I'm fairly certain... no one asked for this...

[SckizoBoy]

Assassins Creed III to be remastered [https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/09/assassins-creed-3-is-getting-remastered/]

I mean, it is considered one of the worst AC games, the franchise is pretty much undergoing its death throes and while I may be vaguely excited for Odyssey (if only for the setting, I really wish it was completely dissociated from the AC franchise (I mean, seriously, one of the DLC's concerns Atlantis, after some of Origins' real left-turn hijinks), and I'll still only get it a year or eighteen months after release so my wallet doesn't feel the need to strangle me), it is for the first time since Black Flag. I am, genuinely, confused by the rationale of remastering III... sure, improved 'gameplay mechanics' and 'ergonomics' MAY entice some buyers, but it can't make up for a really clunky/ground out experience and one of the most unrelatable AC protagonists. The Ezio Collection made sense to remaster (if you don't mind the idea of remastering) because ACII was, by and large, a very good game and Ezio was a popular player-character, along with a lot of the supporting cast (well, Leonardo at the very least) etc. etc. etc.

May you all join me in a collective 'lul wut w/e meh...!'

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Assassin's Creed 3 doesn't need a remaster. It needs a redesign. The game was rushed and it obviously wasn't finished. Unless they redesign the gameplay and 90% of the missions, why bother?

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Assassin's Creed 3 doesn't need a remaster. It needs a redesign. The game was rushed and it obviously wasn't finished. Unless they redesign the gameplay and 90% of the missions, why bother?

Remasters are easy, quicker and cheap than redesigns/remakes, therefore more profitable, and consumers will buy whatever spitshined turd we (the publisher) throw them (cuz it's shinier).

I'm assuming that's the underlying reasoning. Which may or may not be reasonable, but big publisher thinking is not really bound by reality, so...

 

[Hades]

I think AC III doesn't really deserve the bad reputation. Storywise its probably the best one thanks to Haythan making the Templars the intellectual equals of the Assasins for once rather than cartoon villains. Its also much braver in its depiction of the revolution than people appreciate. Connor still sides with the Patriots purely because that's what the American audience wants but its still pretty brave to show Washington as a militarily inept, weak willed and morally questionable guy.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Remasters are easy, quicker and cheap than redesigns/remakes, therefore more profitable, and consumers will buy whatever spitshined turd we (the publisher) throw them (cuz it's shinier).

I'm assuming that's the underlying reasoning. Which may or may not be reasonable, but big publisher thinking is not really bound by reality, so...

Which would be fine, but look at the title being remastered... ACIII Remastered is unlikely to threaten any sales records or even approach threatening them, so it begs the question of why they bothered doing it in the first place, 'cos it's a questionable choice even for so cynical a justification as a quick cash grab. It was divisive when it was released and it's divisive now. Like you say, this will just be a polished turd, but when it came out, it was considered a shiny turd back then. With updated graphics, they're basically polishing an already shiny turd, so all consumers would be getting is a shinier turd, and it will be priced to match. Really not sure exactly what Ubisoft's motivation is, here...

 

[Samos205]

Considering its initially only available as part of the season pass, my guess would be to drive pre-order/season pass sales similair to farcry 3 remaster being a bonus for farcry 5 season pass. I'm not the least bit surprised, when CoD remasterd was locked behind Infinite warfare I knew this would start becoming more common, this and farcry 3 remaster just prove more point.
Personally though I don't really care. The only game in the series I've liked was syndicate and everything else was meh, so this won't make me any more interested in odyssey

 

[Xprimentyl]

Soooooo, instead of a new Splinter Cell, one of Ubisoft?s supposed ?flagship? franchises that?s been neglected this entire generation, they?re remastering the third installment of a tired franchise that sees a ?new? release every 6 months?

?this upsets me greatly.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I completely agree that this is unnecessary and nothing but a cynical cash grab (that I'm not convinced will even work) but I do take issue with the statement that the AC series is in its death throws. You may not have been interested in Origins (I didn't play it either) but it sold a gajillion copies and we well received by critics and the public. If anything the series is on an upswing following a series of disappointments (Syndicate, Unity)

 

[PFCboom]

I'm going to give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt on this one and over-analyse this a bit.

I posit that this is not a cynical cash grab, it is an inexpensive experiment to see how much people still care about the AC series.
Often when a game receives a remaster/port, and that game sells well, we see more games in that franchise. God of War gets HD remasters and anthology collections, those sell well, and a few years later we have the shiny awesome new God of War for PS4. Skyrim gets ported and repackaged so many times it's kind of silly, but now we have the official confirmation of a new Elder Scrolls in the works; it's a stretch, I'll grant you, but I think that shows that not only do people still care about Elder Scrolls, they care about it no matter what platform it's on. Same thing with Fallouts 3 and 4, except Bethesda is using that recognized name to test new waters. Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of the Colossus (first the HD remaster, leading to a remake and The Last Guardian), Street Fighter's endless remixes and suffixes, Sonic utterly refusing to die, Uncharted, Pokemon, Dead Rising...

So yes, AC3 remastered seems utterly ridiculous on the surface; beyond this token defense, I'm not going to die on this hill, I was frankly utterly bored on the AC series almost immediately. All I'm saying is that maybe, juuuust maybe, there's more to this than some suits wanting to make a few more dollars. And besides, if this is as much the obvious, shameless cash grab that some folks say it is, then it will obviously tank, and maybe we'll finally get a new franchise. Maaaaaybe.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I'm lost as well, and ACIII made me not play series for a long time.

Yes, I was that mad. The character was boring, the lack of running and climbing buildings, and the ending was dumb. Just... ugh. I just found the game to be frustrating overall. The sailing bits were awesome though, so I will thank ACIII for giving us Black Flag since that game is legit.

I'm happy for people that love the game and is getting a remaster, but I can't be bothered to care about it. I don't get why they're remastering it, and the only thing I can think of is that now all but Rogue are on current consoles so now new players can experience the bullshit game.

Don't really agree with the death throws comment since I think Origins gave a shot in the arm to the series and I'm stupid excited for Odyssey.

 

[sXeth]

Wasn't it just literally next in line/the only one left not already on current gen?. Even if Ubi thought it was a terrible failure (which they probably don't because it sold well, even if it knocked half the fanbase off the series), they'd almost be obligated to put it out for completions sake.

I'm happy for people that love the game and is getting a remaster, but I can't be bothered to care about it. I don't get why they're remastering it, and the only thing I can think of is that now all but Rogue are on current consoles so now new players can experience the bullshit game.

Don't really agree with the death throws comment since I think Origins gave a shot in the arm to the series and I'm stupid excited for Odyssey.

Rogue's Remaster came out on PS4 earlier this year (and I assume for the Xbox as well)

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Wasn't it just literally next in line/the only one left not already on current gen?. Even if Ubi thought it was a terrible failure (which they probably don't because it sold well, even if it knocked half the fanbase off the series), they'd almost be obligated to put it out for completions sake.

I'm happy for people that love the game and is getting a remaster, but I can't be bothered to care about it. I don't get why they're remastering it, and the only thing I can think of is that now all but Rogue are on current consoles so now new players can experience the bullshit game.

Don't really agree with the death throws comment since I think Origins gave a shot in the arm to the series and I'm stupid excited for Odyssey.

Rogue's Remaster came out on PS4 earlier this year (and I assume for the Xbox as well)

Welp, shows you how much I pay attention.

So, there ya go. They're getting them all on current generation consoles, so I guess it makes sense. Kinda, even if it was a bit terrible.

 

[Dalisclock]

So first off, I'm gonna say I'm one of the 10 people on earth who liked ACIII, despite it's many, many flaws(and I'll leave it at that for now because talking about why I liked and disliked it would end up being review length). With that being said, I'm not sure the game is really old enough to really need a remaster at this point.

 

[Elfgore]

I did... I kinda got a nice collection going of Assassin's Creed games. Only two not on PS4 are III and the first game. So I'm kinda hoping for a physical release. Bring the whole collection together. Plus it was alright, not as bad as Revelations or Unity.

 

[an annoyed writer]

Soooooo, instead of a new Splinter Cell, one of Ubisoft?s supposed ?flagship? franchises that?s been neglected this entire generation, they?re remastering the third installment of a tired franchise that sees a ?new? release every 6 months?

?this upsets me greatly.

Man, I miss Splinter Cell too. It?s been over five goddamn years since we?ve gotten a new one.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

So first off, I'm gonna say I'm one of the 10 people on earth who liked ACIII

I kinda liked it too. But if it makes sense, I liked what it could have been and what it should have been more than what it ended up being.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Soooooo, instead of a new Splinter Cell, one of Ubisoft?s supposed ?flagship? franchises that?s been neglected this entire generation, they?re remastering the third installment of a tired franchise that sees a ?new? release every 6 months?

?this upsets me greatly.

Man, I miss Splinter Cell too. It?s been over five goddamn years since we?ve gotten a new one.

And this is further saddened by the fact that the last game, Blacklist, was (arguably) the best Splinter Cell game of the entire last gen and showed that Ubisoft still does know how to do the franchise justice. The biggest ?mistake? Blacklist made was the omission of Michael Ironside as the voice of protagonist Sam Fisher, but that was mitigated with a return to Chaos Theory-levels of quality and form that also managed to encourage multiple playstyles from purest stealth to running and gunning and any mix of anything in between. You?d think that leaving off on that high a note (or at least significantly higher potential than the series had enjoyed to the point in an entire generation,) someone over there might have gotten on the phone with Ironside, kissed his ass in apology, tossed cash at him and started development on the next game immediately. That, or do the Destiny 1 thing and just retconn out the new guy?s voice with Ironside?s.

 

[cathou]

i'm not even sure if it would work as a cash grab. i mean, i dont see people that care enough for AC franchise that have an xbox or a ps4 to not buy Odyssey but buying AC3 remaster.... and it's free with the season pass... maybe they want to put an extra push on season pass ? And i guess that they will probably anounce the remaster for the switch as well probably in a future direct. i mean AC3 was on the wiiu, so it will probably work on the switch...

 

[Dalisclock]

So first off, I'm gonna say I'm one of the 10 people on earth who liked ACIII

I kinda liked it too. But if it makes sense, I liked what it could have been and what it should have been more than what it ended up being.

Could you elaborate a bit? I totally agree the game had issues and could have been more then it was, and it had certain flaws that were totally avoidable.

To be more sprecific:
-The Desmond storyline ended up screeching to a halt in probably one of the least satisfying ways possible, with pretty much all the present day buildup over the past few games just cast aside or resolved offscreen. "Remember that Templar Satellite threat the first game or so made a big deal about? Well, it's okay if you don't because it turns out it doesn't matter anyway and it ended up not happening for reasons that pretty had nothing to do with you anyway"
-The constant shoehorning Conner into every significant event in the American Revolution regardless of context. THe most egregious one for me was the battle of concord, where Conner shows up and the Officer in charge immediatly puts Conner in command of one of the front line units for no reason whatever. It's established,IIRC, he was a scout for the Rebel army, which is no justification at all to essentially give him an officers job that he has no training for.
-The entire Prison episode, while definitely something different, felt like it was just out of place and makes me wonder if the guys who made this game understand why people play AC games.

There are others, but those are a couple off the top of my head I wish had been done differently.

 

[BrawlMan]

I didn't ask for this, but I stopped caring for AC since Brotherhood. This level of stupidity does not surprise me. It's a reason to why I boycott Ubisoft.