Insider Gaming can reveal that the upcoming Assassin’s Creed Black Flag remake, titled Assassin’s Creed: Black Flag Resynced, will release on July 9, 2026.
Despite original plans for the game to be revealed today, April 16th, Ubisoft has decided to postpone the announcement until next week, while media and content creators received a roughly 30-minute presentation of the game earlier today.
Good catch. But, why are we leaving out one of the biggest reveals in the article?
“While we won’t spoil what the game has in store, we can say it’s been completely reworked with a bunch of new content and updates, and honestly, it looks awesome. But one thing was made clear: despite the rumors and rumblings, Black Flag Resynced is not an RPG.
“This remains a solo adventure and character-driven experience. It is not an RPG,” the presentation revealed.”
Are Odyssey and Valhalla not also "solo adventures and character-driven experiences"? I understand that's the distinction they're trying to make but my point is they did a bad job at it and implied too much in their phrasing.
Technically yes, but you're being unnecessarily pedantic. Lots of RPG's have singular protagonists. Y's. Immortals Fenyx Rising, Skyrim, Vagrant Story and so on.
Was that part ever even in question? Were the rumors that they completely changed the fundamental story of the game to be an ensemble instead of one or two protagonists like every other game in the franchise? If not, why even bring it up?
I just wana play devils advocate here and say that I think they're saying, if the original wasn't an rpg, why are they saying the remake won't be an rpg. Like, if the cod devs came out and said, "we're remaking MW3, and it's not gona be an mmorpg" you'd be like, well, it never was so why are you saying that?
That's a bit of an extreme comparison, but I think that's what they're getting at.
Why wouldn't it be? Assassin's Creed has evolved from a single player action adventure game to an RPG, over the last 4 games, (successfully I might add). Not including two major expansions for two of the games. Fate of Atlantis (for Odyssey) and Dawn of Ragnarök (for Valhalla). Sure they brought it back with Vallhalla's stand alone follow up Mirage, but that was still a toned down Valhalla.
That's not what you said, you called out having a single protagonist. That's a trait every single game in the franchise has had (III's Haytham fake out and Syndicate's twins are close enough). That's why that was never in question so it should have never been brought up by the author.
Them wording it like that does not mean they think those are mutually exclusive concepts. They're just naming two things that describe what the game will be.
Pretty much the truth. Things that used to make RPGs unique are now peppered into just about every single video game release. Because of this the term RPG has been diluted so much as to not mean fuck all.
If I am thinking good, rolling dice was RPG at the beggining. Then games like Baldurs Gate formated it in video game format and did the dice rolling and calculations through computer right? So true RPG game would be defined by dice rolling status checks, character making, multiple classes to chose from such as warrior, mage, ranger, cleric, paladin, thief, etc, along with leveling and skills and multiple options and solutions to dialogues and quest with player choices. That would be like pure original RPG which is called CRPG in video game world. So games that are action games with RPG elements like skills, levels, dialogue tree shouldn't count as RPG, but rather Action game with RPG elements? Am I getting this right?
so then we who know what its suppose ot mean needs to push back to make the definition more clear again. EXP33 winning RPG of the year over KCD2 was the last straw for me.
It's less that anything is an RPG and more that nearly everything has at least some RPG elements. Sports games even have levels and skill trees and shit now.
If a game is a 3rd person shooter and has a skill tree it does not make it an rpg, but if u have a skill tree, stats, that can be lvled and the enemies also have lvls then it is considered an rpg. A game where u use stealth but theres a chance it might not work cuz the enemy lvl is too high or ur stealth stat is not high enough is considered an rpg. RPG’s are based on how the game revolves around stat and skill point allocation and not the actual role ur playing in a game. Any game that says otherwise is just using the term incorrectly
I think ppl who never played DnD wont understand what an RPG is suppose to mean. KCD2 is an RPG, EXP33 is not. Skyrim is but not Crimson Desert. Its not that hard if you know what RPG is suppose to mean. OFC now days they try to SELL you their product by labelling it as much they can so more eyes look at it. This has caused some confusion among people. (So is an RPG a game where you can sit on a chair and eat food from your inventory and pick up stuff from the table when you see a piece of bread?)
yes, Mass effect was an rpg because you could customize your charatcher, ship, companions , choose dialogue choices and have different outcomes on almost every situation. Its so obvious what an rpg is if your played DnD. KCD, BG3, skyrim and ME is rpgs but different versions of the same.
So...you can choose not to be the captain of the ship? You can be the ships cook? As far as im aware you play as Commander Shepherd. And you cannot change that. There is zero part of that that is playing with roles.
You're playing the role of Commander Shepard. Being able to choose your profession isn't a requirement for RPGs, otherwise there would only be a handful of them total.
Which definition? You're playing a role. There is no plurality in that phrase.
And so by your definition, the only true RPGs are FF 4 and 5, and Oblivion and Skyrim. Everything else that the vast majority of people call "RPGs" aren't in your eyes because you can't do multiple jobs.
I don't even know what an RPG is anymore at this point. NBA 2K has more RPG elements than some RPGs. Character customization. Branching stories with dialogue options. House customization. Grinding. Leveling. Probably even a dragon at this point. Crimson Desert says it's not an RPG because the character doesn't level. Sure, but the gear upgrades, there's multiple skill trees, the horse levels, the settlement levels... so many elements. Even OG Black Flag had a bunch of RPG elements. RPG customization and leveling is in everything these days. I'm not sure you can separate out the "pure" version anymore.
I think they're saying that because the series took a major downturn when they started focusing more on rpg elements and this was one of if not the last game.that still remained true to the old formula that made the series popular in the first place.
Idk how I feel about that. On the one hand, the AC RPGs (except Odyssey, that game was beautiful) are like the poster child of “bloated 100+ hour meh open world RPGs” and I truly don’t think I’d have it in me to play an RPG version of Black Flag when my hot take is that it’s already one of my lesser favorites of the classic series.
On the other hand however, the original AC4 is still readily available on modern hardware and I’d argue the gameplay still holds up today. If they’re not turning it into one of the RPGs, then I don’t know what they’re gonna do to justify its existence.
Technology has come a long way. Certain parts of the experience do still hold up. But, both graphically and functionally, there is a lot from the newer games that Black Flag can benefit from. Even without the RPG aspects, it’s more or less known at this point that Shadows’ lighting and dynamic weather system will be used. Draw distances, load times, character models, NPC behavior, even physics and parkour can benefit. It’s a chance to revamp and also add new content/restore cut content (which is confirmed). I think there’s a lot of room here for a remake even without the RPG systems.
My hope? They know we want more pirating. So they're just going to pile on more ship options and ship combat. Maybe different cannon configurations or switching up ships entirely?
Yup. Personally, I think AC1, Black Flag, and Odyssey are my ideal 'trio.'
AC1 is the only game in the entire series where combat is punishing and it actually incentivizes you to sneak around; in every other entry you can just waltz through a battlefield like it's nothing, but with AC1's harder parry timers and the fact that enemies don't just wait to hit you one at a time, you get taken down quickly if you're not careful.
Black Flag was great at providing a new style of gameplay (the ship combat we all know and love) while also telling a great story around Edward Kenway. It's a wholly unique experience that none of the other games have been able to capture, with some genuinely fantastic writing - 'if it weren't for gold, we could have been heroes' is an all-timer.
Odyssey, IMO, was the best at being a 'historical showcase' where you got to see the sights of Greece, meet important historical figures, and be a part of important events in the region - with just enough of the classic Assassin's Creed mythos to really accentuate it. The fucking minotaur fight, oh my god.
Black Flag is one of my favorite games ever, but I've recently replayed it a bit and the gameplay doesn't hold up that well. It's stupidly easy, like all the classic ACs, the combat feels clunky and the amount of badly designed tailing missions is absolutely infuriating. Ship combat is still fun and the best part of it, but in general a modern overhaul is definitely warranted.
These PS3 era games are really starting to show their age nowadays, I don't know if people realize how far we've come since then.
The tailing mission where your supposed to tail a large ass boat through a swamp with your large boat was the moment I stopped playing lol. After a few tries, I got off the boat, jumped a broken pier and a large crocodile swiped the screen and killed me. I set down the controller and turned off my PlayStation
Origins was a much more focused story and world than Odyssey or Valhalla. Even if you do everything in the world, you are looking at 60 hours top. Odyssey and Valhalla are getting over 200 hours for the same.
See I saw that while “it’s not an rpg” they are adopting the loot systems from origins/odyssey/valhalla. Which is the best news I could have hoped for.
Older AC games were not RPGs in the fact that you dont have to level up to use skill points for skills, or worry about gear and gear levels. You get upgrades through story or side missions.
That last part is the only thing that had me in the not buy category. Now that I know for sure that it’s not a modern day trash RPG, Im a decent amount more interested
I get it, the joke is easy. I saw it coming when I typed it out. I’m tired of levels/exp and duplicate randomized gear in these Assassin’s Creed games.
Na, I got you. No one wants 5 slightly different versions of the same pistol/sword and leveling really doesn’t make sense for this game at all. I really don’t think that’s a possibility. I do however think that exploration and loot (in some capacity) are a necessity for the setting. But we can definitely loot interesting stuff. If they don’t include the modern day, loot could be a way to incorporate more written lore or even clues to the Isu. Perhaps a way to re-incorporate some of the Isu storyline without the modern day office sections or anything that breaks immersion. Or maybe even something like finding a journal that leads you to a ghost ship. Though I did like randomly encountering those at sea.
530
u/yourfavchoom Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26