Alright, I'll give explaining my position one more shot, and I'll go as in-depth as possible. I'll try not to make this a huge, long, drawn-out back-and-forth. I'm likely to just respond with reiterations of what's already been posted below, so there's no need to bother. If this doesn't work for you, then I can't explain it any more thoroughly and clearly for you to understand. It's out of my hands after this post. Without further ado:
HeroR wrote:Why is writing my problems with the Super Saiyan 2 Vegeta vs. Super Saiyan 1/2 Black "desperate for something to complain about"?
The reason it appears that way to me is that all of your reasons for having said problems fall flat from my perspective. Let me illustrate my reasoning:
Why should I just assumed Vegeta kept the rage boost from several arcs ago when the manga never claimed he had, rage boosts never worked that way, and no character within the manga even acknowledge this mutated Super Saiyan form?
I'm identifying
3 premises here in support of the conclusion: "It should
not be assumed that Vegeta kept the rage boost from several arcs ago". I'll respond to each one as I post them.
Premise #1:
the manga never claimed he had
The manga doesn't need to make a claim for said claim to be true. My already-given example: Vegeta and Bulma having sex. Nobody in the manga, narrator or otherwise, has explicitly confirmed this, but we can still have every reason to believe that it is true. Therefore, something in the manga need not be explicitly confirmed in order for us to reasonably believe that it is true.
Premise #2:
rage boosts never worked that way
Rage boosts don't have to have worked that way before for them to do something different. Things are allowed to happen unexpectedly. Goku having near-death powerups wasn't a thing before the Saiyan arc, but that doesn't mean Toriyama somehow wasn't allowed to introduce that, and change the way "increases in power" worked.
Premise #3:
no character within the manga even acknowledge this mutated Super Saiyan form
This sounds like 50% the same concern that Premise #1 has, and as such, 50% of my response is identical: something doesn't need to be explicitly acknowledged to be true. The other 50% appears to be that "nobody acknowledged this
new form". It's not a new form, though. Like you said, nobody acknowledged some "new form". His Super Saiyan 2 is just stronger. The same way that Goku and Vegeta's Super Saiyan 2 in the Buu arc was stronger than Gohan's Super Saiyan 2 at the Cell Games, and the same way that Goku and Gohan's Super Saiyan 1 at the Cell Games was stronger than Goku, Vegeta, and Trunks' Super Saiyan 1 prior to the training in the Room of Spirit and Time.
Is the concern that they didn't acknowledge it this time? Why would they? The other increases in power for forms entailed increases to
the biggest and baddest form at the time. When Super Saiyan itself was still the hot new shit, it being made stronger was important enough to be explicitly recognized. When Goku and Vegeta's Super Saiyan 2 was stronger than Gohan's old one, Super Saiyan 2 was still the hot new form, the highest form we knew about, so that it getting stronger was
notable.
In Super, Super Saiyan 2 got stronger at a time when it was no longer the hot new shit. God was introduced right after, and Blue soon after that. Nobody cares enough about those lower forms to acknowledge when they got stronger. Imagine during the fight with Kid Buu someone remarking that Goku's Super Saiyan 1 was now strong enough to beat Cell! Someone way weaker than their current threat. That would feel clunky and out of place. You don't
need that, as has been painstakingly demonstrated. And in light of that, why would you then
want it? It would only make the dialog shittier as a result.
Forms can get stronger. This has been shown. Multiple times. That means it can happen. Things that can happen can happen again. It happened again. That it happened again might not necessarily be a big enough game changer to warrant wasting precious dialog in place of more meaningful character interactions. You've still presented no reason to take issue with this that isn't demonstrably
very easily catered to.
So, in my own conclusion, you have yet to present a reason
not to assume that Vegeta kept the Battle of Gods rage boost. But in the interest of attempting to adequately respond to further assertions:
saying it was a mutated Super Saiyan 2 feels like reaching since the manga claimed that Vegeta's Super Saiyan 2 was superpower
I don't know what difference Vegeta's Super Saiyan 2 being "superpower" is supposed to make. I'm unfamiliar with the significance the quoted term is supposed to carry. Vegeta got stronger, at this one time. Why should he then become incapable of getting that strong again? There's literal, explicit precedent for it. I don't know why it should be seen as "poor scaling" (which I
hope is supposed to translate to "poor writing") when it's already been proven to be possible. Is it because the circumstances are different? He got stronger in a fit of rage, and he later learned how to tap into that rage-induced-power while not-enraged. This is how they can turn Super Saiyan at will in the first place. Why are characters not allowed to do this unless it's explicitly spelled out? There's no reason for
only this type of plot device to require explicit confirmation to be intuited. What happened to the old story-telling rule "show, don't tell"? Does that not apply here? Are we not telling a story?
Which apparently is an insult on this thread and I must have an agenda against the manga, so I am using headcanon to discredit Toyo or something.
Given how readily and thoroughly disagreeable your positions seem, even under the most generous of lenses, it feels like you're grasping for straws to bemoan. Making mountains out of molehills. Missing the forest for the trees. Ignoring
very simple rebuttals to your positions, that require
very minimal outside-the-box critical thinking to recognize as able to easily undermine said positions. Either you took no time to consider different possible concerns, or you have incredibly large blind-spots.
This isn't me going to great lengths to make sense of something strange, outside the norm, or difficult to explain. This is me going to great lengths to explain something that's so intuitively simple and basic that it's puzzling how exactly to succinctly explain it terms you might actually understand.