to answer the thread though, I think video games tend to only nail more obvious, physical aspects of certain concepts (if they nail anything).
Take the Batman: Arkham games for example. They do a great job at providing the player with actions that would be answers to "If you could be Batman, what would you want to do?" Players can grapnel around, glide, hang upside down, hang criminals upside down, drive the Batmobile, Etc. the game has so barely scratched the surface of anything beyond traversal, fighting and stealth/predator gameplay though. The best "detective work" in the series has been in Arkham Origins, and those segments are really basic. You never have to actually piece anything together, though the crime-scene recreation
looks cool. Saving people is pretty basic too, usually a side activity with no unique gameplay/gameplay mechanics associated with it you never have to dive off a roof and catch someone who's falling for example. Batman's games can just be "fight/take out these dudes" and still manage to be compelling.
Superman can't have as straight-forward and approach and be as good. You can't fall back on game conventions as much as with Batman, like skill trees, or more intricately designed locations, puzzles, basic enemy fodder that can still be a risk to the player, and so forth. Since that less straightforward stuff would seem underwhelming or inappropriate in a Superman game, that's probably why no one has been able to do it big. All the more conventional Superman game developers probably found that task too daunting and since licensed games have long been generally poor and meant more as cash grabs, no one has gone for it.
Shadow of Apokolips is pretty decent, but like Batman Vengeance a couple of years before, your enjoyment is reliant on how much you liked the TAS
I remember seeing decent review scores for it. I'm sure it wasn't the end-all-be-all Superman game, but still.