#1 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4208 posts) -

Many gamers are really hyped with the next Batman game. Rocksteady is developing the first “Batman: Arkham” title exclusively for the new consoles and PC. PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC will receive, initially, Batman: Arkham Knight this year.

The problem here is that, according to this rumor, the wait may be longer that we thought: Batman Arkham: Knight may have been delayed to 2015.

The rumor comes straight from WonderCon, after the DC All Access Panel showed the trailer for the game, the DC editors Mike Cotton, Shelly Bond (in charge of Vertigo), and Jim Chadwick (in charge of digital) reminded the audience that this is no longer a 2014 project but a 2015 project.

However, the release date remains unchanged in Rocksteady’s official site, so we must take this with loads of salt.

Stay tuned.

vgleaks: Rumor: Batman Arkham: Knight may have been delayed to 2015

This stuff should be taken with royal tacos of salt, certainly. After the Game Informer cover, information and hype sort of just.. stopped. Maybe. The question is, when in 2015 would this be? January.. or like May?. Because, we're barely getting to May..

I'm still hoping we get something substantial with the cameos. Red Hood, more Scarecrow, and more variety in villains is what I'm hoping for. Any specific hopes for the game?

#2 Edited by csl316 (8674 posts) -

I'm fine with a delay. If it wasn't for Origins, I'd be way more hyped for this.

Not that Origins was bad, this just doesn't need to be an annual series.

#3 Posted by kasumi_geist (30 posts) -

Meh. It was only a couple months off from 2015 to begin with. Extra time to polish is fine by me.

#4 Posted by crithon (3244 posts) -

hmmmm, the word of Rocksteady staffing up for Arkham Knight has been going for about half a year. So they could be more behind then we could imagine. But also, considering how Arkham Origin didn't sell well, I guess this is a sign of Quality is more important then release dates.... Kinda hope it's real rumor. Delays help shape up games into better shape.

By the way, Scarecrow was the voice of the announcement trailer, when you see people running away from the city.

#5 Edited by MEATBALL (3241 posts) -

The demo Vinny & Brad saw sounded like it was in a pretty awful state technically. Obviously, I have no idea if late 2014 would have been a realistic time-frame for developers to sort that sort of thing out or not, but given those technical issues I wouldn't be surprised if this news turned out to be true.

Bummer.

But also, I'm currently playing through Origins, which is still a fun entry into the series, and I might even pick up the Cold Cold Heart DLC so more time between playing Origins and Knight sounds like a good thing.

#6 Posted by MightyDuck (1522 posts) -

I'm fine with a delay if it's to make the game better.

Although, I have to say...I want to buy a PS4, but give me a reason to buy a ps4! I just can't justify putting the money down for a new system when there is maybe only 1 retail game that I'd play. I'm hoping quite a bit gets announced at E3.

#7 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5512 posts) -

I'm a Batman junkie, so if this is true I'll be real bummed. I'll probably just play through all 3 arkham games again if it is. Actually, even if it isn't true I'll still just do that.

#8 Posted by wjb (1662 posts) -

I just got done playing Origins a month ago and surprisingly liked it (was lukewarm on City, unfortunately).

I wasn't really ready for a new Arkham game to come out this year anyway; even if it was Rocksteady.

I can live with a Q1-Q2 2015 release.

#9 Posted by Hunter5024 (5684 posts) -

It seems a little soon after the reveal to delay the game, you'd think if they came to this realization so quickly, then they would've known not to speak about the release window when they did. I'm always okay with a studio taking the time they need, but I hope this rumor is wrong, there's almost nothing I'm looking forward to this fall.

#10 Posted by Nodima (1203 posts) -

@wjb said:

I just got done playing Origins a month ago and surprisingly liked it (was lukewarm on City, unfortunately).

I wasn't really ready for a new Arkham game to come out this year anyway; even if it was Rocksteady.

I can live with a Q1-Q2 2015 release.

I never played Asylum, LOVED City, and I've heard the story is actually probably the best of the three in Origins. About the only negative to that game I can spot for someone in my position is the lower maximum glide height and using almost the same map layout. Given the current Batman sale on PSN, is Asylum still THAT much better a game removing your familiarity with the franchise and talking strictly mechanics, storytelling, etc?

#11 Edited by AgnosticJesus (544 posts) -

I'm waiting on a confirmation from MisterX media before I believe it.

#12 Posted by Falconer (1686 posts) -

Sounds like a load of horse shit to me.

#13 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4811 posts) -

@nodima said:

@wjb said:

I just got done playing Origins a month ago and surprisingly liked it (was lukewarm on City, unfortunately).

I wasn't really ready for a new Arkham game to come out this year anyway; even if it was Rocksteady.

I can live with a Q1-Q2 2015 release.

I never played Asylum, LOVED City, and I've heard the story is actually probably the best of the three in Origins. About the only negative to that game I can spot for someone in my position is the lower maximum glide height and using almost the same map layout. Given the current Batman sale on PSN, is Asylum still THAT much better a game removing your familiarity with the franchise and talking strictly mechanics, storytelling, etc?

Asylum is far more focused than City and Origins. It's far less about traversal and more about the connectivity between combat, gadgets, and stealth. It's also a little looser than City in the combat department.

If you haven't played it, I'd recommend giving it a once over. There's also like, 140 Riddler Challenges as opposed to 440 in City, so that end of it is much more doable.

#14 Posted by ShaggE (6454 posts) -

@nodima said:

@wjb said:

I just got done playing Origins a month ago and surprisingly liked it (was lukewarm on City, unfortunately).

I wasn't really ready for a new Arkham game to come out this year anyway; even if it was Rocksteady.

I can live with a Q1-Q2 2015 release.

I never played Asylum, LOVED City, and I've heard the story is actually probably the best of the three in Origins. About the only negative to that game I can spot for someone in my position is the lower maximum glide height and using almost the same map layout. Given the current Batman sale on PSN, is Asylum still THAT much better a game removing your familiarity with the franchise and talking strictly mechanics, storytelling, etc?

Some will defend Asylum to the death as being the best of the three (and I understand why, to an extent), but I really think City is by far the better game.

That said, Asylum is still one of my favorite games ever, and I highly suggest getting it. It'll feel stripped down and almost hilariously easy after playing the other two, but it's still an Arkham game, and it still has the most brilliant sequence in the series so far. (one might say it's a ... gas?)

#15 Edited by TheHBK (5485 posts) -

Can someone answer this for me? I mean really, why do so many people respond with, "I am ok with the delay because they are making the game better."? It is not like they are doing it for free or not charging for the game. I just ask because as an adult, with a job that has deadlines, I got shit to finish and a delay would not be fucking acceptable. So I don't get how people are cool with this kind of mentality. Even John Carmack has admitted that the "when it's done" approach fucked ID pretty badly.

#16 Posted by The_Patriarch (279 posts) -

@thehbk Because people know the alternative in this business: A product that gets rushed out the door, leading to quality issues or cut content. (Such as Dragon Age 2 or KOTOR 2, to name a couple)

The game is gonna cost the same whether it comes out in november or march, the difference will be the quality, and people would rather wait a few months, instead of buying a game that isnt as good as it could have been.

#17 Edited by TheAcidSkull (435 posts) -

@nodima said:

@wjb said:

I just got done playing Origins a month ago and surprisingly liked it (was lukewarm on City, unfortunately).

I wasn't really ready for a new Arkham game to come out this year anyway; even if it was Rocksteady.

I can live with a Q1-Q2 2015 release.

I never played Asylum, LOVED City, and I've heard the story is actually probably the best of the three in Origins. About the only negative to that game I can spot for someone in my position is the lower maximum glide height and using almost the same map layout. Given the current Batman sale on PSN, is Asylum still THAT much better a game removing your familiarity with the franchise and talking strictly mechanics, storytelling, etc?

Asylum is far more focused than City and Origins. It's far less about traversal and more about the connectivity between combat, gadgets, and stealth. It's also a little looser than City in the combat department.

If you haven't played it, I'd recommend giving it a once over. There's also like, 140 Riddler Challenges as opposed to 440 in City, so that end of it is much more doable.

Asylum was by far the best too IMO

#18 Posted by wjb (1662 posts) -

@nodima said:

@wjb said:

I just got done playing Origins a month ago and surprisingly liked it (was lukewarm on City, unfortunately).

I wasn't really ready for a new Arkham game to come out this year anyway; even if it was Rocksteady.

I can live with a Q1-Q2 2015 release.

I never played Asylum, LOVED City, and I've heard the story is actually probably the best of the three in Origins. About the only negative to that game I can spot for someone in my position is the lower maximum glide height and using almost the same map layout. Given the current Batman sale on PSN, is Asylum still THAT much better a game removing your familiarity with the franchise and talking strictly mechanics, storytelling, etc?

Asylum is far more focused than City and Origins. It's far less about traversal and more about the connectivity between combat, gadgets, and stealth. It's also a little looser than City in the combat department.

If you haven't played it, I'd recommend giving it a once over. There's also like, 140 Riddler Challenges as opposed to 440 in City, so that end of it is much more doable.

I agree, I preferred the more focused approach to Asylum; a lot of people compared it to a modern Metroid game. Even if City or Origins improved certain things about the franchise (naturally), I think Asylum is still worth playing (if you have money to spare). Most of the boss fights in Asylum weren't that great, though, especially the final boss.

I enjoyed Asylum more than City, but I think a lot of it had to do with expectations. Asylum was dismissed by a lot of people (including me, probably) until a month or so before it came out, and it became the game everyone talked about that year because no one expected a Batman game from an unknown developer to be any good. When City was announced, I was under the impression it was going to be more..."open world," and was a little disappointed when it wasn't what I expected. That's on me, though. It seems like Arkham Knight might be more of what I wanted, but eh, we'll see.

I think that's why I liked Origins, because a lot of people dumped on the game because it wasn't Rocksteady (I wonder how many actually gave it a chance?) and it turned out to be a really great experience. It wasn't perfect (forget the "Why is no one on the streets?" bullshit; the real issue is "Why am I in some lame borough of Gotham City when the skybox cityscape in the background looks so much cooler to traverse?), but the story was pretty good and it went in directions that was pleasing to see.

And yeah, it shouldn't be a big deal, but having that many Riddler trophies in City kind of turned me off towards any of the side stuff in that game. I guess maybe the way Rocksteady presented it did not give me the incentive to spend more time on the game once I completed the main story? I think I got to 150 trophies, and maybe 50 more after the game. I think I looked at a guide for 20 more and then said, "I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ANYMORE!"

#19 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5512 posts) -

Was this ever substantiated? I really hope this isn't the case as the list of games for this year is only getting smaller.

#20 Edited by Schlorgan (216 posts) -

I hope not. That would mean EA will own my entire holiday with Inquisition and Hardline.

#21 Posted by Shortbreadtom (780 posts) -

A cryogenics lab would be great right now. It seems everything I'm excited for is being delayed. The Order: 1866 was just delayed to 2015 too. All I need now is for Destiny or Evolve to be delayed...

#22 Edited by Demoskinos (14835 posts) -

@thehbk: A bad game is forever a delay is temporary.

#23 Edited by TheAcidSkull (435 posts) -

Good, they'll take more time to make the game awesome.

Also, batmans reaction, because I'm board.....

#24 Posted by TheHBK (5485 posts) -

@thehbk: A bad game is forever a delay is temporary.

I get that. Delays happen because they are not finished. I am more questioning the reaction of a lot of people posting here and other comments sections of how they are ok with the delay. Sure we know it has to happen, but why? Why didn't they do their job right and deliver when they said they would because as I point out, I don't know many businesses where delays are treated so well.

#25 Edited by Snail (8606 posts) -

Is it just me or are delays in this generation more prolific than in any preceding one? We're, like, half a year in and we've already had a bunch of different blockbuster titles delayed to "the next year".

#26 Edited by hermes (1487 posts) -

@thehbk said:

@demoskinos said:

@thehbk: A bad game is forever a delay is temporary.

I get that. Delays happen because they are not finished. I am more questioning the reaction of a lot of people posting here and other comments sections of how they are ok with the delay. Sure we know it has to happen, but why? Why didn't they do their job right and deliver when they said they would because as I point out, I don't know many businesses where delays are treated so well.

Because we got nothing to lose for playing the game in February 2015 instead of November 2014, while in other examples, people and companies can be putting their livelihood, stability and future at risk if something they were promised for some date is not ready in time and form.

Besides, as others pointed out, some months of extra polish and bug hunting can go a long way in the quality of the game. If the delay of a few months makes up for a better product overall, we all win.

#27 Edited by DonutFever (3551 posts) -

I hope so, that part of the year is filling up quickly.

#28 Edited by Ungodly (28 posts) -

@snail: New tech, ole boy. Delays are heaviest at the beginning and ends of each generation. Plus it looks like the 360 and PS3 are going to hold on for a while, so it will take a while to adapt and refine.

#29 Posted by Hunter5024 (5684 posts) -

2015 is looking pretty great so far.

#30 Posted by Pr1mus (3910 posts) -

No problem with a delay. I'm broke, certainly not going to buy a PS4 and can't upgrade my computer for the foreseeable future and it's probably the first game i'm greatly interested that probably won't run on it.

#31 Posted by altairre (1192 posts) -

Was this ever substantiated? I really hope this isn't the case as the list of games for this year is only getting smaller.

No it was not. In fact this rumour resulted from a misunderstanding. The context was that they talked about (the previously unannounced) Injustice 2 and that it would be a 2015 game.

#32 Posted by Hunter5024 (5684 posts) -

@altairre said:

@themanwithnoplan said:

Was this ever substantiated? I really hope this isn't the case as the list of games for this year is only getting smaller.

No it was not. In fact this rumour resulted from a misunderstanding. The context was that they talked about (the previously unannounced) Injustice 2 and that it would be a 2015 game.

Injustice 2 is a thing? Where can I find this information?

#33 Edited by 49th (2758 posts) -

70% of my motivation for getting a PS4 this year was so I could play Arkham Knight... please no.

Online
#34 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

Didn't a trailer come out way after this leak that had a date of this year? Pretty sure if it was going to get delayed, they would've announced it during the trailer release.

#35 Edited by SMTDante89 (2581 posts) -

@altairre said:

@themanwithnoplan said:

Was this ever substantiated? I really hope this isn't the case as the list of games for this year is only getting smaller.

No it was not. In fact this rumour resulted from a misunderstanding. The context was that they talked about (the previously unannounced) Injustice 2 and that it would be a 2015 game.

Injustice 2 is a thing? Where can I find this information?

These links are the only thing I could find quickly. Here's one, which links to another. Then there's this one.

Not sure how much stock to put into them though, so I would still take it all with a grain of salt.

#36 Posted by Hunter5024 (5684 posts) -

@smtdante89: Thanks! Kind of hope this isn't true, because I'd really like a new Mortal Kombat.

#37 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5512 posts) -
@altairre said:

@themanwithnoplan said:

Was this ever substantiated? I really hope this isn't the case as the list of games for this year is only getting smaller.

No it was not. In fact this rumour resulted from a misunderstanding. The context was that they talked about (the previously unannounced) Injustice 2 and that it would be a 2015 game.

Well that's great to hear. Also, no idea Injustice 2 was in development. I'm all for that.

#38 Posted by crithon (3244 posts) -

You know, didn't Vinny and other media outlets say that the Arkham Knight preview event ran poorly? and now this Gameplay trailer has some people questioning if it's pre-rendered in order to compensate for poor optimization?

#39 Posted by John1912 (1886 posts) -

Well I hope it is not delayed. Its one of my favorite series. They have all been great games imo. Sad Origins got such a bad rap, I liked it better then Arkham City.

#40 Posted by altairre (1192 posts) -

@altairre said:

@themanwithnoplan said:

Was this ever substantiated? I really hope this isn't the case as the list of games for this year is only getting smaller.

No it was not. In fact this rumour resulted from a misunderstanding. The context was that they talked about (the previously unannounced) Injustice 2 and that it would be a 2015 game.

Well that's great to hear. Also, no idea Injustice 2 was in development. I'm all for that.

Hell yeah you are! Injustice was awesome and Batgirl is probably my favorite fighting game character of all time since she's so fun to play.