There are a lot of jokes thrown around about what some consider perhaps "the worst game ever," Superman: The New Adventures, more commonly known as Superman 64. And, from personal experience, I can tell you that Superman Shadow of Apokolips isn’t a whole lot better. Likewise, from the brief bit of research I did, it doesn't look like Superman Returns: The Videogame fairs too well either. So why is it that, as written in Return's IGN game review, "Being the best Superman game doesn't mean much?" After all, Rocksteady pulled in huge critical acclaim with their Batman: Arkham games, and both of the upcoming Arkham: Origins titles look intriguing too. So, given the right developer, couldn't the same be done with Superman? Well, to be honest, even if you gave a nice budget and a wealth of creative freedom to a great developer who was enthusiastic about Clark Kent and his alter ego, I doubt they'd be able to pull it off. The intriguing aspects of a good Superman story are just too difficult to translate into a video game.
Think back to Batman: Arkham Asylum, and remember what it was about that game that worked so well; what it was about Arkham: Asylum that made you feel like Batman: swiftly gliding with your cape on the tops of gargoyles, silently taking down an unsuspecting henchman, expertly planting explosives on a wall, or even just propelling onto a catwalk with your grappling hook. Every part of that gave you the sense that you were the Dark Knight, so why can't players just be given the strength and the speed to toss their foes halfway across Metropolis, then fly to their rescue before they hit the ground, and have created a good Superman game?
Read on past the jump to see why I think it is that Superman games suck so badly and probably always will.