xenos5 said:
I disagree. Hit actually shows different emotions (enjoying his fight with Goku and clearly being annoyed with Dyspo) and reacts to different characters in different ways. He also analyzes his opponent and can even guess what they're thinking (when he told Goku he knew that he was thinking of trying to endure a few blows and get used to the .2 second evolved timeskip).
Hit, you can imagine having a battle of words with Frieza with Frieza trying to lie but Hit catches him in it and quips back.
A generic stoic archetype could never talk as much as Hit has or show the wit Hit has shown. He doesn't talk constantly but he manages to convey a lot with just a few words.
Which as I said, is no different from similar serious, stoic characters such as Kenshiro or Jotaro. If anything, he's far less than those characters, as we see how they handle a variety of situations, whereas we don't see Hit have any variety in Hit's situations due to him being shown to do nothing but fighting/killing. Hit only seems like an interesting character within the confines of Super. As a whole, he's still just a two-dimensional character with some superficial development.
Captain Cadaver said:
Despite Goku's power Hit still competes and manages to force a tie with Goku due to his techniques and strategy. That didn't really happen at all in Z.
Which he did via an ability that just allows him to get stronger. Far from clever strategies.
Hit is definitely the farthest thing from a one trick pony in the series. Multiple variations of Timeskip, Shockwave technique, Pseudo Intangibility/dimensional crossing, Ki signature duplicates, Rifts that can send attacks in entirely different trajectories, Improvement.
If anything, this just hinders his character and what "strategy" there is to the fight. Having and/or getting around a powerful superpower is fine, but if the character's only method of countering their broken ability being countered is to reveal another broken ability, they become little more than an uninteresting Gary Stu. There's no tactical merit when things are stacked heavily in their favour via hax.
I do not think DBS is like the transformers movies that are completely devoid of any thought, strategy, or character development. It's also above trash like SAO.
Here is where you not only missed my point, but also proved my own. That section was as a counter to your relativistic excuse of "different writing preferences" and giving an example of why such thinking is flawed. Not only that, but whilst I agree Super isn't as bad as SAO (beyond the shameless cashgrab factor), you declaring that it is without doubt blatantly contradicts such relativism and the whole part about taste being subjective. The double standards are truly apparent. You can either accept that taste isn't subjective (which at this point, is the whole reason for you referring to the recent Super episode as "amazing" after I've proven otherwise), or you can view your initial post as not being important, in which case the entire cause for debate falls apart. Either way, this invalidates one important part of your argument.
You can enjoy DBS for MORE than just the action. The characters
Whilst a select few characters do develop slightly (Vegeta, Kuririn, Gohan), none of it is to the extent or depth to say the pros of Super outweigh the cons, since it still doesn't do much beyond adding some small additions to ones that were fully developed by the end of the manga anyway.
Which are always incredibly basic.
and some of the surprising twists (Goku leaving the ring at the end of the U6 tournament, and Giygas Zamasu at the end of the FT arc)
There are no surprises. We know that all of the characters from Z (apart from perhaps Freeza) will never die permanently due to the end of the manga and know Goku and Vegeta will rival Beerus eventually through something as lazy as a prophecy (something that shouldn't even exist in a series where alternate timelines are a thing).
I don't feel that I have to turn my brain off to enjoy it.
Maybe you need to watch something more mentally stimulating then.
I'm enjoying Super despite it's flaws but that doesn't mean I have to say it's just "dumb fun". There are aspects that people enjoy analyzing and make theories on for Super when in something that has no substance you don't have anything TO analyze.
Analysis/theory crafting doesn't make a series quality better when it comes to thing like future plot events or powerscaling. If anything, it makes them worse due to showing a lack of clarity and leaving things open ended without much catharsis, or in the case of theory crafting, being purely in the mind of the beholder and not entirely what we witness, meaning they can make a series' intrigue seem far more apparent than it actually is. That's not to say theory crafting or analysis is bad, but unless it has to do with aspects such as comparison or analysing the depth of characters, it doesn't make a series better. It also doesn't mean a series has substance, only that what superficial substance it has isn't fully explored. For example, Naruto and Bleach are bottom tier Shonen, yet people still find much to discuss about them, that doesn't make them good, it just means much was left open ended to discuss. To bring things closer to home, what's detestably the worst arc of the Dragon Ball manga, the Boo Arc, is probably the most commonly debated part on most DB forums. It isn't because it's the best, it's because it's the most contradictive and had the least theme/concept exploration.
I probably best state that I don't feel Super is the absolute worst anime in creation, but with all presented, you'd be grasping at straws to say that the pros outweigh the cons enough for any aspect to be seen as "amazing" within a wider critical scope. You may feel free to continue debating such, but after either your initial post or a good portion of your last argument must be debunked, I don't believe there'd be much reason to continue this discussion.