Or, you know, heroic fiction stretching back to the dawn of human history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
Haven't read it, but invincible heroes suck no matter what time and date they were written in, unless they have something else going for them that is compensates for the entertainment and is executed incredibly well.
And really? You bring up DmC as the solution to the problem with indestructible fantasy protagonists? A game where the main character is physically intimidated by a villian ONCE, and the gameplay is so laughably easy that you're unlikely to get a single game over?
A) Maybe you could point to where I brought up DmC as a counter-example.
B) While we're on the subject, DmC's Mundus was STILL more intimidating to Dante and Vergil through most of the game than Sanctus and The Savior were in 4. They had to execute a plan to separate him from his Hellgate, then hit him at his weakpoints. Hits him hard with Eryx, who then no sells and throw him at a building. It's no GoW2/3 Zeus, but like I said, more intimidating than 4's antagonists. DMC1's Mundus was pretty good, Dante wasn't unbeatable here, needed several things to fight on level with Mundus, took a lick or two in fighting him even then, and mostly succeeded in trapping him in his dimension in the end. And though I didn't get the impression Dante was ever intimidated by Arkham, DMC3 kinda gets a pass with Beowulf and it's overall story and handling of Dante (it's just those particular scenes that make me skip each time.)
The mindset seemed to be in DMC3 to have Dante as many ridiculous things as possible, whether he was answering phones, putting on jackets, or in an actual action scene that may call for such over-the-topness, and because of it, certain scenes just grate on me in further viewings.
Classic DMC's difficulty was a call to action that made you want to aspire to be the indestructible protagonist conveyed in the cutscene. That aesthetic where Dante was a cocksure joyseeker was something you worked to emulate by being a better player and made the gameplay more satisfying as a result.
It works from a game standpoint, but it doesn't make for an interesting character if that is ALL a character has going for them, to the point that everything they have to do has to be cool looking and over-the-top. (Note: it wasn't until 2 and 4 he became almost solely this.)
Trying to take an action series which thrives on the eccentric, over the top nature of the world and characters it revolves around and "ground it in relatable characters" is completely undermined when you still have to have that game have ludicrously over the top action in order to actually make the gameplay anything like it's predecessors.
There seems to be this confusion in what I am saying. I'm saying again, that there's a line between doing cool things, and just blatantly showing off, which kills the "coolness" trying to be conveyed.
Ex: a rock is thrown at a character.
Jumping back to dodge it = effective.
doing a backflip to avoid it = cool.
hitting a double backflip = cool.
Hitting a double backflip into a half-twist with a yawn taking out your cellphone to talk to your girlfriend then hitting a split during your landing into a moonwalk and finishing with a pelvic thrust = .....Cool?
Ninja Gaiden, God of War, Darksiders, Castlevania, hell Metal Gear Rising and Anarchy Reigns. Even when Raiden runs on missiles, he's at least doing it for a reason beyond "hey look! This character is doing something really cool!"
