldn't see a reason to change anything and it's acceptable enough the way it was.
But the animation is something that's directly comparable, and a lot less-arguably equivalent between Z and Super. You could actually measure which episodes had rushed production, overloaded staff or just poor work, and Super would probably hold up poorly compared to Z, even if it didn't have Yamamuro's chunky designs. You can't do that for power scaling inconsistencies, because the scale itself was never objective. Animation quality certainly isn't objective either, but it's a lot harder to argue that it doesn't matter if an animated series has good animation than it is to argue that power scaling debates based on mostly assumptions aren't very important.

User avatar
Jack Bz
Regular
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: How can people claim that Z had worse powerscaling/powerjumps than Super?

Post by Jack Bz » Tue May 25, 2021 10:59 am

I think the origin of Dragon Ball Super having a perceived uniquely bad power scaling problem compared to Z was the Battle of Gods film. It didn't have any power scaling issues itself, but started the frame of mind that makes something like 17 becoming god level look ridiculous.

The BoG film went out of its way to paint a clear line between what gods and mortals are capable of in terms of strength. It was a major point of that film that Goku had to resort to a ritual that he was uncomfortable with doing to be on that same level, and laments that it was a realm of power he could never reach on his own. Goku says "It's a level of strength I can't reach on my own" and "I spent my life pushing myself to be the strongest, and now I've learned there's a power level I'll never reach on my own". He is basically having an existential crisis as a man who lives to get stronger realises that he isn't just far away from being the strongest, but that it would have been impossible for him to get this strong without a magic ritual from his friends. The power jump wasn't important, it was the firm statement that it's impossible to get that strong through training.

This has been completely excised from Super. I can't remember if the anime has this conversation, but it is completely absent from the manga. In the anime, Vegeta does reach this power on his own in a few months. While Goku's frustration is one of the more interesting aspects of the BoG film, it is a huge obstacle in a series built around power escalation, so Super wisely chose to ignore it.

The manga and anime are a different continuity from the battle of gods film, and when this is remembered it makes the power scaling problems less of a big deal. Super Saiyan God in the manga and anime is the next step on Goku's journey, not an existential crisis-giving gulf of power between what he's capable of himself and what the gods can do.

Post Reply