Recently, Kotaku ran an article exploring the two month delay of Batman: Arkham Asylum from June to August of 2009.

In the article Sefton Hill, game director for Rocksteady Studios, revealed that the delay, which many industry officials believed was an indication the title wasn't testing well, was simply used to tighten up the experience:

"Some of the things we worked on that aren't immediately apparent is things like the streaming times." Adding, "You never see any loading screens when you're playing the game. And that's stuff that takes a lot of time to do."

As gamers we are perpetually in a state of anxious excitement for the next high-profile title and it's easy to assume the worst when a game we've been waiting for gets pushed back. Playing through Arkham Asylum, it's easy to see the wait was worthwhile: the various environments are massive and moving from one to the next is seamless. The gameplay runs smoothly over an impressive frame-rate, with little screen-tearing or slow-down - exhibited through the ease of free-flow combat (considering the amount of action occurring simultaneously on screen).

Obviously load screens aren't what they used to be, even in the worst games: gone are the days of being able to slip into the bathroom or grab a snack while your console busily prepares the next level. However, the fact that even the most obnoxious loading prompts aren't terribly long doesn't change the feeling a player could have when they encounter a load screen: ripped from the experience they've been immersed in, reminded that they aren't in this tense place of adventure and danger - they're on a couch... waiting. In a game like Arkham Asylum, which so perfectly gives players the opportunity to explore what it would be like to both think and fight like Batman, load times, slow-down, and other technical problems could have really disrupted the gameplay magic.

As games become more cinematic, and improve on the experience further, these fine touches in games will possibly play an even more important role in how successfully players are kept engaged in the world developers have created. But what's the difference between a developer who requests to delay a game because the title has a lot of problems and a developer who requests to delay a game in order to tighten an already great experience?

Hill believes it comes down to confidence:

"(Developers need) to be able to show that time is going to be well spent. I think if you can do that, any publisher is going to buy into that. I think where it becomes difficult is if you're arguing from a position of weakness, if the confidence isn't there."

Of course there are numerous other reasons a title might get delayed: a tough economic climate or Call of Dutyphobia. However, in the case of solid games that could be even better, hopefully publishers will start to give, or continue to give, developers the space that Rocksteady was allowed with Batman: Arkham Asylum - so that future titles will be allowed the same room to reach their full potential.

Would you rather have a game that arrives on time or a tightly-polished game? Is there a game you wish had stayed in the oven a bit longer?

Source: Kotaku