Can A Good Solo Superman Game Be Made? How Would You Make Work?

[JAK]

Oh I'm not thinking about the lore, I'm thinking about the *sensation.* And I don't think people would be satisfied with a Superman game where you can be defeated by a random mugger or some other basic enemy. Saying that each enemy has kryptonite weapons, or was enhanced by a higher dimensional imp, or is a parademon from an alien hellworld....those are excuses and justifications and I doubt the casual gamer would care; they'd just see a "Superman" game where they don't feel as powerful as they think Superman should be. And if players don't feel like Superman, the game won't be successful.

Exactly. At least part of this needs to feel like you get to be Superman. And that means some stuff shouldn't hurt you.

That being said, I do like the idea of Mxy showing up for a bit - and while he's there, you can see him enchant random henchmen and make them just a crazy threat until he's gone. THAT would be cool. But anything else feels like N64's "Superman is weak and slow and you can't see too far ahead because of Kryptonite fog.... it has nothing to do with the fact that the programmers aren't great and the N64 can't handle draw distance.." It's been done.

So there'd be plenty of challenges in this mission chain and plenty of bad guys who could hurt you, but it's not *just* a matter of physical defeat and you'd have a wider range of objectives and goals than just "hit the bad guy until they fall down."

Add in the reputation system I've suggested, and how you get the job done becomes more challenging and fun than just whether you can beat everyone up or not. Sometimes it should just be as simple as beating everyone up, but that's not going to be enough for a Superman game. The lore? Hell with that, what you have to worry about is the character's legend and reputation among the masses; people have an expectation for what Superman is and a game would have to account for that or risk being seen as, like I said, a generic action game with a famous name that it doesn't live up to.

I love the idea of a Superman game being something different like this. S:TAS on Gamecube did this a bit, but with tech being what it is now, it should be a LOT more doable.

[Ascended]

That being said, I do like the idea of Mxy showing up for a bit - and while he's there, you can see him enchant random henchmen and make them just a crazy threat until he's gone. THAT would be cool. But anything else feels like N64's "Superman is weak and slow and you can't see too far ahead because of Kryptonite fog.... it has nothing to do with the fact that the programmers aren't great and the N64 can't handle draw distance.." It's been done.

Oh Myx would be a fantastic addition. Lots of things you could do with him, I'd totally be down.

But yeah, the kryptonite fog, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That was a solid excuse for the game's Superman not being as powerful as Superman should rightly be. Made sense, had story implications, as excuses go it was decent. It didn't matter. Someone sitting down to play as Superman wants to feel like Superman, with all the unstoppable power that implies, and anything less will feel underwhelming.

So I figure in order to get that sensation, you gotta think outside the box and toss aside a lot of preconceptions about what a game needs to do. Maybe the specific ideas I'm dropping wouldn't cut it either, I'm not a programmer and I'm just talking out of my ass here, but I *do* know that a Superman game that acts like any other action game will fail. We all know this, because we've all seen it happen before (several times).

[Lukmendes]

A good solo Superman game is one of the most difficult things to make. The challenge lies not in the actual game mechanics, but in creating a compelling narrative and setting that will allow players to feel as if they are playing a real superhero.

However, on the other hand, it seems like a really cool idea if adopted properly after doing sufficient research. We have seen a number of solo Batman games. A game based on Superman would be completely fascinating. I have just purchased a premium gaming console with the help of https://10beasts.com/best-gaming-console/ which is why I am really excited to try new action games.

I don't think think the writing is the issue at all, if the writing was the problem we could already have a Superman game, 'cause writing is a simpler thing to handle to the point God of War IV managed to make Kratos into a likable character after GoWIII, the big problem was always the gameplay.

Hmm IIRC that was Dark Duel Stories, and... you're basically taking a nap at home in bed. Those games were weird since it's very anime story focused, and the way you actually play is very different from the actual CCG gam that was published.

Well the anime has basically no rules, so it's okay .

Well, except for fighting games like MvC... or Tekken.... most games have varying ranks of enemies. So having a wave of cannon fodder makes sense... it's not the only enemy in the game, but it's AN enemy. Maybe fight a guy in power armor next or something...

There are "boss games" out there, thing is that those don't fit the general overused shit of open world games.

You guys are thinking about a Superman game from a perspective of “how can we be accurate to the lore?” when that’s not how games work. Games are made by saying “what would be fun to play?” and Superman not having any challenge fighting the majority of enemies would be boring. If you need a hand wave you can literally just have Mr. Mxy give everyone a boost because he thinks it would be fun, he’s a freaking reality warper. Otherwise setting the game on Warworld or in the Phantom Zone would also easily solve that problem.

Yeah, it's worth pointing out we have characters in games who far outclass Superman in power, and they still get killed in gameplay, Doom Slayer from Doom 2016 and Eternal is a notable example lol.

He shouldn't feel like a chump, otherwise it can be like that Silver Surfer game where he dies to one hit, but Supes doesn't have to be invulnerable to everything either, just be powerful enough.

Mission 2 might be a "Clark" centric mission where you roam around Suicide Slum, interviewing people and trying to find the Intergang dealers. Objectives include finding clues without giving away your secret identity and solving some puzzles, with secondary objectives for stopping accidents and/or random crime (muggings, etc) without being seen doing it.

While I can understand the story-wise reason for this to happen, man I would not want Clark sections to be playable like this, going from an action game to slow investigation is pretty meh to me, and PS4 Spidey having those Mary Jane sections just sucked.

Although at the very least you'd still be playing as Supes so he'd could do more than usual, I just don't think something like that should be done, not every story element has to be a mechanic, specially since too many games out there try to overbloat games with mechanics and doesn't do anything well.

[Ascended]

Supes doesn't have to be invulnerable to everything either, just be powerful enough.

That's what I'm saying.

While I can understand the story-wise reason for this to happen, man I would not want Clark sections to be playable like this, going from an action game to slow investigation is pretty meh to me, and PS4 Spidey having those Mary Jane sections just sucked.

Like I said, that was just a loose example. I agree with you; throwing a Clark centric mission into the mix like I suggested above could very well derail the story's flow, much like the MJ and Miles segments did with Insomniac's Spidey.

However, I think it's important to the narrative for "Clark" to be an central element. Makes the stakes more personal when the hero's private life is somehow wrapped up in the chaos, and it opens up the story to things you couldn't do as easily or as well with "Superman." That stuff can be achieved with cut scenes (among other things) of course, and it wouldn't bother me if that's all the game did, but I feel like players become more invested when they have to engage with that part of the story and aren't just sitting back waiting for the cut scene to end.

The way I'd actually want to use such things, if they were used at all, would be as faction-related side quests. Much in the way you can ignore the main plot in an Elder Scrolls game and wander off to join a Guild, I'd want the same kind of thing here, where you could do stuff with the Daily Planet, STAR Labs, etc. And some (not all) of those missions would be Clark centric/investigative. That way, the player is the one deciding when and if they want a change of pace, they're not being forced to it.

Think of it more like those "Taskmaster" side missions more than the MJ segments; you can ignore them if you want to, for as long as you want to.

I should probably mention too that in my head I envision this as an open world sandbox game, Skyrim style. A lot of what I suggest wouldn't fit in other genres or formats but would likely work with that kind of longform sandbox RPG.

[Vordan]

Oh I'm not thinking about the lore, I'm thinking about the *sensation.* And I don't think people would be satisfied with a Superman game where you can be defeated by a random mugger or some other basic enemy. Saying that each enemy has kryptonite weapons, or was enhanced by a higher dimensional imp, or is a parademon from an alien hellworld....those are excuses and justifications and I doubt the casual gamer would care; they'd just see a "Superman" game where they don't feel as powerful as they think Superman should be. And if players don't feel like Superman, the game won't be successful.

I've stressed before, there does need to be physical threats who can defeat you. But not *every* challenge and threat has to just be a physical one. Sometimes it should be "how" you win the fight, not whether you can win at all.

Maybe I should elaborate exactly what I mean? So here's a random example of a possible mission chain. Just a very loose, vague example; the actual game would need more depth than this but hopefully it'll get my point across if anyone's been misunderstanding me here.....

Mission 1, you gotta stop the 100 gang from blowing up a building. The objective is to find the bomb before it detonates, so it's a timed mission. Basic enemies cannot hurt you, the challenge is finding the bomb in time and secondary objectives might include keeping collateral damage and injury to a minimum. You'd find a few higher end 100 gang members with Intergang weapons who can hurt you a bit; they're mostly just there to slow you down but you *could* be defeated by them.

Mission 2 might be a "Clark" centric mission where you roam around Suicide Slum, interviewing people and trying to find the Intergang dealers. Objectives include finding clues without giving away your secret identity and solving some puzzles, with secondary objectives for stopping accidents and/or random crime (muggings, etc) without being seen doing it.

Mission 3, Clark has found Intergang and swoops in to ruin their day. All the basic enemies have advanced weapons that can hurt you, with tougher mini bosses and a final boss in Ugly Mannheim, who's using alien tech that can straight up kill you. The only objective is to crush all opposition and not die doing it.

So there'd be plenty of challenges in this mission chain and plenty of bad guys who could hurt you, but it's not *just* a matter of physical defeat and you'd have a wider range of objectives and goals than just "hit the bad guy until they fall down."

Add in the reputation system I've suggested, and how you get the job done becomes more challenging and fun than just whether you can beat everyone up or not. Sometimes it should just be as simple as beating everyone up, but that's not going to be enough for a Superman game. The lore? Hell with that, what you have to worry about is the character's legend and reputation among the masses; people have an expectation for what Superman is and a game would have to account for that or risk being seen as, like I said, a generic action game with a famous name that it doesn't live up to.

I’m going to be blunt: that sounds super boring. I do not think anyone would want to play these game ideas you guys are throwing out where Superman faces zero challenge from his foes and instead has to do escort missions or try not to destroy Metropolis. If you guys truly believe that a Superman game where he’s fighting enemies that can hurt him is totally antithetical to being Superman and people would reject it, then what everyone has said about Superman games is correct, he does not work in that format.

I also just disagree with the premise of “Superman going up against mooks that can hurt him means that he won’t feel powerful” because other games have insanely powerful protagonists that still face enemies that can hurt them. See Kratos from God of War. You can’t let pop culture misconceptions dictate how Superman works. The Aquaman movie didn’t constantly make jokes about how lame everyone thought he was, it treated him as cool and now he is cool. If a Superman game came out that showed Superman struggling with mooks, people would accept it just like they accepted DCAU Superman struggling with electricity.

[Ascended]

No worries, different strokes for different folks. But again, nobody is saying that Clark shouldn't be challenged *at all.* No one has said that. Not even once and I wish y'all would stop making that generalization. Sh*t, you do realize that what I described is basically just a mod version of Skyrim right? All anyone is really saying is that a "S" game should include some puzzles, some race-against-time mechanics, various objectives and challenges that would add more variety than the typical beat-em-up. That's it. It's not the big, horrible change some are assuming...unless the only genre you want is an action beat-em-up, in which case you'd be SOL with the rpg I see in my head. Y'all see "some enemies can't hurt you" and seem to think that this includes everything in the game, but no, that's not what anyone is saying.

And Kratos isn't Superman. Players didn't walk into his game knowing who he was or knowing how powerful he could be, and past "S" games have done the whole "any bad guy can potentially kill you" thing and it fails. It *always* fails. So why anyone thinks that doing the same thing would result in a different outcome is beyond me. God of War doesn't have the reputation and legend that Superman does, and we've seen in the past that using excuses for why Clark is weaker than he should be don't impress players. Someone sits down to play Superman, they don't want any noise about "kryptonite fog" or "parademon trash mob enemies" they want to feel like the Superman they see in their heads.

The guy isn't untranslatable in video game format, he's just untranslatable if all you want is a mindless action game.

Only other alternative I can think of that *might* be accepted by the masses is a Golden Age game. That *could* be a mindless beat-em-up and if everything was done in a retro style like the 40's, people *might* accept that.

Oh, and people *still* bitch about how weak DCAU Superman was. Still.

[JAK]

I’m going to be blunt: that sounds super boring. I do not think anyone would want to play these game ideas you guys are throwing out where Superman faces zero challenge from his foes and instead has to do escort missions or try not to destroy Metropolis. If you guys truly believe that a Superman game where he’s fighting enemies that can hurt him is totally antithetical to being Superman and people would reject it, then what everyone has said about Superman games is correct, he does not work in that format.

I also just disagree with the premise of “Superman going up against mooks that can hurt him means that he won’t feel powerful” because other games have insanely powerful protagonists that still face enemies that can hurt them. See Kratos from God of War. You can’t let pop culture misconceptions dictate how Superman works. The Aquaman movie didn’t constantly make jokes about how lame everyone thought he was, it treated him as cool and now he is cool. If a Superman game came out that showed Superman struggling with mooks, people would accept it just like they accepted DCAU Superman struggling with electricity.

Where do you get "nothing can hurt him" from any of that? It's just the average goons that don't stand a chance. These missions exist in DCUO in one form or another, and it's been going since 2011 and still exists.

If you want a Superman game where everything can hurt him, then there's literally *every* other Superman game. And I remember reviews of those games commenting on how stupid it was that Superman could be hurt by average goons. And those are gamer reviews.

I mean... I've been gaming since the 80's, myself, so it's not like I'm a slouch in this department either; but if reviewers are commenting on it, then it's clearly been a point of some contention.


I like God of War, but a Superman game shouldn't be "God of War with a cape".

[JAK]

Oh, and people *still* bitch about how weak DCAU Superman was. Still.

TTD-1.jpg
I still love the show, but....

[Vordan]

Where do you get "nothing can hurt him" from any of that? It's just the average goons that don't stand a chance. These missions exist in DCUO in one form or another, and it's been going since 2011 and still exists.

If you want a Superman game where everything can hurt him, then there's literally *every* other Superman game. And I remember reviews of those games commenting on how stupid it was that Superman could be hurt by average goons. And those are gamer reviews.

I mean... I've been gaming since the 80's, myself, so it's not like I'm a slouch in this department either; but if reviewers are commenting on it, then it's clearly been a point of some contention.


I like God of War, but a Superman game shouldn't be "God of War with a cape".

MMO tier quests are not something the general public enjoys doing anymore. Standards have changed dramatically. Besides the DCUO is hardly beloved gameplay wise, it’s a minor MMO existing on life support.

What Superman games have you been playing because the last major one was Superman Returns and that had him be invincible. The LEGO games also have him be invincible (least the ones I played).

Sure they complained. Because they have zero in depth knowledge of Superman. They’re going off of the Donner films and memes, not actual comic book stories. Some would complain if Superman got angry or depressed or doubtful because “Superman is about Hope” takes that have grown in response to the DCEU have made Superman expressing any kind of emotional range beyond “happy” as OOC. Should Superman not be allowed to express any emotions then because some will complain?

With regards to the DCAU: I’m one of its biggest detractors but the complainers are faaaaaaaar outweighed by those who consider it the gold standard for Superman. Him being weak didn’t stop the DCEU from leaving a major impact, and I bet a game that set him around similar power levels would be successful. That’s what Factor 5 was planning after all.

End of the day I personally don’t care that much about Superman’s power levels, and I don’t think the average person would refuse to play a game starring him if they adjusted his powers for more fun gameplay any more than people would refuse to watch a cartoon where he’s at reduced power levels. Could be wrong and you & Ascended are right, but given the last guys who were trying to make a Superman game that we know of (Factor 5) were seemingly more in line with my beliefs makes me feel confident in my assessment.

[Ascended]

With regards to the DCAU: I’m one of its biggest detractors but the complainers are faaaaaaaar outweighed by those who consider it the gold standard for Superman. Him being weak didn’t stop the DCEU from leaving a major impact, and I bet a game that set him around similar power levels would be successful. That’s what Factor 5 was planning after all.

End of the day I personally don’t care that much about Superman’s power levels, and I don’t think the average person would refuse to play a game starring him if they adjusted his powers for more fun gameplay any more than people would refuse to watch a cartoon where he’s at reduced power levels.

But even the reduced power levels of the DCAU had him be bulletproof and basic thugs couldn't hurt him.

As much as the DCAU Superman annoyed me at times, that power level is actually fine for a game; bulletproof, faster than gunfire, able to throw trains and lift planes. Good enough. In fact, being on the lower end of the power spectrum (by Clark standards) actually solves a few problems.

The actual power level itself is less of a concern than the power level in comparison to what's around him. People want, expect, demand, a Superman who is powerful. If the basic, bottom tier enemy NPC's can hurt you, that's not powerful. Won't matter if that basic, bottom tier enemy is a parademon or a dude with a knife, it won't *feel* like Superman, and that's the most important aspect of a hypothetical Superman game.

And you're right that the people who complain have no knowledge of the source material. But that's the audience and a developer would have to contend with it. That's not a reason to limit yourself or ignore parts of the character that the average Joe isn't aware of, but it does mean you gotta take a little more care in how you present things.

[Vordan]

But even the reduced power levels of the DCAU had him be bulletproof and basic thugs couldn't hurt him.

As much as the DCAU Superman annoyed me at times, that power level is actually fine for a game; bulletproof, faster than gunfire, able to throw trains and lift planes. Good enough. In fact, being on the lower end of the power spectrum (by Clark standards) actually solves a few problems.

The actual power level itself is less of a concern than the power level in comparison to what's around him. People want, expect, demand, a Superman who is powerful. If the basic, bottom tier enemy NPC's can hurt you, that's not powerful. Won't matter if that basic, bottom tier enemy is a parademon or a dude with a knife, it won't *feel* like Superman, and that's the most important aspect of a hypothetical Superman game.

And you're right that the people who complain have no knowledge of the source material. But that's the audience and a developer would have to contend with it. That's not a reason to limit yourself or ignore parts of the character that the average Joe isn't aware of, but it does mean you gotta take a little more care in how you present things.

Just to clarify Ascended: I agree with the premise that a thug with a gun can’t do crap to Superman. But I wouldn’t have him fight thugs with guns lol. He’d be fighting Intergang members who have Apokoliotan weaponry, soldiers outfitted with the latest in Lexcorp gear, robots made by Brainiac, gladiators brought by Mongul, and so forth.

[JAK]

MMO tier quests are not something the general public enjoys doing anymore. Standards have changed dramatically. Besides the DCUO is hardly beloved gameplay wise, it’s a minor MMO existing on life support.

They've been saying that for years, and it's still going. And we're talking about one game, not an ongoing MMO - doing something once or twice isn't as obnoxious as having to do it over and over again every day.

What Superman games have you been playing because the last major one was Superman Returns and that had him be invincible. The LEGO games also have him be invincible (least the ones I played).

It's been awhile since I played Superman Returns (I still have my XBox360 that I got just to play it, lol) - but let's see:

Superman (NES): mobster with a gun can kill you by touching you or shooting you - so not exactly "bullets bouncing off his chest" (which is ironic since the Daily Planet staff all look modeled after the George Reeves versions and that was a big moment in many episodes)
Superman (arcade): anything can kill you, thankfully not just by touching you
Superman (Genesis): anything that moves and isn't a powerup can kill you, even by touching you (with one or two small exceptions)
Death And Return of Superman: basic mobs can kill you, even gang members with knives (again, thankfully, not just by touching you)
Superman 64: everything can kill you, including yourself after missing too many rings and wanting to end it all for just having played it
Superman: Man of Steel (XBox): pretty sure anything can kill you, but everything was upper-tier. Still, though, definitely not invulnerable. (this game had some great ideas back in the day, though)
Superman Shadow of Apokalips: anything can kill you (interestingly, my name is in the fan credits for this one)

So, while I'd forgotten about Returns and the LEGO games (in which he's a side-character, iirc, but still), that's still a LOT more where he can be killed by anything. So, again, I say - if that's what "should" be, then there's lots to cover that. Oh, and most Justice League games are like this too, even ones that I very much enjoy, do that as well. Justice League Heroes, for example, is freaking awesome.

Sure they complained. Because they have zero in depth knowledge of Superman. They’re going off of the Donner films and memes, not actual comic book stories. Some would complain if Superman got angry or depressed or doubtful because “Superman is about Hope” takes that have grown in response to the DCEU have made Superman expressing any kind of emotional range beyond “happy” as OOC. Should Superman not be allowed to express any emotions then because some will complain?

I grant you that they don't know much about Superman and most general audiences (gamers or not) have a clear Donner bias, but some of this is pretty basic. Superman runs into a gangster's bullet (it's silver, not green) and dies (NES)? Or a walking robot that has no basic attack touches him (Genesis)? Games have come a long way, and the mentality in how to approach them has and should too, imo - at least when we're talking non-retro style games... sometimes even then.

These enemies shouldn't be the main things you fight, and no one is saying they should. But they can certainly be starter enemies, breather instances potentially to break up the rougher ones, and enemies that challenge Superman in other ways.

With regards to the DCAU: I’m one of its biggest detractors but the complainers are faaaaaaaar outweighed by those who consider it the gold standard for Superman. Him being weak didn’t stop the DCEU from leaving a major impact, and I bet a game that set him around similar power levels would be successful. That’s what Factor 5 was planning after all.

Shadow of Apokalips (based on STAS) is actually a pretty decent game, all things considered (play the Gamecube version, not the PS2, they made a LOT of changes that we all had a hand in suggesting on the GameFAQs forums back in the day). But I'd have different suggestions today, because of what we've seen and what could still be. Thinking is a lot more out of the box now than it used to be.

End of the day I personally don’t care that much about Superman’s power levels, and I don’t think the average person would refuse to play a game starring him if they adjusted his powers for more fun gameplay any more than people would refuse to watch a cartoon where he’s at reduced power levels. Could be wrong and you & Ascended are right, but given the last guys who were trying to make a Superman game that we know of (Factor 5) were seemingly more in line with my beliefs makes me feel confident in my assessment.

I don't generally care about power levels, either... *but*.. there's a point where it's just frustrating and takes me out of the story. I'm not saying people will refuse to play it - but - I think having both is a richer experience to feel more like Superman.

I love the idea of having to think through an action approach - think Fable/Red Dead but Superman. That can be freaking incredible. I like action games (and a Superman game should definitely have action), but we've had a lot of straight up action games. Something unique would be fun and different.

That said, it's a shame Factor 5 didn't finish their game - but it should be noted that they didn't finish it. Who knows what could/would have happened through the game creation process? (a LOT can change - the "Death and Return" SNES/Genesis team originally considered making it multiplayer, and making the Cyborg finale fight more of a chase than it ended up being (I also talked to them waay back in the day - I was 13 or so at the time)

But even the reduced power levels of the DCAU had him be bulletproof and basic thugs couldn't hurt him.

As much as the DCAU Superman annoyed me at times, that power level is actually fine for a game; bulletproof, faster than gunfire, able to throw trains and lift planes. Good enough. In fact, being on the lower end of the power spectrum (by Clark standards) actually solves a few problems.

It's certainly better for a game than a show, imo, but as you said, he's still got some level of invulnerability.

The actual power level itself is less of a concern than the power level in comparison to what's around him. People want, expect, demand, a Superman who is powerful. If the basic, bottom tier enemy NPC's can hurt you, that's not powerful. Won't matter if that basic, bottom tier enemy is a parademon or a dude with a knife, it won't *feel* like Superman, and that's the most important aspect of a hypothetical Superman game.

This. I would say they'd feel better about it if it's a parademon, but still.

Just to clarify Ascended: I agree with the premise that a thug with a gun can’t do crap to Superman. But I wouldn’t have him fight thugs with guns lol. He’d be fighting Intergang members who have Apokoliotan weaponry, soldiers outfitted with the latest in Lexcorp gear, robots made by Brainiac, gladiators brought by Mongul, and so forth.

Why not have some that can't just from time to time? Many games have rofl-stomp sections all the time, in fact it can help give perspective for the larger things.

Or, there are trucks/etc with weaponry shipments that you can stop, and if you don't, then their power just stacks and stacks. There are too many to get them all, but you can limit them to a point so not every Interganster has gets to have that tech. But the more weapons get through, the more % them do - and that can affect reputation, too.

I love the idea of so many different possibilities for what a solid Superman game could be, it's fun to think about!

[Prime]

Superman being killable is important. But I sorta get what Ascended is trying to say. Didn't Spidemrna have timed missions?

[Ascended]

Superman being killable is important. But I sorta get what Ascended is trying to say. Didn't Spidemrna have timed missions?

Insomniac's? Yeah they had some in the main story and there were a number of different side quests you could do with different mission parameters; sometimes it was just "beat up everyone here" and sometimes you had to catch pigeons flying around the city before they got away, or chase down drones before they blew something up or find the right vantage point to line up an image (those Screwball missions sucked). Sometimes you had stealth missions where you had to take down or sneak past all the enemies without any of them noticing you, and there's probably a few other types I'm forgetting.

And that added variety gave a lot of extra life to the game. Made you flex different muscles, so to speak. We see similar stuff in RPG's too, and while I loathe escort quests as much as any sane person, I really enjoy having missions that make me do different things and worry about different factors. Keeps things from getting repetitive.

And once again yes of course Clark should be killable. You guys gotta stop getting hung up on that, nobody here disagrees with that. But what I'm saying is that *some* of those various mission types shouldn't involve the health bar at all. Some of those missions should have different objectives where it's not about whether you live or die, it's about racing the clock or whatever. And in those missions, because it's not about your health bar, the enemies shouldn't be able to hurt you, they should be there to slow you down (or whatever stops you from finishing the mission).

[JAK]

Superman being killable is important. But I sorta get what Ascended is trying to say. Didn't Spidemrna have timed missions?

And once again yes of course Clark should be killable. You guys gotta stop getting hung up on that, nobody here disagrees with that. But what I'm saying is that *some* of those various mission types shouldn't involve the health bar at all. Some of those missions should have different objectives where it's not about whether you live or die, it's about racing the clock or whatever. And in those missions, because it's not about your health bar, the enemies shouldn't be able to hurt you, they should be there to slow you down (or whatever stops you from finishing the mission).

Yep. Superman should be killable, but not by common bank robbers or gang members with knives. And while Metropolis shouldn't have a lot of them, they should show up every once in awhile in various ways. It just adds a different flavor and makes things feel more accurate to the character.

This is going to be one of those things where people aren't going to "get" that this is a more subtle idea than they're thinking until they see it in practice (everybody has things like that, myself included, so that's not intended as a knock, either). And Superman Returns, while having some great ideas and I get why that's what people think of (which is ironic since I somewhat forgot about it myself, lol), isn't it.

And that added variety gave a lot of extra life to the game. Made you flex different muscles, so to speak. We see similar stuff in RPG's too, and while I loathe escort quests as much as any sane person, I really enjoy having missions that make me do different things and worry about different factors. Keeps things from getting repetitive.

Did you play "Shadow of Apokalips" back in the day, by chance? That and the XBox game (Man of Steel) did a few things decently well for the time that could certainly be pumped up for today in exactly how you're describing.