Superman In Video Games General Discussion

[Vordan]

Ok that would work in a first game. But how would you justify Clark getting his powers back in a sequel? You can only do that once.

He starts with most of the powers unlocked but not fully upgraded, same as how Batman got to start each sequel with most of the gear from the previous game unlocked, but not fully upgraded. And the second game would take place in Metropolis too.

[Ascended]

I don’t quite agree because the Arkham games didn’t give you the “full” experience right off the bat either. You couldn’t drive the Batmobile until Knight. The Batfamily didn’t show up until City. The core of Superman is that he’s strong, fast, and can fly. Long as he has some measure of those abilities, and I don’t buy that Clark can’t be around Spider-Man tier strong and fast to feel legit in a game, then the public will accept him.

I'm not saying Clark has to have access to *all* of his resources immediately or anything, but I do think if a game doesn't make you feel as strong/tough/fast as folks expect Clark to be, it'll hurt the game. There was an old....SNES? Xbox?...game where Metropolis was covered in a kryptonite fog. And that works with the lore and it explained in-story the reason why Clark couldn't do the stuff he usually could. But fans seemed to hate it, because it was a Super game that didn't feel like Superman. If you pick up a Superman game, I imagine you want to feel like Superman, and getting that sense of power while still having a challenge and a progression system sounds difficult. On the old "game" thread we all debated a lot about how to make a player feel like Clark while still challenging them, and one point I hit over and over is that a player needs to feel like Clark and not a generic game character.

But if it is a problem then just put him in a setting where Superman starting off depowered and having to unlock his abilities makes sense. My pitch is the Phantom Zone but you could easily copy the Warworld Saga and mandate Clark has to collect Genesis fragments from foes to reempower himself, and that’s basically his XP to “level up”.

I think I suggested an experimental "red sun ray" made by Brainiac.

Full power you say? As in fist fights at supersonic speeds? hmm... that does sound challenging.

It does. And in my mind, it's not just fist fights at supersonic speeds, it's also super senses, heat vision, using your surroundings wisely, boss/enemy mechanics...

Games can do everything a Superman game could ever need. The craziest and most daring ideas we can cook up, some game out there has turned into code and fit inside a console download. But putting all those pieces together in a way that not only makes a fun game, but a good *Superman* game? I figure that's gotta be tough, because otherwise we'd have it already.

[Prime]

He starts with most of the powers unlocked but not fully upgraded, same as how Batman got to start each sequel with most of the gear from the previous game unlocked, but not fully upgraded. And the second game would take place in Metropolis too.

Idk. I would start off the first game with a big chunk of Metropolis getting sucked to the phantom zone. There you don’t necessarily have to need Clark considering he is fighting PZ criminals and robots and whatever else is there.

[DABellWrites]

Sure, but you're talking story. I'm talking mechanics, hard/software limitations, and data size.

You can call any character in a video game a "god" and then have them defeated with a blue shell or a boomerang or chain-sword or Ultima spell or whatever. But capturing the full scope of Clark's abilities and accurately translating that into a player's experience, with room left over to make the game fun and challenging? That's a relatively recent advancement.

And if you ask me, if you can't give a player the full scope of Clark's powers there's not much point in doing the game at all. I'd happily accept a Golden Age Superman game (which would be easy to do, by today's standards), but if you want the "classic" fully powered version? All or nothing baby.

You're playing as Kratos, a man strong enough to kill Gods. There's no way in hell he should be getting beat by mob characters. Anyways, I stick to it's not hard. You just can't showcase Clark's full range. You have to limit him for the medium. Or just let the players pick and choose the "powers". For example, I'd have Clark being strong, fast, have a limited invulnerability, but no enhanced/super hearing and vision. Regular bullets won't hurt him, but if you bring out a tank? He'll lose life until he dies. People who go for the full range, will have a crap ton kryptonite inserted in the game for obvious reasons.

[Ascended]

I struggled to describe this properly in the old game thread, but my solution was to have a mix of quest parameters where physical defeat wasn't always a part of "mission failure." Which naturally made everyone think of the awful Superman Returns game and how annoying/bad it was. That game is an example of how *not* to do something, but the basic idea of a mission where physical defeat isn't the crux? Nothing wrong with that.

So I figure you mix it up. Some missions have timers, and you fail if you don't do the thing fast enough. Some missions have a thing you're supposed to protect and you fail if it gets destroyed. Or whatever. And yes, some missions (plenty of them) have enemies that can kick your ass and you fail if your HP reaches 0. But if Kratos isn't supposed to lose to trash mobs because he can beat up gods, how is Clark any different? He's beaten up more gods than Kratos has.

As for "You just can't showcase Clark's full range" I gotta ask; if you can't do a proper Superman then why do it at all? Why pay the enormous licensing fee to make a Superman game that doesn't play like Superman? We have a long string of Super games that have tried to do that, and they all failed. Why would it work this time? Again, if you did a retro Golden Age Superman game, that's one thing. That could work, as folks still vaguely remember the days when he could only leap tall buildings and a retro 1940's aesthetic might be enough to break the expectations of what Superman "should" do. But anything that's trying to be a "typical, standard" Superman requires the whole Superman experience, otherwise you're not playing Superman, just a video game character in cosplay.

Bottom line, way I see it, is that we have a ton of Super games that did what you (and others) suggest. They give us a Superman that doesn't feel like Superman, and they explain it away as "kryptonite fog" or "everyone has Intergang weapons from Apokolips" or whatever. Players didn't swallow the excuses then, and were disappointed that a Super game didn't make them feel like Superman. I see no reason to expect the same approach to work now when every past one failed. Given Clark's record in gaming, it seems to me that you can't do another half-ass effort; you're all in or it's not worth doing. And we have the ability to go all-in now, unlike those past games that were limited by the hardware of their time.

[DochaDocha]

As for "You just can't showcase Clark's full range" I gotta ask; if you can't do a proper Superman then why do it at all?

Quoted for emphasis. I loved Capcom's vs. series with Marvel and I thought the comic accuracy was far secondary to gameplay. In that game, who cares if the matchups don't make sense? Just make it a good game, and the Marvel Super Hero aesthetic is a nice bonus. But if you're making a Superman solo game, I think the Superman simulation has to be a big part of it, otherwise I'll feel like I'm just playing something like Injustice but with (we hope) a less crappy take on Superman.

I'm curious in a Superman game that is basically like Lego Batman in which you can't die but you progress by completing objectives. What if you unlocked new parts of the game by demonstrating high skill, or got punished with bad story arcs if you played badly? It might be interesting, I dunno. Maybe the problem with Superman in both stories and video games is people get too caught up in live-or-die.

[Prime]

I struggled to describe this properly in the old game thread, but my solution was to have a mix of quest parameters where physical defeat wasn't always a part of "mission failure." Which naturally made everyone think of the awful Superman Returns game and how annoying/bad it was. That game is an example of how *not* to do something, but the basic idea of a mission where physical defeat isn't the crux? Nothing wrong with that.

So I figure you mix it up. Some missions have timers, and you fail if you don't do the thing fast enough. Some missions have a thing you're supposed to protect and you fail if it gets destroyed. Or whatever. And yes, some missions (plenty of them) have enemies that can kick your ass and you fail if your HP reaches 0. But if Kratos isn't supposed to lose to trash mobs because he can beat up gods, how is Clark any different? He's beaten up more gods than Kratos has.

As for "You just can't showcase Clark's full range" I gotta ask; if you can't do a proper Superman then why do it at all? Why pay the enormous licensing fee to make a Superman game that doesn't play like Superman? We have a long string of Super games that have tried to do that, and they all failed. Why would it work this time? Again, if you did a retro Golden Age Superman game, that's one thing. That could work, as folks still vaguely remember the days when he could only leap tall buildings and a retro 1940's aesthetic might be enough to break the expectations of what Superman "should" do. But anything that's trying to be a "typical, standard" Superman requires the whole Superman experience, otherwise you're not playing Superman, just a video game character in cosplay.

Bottom line, way I see it, is that we have a ton of Super games that did what you (and others) suggest. They give us a Superman that doesn't feel like Superman, and they explain it away as "kryptonite fog" or "everyone has Intergang weapons from Apokolips" or whatever. Players didn't swallow the excuses then, and were disappointed that a Super game didn't make them feel like Superman. I see no reason to expect the same approach to work now when every past one failed. Given Clark's record in gaming, it seems to me that you can't do another half-ass effort; you're all in or it's not worth doing. And we have the ability to go all-in now, unlike those past games that were limited by the hardware of their time.

I mean Kratos can get killed by a mob of monsters happened to me a couple of times. Just like Dante can get killed in freaking Dante must Die mode in Devil May Cry. Both Dante and Kratos in lore and in verse and super powerful but for gameplay sake they can get killed.

I ask this again. Have any golf you played Dragonball Z Kakarot? If we going to use a game might as well use the guy that closest to Clark in terms of powers and all.

[Ascended]

I ask this again. Have any golf you played Dragonball Z Kakarot? If we going to use a game might as well use the guy that closest to Clark in terms of powers and all.

I have not, but I recall it being mentioned several times in the old game thread.

As for Kratos and that side of the discussion, I'm not suggesting that Clark can't be taken down by enemies, but one big difference between Kratos and Clark, which kinda nullifies the whole comparison for me, is that Kratos exists only in games. There's no larger public perception to deal with like there is with Superman. If a trash mob can take down Kratos, the game can explain that and there's no reason for players to argue with whatever logic is presented. Superman is another matter. People have an image of what Superman is supposed to be in their heads, and a game needs to take that into consideration. Previous games have all tried in-story explanations for why Clark isn't as powerful/tough as he should be, and players rejected those justifications because regardless of in-game logic, it didn't feel like they thought Superman should. The same approach now will have the same result, and we'll just have another failed Super game to add to an already long list. You gotta think outside the box with this guy, and find ways to engage and challenge players beyond "your HP reaches 0."

Again, I'm not saying Superman needs to be utterly invulnerable, only that excuses that turn him into a generic video game character, like "kryptonite fog" or "Apokolips weapons" won't work. We *know* it won't work, as it's been tried (many times) before and *always* fails.

[Adekis]

I'm still kind of convinced that the old conventional wisdom - that Superman simply doesn't lend himself well to 3D games - is true. The best portrayal is probably something like the LEGO games but even those lack the easy, confident precision with which Superman uses his powers.

[DABellWrites]

Powers aside, I want to ask. What's y'all thoughts on James Gunn's ambitious shared universe with using the live-action actors in the video games? Clark needs his own video game series, isolated from the Gunn's DCU. I came to realize Superman-only media is exactly what he needs since Superman in adaptations these days have always been JL or attached to a bigger "cinematic universe".

[DochaDocha]

Powers aside, I want to ask. What's y'all thoughts on James Gunn's ambitious shared universe with using the live-action actors in the video games? Clark needs his own video game series, isolated from the Gunn's DCU. I came to realize Superman-only media is exactly what he needs since Superman in adaptations these days have always been JL or attached to a bigger "cinematic universe".

Gut reaction is meh. I'm sure there are good or even great movie tie-in games, but none has ever really appealed to me since Star Wars Arcade back in the 1980s.

Also, if the movie is no good, I don't want the game based in that universe.

[Ascended]

Powers aside, I want to ask. What's y'all thoughts on James Gunn's ambitious shared universe with using the live-action actors in the video games?

Not a fan of the idea. But I also think that was more hype than anything. Gunn's said we'll get stuff outside of his main canon, "Elseworld" stories, and I suspect most games will fall under that heading. I actually think we'll get more Elseworlds across the board than what Gunn was making it sound like.

But I question whether you can take the films and live action stuff and turn it into a quality game anyway. What works for one genre and format doesn't necessarily work for another. Will the actors they cast be good at voice acting? Not every actor is. Will they have to provide mo-cap for the game? That stuff can take time, and probably doesn't pay nearly as well as Hollywood actors are accustomed to. What about the audience? Will the gaming community take to these actors the same way theater audiences will?

On paper it probably sounded like a good idea, but I dunno how realistic it is, or even if it's desirable.

[Prime]

I have not, but I recall it being mentioned several times in the old game thread.

As for Kratos and that side of the discussion, I'm not suggesting that Clark can't be taken down by enemies, but one big difference between Kratos and Clark, which kinda nullifies the whole comparison for me, is that Kratos exists only in games. There's no larger public perception to deal with like there is with Superman. If a trash mob can take down Kratos, the game can explain that and there's no reason for players to argue with whatever logic is presented. Superman is another matter. People have an image of what Superman is supposed to be in their heads, and a game needs to take that into consideration. Previous games have all tried in-story explanations for why Clark isn't as powerful/tough as he should be, and players rejected those justifications because regardless of in-game logic, it didn't feel like they thought Superman should. The same approach now will have the same result, and we'll just have another failed Super game to add to an already long list. You gotta think outside the box with this guy, and find ways to engage and challenge players beyond "your HP reaches 0."

Again, I'm not saying Superman needs to be utterly invulnerable, only that excuses that turn him into a generic video game character, like "kryptonite fog" or "Apokolips weapons" won't work. We *know* it won't work, as it's been tried (many times) before and *always* fails.

I mention it because Goku and Superman have similar powers and that game low key has the skeleton or blueprints for a Superman video game. Goku never fights humans he fights aliens and robots. Same thing you can do with Superman. It’s sorta open world. You can fly around and all. There is different a places you can go to. How can I post a link for a video with my phone? Or you can check on YouTube the gameplay.

[Vordan]

"When we launch a product on Max or HBO, and when we have a game, that game belongs to us, but now there's this in-betweener. It may be in the next couple of years that we launch a Superman movie and...people spend more time and there's more economics of people just hanging out in the Superman world and universe.

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91352...oss/index.html

Damn I know I shouldn’t get my hopes up, but that really does sound like WBD wants a Superman game out sometime in between Legacy and whatever comes next. I only hope it’s a proper AAA game and not some mobile crap.

[DochaDocha]

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91352...oss/index.html

Damn I know I shouldn’t get my hopes up, but that really does sound like WBD wants a Superman game out sometime in between Legacy and whatever comes next. I only hope it’s a proper AAA game and not some mobile crap.

What, don't you have a phone?