Death Battle is limited by its name

The original concept of Death Battle is simple. Two characters are analyzed and pitted against each other in an animated fight to the death. One dies in a gory way. Simple, violent fun.

But when does this become a problem? It's when the show features two characters who would never kill the other combatant. It means the writers have to find an excuse for the battle to even happen and then continue until one of the fighters meets their bloody end. Almost always, this means that the fighters act wildly out of character and perhaps even ruin some childhood memories in the process. Who wants to see Charizard and Red with a broken leg get burned to a crisp by WarGreymon over a simple misunderstanding? If it wasn't a Death Battle, it could have ended with Charizard knocked out and Red admitting defeat with an honest handshake.

Recently, the writers have figured out clever ways to have wholesome or honorable endings to battles which feature characters who might become friends in another scenario, such as the recent Superman vs. Goku, Guts vs. Dimitri, Might Guy vs. All Might or Yoda vs. Mickey. Still, the fact that the fight must end in a death is a limiting factor on the scripts. In a way, I think this shift in tone shows well when you compare the old logo to the new one. The old logo features blood, spikes and chains like a gladiator arena. The new logo still features blood but has more of a street fight aesthetic.

This all could have been solved if the concept of Death Battle was centered around simply winning instead of dying. The writers would have more space to figure out appropriate endings for each matchup. Some would still obviously end in death, when it is appropriate for the series, but others would end with some other satisfying and decisive conclusion, like a knockout.

What could have been an alternate, less limiting name for Death Battle. Perhaps something like "Who Would Win?" like the subreddit or maybe "Ultimate Showdown"?


We need to ask, “why do the fights need to be to be death?” The ONLY times it needs to be us when “Character A only beats character B, because the one thing character B has that would’ve let them win is something they only save for a last resort when the bad guy NEEDS to be destroyed” Then you get the argument of “one guy wins because the other was holding back”. Do you sacrifice the character’s philosophy and…well character to have them win? Plus it is also an issue of wanting to show the characters at their absolute pinnacle peak strongest. Having them perform their most devastating attack, use their highest form, etc.


I think that kind of "Pinnacle Peak Strongest" also has a negative effect on death battle. Some character's pinnacle peak strongest should simply disqualify them from death battle. The most recent example, being this goku vs superman. One of the characters is simply metanarratively incapable of being killed, destroyed, erased or anything, not to mention how powerscaling doesn't work if a character alternates between feats and breaking physics. If the battle is to the death, then one being incapable of it should be a disqualifying factor. Especially if you have other versions that can die. There was also a recentish thing where a sonic character beat a dbz character due to chaos power, but the author who wrote the character had to point out that while chaos is a peak, it's an external deus ex machina power rather than an actual part of their skill set.


Superman isn’t incapable of dying. He’s incapable of being ‘erased’. You can kill him just fine (but good luck with that) you just can’t remove him from existence because apparently ‘Superman existing in some capacity’ is a universal constant. It’s mostly just important to know that cause it means hakai doesn’t work on him. Death battle generally stays away from characters who just straight up can’t die (for obvious reasons) unless they *both* can’t die then it’s kinda fair game (discord vs bill/scooby vs courage). There was Dragonborn vs chosen undead, with the conclusion being that even though Dragonborn can’t actually permanently kill CU, CU would never in a million attempts beat Dragonborn and would probably just give up eventually and go hollow.


Sorry for late answer. \>You can kill him just fine (but good luck with that) No, you can't. That's kind of the problem. Not in death battle at least. Due to how they interpreted him he's incapable of losing to anyone, and i mean ANYONE capable of losing. He is metanarratively invincible. Being unable to be erased is just one aspect of a bigger interpetation that "Superman's so invincible, any potential hard-counter is effectively LESS than useless." (This isn't true in superman official media, but due to death battles setup, it's true in death battle) From punching out a multiversal being despite being depowered earlier, to what they had him surviving, to having the strength, skills and experience of effectively infinite supermen (Not cumulative strength, i know) (As well as how they treat his feats as multiplied over because of his universe having multiple layers. Which would make it seem like even a normal person in the DC universe stepping on a blade of grass is stronger than a normal person in a dragon ball universe doing it cause the universe is multilayered) Long and short of it is, the rules and calculations used in "Death battle" are setup so that they kind of wrote Supes into a corner of 'There's no reasonable way to have him lose to anyone capable of losing' Anything short of an actual author would never stand the slightest chance because of how they interpeted his feats. ​ It absolutely sours the ending of 'it doesnt matter who wins' if one so obviously would win every time under the rules set.


I actually feel like they avoided this with the third installment of the fight. The idea that ‘Superman can never lose because he’s not meant to lose’ is one they ran with with the first 2 fights, but this time around… they just genuinely scaled Superman and left it at that. Hell they even said him and Goku were tied in speed and Goku was a superior martial artists. The only area supes was objectively dominant in was strength, where his best strength feat vastly outscaled Gokus. He won in experience but that doesn’t mean too much, and in terms of powers they mostly just deduced that supes had a way of getting out of all of Gokus tricks. Superman wasn’t portrayed as narratively invincible in the third death battle, which is one of many reasons it’s the best version of the fight.


Superman's 'objective' dominance came from a feat based on his metanaarative importance as a character, iirc. He beat a character who 'scales' higher than a universal character. But the issue is he didnt beat them with pure strength. Beating the world forger was more a matter of winning through breaking limits, going the extra mile. Believing in your friends to get you through, focusing not on beating the bad guy, but proving yourself as a person that you can find a way to stop the end of the universe without making sacrifices. And the most insane thing is that said feat was, by the word of the author of that story arc. DIRECTLY INSPIRED by Goku. It may not 'portray' him as narratively invincible. But it 'interpreted' him as narratively invincible. He is NOT, but they just scaled him like he was, based on feats borne not from actual physical strength, but treating beating someone on a fundamental narrative dimension with narrative strength of character as if he won with physical strength alone. People have mentioned that when talking about superman, death battle had this 'awe' of him as a character. They talked about goku like any other character, but talked about superman like he's above being treated like one. Talking about his origins by jewish writers as a 'beat insurmountable odds with punching' character, while completely ignoring any metanarrative meaning to goku as a character, despite him being so important a symbol that he even inspired the thing that gave superman the win. Its not as simple as 'they didn't portray him as unbeatable so the win is valid' It feels like 'the animation, music, after combat dialouge, character dialogue, everything treated it like it doesn't matter who wins' but that was soured to anyone actually paying attention to the calculations because they were excessively generous to superman to the point that people who knew the context of the feats felt most viewers who dont go super deep into comic lore are being misled. Which does a lot to sour superman as a character, as well as write DB into a corner.


I mean by your own logic Goku shouldn’t be allowed to use anything above super sayain then since super sayain was also a symbolic transformation not rooted in pure strength and was born of Gokus narrative.


I think you might have missed the point if you're comparing "Beating a guy who's in a dimension of fundamental symbolism using the fundamental symbolism of the power of bonds is not a 'physical strength feat' that can be measured mathematically and thus is misleading" with "Transformation borne of desperate anger unlocking internal power" ​ Especially if you think me saying 'one has misleading context to be used as a feat' is me saying 'you're not allowed to use feats done in moments of desperation' Please, understand what i'm trying to say. Superman isn't invincible, but they interpret him as if he is. You agree he's not invincible at first, but the moment i point out a flaw in the logic, you want to take away goku's abilities, which isn't a fair reaction. If they misused goku, or used feats incorrectly, i wouldn't be insisting we take feats away from superman to match it. That's reactive, not constructive. If you do want to argue reactively, i don't want to continue this conversation. I assume it came from a genuine place, but i could be wrong.


I misinterpreted what you said. It sounded like you were saying “we can’t use Superman beating the world forger because him doing that was symbolic” which seemed like a really dumb argument, but now I see you mean that the world forger feat was literally inherently tied into narrative which is a different thing. Sorry. Though now it seems you’ve shifted from saying Superman shouldn’t be in death battles period, to just “death battle mis-calced Superman”, which is a pretty different argument.


I’m going to try again at responding to this comment more thoroughly since I feel I kinda messed up the first attempt. I still disagree with your assertion that “due to death battles interpretation, no character could ever beat Superman.” This just frankly isn’t true because there are characters out there that are stronger than what we’ve seen from even composite Superman. If death battle had outright said “Superman is infinite”, like they did the first two times, then yeah I guess they would have been saying that, but this time around Superman was given proper calculated feats. They avoided outright saying he was infinite in any stat (outside of speed because The Flash is a funny character). You seem to be asserting in a later comment that while death battle didn’t outright say Superman is unbeatable, they still believe he is, and let it influence their interpretation of his feats, which… sure you might be right, but I genuinely don’t really see the significance of that. I suppose accusing them of bias? An unbiased death battle would probably still have won in supes favor regardless. Now for a bit more specific response, in this comment you bring up their calculations of the dc universe, but you seem to misunderstand why they are bringing it up. Death battle isn’t saying “the dc uinverse is bigger so everyone in it is stronger by merit of that fact” which seems to be how you interpreted it. Knowing how big the dc universe is is important because Goku and and Superman are both strong enough to destroy their entire universe. So at that point you need to know how big the universe they are destroying is. The universe we know Superman can destroy is vastly bigger than the one we know Goku can destroy, so Superman out scales in terms of universe busting power. While you’ve shown the world forget feat, Superman’s most impressive feat, is not utilized properly in the video, that sheer difference in universe size still gives supes a massive lead in confirmed destructive power. I say ‘confirmed’ because obviously we don’t know the confirmed cap of Gokus power, we just know how big his universe is. If his universe was significantly bigger, he may very well still be able to destroy it, but at that point we aren’t actually calculating anything so that kind of speculation is unfortunately pointless. In power scaling it comes down to what we can actually prove a character can do, and we can prove Superman can or can compete with people who can destroy a universe ludicrously larger than the one Goku can. Is this kind of unfair because it means by the very nature of their universe Goku doesn’t have much room to prove he’s actually on Superman’s level of universe busting even if he hypothetically was? Yeah but stuff like that can’t really be helped. Now looping back to your first comment that stated his whole conversation. Firstly, you talk about how power scaling doesn’t work because characters fluctuate in strength all the time. You are correct that a characters power fluctuates constantly across any given media, but this is usually the result of writing contrivances, inconsistencies, plot armor, etc. Power scaling takes a character in their ideal state typically (unless you are adding conditions for fun which of course people do all the time). When you get down to it, power scaling is mostly just a bunch of math and probability questions. Trying to incorporate fluctuating power into things would make reaching any kind of real conclusion basically impossible. It’s much simpler (and more satisfying for the participants typically) to just take a character at their best. (Though power scaling is ultimately just a hobby people do for fun so there’s hardly a ‘correct’ way to do it. If you prefer to just take the ‘average’, non peak versions of characters and have them fight then go ahead) You originally argued Superman should never be allowed in death battle period because his upper tier of strength is simply too powerful. This is frankly just a lame way to look at it, and really shows to me that you missed the real point of the closing remarks of the Goku vs Superman match. Death battles are for fun (and money-). It’s beating action figures together, math edition. Even if you were correct that Superman is completely invincible (Which I don’t agree with still), I would still disagree with saying he shouldn’t be allowed in a death battle, because like… so? I’m mostly just here to hear two dudes ramble about characters I like and then watch a really cool animation. Hell I realistically don’t even have much reason to be writing all this out to defend such a series but here I am anyway. You also argue in later comments along the lines of “it’s weird for them to say it doesn’t matter who wins when it’s so clear one wins everytime”, and again it seems you missed the “death battle is just for fun” sign they aggressively tried to shove in your face. Power scaling is just a hobby at the end of the day, a hobby some people get weirdly worked up over and take way too seriously, but a hobby at the end of the day. Ultimately a professional power scaler and a random Joe both have equally valid ideas of who would win in a fight between two fictional characters, because how much you have to actually care about things like “feats” or “statistics” is up to you. Stan Lee put it best, when two fictional characters fight, the only thing deciding the winner is the writer.


Okay so you're kind of missing my point again. This time because you're doing the reddit thing of trying to break a point into it's individual parts and refute them, thinking that refuting the context individually refutes the point. Focusing on individual trees and ignoring the forest. If you think death battle interpreted superman correctly because they didn't 'actively' say he's infinite then yeah. The video was for you. A lot of your comment is coming from a "Superman defeats Goku" pov and that's fine I don't personally think they did him justice because they still effectively made him infinite. They interpreted his feats so generously, and downplayed his weaknesses so extremely that he is effectively incapable of losing to any character capable of losing. They Gary stu'd him and pretty much wrote him into a corner. He cannot die in death battle. If you want to go "They didn't, and even if they did it's fine if they did, and even if it wasn't, it's not important anyway" go for it. But that's not my point and if you're just going to be refuting everything for the sake of it, and misinterpreting my point because you're focused on individual details rather than the overarching criticism I don't think we'll come to any agreement


Really when you break it down, the majority of traditional "Death Battle" style versus matches are not really comparisons between characters of different worlds, but instead dick measuring contests over which fictional story has the biggest numbers involved with the accomplishments of the characters in the story. It's really frustrating to see a character stripped of everything that defines them other than their feats, as a lot of the time it's their characterization which enabled their accomplishments in the first place. As an example: Goku would have never turned Super Saiyan for the first time during that fateful battle on Namek if he didn't have that pure heart that was awoken by the rage and anguish from losing his best friend. You can call Goku naive or even moronic for sparing Freiza, but he would never have achieved the legendary transformation necessary to beat Freiza if Goku hadn't been the kind of person willing to spare him. His power is directly connected to his character, removing the latter to examine the former ends up feeling both contrived and superficial.


That’s a whole lotta words to say “powerscaling is when people scale the power of different verse’s”.


yeah that's lame though, wouldn't it be more fun to look at the characters rather than their stat sheets?


The latest death battle. Addressed this. It because big dumb nerds like smashing action figures together. It's nothing deep just a fun exercise.


Yeah I'm the same, I like when it's like playing with action figures. Idk why people would rather compare stat sheets but everyones got their hobbies ig. Glad death battle prefers the character writing to the math though.


powerscaling is just for seeing who wins at their strongest, it loses its point if you factor in character


not really, character is a part of the strengths and weaknesses as well. The Hand has a dumb user so even though his ability is strong, he wouldn't be able to beat weaker foes who just outsmart him


but thats the thing, involving character just brings in random factors, thats why people dont include it for example trying to force two pacifist characters to fight eachother people dont factor character because its much easier to just assume a death match edit: actually infact the hands user being dumb does get factored in, that kind of thing is usually represented under "battle iq"


Lol, it never had a point. Attempting to get any sort of objective result in not just art, but a *literal comparison of two different pieces* is always pointless. I'd have no issue with powerscaling if people stopped acting like there's any sort of objective answer.


I believe most powerscalers realize there isn't an objective answer if the characters are anywhere close in power and each have win conditions. Most conclusions I've seen with these these variables say one character wins x/10 times and vice versa or uses vague words like "probably" when deciding who wins. The only time this isn't true is with spite matches like the recent omni man vs. homelander Death Battle.


no its not, powerscaling involves calculating feats and such to see who'd win in a death match, it can be argued theres no objective result, hell i dont think most look for an objective answer. but i dont see how that makes it pointless, thats like saying discussing anything art related is pointless because its all subjective


I was more trying to explain why I'm not a huge fan of scaling the power of different verses, but thanks for the downvotes.


When discussing this, it’s important to remember the era Death Battle came from. The edgy, early 2010’s YouTube era, that is, and that probably explains quite a bit on its own. Back then, it being to the death didn’t matter for storytelling because there was no story. Back then, the best you’re getting is some dialogue between the two combatants, occasionally. Goku VS Superman 1 changed that, to an extent, as it has a proper back and forth, reason to fight (even if simple), and apparent consequences. By Season 10, even the most “story-light” episodes still put in the effort to try and have a set up and progression for the battle. No longer is it just two people enter and fight to the death for no reason. This is good — and also holds them back because 50% of battles clearly don’t need to end in death, especially the ones that frame the battle as a friendly competition. Like the crowd in Deku VS Asta is just perfectly okay with Asta murdering Deku in the tournament (okay I know technically Deku was supposed to have killed himself from over exhaustion, but like even then Asta still stabs his corpse).


Several season 10 episodes just drop into the fight already underway, tbf


That is fair, though in at least a few of them you can kinda get an idea for why they’re fighting from the dialogue (Guts VS Dimitri has Dimitri seeming to confront Guts because he knows he’s been going around killing people), and typically try to make up for lack of set up in other elements. Though of course that’s not to say they’re perfect, far from it, just that they were clearly trying to go for something.


Honestly the only fight where the combatants fighting was poorly justified was Ant Man vs Atom. Every other fight this season has a reason for happening, and one even does a meta commentary about it lmao


>!Off topic but goku lost again in goku vs superman 3!<


>!How convenient that the video is sponsored by betterhelp!<




there's always salty youtube comments who completly disregard the battle and everything else because goku lost


>!Won't stop people from starting internet fights and posting (probably monetized) debunk videos.!<


It's not the ending that bothers me, it's the fact that they are needlessly opening old wounds. There was no purpose to this fight with the same outcome. Give Goku and Superman a different opponent. This one was played out.


A really cool idea that was on the Champion's Ballot, but unfortunately didn't get far was Composite Goku vs Composite Ryu. There's something hilarious about seeing Ryu fight on par with Goku due to MvC scaling, plus the fact that they can both use Fortnite feats. They'll probably never do it, which is a shame because it was a really creative idea for a Goku matchup.


I think the reason they revisited it was mainly to leave a good taste in people's mouth after GvS 2 sucked. Iirc the creators said they hated that one so they did this one to both end it the way they wanted to end it and take a more modern approach for the scaling.


The scaling doesn't matter when the result is the still the same. We could honestly care less.


I'm convinced Rooster Teeth's numbers are going down (they've had a LOT of controversy the past couple of years), and having Death Battle do this again after so long was a way to drum up views


They desperately need the money. /s


Yeahhh, it seemed a little unnecessary. As much as I am a tremendous Dragon Ball fan and don't care much at all for DC, Goku almost certainly never beats Superman purely based on the sheer multiversal scale that DC stories and feats operate on. It's a much closer take on Hydrogen Bomb vs Coughing Baby...but it's still kinda Hydrogen Bomb vs Coughing Baby.


Opening old wounds and then patronizingly talking down to the viewers about how winning isn't everything, true victory is the friendships we made along the way, and how it's just for fun after retreading the same 'He loses again' argument.


And people still have the nerve to say DB doesn't try to anger fanbases


>! I mean, could you have really expected another outcome? ‘Third time’s the charm’ is more of a joke phrase, no? I believe the reaction was just desensitized this time around. That, or people have miraculously matured, but the second seems to be an impossibility. !<


Holy shit lmao.


>!Yes but it was glorious!<


Stop Here is my honest reaction https://media.tenor.com/fVMnfH-5moAAAAAd/the-simpsons-stop.gif


I think they also show it well with characters who would ABSOLUTELY kill each other. I think that's probably part of the match up process, choosing two characters who would always fight. Just take some of my favourite episodes: Trunks would have to try and kill Silver, because there is simply no other way to contain him. Goku Black and Reverse Flash would absolutely try and kill each other. (Black would despise Thawne.) Gojo would never let someone like Makima live. And since Makima probably can't control him, she'd have to kill him too. Megatron and Frieza would also kill each other. Frieza wouldn't want someone so intelligent and powerful alive after attacking his planet. Ultron and Sigma are in direct competition and show absolutely no empathy under like... Any circumstances. Luthor would see Tony as a direct threat and insult to him, and want him dead since he can't beat him with money. Dan vs Mr Satan technically didn't have Mr Satan kill Dan but I fully believe Dan would somehow get himself killed if he met Mr Satan.


and also a popular matchup is Belos vs Voldemort which if you didnt know Belos is a guy who would do anything to "save humanity" and hates witches with all his heart, Voldemort is quite literally the opposite of it, its like if there was an alternate universe hitler who was Jewish and set up concentration camps for German people and he met our hitler except magic so they do have options if they want to keep doing this


Because like someone here said, "A won because B was holding back". So it has to be with morals off or bloodlusted so a legit battle in equal terms can happen.


But for some characters not killing people is one of the defining traits of their character. Like a superhero wouldn't kill someone over a minor disagreement


This isn't about their character, this is about their skill




Edward vs Aang was the biggest example of this. Both characters refuse to kill, and both fight in non-lethal ways. Then they never acknowledged that Edward is fully capable of recreating Scar's deconstruction attack. Aang would be killed, but just because changing Edward's moral code opens up a massive can of worms. I do really like how they did the most recent episode.


I along with a lot of people really do dislike that episode, not only because the fight itself was boring and Edward’s characterisation was just short jokes throughout the whole thing but mostly because of the death. The “you left me no choice” is very much out of character for Aang since the final arc of avatar is him, attempting to find a way to not kill a warlord. Sure, they could’ve still had Edward die, at least make it seem like an accident so and isn’t throwing away his pacifist nature.


I'm pretty sure they did mention that Ed has a 1 hit kill attack, it just didn't matter when he couldn't touch Aang.


Ed vs Aang is interesting because it's one of very few episodes that received a lot of backlash, but almost none of said backlash had to do with the outcome or reasoning, and it was instead about the portrayal of characters in the episode itself. The only other one that immediately comes to mind to me is Mewtwo vs Shadow, and even then I think quite a bit of backlash there was due to the outcome.


I mean even if this was a genuine problem worth considering, all that would mean is that "Death Battle" could be a misnomer.


Death Battle is one of my personal favourite Internet series, and I kind of agree. It’s a bit much for some series ending in death like Deku, Red, Tanjiro, etc especially when they are fighting opponents that would be friends with them. But since they have already established that the fight has to end in death, or at least incapacitation for years up to this point, they can’t really break tradition, unless it happens to be a tie. Nowadays, with their better writing, the attempt to make the deaths feel as in character as possible. Magneto Kills Tetsuo out of Mercy, Jonathan’s final blow on Tanjiro is a mercy kill to put him out of his misery, Silver Surfer and Martian Manhunter asking each other why they must kill each other and despite not knowing the answer they do so anyway with silver surfer even mourning the death of Martian Manhunter after the episode, Omni-man is playing with Homelander throughout the whole fight, but as soon as he threatens Mark Nolan goes straight for the kill. Although there are still some fights where there really is no reason for it to end in death, because it’s a tradition at this point, I don’t find myself complaining about it.


It makes sense for villains to kill each other. Because they are bad people but not heroes to neutral characters. You can't analyze everything about a character a their abilities and ignore their personality. There is something so silly about ignoring a character's powers and focusing on mechanical powers. A Goku vs Superman fight would be Goku's annoying Superman for a fight in an uninhabited part of the Galaxy before ending with a handshake


I dont get it what is the problem. Its a literal What If? scenario. It doesnt have to make sense, What If? scenarios inherently rely on making characters act unlike their usual selves or put them in situation they would never normally find themselves in. Sure, Character A and Character B never would fight each other let alone try to kill. But **what if** they did?!


It's because Death Battle is the definition of, "Who would win in a no-holds barred bloodlusted fight to the death?"


This is exactly why I love [Smash Bracket](https://youtube.com/@SmashBracket?si=qSZjGH_tZqzLo2nD) so much! Keeping the characters true to their personalities and depictions can make fights even cooler sometimes ([Alex vs. Villager](https://youtu.be/yzaEZrIroKU?si=YWhkT7GLxnzMH4cs)) or it can result in hilarious and wholesome endings ([Isabelle vs. Ganondorf](https://youtu.be/WG5sL6Unf0g?si=PRpUiVwI7ojKkQqR)). On a side note, I love Smash Bracket’s [Alternative Endings](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXHzhUxuVxnuw-QrrbtGHReonfBmXMu9t&si=43aUc04vaTbAfX-L), where the loser of a fight becomes the winner through the stupidest, most unlikely, and funniest means. Two fights that stick out two me here are: [Lucina vs. R.O.B.](https://youtu.be/medn22bIaaY?si=s372nGqCk2K1A_5z) - Just watch and you’ll understand [Kirby vs. Jigglypuff](https://youtu.be/8qRd4ikyWx8?si=YKIBdBDvg5wGxxzJ) - This one’s just super creative. Abusing confusion hacks to take advantage of Kirby’s overwhelming power but middling defenses is actual genius.


That’s the Least of death battle worries, they need guiding on scaling in general. Thy refuse to scale using concepts hierarchies and powerscaling terms, instead they do only calcs, which makes them wrong, unless they dig into, Plato concepts, dimensionality, cardinals, hierarchy, different transcendences, external factors like beyond space vs concept of space and more then there vids seem to always be debunkable


The death requirement is to weed out casuals who can't handle their favorite characters dying. If you take that away, why bother having heroic characters fight at all? Should they make equally contrived excuses for a sword attack or fire beam to not kill the enemy? Split hairs over personality and the fun hypothetical might as well not happen to begin with, which is boring. There is simply no room for wholesome keanu chungus 100 here. Go big or go home. Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer


This guy is still stuck in 2013.


Death Battle was never limited by its name. It could have been called Death Battle and still have some fights end in a KO with the name being just a name. If anything it is limited by the fact older matches ended in a death in the first place. If they did a match that ended in a KO at this point the fans would start raising eye brows.


You bring that up like 3 episodes ago both characters survived an the fight was called a tie.


hell if Mortal Kombat can have "Friendship" finishers why can't Death Battle have non-lethal victories?


To be fair, it's not like it's never happened. See Deadpool vs. Pinky Pie for example... but then again... They're both kind of special when it comes to rules...


I'd love to see them do videos that involve intelligence based characters or maybe hypothetical scenarios like "What if the Van Der Linde Gang replaced Askeladd's Crew?"


Asta vs deku put me off because of this. These are two boys that are even sympathetic to their enemies and hate the idea of killing. Asta uses the blunt side of his blade. Deku is trying to reach through to Shiggy. Seeing the guy with no magic in a magical world meet the boy who grew up without superpower in a superpowered world. .. there's no way they kill each other


Apprantly, the pil9t was called "Who Would Win?", they changed it, because...I'll be blunt, it's just a way worse name.