Even with a lengthy handwave, the way that DS2 handles time travel is still really flawed. Let's take for granted that Lillith is only capable of travelling back within the confines of the castle; she could easily warn Samael of Abaddon's betrayal and orchestrate things so that War never gets summoned, or ensure that when he is summoned that his mission is impossible to complete. All it would take is throwing a mission critical tool like The Glaive into a lava pit and his whole mission is buggered. I know villians in any setting could do that (Ganondorf could destroy every Hookshot in existance to preven Link from ever defeating him), but Lillith has the benefit of hindsight with time travel, so she could very easily tip the scales in her favour. Of course Lillith is an incredibly vague character whose exact motives aren't clear, so perhaps everything is elapsing as she designs it, but not knowing a villian's intentions can be hugely exasperating.
At least with Moebius by the end of Blood Omen 1 we knew he was a genocidal prick obsessed with wiping out the vampire species, and subsequent games explored those motives. With Lillith we have...nothing.
The first part reminds me of Bowser . . . Yeah, great fortress design, Bowser. A removable axe that would lead to your downfall and slowly rotating flame lines. Oooo, scary. Oh, and your tactics suck donkey hooves. Do you know how many potential Mario-killers you lose on a daily basis by having them walk off ledges, not follow him when he's looking at them, or only patrolling and never pursuing? A lot. And those Goombas sure are dangerous aren't they? They're such quick little buggers without any weapons.
Considering it's basically a story of good versus evil with DmC and almost every story to date. It's necessary to have some way for the protagonist to win even if it means that villains are terribly stupid. I want a game that you play as a hopeless protagonist or multiple ones that through their efforts, ultimately fail and maybe even provide further progress to the villain. I want a game where the villain wins and you're not playing as him.
And characters with or without motives is another it works or it doesn't work situation to me. With guys like Clockwerk, Ganon/Ganondorf, Mundus, and Bowser, knowing what they want just makes you want to stop them. You know that they're the bad guys and you're the good guy. Other times, with their motives being revealed, such as Dracula from Castlevania, Wind Waker's Ganon, Kessler from inFamous, it makes them much more interesting than the typical bad guy; they're more like tragic villains or maybe even heroes. But it can make it predictable, though.
Does Joker have a motive? Anyway, characters without motives can work extremely well. With Joker, he's a complete nut-job. He torments Batman and others almost just for the hell of it. And you never really find out why; he gives to hints, multiple back stories because if he could have one, he'd like it to be like multiple choice. Other times with vague motives or no motives, it just ends up as why? Why would you waste your time for what seems like nothing? And you either dig for more information or just give up because it's such a waste of time.
The thing is, as it's basically an unwritten element of mythology, Antonaides could have invented a whole new term for the children of demons and angels. There's nothing wrong with trying to add your own creative input on to an existing concept, but instead he just slapped on a tangentially related term and decided that it would do the trick, because who really cares about mythology anymore?
Square Enix did that with the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy, Final Fantasy Type-0, the long awaited Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Final Fantasy X with fayths? (I don't remember), and plenty of other games. Coming from a person who enjoyed FFXIII, the concept of l'Cie rings like a bell to me. But for someone who never played FFXIII or knows nothing about it, I feel like it just doesn't click with them compared to hearing vampires, werewolves, sirens, dragons, and other familiar, well-established beings. At the same time though, Square Enix is faithful in their interpretations of mythological beings such as Ifrit, Shiva, Odin, Bahamut, etc.
Some people can pull it off and some can't. Insomniac Games, George Lucas and Star Wars, Doctor Who, and Star Trek introduced plenty of different species that are sometimes based on existing ones while some are completely different and unheard of before. Sucker Punch used conduits instead of meta-humans or mutants; it's essentially the same thing, but in inFamous' universe it fits with how science and powers were used. Conduits channel something, in inFamous' case, powers such as electricity, ice, and fire. Meta-humans and mutants have the ability to do the same thing. They are just superhuman beings.
I feel like Vigil Games and Ninja Theory were at a dead end with what to call their creations. Both loosely based their creations on mythology; the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and angels and demons. Vigil Games could have just called the race: horsemen, but that sounds generic and lazy in my opinion. As the story continued and they were revealed to be made from the ashes of angels and demons, what could you call them? Dustmen? Ashmen? People of the Ash? Sort of the same with Ninja Theory. Hybrid? Half-blood? Monster? Abominations? Those were probably used before and are generic. They could have made up a random name like l'Cie. But they would need a name not so complex like l'Cie which is based on Latin, I believe. And they need a name not so generic like "horsemen".
And I feel that "Nephilim" and probably a ton of other names of mythological beings have been tossed around so much that they either don't mean what they did or that nobody remembers or cares about what they meant. For an example, banshees and sirens are not the same thing. Yes, they're both ghosts, but one screams and the other sings. One is based on Irish mythology and the other is based on Greek mythology. Hell, with dragons, there are sub groups; wyrms, wyverns, drakes, Asian, European, etc. And I bet that there has been a drake when it should have been a dragon or a wyvern when it should have been a wyrm.
At least Garth Ennis had his depiction of an angel and demon child have a unique quality to it instead of another boring humanoid species. In Preacher the child is called Genesis, and it's an amorphous consciousness with power that rivals The Almighty himself.
Species of whatever are fine in my opinion. But when some random species looks really human when it's not and could have been something interesting feels kind of like a cop out. Quarians anyone? Ratchet & Clank have many humanoid species but they're so funky.
And I think it might have to do with humans relating to more familiar things such as humanoid species. I mean, how would you have felt if DmC had Dante and Vergil look like snakes with dove wings and bull horns?
I actually liked that element of Phineas's design. It could be that without his eye component he's only capable of left-hemispherical thinking.
I liked Phineas as a character and his appearance as well; he's not the stereotypical demon we'd see. But some things for me seem just off, maybe's it Unreal Engine 3 that makes his clothes and other textures seem weird. Without the eye, I think Phineas is blind in his left eye. When you meet him, he's swinging wildly at the harpies and then Dante who was less than about a foot away from him. Without the eye, Phineas gives off that dependence vibe, where he needs something to function normally.
